Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mathsci (talk | contribs) at 22:02, 14 June 2022 (→Comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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

    Venkat TL mass page moves

    Since the last topic ban from DYK on 5 May, [1], Venkat TL has been doing mass page moves despite a couple of warnings to stop it. The first warning was mild and another warning was final. However, none of these warnings helped Venkat TL to stop.

    In just 1 month, Venkat TL has made over 16,000 such page moves that are nothing but WP:DE because his page moves have no basis other than a "proposed" convention over which multiple editors have disagreed with Venkat TL.[2]

    The participants of the last ANI thread assumed that this user's disruption won't stop with just a topic ban from DYK.[3] I agree they were correct. Srijanx22 (talk) 16:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    But still none of this fulfilled the actual requirement you were told about some 11 days ago[6] which you recognized[7] but you are still continuing your page moves without fulfilling the requirement. Srijanx22 (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Black Kite, you are asking to discuss content dispute here. It would be off topic, but since you have asked, here you go. Please look at the quotes below from reliable sources. Please refer to the explanation of WP:NATURAL that I have made on the proposal page (link). These quotes below show how the constituency is commonly referred to in mainstream reliable sources.

    • If a Rajput candidate is fielded in the adjoining Chittorgarh Lok Sabha constituency, chances are a Brahmin would be fielded here and vice-versa. Mar 17, Geetha Sunil Pillai / TNN /. "Rajsamand seat too complicated for caste equations | Jaipur News - Times of India". The Times of India. Retrieved 23 May 2022.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

    Venkat TL (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Black Kite I may have not pinged correctly in my reply. Venkat TL (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Chittorgarh is the name of a geographical entity (a settlement). "Chittorgarh Lok Sabha constituency" is the name of the entity related to elections. The border of the geographical entity is never the same as the Lok Sabha constituency, though they may have some overlap. The bit "Lok Sabha constituency" is not just an attribute, it is an essential part of the name. When you just say "Place" for example Chittorgarh, it will be understood as the geographical entity (city), Never as constituency unless you mention it clearly. One has to mandatorily state the full name Chittorgarh Lok Sabha constituency if they are talking about the constituency. The examples from the reliable sources above show this. Wikipedia disambiguation guideline WP:NATURAL says According to the above-mentioned precision criterion, when a more detailed title is necessary to distinguish an article topic from another, use only as much additional detail as necessary... Natural disambiguation: Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title...Comma-separated disambiguation. With place names, if the disambiguating term is a higher-level administrative division, it is often separated using a comma instead of parentheses. The suffix "Lok Sabha constituency" or "Assembly constituency" serve as WP:NATURAL disambiguation from the city name, so they do not need to be inside brackets. The parenthesis also add an overhead of extra work to add the piped links whenever using the constituency name in prose. The piping issue due to disambiguation bracket is huge. there are close to 4120 Indian assembly constituencies and 545 Lok Sabha constituencies. Each of them gets linked on an average 100 times on Wikipedia. That is 5,00,000 unnecessary piped links. This is exponential damage and waste of efforts which can be saved by dropping the unnecessary bracket. I face this issue everyday while working on constituency and biography articles. Venkat TL (talk) 07:21, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    erm... So you decided to move thousands of pages while multiple editors had asked you to stop it — because you found the current naming system a little out of your comfort zone during article editing, while knowing it (the moves) will mean editing around 500,000 links? Actually, it is your page moves that are "exponential damage and waste of efforts". This is nothing but WT:DYK incident all over again: proposing changes to policy because you dont like it, not listening to other editors, casting aspersions, battleground behaviour, and now moving thousands of pages even when told to stop. Thats nothing but disruptive behaviour. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's my take too. This is simple disruption and unless I see a genuine reason for editing 500,000 links here apart from WP:ILIKEIT, I don't see any other option here but to prevent Venkat TL from causing any more damage. Black Kite (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think they have already moved almost all the pages of that field. —usernamekiran (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Other than wikipedia and its mirrors, very few sources use brackets (I chose a constituency that has received more coverage). I haven't gone through every category in Category:Constituencies_by_country, but even on Wikipedia, a lot of constituency articles do not use brackets (see for eg, US, Mexico, France, Australia, Srilanka, Philippines) Hemantha (talk) 04:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hemantha: Hello. "appropriate title" is not the main point here. The proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian politics#Proposal : Wikipedia:Naming conventions Indian constituencies was disputed at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Indian constituencies)#Proposal state, Venkat TL was aware of that (they participated in the latter discussion), later DaxServer expressed their concerns about the process of the proposal at Proposal for new article title naming convention - RfC or local consensus|village pump - policy. In that discussion there were only four participants including Venkat TL, and three of them were in favour of a fresh RfC. Venkat TL was reminded a few times that the "proposal" was not formally closed yet, a fresh RfC was required, and the proposal wa not accepted/converted as policy yet. Still, Venkat TL performed mass moves, which were being discussed/disputed, that is simply put - not listening to fellow editors (WP:IDHT?), and disruptive. For someone who quotes/brings up policies, guidelines, and essays so often, saying "I did it because there was no participation in a long time" is not acceptable. —usernamekiran (talk) 08:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes I think enforcing edits without consensus, ignoring warnings, doing mass moves while ignoring complaints on talk page and denying any wrongdoing even after the complaint here is disruptive and does not guarantee any assurance since enough damage has been already done. Srijanx22 (talk) 04:22, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I see Venkat TL was provided with page mover user right on 15 April 2022 by Swarm. I think this user right should be removed because of the abuse documented in this report. Srijanx22 (talk) 15:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    accountability/communication is a very important thing on wikipedia. Not responding here even after a ping shows lack of it. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:10, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hm, as best as I can tell, per WP:RFCEND Venkat should have formally closed the discussion, but involved users are explicitly allowed to implement a clear consensus themselves in an RfC. I do think that this was the case here. So I don't see the discussion not being closed to be an issue. That leaves the matter of whether the proposal was sufficiently exposed to the community, per WP:AT and WP:PROPOSAL. While the proposal was not advertised at village pump, it was extensively advertised to the community, and that's a pretty strong consideration as well. Mass changes are almost always contentious to some extent, and it's good to have community oversight in these situations. But I do find Venkat's defense here reasonable. ~Swarm~ {sting} 02:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree with you on the first part. But when the proposal was disputed, and there were suggestions for starting a fresh RfC, at that time Venkat TL should have listned to fellow editors, and should have stopped moving pages. —usernamekiran (talk) 05:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      It all boils down to whether the objections were legitimate in the first place, i.e. whether the fact that this wasn't posted to village pump is enough to consider the discussion illegitimate, in spite of extensive community notification efforts. I would say the letter of the law was violated, but the spirit of the law was satisfied. Is that enough? According to WP:NOTBUREAU, WP:5P5, and WP:IAR...yes, actually. This is a complicated situation, Venkat failed to follow the proper procedure of advertising the RfC, he failed to close the RfC and initiated an involved mass move (which, again, is allowed, but a bad look altogether), then didn't stop when objections were raised. On my first reading, I was on the same page as the other outraged admins. I considered immediately revoking PM, even procedurally prior to looking into it, and then I strongly considered blocking. However, after actually vetting Venkat's argument against policy requirements as objectively as possible, everything seems to check out. Venkat TL should implement the formal close since he's already de facto formalized it, but his doing so, in my reading, was allowed.
      I'm not saying the dispute should be considered resolved. Let me be clear, there is never anything preventing you from immediately starting your own RfC with whatever proposal you want, you can do it right now. If a new RfC is needed, then hold a new RfC, and make sure the proper procedures are followed to avoid future drama. The naming dispute clearly is just as alive as ever and I doubt we're going to solve that here. But this is just my response to a ping with a request that Vinkat's PM user rights be revoked. In response to that request, I conclude there is no violation. But this is a community noticeboard, anyone is free to disagree with me. ~Swarm~ {sting} 23:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree with you on the first part. What I am saying is they should have stopped when multiple editors had asked them to, no matter the reason. As they said above themselves, they stopped for a while, and then resumed it. And then there is their overall attitude. —usernamekiran (talk) 04:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      a closure is requested. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Venkat TL: there was nothing sneaky with my edit, stop accusing other editors. You were asked a few questions here, and you were also pinged, yet you didn't respond. But you saw my "sneaky" edit. Would you kindly respond to the questions posed here? —usernamekiran (talk) 08:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Alansohn - Repeated Violation of IBAN

    User:Alansohn has been banned from interacting with me as a result of this 2018 disscussion. The ban which was initially to alst for six months was extended indefinately later that same year. As recently as a year ago, Alansohn unsucesfully tried to have the IBAN lifted. In that discussion it was noted that he had actually violated his IBAN since the last time he requested it be terminated.

    The terms of Alan Sohn's IBAN allow him an exemption to respond in a deletion discussion if it is an article that either he created or made a significant contribution to.

    That brings us to now. I recently brought three article to AfD, see discussions [9], [10], [11]. Please note that two of the articles, Mayor of Long Branch, New Jersey and Mayor of East Newark, New Jersey Alansohn never contributed to. The third aricle, Mayors of Ramsey, New Jersey, he made a single contribution that I doubt anyone would considered significant. The exemption should not apply to these articles.

    Therefore, Alansohn has violated his IBAN with these three edits:

    There have been no other recent interactions between us and I clearly have not baited him into this. Since the IBAN was imposed he has violated it multiple times and thinks he can disregard it. Further sanctions are clearly warranted here, but I will leave it to the community to decide what exactly those should be.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • For a period of years, during which I made many tens of thousands of edits, I had been systematically watching every single edit I made to ensure that there was no interaction with this editor. After a period of time of checking my watchlist and potential edits for possible interactions, it became apparent to me that this editor was either not editing or was certainly not editing articles where there was overlap and at some point, due to the absence of any editing by this editor, I stopped checking. After all, there is no rational reason to waste my time checking to see if I am interacting with an editor who is not editing. And now that this notice has been posted, it seems that in the past nine months, I can see that this editor has made under a hundred edits. The edits where there was interaction here were a sequence of votes at AfD for articles related to New Jersey, where I have a lengthy involvement in articles, even ones I never edited before; I did not notice and had had no reason to believe that this editor had come back to life. It's time to end this IBAN once and for all, as the only purpose seems to be a reason to create ANI notices. There is no purpose served by the perpetuation of this IBAN. Alansohn (talk) 13:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • As per usual, Alansohn takes no responsibility. Look at the previous threads where he violated his IBAN, he uses the same excuses time after time. He instead blames me for not editing enough. there is no rational reason to waste my time checking to see if I am interacting with an editor who is not editing. And just how much of his precious time is wasted to actually read the opening statement at the AfD to see which editor nominated it? (you don't even have to look at the edit history for that, my signature is right there in front of you) The edits where there was interaction here were a sequence of votes at AfD for articles related to New Jersey, where I have a lengthy involvement in articles, even ones I never edited before; Now, we get to the real issue for Alansohn, if the article has anything to do with New Jersey, he owns it, doesn't matter whether he edited it before or not. Alansohn behavior is the textbook example of WP:OWNERSHIP. had no reason to believe that this editor had come back to life I'm not dead. It's time to end this IBAN once and for all, as the only purpose seems to be a reason to create ANI notices. There is no purpose served by the perpetuation of this IBAN. The purpose of the IBAN is to have a check against Alansohn's OWNERSHIP behavior and arrogance which is display in his above response.--Rusf10 (talk) 14:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • But do these keep !votes really bother you? Why not let him !vote keep on everything New Jersey, even if you're the nom? (I mean a lot of people do that for various topics...) I don't find his reasoning persuasive but on the other hand, who cares if he !votes? (And isn't bludgeoning, canvassing, making personal attacks, etc.) Levivich 14:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Levivich: You'll have to go back and look at the history in the previous discussions (linked above) to fully understand the issue with his behavior, but I will say that it is precisely at these types of AfDs where the problem originated. If you lift all restrictions on his voting at AfDs, then we will go back to bludgeoning, canvassing, and making personal attacks.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Alansohn: Although you did not notice, now you are aware, but you haven't self-reverted or deleted/struck your edits to those pages, even though they violate the IBAN? Violating a sanction is usually not an effective way to convince the community to remove the sanction. Levivich 17:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Levivich, now that I realized that there was an inadvertent good faith vote, and now that I've been asked to do so, I have self reverted; in the past even self reverts for inadvertent edits accomplished nothing. I have been doing everything possible to avoid any contact with anything that this editor has touched and after having disappeared for several months I now realize that this editor has very much returned, necessitating that every single edit I make be scrutinized for possible overlap with the editor in question.
          I will ask again to have the IBAN removed. As stated at WP:IBAN, "The purpose of an interaction ban (IBAN) is to stop a conflict between individuals." There is no conflict here, certainly not on my part. If any editor believes that anything I have edited on Wikipedia is an example of bludgeoning, canvassing, personal attack, edit warring, ownership, etc., now or at any time in the future, then block away. A week, a month, a year, a decade or permanent, but I plead to end this purposeless IBAN once and for all, which accomplishes absolutely nothing. Alansohn (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • There is no conflict here, certainly not on my part.That says it all, Alansohn does not now, nor has he ever taken any responsibility for the conflict. And that is why I will always oppose lifting this IBAN. If any editor believes that anything I have edited on Wikipedia is an example of bludgeoning, canvassing, personal attack, edit warring, ownership, etc....My response: Please refer to the previous ANI discussions.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            He qualified that statement with "now, or at any time in the future", which does not speak to the validity of any past sanction, and the qualification seems relevant. Mackensen (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Alansohn my problem with your explanation is that, as I read it, you're telling us that you did not notice which editor had nominated the articles for deletion. I find that difficult to accept. That's going to be the first thing I notice, either from the edit on my watchlist, or from the signature at the top of the deletion discussion. Rusf10's relative level of activity shouldn't affect that behavior. Mackensen (talk) 00:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      AGFing that voters read the entire nomination statement before voting, it's not really credible to claim to have read every word of the nomination statement except "Rusf", and to have done that three times. Levivich 00:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Mackensen and Levivich, the assumption that everyone does things the way you do is called projection, and I clearly edit differently from how you do. After seeing a new AfD, I clicked on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/New_Jersey, scrolled down to the bottom and worked my way up, while lots of other people go top down. I don't claim to have rad every word of the nomination, because I don't; it's the article itself that is of primary importance. I know that it's the article that's up for deletion, so I click on and read the article before passing judgment. Look at the order of the AfDs in that file and then at how I participated. I can assure you that I didn't pay attention to who submitted the deletion, nor do I see why I should. Alansohn (talk) 12:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You have an active interaction ban with someone and have previously come into conflict with them over New Jersey-related deletion discussions. The specific question of violating the IBAN by participating in a deletion discussion that Rusf10 started was raised in 2021, when you asked for the ban to be lifted (you did not engage when asked about this), and when the ban was extended in 2018. If you can't see why, given that history, you should at least look at who started an AfD, then I'm not sure what to tell you. Mackensen (talk) 12:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd say even aside from the IBAN, you shouldn't be voting on AFDs without reading the nomination statement. That's a problem in and of itself. Levivich 13:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Additional Sanctions for Alansohn

    When I posted this here, it was my intention to have the community propose additional sanctions, but so far that has not happened. Based on his above responses above and the fact he has violated this sanction three times now, Alansohn clearly does not take it seriously. The last two times he violated this IBAN, he was blocked for 48 hours and 1 week respectively. Further actions are necessary. Therefore, I made the following proposals:

    • Sanction #1: Alansohn is blocked for two weeks
    • Sanction #2 Alansohn is TBANed from deletion discussions.

    I will explain my reasoning below.@Levivich and Mackensen: would like your input.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support #1 & #2 As proposer. #1 is appropriate here as an escalating block, maybe it will give him so time to think about this. #2 will relieve Alansohn of the burden of reading AfD nominations (which he has admitted that he does not do anyway). He will no longer have to worry about who nominated the article. His attitude and disregard for the rules is what brought this on. I see no other way forward.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Alansohn's last block was almost 4 years ago (August 2018). I cannot see any justification for a 2 week block at this time - it seems like overkill to me. Since there is no ongoing disruption, and Alansohn has reverted (albeit under pressure), a block would appear to be punitive. Nor do I think that Alansohn's behavior indicates that a TBAN from XfD in general is warranted - as far as I can see AS's problem is with Rusf10, and not with deletion discussions overall -- at least, no evidence of such has been presented.. I do think that an extended ban from requesting his IBAN be lifted, or simply commenting on the IBAN, could be justified, as Alansohn appears to have a blind spot regarding the need for it, which seems to me to have been fully justifiable at the time, and has continued to show justification since. Should Alansohn continue to violate his IBAN with Rusf10 on an ongoing basis, the entire matter can be reconsidered and other sanctions proposed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Blocks are preventative, not punitive, and as Beyond My Ken rightly notes Alansohn did (begrudgingly) revert himself. I'm not persuaded at this point that a TBAN from AfD would benefit the project, but I had considered it as an option. As much as I dislike warnings as a remedy, I think we need one here. We can't be back here at ANI with another mistaken AfD participation on the books. That would be at least three times. It's not as though Alansohn is participating in AfD every day; it is not too much to ask that he look at who the nominator is. Mackensen (talk) 11:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree with Mac and BMK. A clear violation of the terms of their sanction? Yes. But blocks are preventative, not punitive, and for a TBAN, I'd want to see evidence of broader disruption than three IBAN vios, and the problem seems to be with Rus and not with AFD in general (I might be wrong about that, I just haven't seen diffs to that effect). An extended ban from appealing the IBAN makes sense, but this thread will serve that purpose anyway. It will now be at least another 12 months before it would be considered, I'd expect. So I'd be in favor of a logged final warning as a resolution of this thread. This is one of those rare situations where I think logging the final warning at WP:EDR makes sense, so if this happens again, we'll have an easy reference. Levivich 14:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose and end IBAN In September 2021, the editor had ZERO edits. In October 2021, ZERO. In November 2021, again ZERO. There were TWO edits in December 2021. The New Year 2022 started in January with ZERO edits. Another ZERO in February 2022. Yet again, ZERO in March 2022 and a final ZERO in April 2022. After eight months with a grand total of two edits, the editor resumed editing. For years, I had been checking every single edit to see if there was an overlap with the editor in question. But after several months with little to no editing, I let my guard down. I stopped checking. I ran through a series of AfDs and made the mistake of not reading the ID of the editor who initiated the AfD. That was my mistake, but it was entirely inadvertent. I didn't look, because my guard was down and I had gotten entirely out of the habit of checking. That was my mistake and I accept full responsibility for it. But I am not in any sort of conflict with this editor. I hope to see the IBAN overturned. I will avoid any conflict with this editor and hope that none occurs, as has been the case for years. If there is any conflict with this editor, I propose that there be a snap back to a block of months to years and impose TBANs. I hope that we can get past this and that we can each edit without any problems. Alansohn (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      But after several months with little to no editing, I let my guard down. How did you know that Rusf had gone several months with little to no editing? Levivich 23:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      It seems quite clear that If Alansohn cannot avoid interaction with Rusf10 when there is an IBAN in place, he would be even more incapable of doing so if the IBAN is removed. Their comment above is an example of why I believe a ban -- say for a year -- on commenting on the IBAN or requesting its removal would appear to be justified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Makes sense to me. Levivich 19:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see no good reason for a punitive block, or for the sledgehammer of a total TBAN on AfDs. I still find it pretty much incomprehensible that Alansohn wouldn't have seen the name, but such draconian measures go too far. Drmies (talk) 23:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • oppose both While I believe the iban should remain in place, I do not see the need for any further sanctions other than to strongly warn Alansohn that any further interactions will result in further sanctions and/or blocks. If, Alansohn wants the iban lifted, they should make a clear statement about what they did to cause the iban (they do not happen in a vacuum and it is foolish to assume it was caused by one person), and what they will do to keep it from happening moving forward. But at this time, leave the status quo and be more careful moving forward. Read every word of the AFD before voting. Nightenbelle (talk) 13:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose both per Nightenbelle above. While Alansohn's refusal to take responsibility for any part of the IBAN is irritating, I see no indication that this was an intentional violation (and I highly doubt I would notice the nominator of an AFD either, since in most cases that's not really relevant). ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 19:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @ThadeusOfNazereth:The nominator is relevant when you're under an IBAN. Being that this is now his third violation, I refuse to believe that he didn't know. He also seemed to have no trouble noticing my nominations in the past (before the IBAN) when he leveled all sorts of personal attacks on me.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    ArbCom?

    This is yet another issue at WP:ANI concerning proposed restrictions on the use of deletion. In my statement asking ArbCom to accept a case concerning Conduct During Deletion Discussions, I have asked that User:Alansohn be included as a party to the case. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    TenPoundHammer: prods and AfDs

    I am starting this ANI discussion regarding TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs). I am raising concerns about:

    1. the large number of proposed deletions and AfDs,
    2. the quality and accuracy of AfD nominations, and
    3. canvassing

    Numerous proposed deletions and AfDs

    According to TenPoundHammer's last 5,000 contributions, between 12 May 2022 and 30 May 2022, TenPoundHammer nominated 637 articles for proposed deletion (based on a search of "Notification: proposed deletion"). In the same time period, TenPoundHammer brought 188 articles to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (based on a search of "Creating deletion discussion page"). In the last 18 days, TenPoundHammer has averaged 35 proposed deletions a day and 10 AfD nominations a day. This is at too fast a rate. I am unable to keep up with finding sources for the numerous deletion discussions listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television as most of these deletion nominations are for the work he is doing at User:TenPoundHammer/TV cleanup. I have had several articles I have wanted to write but have not written. In the past month, I have instead spent a significant portion of my time participating in the large number of television AfD discussions to find sources so that articles about notable television series are not deleted. This is a list of 24 television AfDs nominated by TenPoundHammer in late April and early May where I found sources and supported retention. This 1 May 2022 permanent link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television can be used to find the outcomes of each of these AfDs. In the 30 days since, TenPoundHammer has created many more AfD nominations and proposed deletions.

    Quality of AfD nominations

    I have concerns about the quality and accuracy of the AfD nominations. In this AfD, his deletion nomination called MSNBC "a network nobody watches". In this AfD, TenPoundHammer called an Associated Press article "a press release" and said, "The network it's on doesn't even have an article, and neither does the host. There are literally no links inbound for this page. How much less notable can you get?" and "There is literally no other page to link to it. Do you suggest I just plop it onto some random page just to de-orphan it? I know, let's link it from Main Page!" Whether the article can be de-orphaned is irrelevant to notability and whether this article should be kept. In this AfD, he again called an Associated Press article a press release. Artw (talk · contribs) commented here and here about inaccurate AfD nomination statements such as "Deprodded without comment" even though the deprod was with a comment. In this AfD, he wrote "No sourcing found despite the show lasting three seasons" even though the deprodder had added a source.

    Canvassing

    I have concerns about canvassing. In a television AfD, TenPoundHammer pinged an editor who had previously supported deletion in other television AfDs but did not ping the editor who had removed the proposed deletion. In a large number of AfD nominations for "List of people on the postage stamps of" such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people on the postage stamps of Jordan, TenPoundHammer pinged two editors who had previously supported deletion of "List of people on the postage stamps" articles but who had had no prior involvement in the "List of people on the postage stamps of Jordan" article. TenPoundHammer did not ping or notify the editor who had removed the proposed deletion he had added. TenPoundHammer did not ping the editors from this related AfD who had worked on improving the "List of people on the postage stamps of the Faroe Islands" article.

    Multiple editors have asked for a slowdown in deletion nominations

    In late April and early May, multiple editors asked multiple times for TenPoundHammer to slow down the number of deletion nominations. More recently, another editor asked TenPoundHammer on 24 May 2022 to slow down the number of proposed deletions but he did not reply. On 30 May 2022, I asked TenPoundHammer to significantly slow down the number of nominations he is making. I suggested seven proposed deletions per week and seven AfD nominations per week would be more reasonable numbers. He replied to another post on his talk page and made seven more proposed deletions in the three hours after I posted on his talk page but did not reply to the concerns I raised. I am therefore bringing this to the community for review.

    Previous discussions

    These discussions related to TenPoundHammer's AfD topic ban and unban are copied from this comment in this discussion:

    1. 2012 understanding
    2. 2018 topic ban
    3. 2018 topic ban query
    4. 2018 topic ban appeal
    5. 2019 uncivil remark
    6. 2019 topic ban appeal: "Consensus is to lift the topic ban. However, the community seems unlikely to offer another chance after this."

    Cunard (talk) 07:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC) Modified to add "Previous discussions" section. Cunard (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • That quantity of prods and AfDs risks overwhelming the community's ability to respond to them. It would definitely be helpful if TPH would agree to cut back. We don't have enough AfD regulars to deal with those numbers any more; it's too resource-intensive for one editor to make this many nominations.—S Marshall T/C 08:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have skepticism that it is humanly possible for TenPoundHammer to be doing sufficient WP:BEFORE checks on the AFDs and WP:PRODNOM checks on the PRODs at their current rate of editing. (Note that PRODNOM requires evaluating WP:DEL-REASON, and the only appropriate reason in these TV article cases appears to be #7, Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed [emphasis mine].) However, nomination statements like here, here and here do at least indicate that they understand BEFORE and are completing some sort of checks. So the unresponsiveness to feedback is perhaps the most concerning aspect of this.
      I initially thought that a topic ban from AFD/PROD may be necessary at least in the short term, but TenPoundHammer's choices of PROD/AFD targets and rationales do seem valuable. Perhaps a rate limit of x AFDs and y PRODs per day (still enforced through a topic ban) is appropriate, since many editors have expressed concern that AFD and PROD processes are being overwhelmed, with the small number of active volunteers we have in these venues. — Bilorv (talk) 08:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm also finding this to be a problem. Many of TenPoundHammer's deletion nominations are notable, but due to their age finding sources takes time. There are not enough patrolling editors or time in the day to improve all of these articles at the rate they are nominated. TenPoundHammer needs to do a proper WP:BEFORE and provide better deletion rationales instead of nominating articles because they are "unlikely to be sourced" or "tagged for notability". SailingInABathTub (talk) 11:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't edit in his usual areas, but his Afd comments and noms have been at best sloppy for years, and he is rarely responsive to feedback. It is also concerning that he does (per his talk page) non-admin closes. Personally I think only a period topic ban is likely to solve the problem. Johnbod (talk) 11:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the parlance of deletion discussions, this seems to be little more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It isn't the fault of the nominator that there are scads of unsourced cruft within the Wikipedia project, it is the fault of the people who carelessly created such things over the years. If a deletion discussion is lightly-attended, that is why WP:SOFTDELETE exists. Zaathras (talk) 11:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm afraid I disagree completely with Zaathras on this; WP:IDONTLIKEIT shouldn't be used to undermine the concept that we delete for a reason, not just willy-nilly. AfD exists so that deletions are carried out after debate, not just because one user is on a delete-spree. If we're going to allow so many nominations that no one has time to look at them, then we may as well abandon the concept of AfD, and allow willy-nilly deletion on the grounds that Wikipedia is full of stuff that needs deleting. That's too drastic for my taste.
    Perhaps a limit on everyone's rate of AfD/PROD nominations would be helpful, if it's technically possible? I contribute regularly to AfD, and read it more. I'm increasingly worried by early-20th-C deletions where the sources were paper and obscure, possibly non-English, and those in favour of deletion are following a "Google-search-turned-up-nothing" argument, with a dollop of "only references are a newspaper article and an obscure book I haven't read". I'm uncomfortable about deletions where none of the pro-delete editors have actually looked at any of the sources. It's hard work doing this, and it also often requires particular expertise. For instance here's one that really needed someone who could read Greek and access Greek sources; there had been a serious suggestion that sources were available as on the Greek Wikipedia, but no one turned up to verify them, so deletion was inevitable [12]. When AfD is an enormous list, and some AfD-users are just drive-by endorsing anything, without actually doing any work, then we're going to get incorrect deletions. I used to get frustrated with Uncle G for posting complex comments at AfD where he discussed sourcing and notability in depth, but didn't actually give a !vote. I'm now realising that we need more people like that, and more time for them to do the foot-work. I hope you'll forgive me, UncleG!
    Unrelated: I'm also curious as to whether some people at AfD are motivated by a desire to improve their record in order to be accepted as new page reviewers at AfC. The trouble is, if you're the sort of person who goes looking for sources to rescue nominated articles, or who enters into debate on the complicated cases, you're more likely to have a poor record of agreement with the final outcome than if you simply endorse anything that has already got a string of keeps or deletes. And yet it's those who are prepared to discuss the borderline cases, the poorly-sourced-but-could-be-improved, who are making the more useful contribution to the encyclopaedia. Elemimele (talk) 12:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that applying a limit to everyone would be an excellent idea especially as there have been a handful of ANI reports recently due to people submitting a large number of deletion proposals. The best thing would be for someone who spends some time in the AfD neck of the woods to create a proposal at the Village Pump (WP:VPR) and then let people here and a couple of others know about it. Gusfriend (talk) 12:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also support such a limit. We have other processes for handling potentially harmful content and hoaxes and thus I don't see any need for an individual to nominate articles for deletion at such a fast rate. NemesisAT (talk) 13:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for saying this. It is clear to see the pattern of people quick to support any delete only for careful people to come along later and point out sources. I wish there was some sort of competency test, or if people whose entire contribution to AfD is one liners that are 99% endorsing deletes, they could be less prominent than the careful people who so WP:BEFORE type work before commenting. CT55555 (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I too have noticed issues with Ten Pound Hammer's deletion nominations. A recent one I participated in is this one, for Marble Blast Gold. Using a quick search the creator of the article provided three links to molbygames's database of reviews, showing dozens of pieces of coverage of the game. Ten Pound Hammer then came back to question if molbygames was a reliable source, apparently completely misunderstanding what had been linked to, suggesting to me that they hadn't even looked at the links the creator provided. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 12:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Until the recent success of their serial deletion nominations of various "lists of people on postage stamps of countryx", the success rate of their nominations was well under 50 percent. They seems either to have a lack of understanding about what notability is, a refusal to believe that WP:BEFORE applies to them, or a belief that their opinions override Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I hate ANI, but I was considering bringing this here myself. It seems as if they prod huge numbers of articles, and when the prod is removed just flip it to AfD without any research. This huge flow of nominations is so overwhelming that it has become disruptive. Please, please show some self-control and throttle it down. Perhaps you could perform BEFORE and fix the more notable articles? That way we could all add more value instead of just trying to hold on to notable articles that have been started. Jacona (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't speak to the years in the interim (maybe things changed and issues have crept back up recently, I'm not sure), but concerns with TenPoundHammer and XfD go back at least as far as his seventh RfA back in 2009, when I myself said "Behavior at various XfDs leaves a lot to be desired." JPG-GR (talk) 12:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've also been frustrated at the rate of PRODs and AfDs from TenPoundHammer. They also redirected an article with the summary "unless someone wants to add sources" after their PROD was contested and their AfD closed as no consensus. From this and other actions (I can't find them now due to the sheer volume of TenPoundHammer's edits), it appears TenPoundHammer believes it is up to AfD participants to improve the article. This is the wrong way round, the nominator should carry out a full WP:BEFORE search and attempt to improve the article before considering nominating it for deletion. There is a high risk of notable subjects being erased from Wikipedia if TenPoundHammer is allowed to continue with their spree of deletion nominations and PRODs. NemesisAT (talk) 13:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a comment, while what TPH is targeting do seem like good targets to remove the page about them, several of those on TV series would maje for excellent redirects (to the network page or list of original content from those networks) rather than deletion. These shows existed so they are likely search terms, and it would be better to handle them this way than the more complicated process of AFD. --Masem (t) 18:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Again, literally every time I make a redirect, someone undoes it seconds later. What am I doing wrong there? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You are redirecting things that have 3+ sources listed. You seem to judge them to be irrelevant or not meeting your standards and you redirect them, which is a way to circumvent the PROD/AfD process. If it has citations, don't redirect without a discussion. And, what happened to your statement below "My hope is to establish a more measured approach by relying more on the list. Maybe sticking to the list will get me in the habit of slowing down." DonaldD23 talk to me 18:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • These nominations have become overwhelming on the daily AfD log, and despite asking them to pursue other means of resolving issues (redirects to network programming lists), along with this nom where they furiously dismiss everything brought up as not meeting unknown and imaginary standards, it feels like trying to get an article to an acceptable state to withdraw is insurmountable even as N has been proven. Then there's this nom, where the redirect decision was basically killed by a later unnotified PROD nomination, along with TeenNick Top 10, where I was a constant contributor to and received no notification whatsoever to try to RESCUE the article, as advised by PROD guidelines. Also, many of these articles were created by editors no longer here, so for TPH, PROD has become 'silent SPEEDY' for them because they only notify the original contributor, even if they disappeared in the mid-2000s. Nate • (chatter) 19:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's worth noting prior discussion at User talk:Andrew Davidson#Jealousy in art, which itself lists a number of earlier discussions. (Perhaps the people involved in that discussion should be pinged?) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like to point to a few recent examples. Everyone else in an AFD says to keep, he arguing nonstop with them, then gives up and closes the AFD as "whatever". [13] Then at [14] everyone else says Keep to his deletion nomination, that the coverage found proved it was notable, he arguing nonstop about that. If people show up to notice what's going on and look for sources, then his bad nomination are stopped, otherwise perfectly valid articles get deleted. At another article he nominated for deletion, he went through and removed dozens of links to it from other articles [15] with the message (Removing link(s) to "Search Engine Watch": unlikely to be saved.). The AFD for the article ended in Keep. [16]. Then there was a massive number of perfectly valid television episode articles he just went through and turned into redirects. I undid him in a number of places, pointing out that two reliable sources had reviewed the episodes, and they listed in the article already. [17] [18] [19] and many others. Other television articles he sent to AFD ended without everyone else saying Keep. [20] [21] The point is if someone is around to notice, perfectly valid articles get deleted. I don't have time to write down how many times this has happened right now, but the same day I reverted him for some of those bad examples, I did others, and then again days before or after that. Dream Focus 19:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      [22] He says in his edit summary (not notable). I say in my revert (Undid revision 1086104042 by TenPoundHammer (talk) 9.34 million people watched it, so of course it got reviewed. Two reliable sources are listed as having given it significant coverage).
      I reverted him at [23] and he then redirected it again and I reverted him again [24] he then sent it AFD where it ended as Keep. [25] Note that the article reads "On the episode's original airdate, Heroes attracted 16.97 million viewers." and has reliable sources reviewing it already.
      Just some of the times I reverted him, and he then sent it to AFD. I'm not going to waste time digging through more edit contributions, this takes long, and I think I've made my point. He is determined to argue with everyone and keep trying to get what he wants, and just far too many redirects, prods, and AFD nominations at a time for anyone to sort through. Dream Focus 20:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am active at AfD and have also seen the same problem of very high volume of nominations and, importantly, that TPH seems to get it wrong the majority of the time. From the editor's last 200 participations at AfD:
    • Voted delete 99.5% of times and never once voted keep. Imagine that, never once thinking an article was worth keeping. Never once having your mind changed in that direction
    • Got it wrong 55.8% of the time. That does suggest a competency issue.
    I have raised what my perceptions about competency with the user here and got no reply. In that AfD the TPH has renominated an article a few weeks after it was speedy kept/withdrawn, and argued with people that a peer reviewed academic source wasn't a considered reliable, and/or missed the fact it was raised in the AfD. The user seems to miss basic stuff, despite being maybe the most prolific nominators of articles for deletion. Of course I note the regular requests for them to slow down and agreements to do so which do not seem to be honoured.
    Debating with this editor feels like debating a brick wall that will never listen. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Led_Zeppelin_songs_written_or_inspired_by_others_(2nd_nomination) Can TPH show us any recent examples of them being convinced to keep something that they originally proposed to delete?
    It seems to me that someone with this much experience ought to be at least able to correctly identify articles for deletion and get it right most of the time, probably more like 75% of the time or 90%. CT55555 (talk) 20:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that even during this discussion about his problem, he is still doing the same thing! [26] He prods an article, the editor Lurking shadow removes his prod with an edit summary pointing out there is sourcing, he then replaces the article with a redirect. A redirect should not be a chance to try to delete an article again after a prod fails! If the community agrees to limit his prods and AFDs please limit redirects as well that he uses for the same purposes. Dream Focus 21:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Again. Why is it literally every time I redirect something in good faith, someone else undoes it literally SECONDS later? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The other editor rejected your prod, then three minutes later you redirected the article so they noticed and reverted you. How is that "good faith"? Dream Focus 22:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT applies. Which states: "Removing all content in a problematic article and replacing it with a redirect is common practice, known as blank-and-redirect. If other editors disagree with this blanking, its contents can be recovered from page history, as the article has not been deleted. If editors cannot agree, the content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used, such as restoring the article and nominating the article for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion."
      Obviously other editors disagree with your redirect. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      How is a one-sentence stub worth preserving? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      When there are sources available that can be used to expand the stub. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Recommend TPH, promise to stay away from prodding articles & nominating articles for deletion, for up to six months. It would help get him out of the fire & show that he's capable of restraint. That would be better then any type of community enforced restriction. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal

    Ten Pound Hammer is restricted to one PROD and one AfD nomination per day (defining a "day" as a rolling 24 hour period).—S Marshall T/C 12:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose If we don't have limits on everyone's page creations, which vastly outstrip our ability to monitor and discuss them, I can't really gin up that much concern about one editor devoting their time to AfDs and Prods. I would advise Ten Pound Hammer that if they slow their rate they're likelier to get proportionately more people involved in the AfDs and get more meaningful outcomes, but I don't see any policy-based reason to sanction them. There's no evidence of bad faith editing here. As has been discussed before with other editors, if the community wants to get together and decide that you can't participate in AfDs pr need to be sanctioned if your win% is ≤ arbitrary threshold, then this can be revisited. (And if their rationales are spurious, that's something the closing admin using their brain can take into account, the same way they are free to not weigh poor keep arguments.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 12:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • This proposal is meant as a flood defence, not a punishment. To an extent it does represent a sanction on TPH, and I regret that and would prefer something that didn't. The sanction element is an undesirable side-effect. If there was a wish to avoid any appearance of sanction at all, then we could potentially make it a rule that nobody could make more than one AfD nomination a day. Only a very small number of users would be affected.—S Marshall T/C 13:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Only if no one can create more than one article per day... We have way too many problematic articles (new ones and very old ones) for such a rule to be acceptable. If there aren't enough people working AfD, then recruit more people, but don't make proposals that boil down to accepting more problem articles to remain. If I am doing my bit of new page patrolling, and I notice Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Byzantine Reconquisita, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O Beto de Cascais, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aliyaanwar, then I'm not going to choose between these three which one needs deletion the most. Fram (talk) 14:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Outside of hotbutton topics is "too many articles are being created" an actual problem that exist in wikipedia in 2020? And are targeted deletion sprees like the one addressed here actually a solution here? Mainly it appears to be TV shows of the 90s that are being mass deleted right now, I very much doubt there's a mass creation problem relating to them. Artw (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • I replied to S. Marshall who made a general comment about a rule applying to all editors, for all topics. And there are still many unacceptable articles being created (though considerably less than before the article creation restrictions were finally implemented), and there are many problematic older articles as well (which may not be draftified, where tagging them for speedy is heavily frowned upon except for the most egregious BLP or copyvio issues, and where Prods are dependent on the whims of deprodders). A one AfD per day limit for everyone, because of one editor, is the wrong solution. Fram (talk) 14:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • "Recruit more editors", says Fram, exactly as if that were easy or straightforward. Editor numbers are in a slow but long-term and entrenched decline, and processes like AfD assume that we have an infinite amount of volunteer time to spend on detail. With the resources we actually have, the options are: (1) allow an unrestricted number of AfDs and accept that many will be of very poor quality even after multiple relists, or (2) put in some kind of throttle to help us focus. Having said that, there clearly are editors who should be allowed to start an uncapped number of AfDs.—S Marshall T/C 15:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • Would agree that one a day is too low, would strongly disagree that it's just one editor or that the problem AfDers in any way restrict themselves to problem articles, or even hold truly problematic articles as a concern outside of as a stick to beat other users. Artw (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support From their past actions it is clear that TenPoundHammer isn't willing to limit their PRODs and AfD nominations to a reasonable amount by themselves. Many of their nominations are being closed as "keep" and thus if allowed to continue, there is a high risk of notable subjects being deleted from Wikipedia. TenPoundHammer ought to focus on article improvement instead. NemesisAT (talk) 13:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Have you ever heard the expression "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"? Your behaviour at AFD is far from exemplary and in many cases is just as disruptive, the only difference is that your disruption is from an "keep everything" perspective. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      My actions do not carry the risk of notable content being deleted from Wikipedia. Your comment is nonsense. NemesisAT (talk) 17:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Voting "keep" on every nomination you come across regardless of the merits of the article or the sourcing available is disruptive. Of the 532 AFD's you have participated in you have expressed an opinion that an article should be deleted twice eight times. Only around 50% of the discussions you participate vote keep in in actually close with a consensus to keep. Looking through your comments it is trivially easy to find examples of you making non arguments that have no basis in policy, e.g. vague assertions that sources must exist but which provide no evidence of them actually existing [27] [28], acknowledgments that pages don't meet notability policy but votes that they should be kept anyway [29], voting to keep spam articles sourced to press releases, paid coverage and database entries [30], claims that blogs are usable sources because they have more than one contributor [31], supporting keeping an article on a marginally notable person on the basis of an interview after the subject had requested deletion (WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE) [32] and on and on it goes. Do these kind of votes and those statistics look like the contributions of someone who has a good understanding of policy and is carefully and considerately weighing up policy and the available sourcing before arriving at a conclusion of whether an article should be kept, or do they look like someone trying to find any justification to keep any article on the basis of their ideological views? 192.76.8.78 (talk) 18:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You really should try and be truthful when accusing other editors of being disruptive, the numbers you shared above are false. I stand by my previous comments. NemesisAT (talk) 18:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Fixed, yes, that 2 should have been an 8, and "participate in" should have been "vote keep in". 192.76.8.78 (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      IP 192, if you have issues with @NemesisAT's conduct at AfD, please raise a thread. Otherwise I think it's time to move on from this subthread. Star Mississippi 20:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hold on, please. I share many of the concerns raised, and may post some additional diffs later, but TenPoundHammer is entitled to a reasonable opportunity to respond to this thread before we start !voting on proposals. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC) Striking as TenPoundHammer has now responded. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amen. It is way too early for this proposal. Jacona (talk) 13:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • We all need to encourage the habit of uninvolved editors waiting to comment on a thread until after the involved editors have commented. Levivich 13:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I concur with Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs that it's incomparable that pages can be created in bulk but cannot be deleted or often discussed in bulk. If this is just meant as a flood defense, 1/day cuts that to a trickle and is perhaps too low (btw calendar days may be easier to comply with than rolling 24h periods). Reywas92Talk 14:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment FWIW this user is far from the only mass deleted exhibiting signs of sloppiness in AFDs, and will at least correct them when called on it instead of doubling down. Would suggest a less target solution that encompasses them over one that restricts them but leaves others free to behave worse. Artw (talk) 14:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Feel free to bring these other editors to ANI (of at the very least, if that hasn't happened yet, discuss the issues with them on their user talk page). But arguing for broader restrictions without providing any evidence is not really how things work here. Fram (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Suspect dragging the most recent offender into someone else's AN/I would be considered rude and likely to rebound. Nethertheless I can assure you I have dropped a note into their talk and I will probably be bringing them up here soon enough. Light monitoring of AfD in general should be more than enough to find others doing the same thing. Artw (talk) 15:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose As I would prefer this to go to the village pump for a wider discussion. Part of the issue is the number of AfDs in any one area overwhelming editors interested in that topic so perhaps limits per area would be something worth considering. As an aside, at least when it comes to the AfC process it is relatively rare for an individual to submit more than a handful of articles per day and the flood of new pages that come through AfC are 80ish% biography articles (or at least it feels that way). I suspect that the numbers coming through that are deleted later on are through the autoconfirmed people creating pages but a new page patroller would be better placed to answer that. Gusfriend (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Wikipedia is full of unimportant cruft, and 10lb hammer needs help finding and outing more bad articles. I have trouble finding sympathy for "we just need more time to find sources" when we are discussing 12 year old articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C3:57F:3F80:2CF6:872A:911D:531B (talk) 14:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Many of the articles they nominate have been found to be notable. It is clear they're nominating the wrong articles. NemesisAT (talk) 17:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The way you say "we just need more time to find sources" suggests that the people arguing to keep notable articles are 12 years into their efforts. That's not what is happening. It's not the original authors who dominate the discussions, but people who keep an eye on AfD to try and make sure encyclopaedic content isn't deleted. CT55555 (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - One AFD per day is too restrictive even if there are problems with the AFD nominations. Not commenting at this time on whether some other restriction would be in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, there's no evidence that this was intentionally disruptive, I think the TenPoundHammer's acknowledgement of the issue and commitment to moderate deletion nominations in the future is sufficient. SailingInABathTub (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as overly restrictive, I mentioned above that I had issues with a couple of their deletion nominations above but 1 AFD a day is unworkably few for large scale cleanup. I might be willing to support some other restriction. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support something, the battleground attitude is exhausting, as I commented on here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taking On Tyson when he was assuming that no one would do the leg work. If sources exist, it should not be at AfD and TPH's BEFORE are decidedly lacking, which there has been relative consensus for. Often, TPH is the only one arguing with sources presented. AfD participants and patrollers (and probably true for PROD) cannot keep up with the volume, which is more of the issue than the battleground. I don't know if one AfD/day is the answer, but something less then the current volume is needed. Similar to there being no deadline for creation, there is no rush to delete these articles. If an article is truly awful, it will be handled. Too many TV shows? Not a crisis. Star Mississippi 17:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Can we do something to break the chain of
      1. Article nominated for deletion
      2. Several people in AFD say "keep, I found sources"
      3. AFD closed as keep
      4. No one adds sources to the article, meaning they suffer from link rot and the article is still an unsourced stub 15 years later
      5. Lather rinse repeat
      This endless loop of everyone expecting everyone else to do something, and nothing happening as a result, needs to stop. It absolutely infuriates me every time I see it. What else can I do to break this chain? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      add the sources yourself? I don't mean it to sound glib, but if sources have been proven to exist (c.f. @Cunard's input) it's just as easy for you to add them and help create more well-rounded articles. Star Mississippi 17:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      There are times when I feel like I am literally the only person on all of Wikipedia who knows how to add a source to an article, which just makes things even more frustrating. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You and I have been here a very long time. If there are fewer nominations, people have more time to focus on providing input. A forced seven day "deadline" is directly against AfD not being for clean up, which is what you're doing whether you like it or not. MSNBC not being a watched network? You know better than that. You're fried, which is coming through in your noms. I suggest a break (and am not advocating a block - to be clear) for your own time to breathe. Star Mississippi 17:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree with SM above. If you think an article needs to be improved, go ahead and improve it. But also, as someone whose frequently engaged in discussions with you at AfD, I spend more time improving articles at AfD as I do discussing them, often adding sources before I enter the discussion, so the suggestion that nobody does this shows that you are not paying attention. CT55555 (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      TPH has shown in this discussion that they cannot or will not stop themselves from nominations. Therefore anything short of a technical solution seems unlikely to work. Star Mississippi 22:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Lather rinse repeat - This isn't a step. If no one adds them to the article, you're in that "no one", too. If you really want them added, as with anything else, you can fix it.
    • Oppose as written. I have communicated some thoughts to this editor about employing alternatives to deletion, to which they seem receptive, though somewhat dissuaded by experience. We do have far too many long-unsourced stubs on topics of questionable utility to an encyclopedia. It seems counterintuitive to penalize efforts to address that. BD2412 T 17:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I liked most of the nominations by Ten Pound Hammer and it is true that they could have committed mistakes sometimes. I am not sure what will be the right action here. Azuredivay (talk) 19:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Per above and their issues with PROD notifications and creating new self-N guidelines on a whim. Nate • (chatter) 19:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, nominations should not be based on whether there's enough participants, that's looking at the issue the wrong way. Instead others should be encouraged to participate or flush out articles. They're not acting in bad faith or being intentionally disruptive, they're trying to help clear out cruft articles. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Many of these "cruft" articles are about notable subjects. Per WP:BEFORE, If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD. NemesisAT (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support His long term behavior shows he isn't likely to stop his massive number of redirects, prods, and AFD nominations, no matter how many times he makes a mistake. Dream Focus 19:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • TPH has long been focused on deletion discussions, I think we all know that. It's a thankless job but it's one that should be done to help sort the wheat from the chaff around here, and one where we need more editors working - AFD is a ghost town lately, with many discussions being relisted two or three times before enough opinions trickle in for a closure. I suspect those delays, a lack of editors interested in working on these borderline articles, and general stress from being kicked frequently are playing in to TPH getting burned out, as evidenced by his overall tone recently. I have always felt that TPH is a great editor; I would support something encouraging him to take a breather and give the deletion space some room for a while, but I don't think quotas are the best way to do it. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, but support alternative (#2) below. 1 per day is too few. — Bilorv (talk) 21:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I've not been impressed with the quality of TPH proposals and nominations and I am overrun by the quantity. I read here that this has been brought here before and now it has come up again so clearly there needs to be stronger action this time. I additionally propose that all current TPH PRODs and AfDs be closed so we can more quickly get out from under this and get back to improving articles. ~Kvng (talk) 22:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    :Weak Support One per day is fair. I'd support anything on a Zero to Two per day envelope. But also feel it is too early to propose solutions until others have had a chance to comment. CT55555 (talk) 21:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC) Sorry, weak oppose now that I read previous topic ban, appeal, years into this problem and even after the topic ban is continuing, even in the context of the appeal saying it as their last chance and TPH's comments here that they are "trying" to control their behaviour. CT55555 (talk) 21:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose - we need an iron clad commitment for the user to do a proper WP:BEFORE check on any article they nominate, and I would suggest they perhaps work with Cunard (if Cunard wishes to do so) on improving articles before nominating them. A second opinion from someone else may also help, I do not mean canvassing, I mean a genuine attempt to see if another editor would themselves consider the article unsourced (this being the main ground TPH tends to nominate on). I have already spoken with Cunard myself to get some advice on finding references outside Google, and I will be using their resources before nominating anything again after my recent nom was kept due to resources being found I did not. This really is about care, and realising that there is no timeframe to get rid of the chaff, as an open source encyclopaedia run by volunteers we can only do what we can do. The main priority is ridding Wikipedia of vandalism, copyright infringements, defamatory statements, spam, and confirming verifiability on controversial topics. Getting rid of non-notable content is certainly important, but we should not risk the deletion of good articles in a hurry. MaxnaCarter (talk) 02:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: The two instances I've met TPH during a deletion discussion gave me the inclination to agree that he should not be PRODing and be restricted in starting AfD discussions (Speedy deletions, which are used to prevent blatant vandalism and are first vetted by admins, are not included). During the first case I debated with him, (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lick), he clearly was not willing to engage in thoughtful discussion or adherence to Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines, even after multiple editors told him that certain sources were valid. Half the discussion is him arguing that a peer-reviewed doctoral dissertation is the same as a high school paper. In another case, (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Punk jazz), he kept incorrectly citing certain essays incorrectly, even after I presented a handful of sources (this also leads me to believe he does not do proper BEFORE searches, as others have mentioned). Other editors have mentioned that TPH responds to criticism. Judging by the fact that this is a recurring issue, I don't believe he fully does. Why? I Ask (talk) 03:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as written but some action is warranted I believe there have been a few times I've experienced TPH's PRODs and AfDs. The one that sticks out is The Bronx Is Burning, a 2007 ESPN miniseries about the big events of 1977 in NYC, with a focus on the Yankees, plus Son of Sam and the blackout, played by a cast including John Turturro and Oliver Platt, who are well known actors. His PROD rationale said Sourced entirely to press releases, nothing better found. That's not accurate on its face because you can see that, while there are four press releases as external links, the only inline citation is to the New York Post. Their news coverage is often disprovable right-wing propaganda, but their sports page is top notch. That's the Murdochs for you. I remember that show getting press at the time it was released, so I dePROD'd it almost instantly. I was on my phone at a pool on vacation (Wikiholic score high) and still found in-depth reviews on Google before finding more on Newspapers.com. He made another edit to the page adding some sources, and with the edit summary forgot to check proquest, oops. If you nominate that many articles, you're bound to get sloppy at times. I oppose the proposal as its written, at least in part because it seems like the backlog at AfD is all due to one editor (correct me if I'm wrong), and if that's so, individual sanctions would be a better route than overhauling everything. But I know that alot of TPH's nominations are sound, on articles that should be deleted. I think we need to have more of a quality check on his work before we do anything else. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You can see their AfD accuracy here:
      tl;dr: it's not good CT55555 (talk) 03:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      A lot of these are good! The only problem I see is the sheer volume. I'd maybe approve a daily limit to how many articles TPH can nominate or propose for deletion, but I'm against straight cutting him off. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I quote "Without considering "No Consensus" results, 39.6% of AfD's were matches and 60.4% of AfD's were not." i.e. the majority of times, TPH's nominations were assessed by the community to be incorrect." I'm often at AfD disagreeing with people (recently I've !voted keep 60.5% of the time) and I'm getting it right 91% of the time. That's about normal, from my analysis.
      TPH has engaged in AfD 12,627 times, voted delete 99.5% of the time in recent AfDs and is still getting it mostly wrong. Yes, there are some good ones in there, but I think I'm correct to point out that the big picture is not good. CT55555 (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, my comment from earlier today focused too much on the nominations that are sound. But, I agree that the percentage match is subpar. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose No basis for a sanction. If creating, maintaining and deprodding pages in bulk is allowed, then prodding and nominating in similar fashion is permitted too. As one IP pointed out above, wikipedia is full of unimportant cruft, so, if anything, TenPoundHammer should be commended for doing the thankless task of helping distinguish what's salvageable from what's not, whatever his actual AfD success rate. In the small chance that something for which sources exist does slip through the cracks and gets hard- rather than soft-deleted, then it can be presumed that there is no prejudice to recreation with those sources. But, unless he's clearly going after stuff that is presentable and of enough quality, there's no evidence he's a negative. Avilich (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      f anything, TenPoundHammer should be commended for doing the thankless task of helping distinguish what's salvageable from what's not, I think that's the issue. He's not. His success rate is so poor that editors are forced to spend time defending articles that should never have been nominated, never mind deleted. Star Mississippi 21:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not being able to keep up is a made-up concern: his nominations are all on record, so anyone can look them up and find sources at their own leisure even after articles are deleted, and recreate accordingly. Any valid (meaning, about a notable topic) article which somehow slips through the cracks will presumably be undersourced and of low enough quality that its temporary removal won't be a negative. Even if TenPoundHammer had a 0% success rate, all he's doing is causing a flurry of article-improvement and source-searching which should have been done by the creators of the articles he's nominated; the latter would most likely have remained untouched forever hadn't he identified them. Unless he's trying to delete sourced content, there's no evidence he's harming the encyclopedia, and thus no valid objection. Avilich (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I truly think you're missing the point and definitely are not the arbiter of a "valid objection". For this article, he said How is a one-sentence stub worth preserving? when that was blatantly untrue about the state of the article. The number of sentences is not subjective. Not being able to keep up is absolutely a valid concern for folks trying to close the discussions and contribute. It's not the creators doing the work to save the content either especially for long-standing stubs. Star Mississippi 01:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The last time I saw a trash article up for deletion which I could improve, I just let it be deleted and started the thing again from scratch (in compliance with G4). And that was it: no wasting time in AfD or DRV, no mourning over a trash article that was temporarily deleted, no whining about anything here at ANI. I've no need for a disposable article to remain on mainspace while I'm thinking of ways to improve it. Remove that condition, and the entire necessity for "keeping up" vanishes. It's a spurious grievance.

    Also, your selective quoting of him is less than convincing in trying to show he's incompetent to determine what is disposable. "one-sentence stub" is obviously not in the prod and is presumably a broad statement. Avilich (talk) 04:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I think we'll agree to disagree, but that's literally how he responded to the challenging editor on this very page. I suggest you not label people raising legit complaints as whining though. Star Mississippi 13:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Avlich, I have seen you multiple times mis-state WP:NOTPLOT in order to try and secure a deletion while ignoring content and sources that made it inapplicable. In fairness to AGF to AGF you might have just been making the same mistake multiple times and somehow not noticing when it was pointed out, but I think you have to accept uou might not be a good judge of what is "trash", and what you perceive as whining may be other users trying to do good work who are just as deserving of an assumption of good faith. Artw (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose on principle, per Avilich. People are allowed to be wrong, and no evidence this is done in bad faith has been provided. Also oppose because one is really too low a limit without such evidence, even if "most" of them are wrong. I don't find nominating an article for deletion and it being kept to be disruptive or a nuisance, particularly if it forces people to actually improve it. Given the unending saga about mass-created stubs in this or that topic area, that is in fact probably a good thing for the encyclopedia. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support absent a clear promise to voluntarily throttle rate in the future. Looking at TPH's AFD stats since 2019:
      Total noms: 498
      2019: 23
      2020: 34
      2021: 31
      Jan 2022: 8
      Feb 2022: 7
      Mar 2022: 22
      Apr 2022: 124
      May 2022: 247
      Today (June 1): 2
    In terms of consensus-matching, over the last 500:
    8 undetermined, 32 no consensus, and 128 not closed yet (mostly from May 22 or later)
    Of the remaining 332 noms:
    158 keep or speedy keep
    174 delete, speedy delete, merge, redirect, or userfy
    So that's a "success rate" of 52% (174/332), although that will change significantly based on how the 128 pending noms turn out. For years (2019 thru Mar 2022), TPH was fine with AFD nom rate, and then in April started nominating way too often. The match rate is basically 50/50, which is not really great, although not really terrible either. I haven't even looked at the PRODs issue but I imagine it would look about the same. Unless TPH clearly commits to reducing their rate of noms to something reasonable, I agree a sanction restricting the rate is necessary to prevent, you know, 247 noms in one month, ffs. The fact that there were 2 noms today makes me not really hopeful about the voluntary commitment thing. BTW, I don't really care if the rate restriction is 1 or 5 or whatever... whatever most editors support in terms of number, I would support, too. Levivich 22:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So what? Do we really want to be sanctioning people for correctly nominating shitty unencyclopedic listcruft like this or non-notable TV series like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha Mom (TV series)? Even of the 158 articles that were kept; many of them were in a pitiable state before the AfD, so TPH's nominations actually did improve the encyclopedia, however you take it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    247 in a month is way too much. That's almost 60 a week, 10 a day. Like, you can't ask the community at large to please run BEFORE searches for 60 articles per week or else they will be deleted. That's demanding too much editor time, at the risk of actual harm to readers (articles being deleted because there aren't enough people to do BEFORE searches). Now if the match rate was really high, like 90%, then I'd say, well, OK, it's fine if we don't have a lot of people checking TPH's noms. But if the match rate is 50%, it's like, yeah, we need someone else to check each and every nom, or we're going to have over 100 notable topics deleted from the encyclopedia in May alone.
    Combine that with not stopping after this ANI. Combine that with the PROD issues. Combine that with the past issues. Combine all that with no clear commitment to not nominate more than X articles per Y. So what? So, if TPH won't limit themselves, we should limit them to some rate that the rest of us can keep up with, because we need second set of eyes on anyone who's "hit rate" is 50%. Oh and I'll bet you that it drops below 50% when this current set of 128 is closed. Want to take that bet? :-) Levivich 23:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The community already deals with dozens (occasionally even above a hundred) of AfDs each day. I fail to see how a few more is problematic, particularly if they all do tend to involve articles which need some form of improvement, even if they are to be kept. I also strongly object to taking AfD as some game where the point is to "score" as many points by getting the highest "hit rate" with as many "votes/nominations" with the "correct outcome". The "correct outcome" is "improving the encyclopedia". Sometime that requires deleting the article. Sometime that just requires somebody spending time improving it. Sometime it is more of a philosophical debate as to what should and should not be in the encyclopedia. No evidence, not even the slightest shred of it, has been provided that TPH has not been (at least attempting) to improve the encyclopedia, or that they have been indiscriminately nominating such an excessive amount of articles which were so obviously not appropriate that this has become disruptive beyond a few people getting fussy because of it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per this comment which seems to be an admission that TPH cannot dial this back on his own. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - my oppose was added to the accused's statement below - apologies if doing so created any confusion. Atsme 💬 📧 00:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose; just not enough evidence that Ten Pound Hammer's nominations are actually overwhelming the system. AFD defaults to no action if there's insufficient participation, and PROD only deletes if there is nobody willing to retain an article; I strongly believe that if an article has nobody keeping an eye on it who believes it should be kept, we are always better off deleting it - we need people watching and maintaining articles to keep up Wikipedia's standards; if there are not enough people watching the articles TPH prods then that is a serious problem that goes beyond just TPH and which is at least put in a safer state when the prods go through. The idea that we're better with no article at all than a totally unwatched one is central to how PROD works, after all. I also don't particularly buy the argument that a 50% rate is that bad, especially when many of them are salvaged by total rewrites. If an article can be salvaged by total rewrites (and someone is willing to do so) that is great, but it doesn't make the original deletion invalid - per WP:TNT, nothing would have been lost if the original version was rewritten. Furthermore, above, people talk about articles that lasted 12 years with no improvement, then were nominated for deletion and "rescued" by a rewrite and the addition of sources. In a situation like that their nomination was a good thing - without it the article would have, what, remained in that state for another 12 years? Finally, I strenuously oppose making WP:BEFORE something mandatory (ie. giving it teeth by sanctioning people who ignore it), since that would clearly violate WP:BURDEN - it is never the responsibility of people who want to remove something to search for sources for it, fullstop. It might be a nice suggestion but it should never be treated as a hard requirement, since that would be backwards and lead to there being no real incentive for anyone who wants stuff cited to actually cite it. --Aquillion (talk) 03:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then of couse there is List of people on the postage stamps of Italy which has existed for over 17 years (since Nov. 4, 2004), it has 0 sources. No one has bothered editing the article at all since it was nominated for deletion. Someone may come up with some sources, but no one has actually in the deletion discussion identified any sources we can use to back the article, so I am not holding my breath that sources will be found.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I have seen a lot of AfDs defaulting to soft delete through lack of participation. Artw (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Soft delete is, well, soft; it can be easily undone by anyone who objects and who wants to improve the article, without losing anything. I don't see that as a problem. --Aquillion (talk) 04:22, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: Per the points by Aquillion and there being no compelling evidence that TPH's actions, taken as a cure, are any worse than the treated disease, which is the deluge of subpar material flooding the project. TPH's 50% success rate means they are clearing out a phenomenal amount of crap, and likely prompting the betterment of the other 50%. Any AFD policy changes should be global, not targeted. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:32, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose This editor has done a huge amount of good to clean out of Wikipedia a huge amount of articles that have nothing even close to adequate sourcing. We need to stop putting up blocks in the path of improvement to Wikipedia. Some of the articles he has put up for deletion have literally existed on Wikipedia for over 19 years with no sources at all. Going after such articles is a long over due and much needed action, and should not be punished.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Even when TPH uses redirect as a way to circumvent the process? Multiple times TPH has put articles up for PROD, only for someone to remove them. The normal action would be to send to AfD, which TPH does quite a lot. But other times TPH just simply decides to redirect the article. Case in point Secrets of the Titanic. TPH had Proposed Deletion on May 28. Today (June 4), User:Kvng removed the PROD tag with the rationale "Deletion contested, unsourced is not a reason to delete". SEVEN minutes later TPH decided to redirect the article instead of having a discussion about it. I saw that, reversed the redirect, and within 5 minutes I had 2 reliable source citations added to the article. These types of things cannot continue to be ignored. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Exactly where is it policy that you can't redirect a contested prod? I see nothing at WP:PROD saying so. And you wonder why I keep complaining that my redirects keep getting undone literally seconds after I make them.... Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Also, one of the contested redirects, Shep Unplugged, is turning out to be a likely hoax. IMO that shouldn't even have been deprodded. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:23, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      If sources are as readily available as at Secrets of the Titanic the article should never have been prodded in the first place. Following your spree of over a hundred PRODs in a day (on subjects many of which turned out to be notable) and now this, I'm not surprised that nobody trusts your judgement with redirects/PRODs. NemesisAT (talk) 21:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree. The editor probably removed the PROD because they no longer trust TPH's judgement. And, as for redirecting a PROD without a proper discussion, while it may not be explicitly prohibited right now, I will ALWAYS reverse a REDIRECT that happened after a PROD was removed without an AfD taking place. Simply because I have saved SEVERAL articles this way because of lazy BEFOREs. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I DEPRODded because deleting unsourced articles on potentially notable subjects is not uncontroversial and PROD is for uncontroversial deletions. ~Kvng (talk) 22:42, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      It shouldn't be. Articles which fail WP:V are not suitable for inclusion even if they're on a notable subject; and they're usually not that good of a starting point even if they're about notable subjects. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @RandomCanadian: My definition of controversial is that a non-trivial discussion (or WP:SNOW keep) would occur if taken to AfD. That's what I see here but if you don't trust my judgement, go ahead and do some AfD nominations. ~Kvng (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I started a discussion about this at Wikipedia_talk:Redirect#redirecting_a_page_after_failing_to_delete_it_through_prod a few days ago. I had to revert him on many occasions from doing that for articles that clearly passed the notability guidelines. Dream Focus 21:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Johnpacklambert: sure, let's discuss deleting this cruft but PROD is for uncontroversial deletions, and these are not uncontroversial. Before you try to dispute that, please have a look at TPH AfD stats. We end up keeping an unacceptable number of articles he's PRODded. ~Kvng (talk) 22:26, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 June 5 where he NAC's his own nomination. Not "withdraws" mind you, but attempts to call a SNOW in 16 hours. Jclemens (talk) 02:13, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Artificial and destructive. scope_creepTalk 02:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose; lack of useful participants at AfD is not a reason to restrict nominations. The fact is, the result of these nomination is always improvement of Wikipedia, either by having bad articles on non-notable subjects deleted or improved articles on notable subjects retained. Without these nominations, we would just be retaining more bad articles. wjematherplease leave a message... 15:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      They are not always an improvement to Wikipedia, as there is a risk of notable topics being deleted as there aren't enough people to patrol all the AfDs and PRODs TenPoundHammer is making. NemesisAT (talk) 17:08, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, of course. Per my and others' arguments downthread, and per the very reasonable opposes above. JoelleJay (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose incredibly restrictive for an editor that helps to clear WP of long abandoned articles w/ 0 sources and 0 editors willing to pitch in. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 03:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement from nominated

    I agree that my nominations have gotten out of hand. I keep forgetting that I made User:TenPoundHammer/TV cleanup for this very reason, so I could single out articles and work on them individually. While that did work for a while, things like navboxes and stub categories kept sending me down more and more rabbit holes of poorly written articles. I fully admit I act in haste way too much. I'm going to ride out everything currently nominated and start using my personal cleanup list more so I can focus on articles at a more measured pace. Instead of instantly nominating, my plan is to put questionable articles on the cleanup list. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'd personally be happy with that, but this keeps happening over and over again. Rather than a community restriction, could you also commit to a maximum number of open AfDs or a maximum number/period of time that would be considered getting out of hand, so if you slide back into old habits, we could remind you that it's excessive? We need your work at AfD, so long as the workload remains reasonable. Jacona (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to be clear, you stated that you are going to "ride out everything currently nominated" and "Instead of instantly nominating, my plan is to put questionable articles on the cleanup list." Yet, after you posted this statement (15:33 31 May 2022) you nominated 2 articles for deletion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal Face-Off (15:34, 31 May 2022) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gorilla and the Bird. (15:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)) Just curious, how is that riding out everything currently nominated when you literally nominated 2 articles within 3 minutes of saying you weren't? DonaldD23 talk to me 15:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I meant that those are the last ones I was going to do. I had them lined up in another tab before writing that and forgot to hit the button. Until the queue is cleared of my deletion nominations, the only other AFDs I'm planning to make are those where I feel a prod was wrongly contested. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • To clarify: Until the current deletion queues are free of anything I nominated, the only AFDs I plan to make are those where I feel an active prod was wrongly contested. During this time span, if I feel an article is questionable, I will put it on the cleanup list. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Also curious, will you continue to REDIRECT an article when your PROD was removed? For example, today you redirected Chasing Nature when User:Ficaia contested your PROD [[33]], which they said "the one source already included seems substantial, so a prod is inappropriate"?
      You're response was not to send to AfD, but to just redirect it because, as you stated, "redirect stub" with this edit [[34]].
      Just my opinion, but that feels like you are trying to circumvent the deletion process. DonaldD23 talk to me 16:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      This is why I don't redirect stuff. Every time I try, someone undoes it seconds later. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      And once the queue is cleaned up, will you return to nominating 30 articles a day? Or will you commit to showing some kind of restraint? Jacona (talk) 16:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      My hope is to establish a more measured approach by relying more on the list. Maybe sticking to the list will get me in the habit of slowing down. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      FWIW this one [[35]] seems to have some WP:BEFORE problems, particularly in the claim that there's nothing in Google Books, and should probably be withdrawn. Artw (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      That person only said they might have found sources. I'll see what they're able to find. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Whatever. This time I'm not going to play some stupid game where the nominator gets to turn into The Riddler and pose cryptic challenges to every posted source, I'm just going to say you are acting in bad faith even after all of the above and should be INDEFFED, and you existing AfDs closed. Artw (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      That seems extremely incivil and overreactive. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      While an AN/I is in flight you literally just lied on an AfD request, changed the AfD so it was slightly less of a lie, then made a response quoting the new version as if it was the original in an attempt to gaslight. That seems pretty incivil to me, as well as a demonstration that you actually can't be trusted around the AfD process at all, since this is you at your most scrutinised. Artw (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Because nobody has ever left out a word when typing before? You seem to be the only one here with any sort of hostility toward me, and your call to have be blocked is extremely tendentious. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I believe people need to be reminded to assume good faith. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      As an update to this I have added sources to the article that I am pretty certain are sufficient to pass WP:N, a chapter of a book that comes up as one of the earliest GBook hits being particularly helpful in this. I consider the BEFORE claim, that nothing was found on Google Books, and the second edited BEFORE claim, that nothing useful was found on Google Books, or the statement "Everything I've found on GBooks appears to be a mere directory listing" all to be implausible. To my knowledge at no point has TPH acknowledged that the article might be valid or engaged with any effort to improve the article in anything other than a scornful, hostile way. ~~~ Artw (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @TenPoundHammer: when you say that your nominations have gotten out of hand, is that a quantity problem (too high a volume of nominations), a quality problem (nominating some articles where a WP:BEFORE would have shown you could instead improve them), or both? — Bilorv (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably both. It seems other editors such as Cunard have access to resources that I don't and are able to find sources I can't through Newspapers.com, ProQuest, and other resources provided by Wikipedia. Other times I admit I just don't dig deeply enough and other times I just automatically assume that a one-sentence article that's had an {{unreferenced}} since 2008 can't possibly be notable, otherwise someone would have done something about it by now, right? And when I find an entire category full of such articles all at once, then it's just as likely that those can't be notable because otherwise, someone would have fixed them, right? Well, if I speed through them all at once, it's sure gonna seem that way until source sleuths like Cunard jump in and unfuck things. tl;dr: it's probably both. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, TenPoundHammer, I think I'd agree with your assessment. The thing about notability is that no amount of experience can substitute research. At least, that's what I've found: with AFC and NPP and AFD skills I've encountered peaks in my areas of expertise, where I can't really optimise my process further or gain more intuition. At a certain point, you just have to be willing to do the research (which for me only works when I'm in the mood for it). I don't think we can expect that nobody will ever find sources that you don't, but you can stop yourself from making the assumptions about sub-stubs from aeons ago. A lot of times they are harder to prove non-notable than it appears—the other side of the coin is that if they were obviously non-notable then someone would have done something about it by now, right? — Bilorv (talk) 22:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @TenPoundHammer, you just said If it's not available online, then it fails WP:V. Based on what you've learned in this discussion do you understand what's wrong with that statement? I have concerns that an editor as active as you are still does not understand basic policies. Star Mississippi 13:15, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    TPH clearly hasn't read WP:PAYWALL which states "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources are not easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only through libraries. Rare historical sources may even be available only in special museum collections and archives. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf."
    TPH thinks if they can't find it online then either 1. It doesn't exist or 2. It is only 1 sentence. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I adamantly OPPOSE any restrictions that would create more harm than good to the project, and that is exactly what some of the suggestions would do if accepted. While I can't speak to all of TPH's AfD noms/actions, I am aware that he has been very productive overall, and I share his concerns about reverted redirects and PRODs. NPP has an atrocious backlog, some of which results from reverted redirects. I'm thinking TPH is quite capable of self-pacing without any community imposition or setting of limits that impede necessary clean-up. NPP is currently discussing how best to create some form of automation that would handle a significant portion of these issues, but it's not going to happen quickly. Furthermore, we do have issues with UPEs creating noncompliant articles and stubs, and new editors creating 2 sentence stubs that are unsourced. These problems are not shrinking, rather they are growing with advancements in technology as more people globally learn the benefits of a WP article. NPP reviewers are not here to create, expand, source, and fix articles for the creators of those articles – be they UPE or newbies. At least TPH is addressing some of those issues and doing a damn good job of it. I'm of the mind that we need to respond cautiously to the criticism here, and not be too hasty. Atsme 💬 📧 02:47, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are we being hasty, though, Atsme?
        This is an editor whose behaviour at AfD has been problematic, and specifically called out by admins as problematic, for the past fifteen years or so. The last time TPH was topic-banned from AfD lasted from 2017 to 2019. He appealed in 2019 saying: I understand why my topic-ban was imposed in the first place, and I will chalk it up to an overzealous attempt to clear out cleanup categories which led to a great deal of reckless nominations.... I think that my above-mentioned method of watchlisting articles or other content that I find suitable for deletion, and watching them for a period of time before determining whether or not to nominate, will help me take a more measured, uncontroversial approach to the isuses (sic) that led to this ban in the first place. The community decided to give him one more chance.
        Fast forward to 2022. He's making upwards of thirty AfD nominations a week with an accuracy rate of under 20%. I think those are extraordinary statistics, far outside the norm. How many more last chances do you feel we should give him?—S Marshall T/C 16:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • The more I pay attention, the more I wonder if we are being "played" by a player who seems to have no interest in honest discourse. There are statements like this, there's a promise to not delete any more immediately broken by deleting two more, then an excuse. When asked directly, repeatedly whether they would voluntarily show restraint to a certain number of AfDs, they've just ignored it. When their nomination success rate is under 20%, I question competence as well and question whether it is worth our time to give one more "one more chance". Jacona (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • S Marshall, it's good to hear from you, & I trust all is well on your end!! My experiences over the years tell me to not give too much weight to things that happened in the past, particularly in light of my being an editor who supports the right to be forgotten. I'm not aware of any system of judgment that is flawless, especially on WP where we are dealing with anonymity. All any editor can be expected to do is honor consensus, not necessarily agree with it. No one is perfect, and I'm not seeing any evidence that convinces me this particular editor (who I neither know nor had any interactions with to my knowledge or waning recollection) is purposely nominating articles for deletion that are indisputable keeps. I am more concerned about UPEs and the problems they create, and equally as concerned about the fast pace of NPP reviewer burn-out. I'd much rather err on the side of a 15 yr. veteran editor than a UPE editor who is creating unsourced stubs using an algorithm. I'm hard pressed to believe that poorly written, and/or unsourced articles add to the credibility of WP, or that we will ever run short of articles in mainspace. I'm also of the mind that it's actually in the best interest of the project to AfD, redirect or draftify poorly written, unsourced articles that fail the key elements of GNG, V, & NOR than to leave them in mainspace with tags that too few editors have time to address. The onus is on the article creator to properly prepare their article(s) for mainspace. For us to not enforce that aspect of AfC, we are rewarding the creators of bad articles by allowing those articles to remain. Atsme 💬 📧 01:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Atsme, thank you for this. Without prejudice to the outcome of the OP's opening of this case, coming out of semi-retirement to make this post on ANI (I don't follow ANI and I came to this in a rather roundabout way), I think your comment here and your nickel's worth above are two of the most apt and intelligent I have ever read in my many years of attempting to develop AfC and NPP into serious, quality driven processes and with sufficiently vetted operatives. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for those hearty well-wishes! I reciprocate!
    I absolutely agree with you that TPH is not deliberately wasting the community's time with his poorly thought through AfD noms. When he goes on one of his nomination sprees it's because he genuinely wants to improve the encyclopaedia. His motives are nothing but the best. The only problem is with his practice.
    TPH nominates articles recklessly and inattentively, with no detectable attempt to comply with the deletion process. His judgment about what articles should and shouldn't be deleted is very widely different from the community norm so the success rate of those nominations is exceptionally low.
    Nice bloke, works hard, tries his best, but soaks up colossal amount of volunteer time for little result. Has promised to stop and reneged. Has been topic-banned, promised to change, topic ban was lifted, problem behaviour has returned. So what to do?—S Marshall T/C 07:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How about requiring that he attend WP:NPPSCHOOL? Atsme 💬 📧 15:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    TPH has 194,000 edits. He's been a prolific editor for 17 years. He knows what to do, he just can't do it.—S Marshall T/C 16:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Motion to close

    Closing this subthread at this time. This particular request to close has gained no traction. North America1000 02:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    It's clear that this discussion is going nowhere, and quite a few editors seem to be using this as a means of acting out to me in bad faith. Can we just close this and move on now that I've laid out a plan to slow down my deletion discussions? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    with all due respect, that's not remotely your call even if you were following your own plan, which you're not. There is no harm in letting the discussion play out. If people are acting in bad faith, they can be handled. Star Mississippi 18:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You clearly haven't as multiple PRODs have been started by you since this thread opened. Also, why are you always in a rush to close things. I have seen you start an AfD, 2 or 3 people would comment on them and you would close the AfD...sometimes within an hour. What happened to a 7 day discussion? DonaldD23 talk to me 18:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, you literally nominated Blessed Art Thou for deletion 4 minutes after you saying you've "laid out a plan to slow down my deletion discussions?" Your rationale was "Doesn't seem to be a notable work. Sources are highly localized or superficial" The article cites The New York Times, a national paper. DonaldD23 talk to me 19:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Or superficial", as in "mentions the work in passing". Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's exactly the kind of knee jerk response I'm trying to stop. Instant reactions are so ingrained in me Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Have I understood correctly, you are trying and failing to control your own behaviour, even during this discussion? CT55555 (talk) 21:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    2 other proposals

    2.TenPoundHammer is restricted to nominating not more than 5 articles for deletion for proposed deletion or regular deletion per day, or, alternatively, one bulk deletion AFD per day. This sanction expires in one year.


    3.Proposing deletion of Wikipedia articles is put under community-authorized general sanctions. Uninvolved adminstrators are allowed to restrict people from nominating articles for regular deletion, proposed deletion, and speedy deletion, down to a minimum of 1 article for regular deletion per week, 0 articles for proposed deletion per week and 1 article for speedy deletion per week.


    Proposal 2 is relatively mild. But TenPoundHammer told us of having trouble with disciplining himself to limit deletion proposals. This is a solution, and I think TenPoundHammer should be used to a lower deletion speed after 1 year and the sanction should no longer be needed.

    I am making proposal 3 because many people stated that this is not a problem with one individual editor.Lurking shadow (talk) 20:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I support #2. 5 per day is a reasonable limit. I hope that TenPoundHammer would understand that the bulk deletion AFD is not a get-out clause, but only for the cases where they would be using bulk delete did the restriction not apply. — Bilorv (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Support #2 in particular as a restriction for TPH. I disagree with a general restriction of 5 nominations per day, but that is being discussed in another forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Support #3, General Sanctions, with the understanding that it authorizes uninvolved administrators to impose sanctions on various sorts of disruptive behavior in AFDs, including personal attacks, removing the AFD notice, et cetera, not limited to making too many nominations. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not what no. 3 is actually about. It seems to be very much about people who would be nominating, not about general participation in them. And "1 speedy deletion per week" is really nonsense. Additionally, per below, given the blatant lack of evidence this is a widespread problem (and given even the current case seems very no-consensus), the best option is to keep treating this on a case-by-case basis. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Support #2, though I would prefer a limit of 10 nominations per day. I had been involved in a case where TPH PRODded 146 TV show articles in one day, and they all got deprodded by a user concerned about their rapid-fire tagging. (Several were deleted in follow-up AfD's.) AfD stats. Their recent AfD stats show a disappointingly low score of 19.7% accuracy for the 72 nominations among the last 200 that have been closed, down from a so-so 57.6% for the previous 200. (For comparison, Sportsfan 1234 (talk · contribs), another user recently criticized for mass AfD nomination of Tuvaluan footballers, has an accuracy score of 87.8%.) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As to #3, there are cases logged at WP:EDR where a user was subject to a sanction on a different part of the deletion process. For example, the user CAPTAIN RAJU (talk · contribs) was banned from closing or relisting AfD discussions in an ANI discussion from December 2017 following an incident where they closed or relisted several AfD nominations based solely on the number of !votes. I would thus prefer a simpler, more broad proposal:

    4. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all deletion processes (XfD, PROD, CSD, RfU, and DRV) on the English Wikipedia. Administrators may also reasonably limit the rate at which a user can nominate pages for deletion through XfD, PROD, or CSD; or close or relist deletion discussions. Users may initiate deletion discussions for articles or files where proposed deletions were contested in violation of these sanctions.

    –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose#4 Putting the entire deletion process under discretionary sanctions is a great way to bite newbies who just got their article deleted with additional awareness notices.Lurking shadow (talk) 09:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, what happens if we limit this to nomination of pages for deletion? We get #3, but a little simplified. Support #3, but formulated in terms of standard DS because in some cases, it may be appropriate to ban a user outright from initiating a deletion process, though I'm not aware of any such incidents outside of New Page Patrol. The proposed minimum is too arbitrary, and I'm not sure if it should be limited to article space. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • support #2 and oppose 3 and 4 as making excessive work and drama. TPH has done some good deletions, but more time is needed to really check for suitability of the page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 1, but if that's too harsh, Support 2 (but 1 per day would be better, 35 per week is a lot, and with the current <20% success rate, still a huge waste of other editors time), Support 3, but there are a lot of details to be ironed out. The editor's ongoing participation shows a complete lack of impulse control, and by his own admission, "everyone" reverts his redirects within a few minutes, his prods get reverted en-masse, and his AfD nominations are being rejected far more often than they're being successful screams they just aren't able to do a good job of article deletion right now. They need to take a break, but can't do so without help. Jacona (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I now support 1 after seeing their original topic ban. I still support 3.Lurking shadow (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose 2 per same arguments as I opposed no. 1; Strong oppose 3 and 4 because I see not even the slightest evidence whatsoever that this is an area of the encyclopedia which has gotten so out of hand that such drastic measures would need to be imposed. If we're going that way, we should also implement a similar sanctions regime for people mass-creating stubs and database-sourced articles...; or for people repeatedly contesting prods of articles which do get deleted. Or maybe just not go ahead with such ridiculous nonsense proposals in either direction. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly oppose all per my arguments above; there is no evidence of an actual problem here, so these are just solutions looking for a problem. Beyond that, strenuous procedural objection to 3 and 4 in strongest possible terms as far too sweeping of a suggestion to tuck away in the subsection of an ANI devoted to a single editor. People who are not interested in TPH's specific case, or who are deterred by the size of the discussion, or who see the lopsided discussion above and assume it is handled, are not going to see these sweeping proposals; this is effectively a WP:CONLOCAL situation where discussions in this subtopic cannot authorize sweeping things of this nature regardless of the level of consensus produced. If you genuinely believe those are called for, start a totally new discussion (preferably on WP:PROPOSE or the like), but they will not and cannot result from this one under any circumstances; anyone treating this as an RFC on those is wasting their time. It cannot be implemented in this way, fullstop. --Aquillion (talk) 03:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Aquillion: Could you clearly explain why you do not see evidence of a problem specifically regarding TenPoundHammer? A very low success rate for AfD's seems like strong evidence of a problem. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I explained in more detail above. First, I don't see a long-term 50% success rate as that low; there are inevitably going to be borderline cases, and we do need people willing to bring those to AFD. Punishing people based solely on success rate (especially a success rate that suggests their judgment is at least not absurd) would have a chilling effect people's willingness to bring such borderline cases to AFD. Second, per WP:TNT, it is entirely acceptable and appropriate to nominate a sufficiently bad article based on its current state, even if a better article could in theory be written on the topic; so success rate alone isn't a meaningful measure. There's plenty of people who spend time trying to salvage articles in AFD by improving and rewriting them, and more power to them if that's how they want to spend their time - but doing so does not make the original nomination wrong, certainly not sufficiently wrong as to justify sanctions. --Aquillion (talk) 08:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My issue is not that TPH has a low success rate, it's that he consistently refuses to abide by community consensus and engage in thoughtful discussion, especially in the case of reliable sources (e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lick or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peepoodo & the Super Fuck Friends (2nd nomination)). Furthermore, he continues to go back on his promise to slow down the rate of AfD's even while under the scrutiny of an ANI. Why? I Ask (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose all the above, agree with Aquillion on all counts. nableezy - 04:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose all: Per the points by Aquillion and there being no compelling evidence that TPH's actions, taken as a cure, are any worse than the treated disease, which is the deluge of subpar material flooding the project. TPH's 50% success rate means they are clearing out a phenomenal amount of crap, and likely prompting the betterment of the other 50%. Any AFD policy changes should be global, not targeted. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:32, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Support #2 - The context above demonstrates that TPH frequently does not do the required due diligence before proposing articles for deletion, which he has been sanctioned for previously. I think this means that imposing a limit is the least that should be done. Although some of the oppose votes are motivated by the idea that allowing TPH to continue proposing articles for deletion at the current rate is necessary to remove undeserving articles from this website, imposing this sanction should ideally push him to focus on "the worst of the worst" (so to speak), which if anything should improve the efficiency of that process. Hatman31 (talk) 13:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "No evidence there's a problem"

    This argument does not survive the evidence, already presented above, that there's a problem. Let's collect and itemize it.

    • 2018 AN/I leading to indefinite topic ban from AfD
    • 2019 successful appeal. To quote TPH: "I understand why my topic-ban was imposed in the first place, and I will chalk it up to an overzealous attempt to clear out cleanup categories which led to a great deal of reckless nominations." Note carefully that TPH himself accepts that his problem is reckless AfD nominations. The appeal is successful but concludes that "the community is unlikely to offer another chance."
    • "Statement from nominated", above. To quote TPH: "I fully admit I act in haste way too much.... instead of instantly nominating, my plan is to put questionable articles on (my) cleanup list."
    • And within three minutes after posting that, he nominates a further two articles for deletion.

    This is an editor who knows he has a problem with inattentive and reckless editing, and openly admits that he does, and is not able to control it.—S Marshall T/C 15:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm pretty surprised that not everyone agrees that 100 in a week or 250 in a month is a problem in and of itself. Even TPH seems to agree it's a problem, per their comments here. Levivich 15:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    One wonders if there is any point in collecting and presenting evidence when editors can just dismiss it with a metaphorical wave of the hand and claim it isn't there. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Does seem like this AN/I with a lot of deletionists present is mirroring the frustrations of an AfD with a lot of deletionists present, yes. "I demand you provide evidence of this thing which I will then proceed to ignore", etc... etc... Artw (talk) 19:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The only thing worse is inclusionists attempting to get rid of someone who has correctly removed hundreds of unsuitable entries or caused hundreds of articles to be improved. We should similarly sanction editors who indiscriminately create hundreds of articles; or vote keep at hundreds of AfDs without much justification (insert the archetypical "Keep passes NSOMETHING" votes); ... Or, less sarcastically, people should stop trying to strong-arm a situation by resorting to the dramaboards. None of the AfDs seems to be in bad faith or so obviously wrong as to show CIR issues. There is otherwise nothing actionable here. As I said earlier, AfD is not a game where the point is getting the highest "hit rate". An AfD which results in the article being kept but massively overhauled and improved, in my books, is a correct AfD, and an improvement to the encyclopedia: I don't see why people should be sanctioned for it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Dire catastrophism about 100s of new articles if they don't get their own way also a regular feature of these discussions that we are replicating here. Wikipedia is not going to be swamped with new articles because TPM didn't get to nominate dozens of longstanding but neglected articles without doing BEFORE. Artw (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Artw: You've missed the irony, haven't you? And AFD would not have to be (as you say) "swamped" with "100s" of nominations if people bothered doing BEFORE before creating articles in the first place... Nominating sub-par content for deletion seems like a far less objectionable thing than people insisting it should be kept and then getting all fussy at the nominator for having highlighted how the content was indeed subpar. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And there's been a number of conversations on Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers about the impossibility of the current situation. Wikipedia is being swamped with new articles that don't have notability sourced in the article, and currently, the burden for fixing the problem rests on the new page patrollers (of whom there may be 30-60 currently active), since the burden for WP:BEFORE currently rests upon the nominator for deletion, not the author of the apparently non-compliant article. One would presume that the person drafting the article would be the better choice to find notability sources. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like signing up for that would be a much more productive use of TPMs time than what they are doing right now, perhaps they should be encouraged to go in that direction and leave established articles alone. As it is, this is NOT what they are doing and what they are doing is harmful and they should be discouraged from it. Artw (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not the point of my message. One, two or even 100 new reviewers won't fix the asymmetry problem. The current setup doesn't work. There are 14,000 new pages not patrolled yet, and I'd bet many are hanging there because of this issue. The most time-consuming parts of new page review are 1) establishing lack of notability for an article that doesn't have notability evident already, and 2) investigating suspicious articles (e.g., possible UPE involvement). Of the two, #1 predominates.
    Note I am not proposing any change to WP:BEFORE for articles already patrolled. Only for new contributions going forward. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The answer is to require all articles to be sourced or be PRODed, with the prod only removable if sources are added. Even requiring just 1 source would be a start (though 2 or 3 would be better). Levivich 23:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As is already required as standard for BLPs ... yes, a practical suggestion. Maybe even a BOT to auto-PROD the sourceless. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    1000 AfDs in a week is not too many so long as those 1000 AfDs are not so obviously bad that they merited a sanction. Of the AfDs brought here I think there is one that is on the spectrum of bad to obviously bad, the rest are wholly defensible. I dont think one bad nomination merits a sanction, and I dont find the argument about overwhelming people trying to source these articles all that convincing. The material shouldnt be here without a source. Any editor is free to challenge the verifiability of any statement in an article, and absent a source is then free to remove uncited material. If you do that with these articles you are left with speedy deletion candidates (A3). So no, I dont see the effort to remove uncited material from Wikipedia to be a problem, I see the effort to add it and then retain it to be the problem. nableezy - 20:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:BEFORE, If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD. This applies even if the article has no sources. In countless AfDs nominated by this user, sourcing has been found that established notability. If the user has done a proper BEFORE, they would have found this sourcing and added it to the articles themselves NemesisAT (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And per WP:V, any user may challenge the verifiability of any statement and remove any challenged statement that is not cited to a reliable source. And an article devoid of any sources if emptied of such statements is an A3 SD candidate. All the WP:N and WP:BEFORE references to guidelines do not trump that core policy on verifiability. Any user can add material that they have reliable sources for. Adding it without a source to begin with? Not as much. Thats the actual problem here, not the removal of such low quality "articles" from a supposed encyclopedia. nableezy - 21:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    1) Many of these articles are not unsourced.
    2) Claims that BEFORE is being followed are being made.
    Artw (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. What I was going to type earlier but the reply tool was too buggy on mobile. NemesisAT (talk) 08:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    1) Many of these articles are not unsourced. And how many are sourced solely to databases? Such articles are similarly not really acceptable, even if they're technically not unsourced. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A data point: Looking back at April, before this whole business began, it seems like about 40 AfDs a day is normal. There's a few recurring names but most of the AfDs are individual entries with no users posting dozens of entries. I'm again finding it really hard to believe that the site depends on single users AfDing dozens of articles a day without care for BEFORE. Artw (talk)
    • At one level Nableezy is completely, self-evidently correct. Editors are entitled to ask for sources and right to insist on high quality ones. AfD is a good place to evaluate sources. Editors should be able to use it freely, and being wrong, or at odds with community consensus, is not a crime.
      But there are other levels. AfD uses up a lot of volunteer time, so we ask for some basic diligence from nominators. They must carry out a good faith search for sources and, before nominating an article for deletion, they must come to a reasoned, defensible view that decent sources don't exist. They are not to use AfD recklessly or negligently, because volunteer time is our only limiting resource.
      The use of AfD is not a problem. Being wrong is not a problem. Editing recklessly and wasting volunteer time is a problem that needs addressing.—S Marshall T/C 23:48, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The only person who is wasting volunteer time here appears to not be TPH. A better candidate might be DGG, who needlessly deprodded 50 articles nominated by TPH in a series of rapid edits back on the 30th of May; thus forcing every single one of these to go to AFD (because they all, in this case, do fail the inclusion criteria). In fact, I see absolutely no grounds for a complaint against TPH here: he prodded some articles in an attempt to avoid wasting volunteer time on it. That others decided to undo this and force the waste of volunteer time is not TPH's fault. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Ding ding ding. "Should be easy to source"? Then do that. You want a proposal that might fix things here? Change the default no consensus outcome at AfD to deletion not retention. Every other policy we have says challenged material is removed absent a consensus for it to remain. But entire articles are kept after a challenge without consensus or a source. Because it "should be easy to source". No indication that it is easy to source. No indication of any effort to find any sources. No indication of even checking if the copy-pasted at a 4x a minute clip edit summary is free of typos. But thats not the problem somehow. nableezy - 16:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      This is blame shifting. "Prods may be removed for any reason" includes "a user is mass prodding articles that seem saveable" is fully within that. ~~~ Artw (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      And users may challenge the inclusion of such articles through nominating them for deletion. Again, the problem is the users creating and then using obstructive tactics to keep unsourced garbage in our mainspace. You seem to take the position that we should have unsourced crap in our mainspace. Thats fine for you to take that position. Nobody is advocating any sanctions against you for taking it. Others, including apparently TPH, dont share that position. So they nominate such articles for deletion. And so the story of Wikipedia continues onward. nableezy - 17:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      "Again, the problem is the users creating and then using obstructive tactics to keep unsourced garbage in our mainspace." No, that is not the problem, that is the EXCUSE. An excuse that here would be based on untruths and not on the facts of the case.
      "So they nominate such articles for deletion. " - if the deletions here are based on the excuse you put forwards they are based on lies and invalid. If we assume good faith and TPM's fingers slipped and caused them to do a bunch of deletions out of incompetency then they are likewise invalid. Unless you believe that any deletion is a good one no matter what the case, which could be true but it would be shocking to see someone admit it, I don't see how you can see TPMs actions as good or helpful/ Artw (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You can continue to believe that your position is the only possible valid one, but Ill note my disagreement once more before I take my leave. And since I do not see any evidence of disruption I still oppose any sanction here. nableezy - 19:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      if the deletions here are based on the excuse you put forwards they are based on lies and invalid - go read WP:N and WP:DELREASON instead of accusing other editors of being incompetent (which is pretty much a personal attack and not acceptable). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 2, 3, 4 or anything else as better than the status quo. The evidence of a problem is all around. My personal proposal: everyone gets X floating AfDs, where X might be anywhere from 1-5. That is the maximum number of AfDs an individual proposer may start; nothing would prevent people from keeping lists and others from volunteering to nominate AfDs. BUT, here's the rub: If the AfD is closed as delete, redirect, merge, etc. great, nominate another. If the AfD is closed as keep and improvements (i.e. sources) are identified, the nominator must make the changes before getting that "floating AfD" back. No impact to someone who only nominates true junk and does good BEFORE work, but random nominations will sooner or later get a nominator assigned to cleanup duty. Jclemens (talk) 02:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose all We need to stop making it harder and harder to even bring articles to discussion for deletion. It is a hugely complex process to bring an article up for deletion. We should not punish those who do so just because their multiple attempts to find sourcing come up flat. Wikipedia literally has articles that have existed over 19 years without sources. People need to stop acting like deleting articles is the end of the world. I understand the importance of before, but if an article has sat 10 years or more with a notice of no sources and you make a digest attempt to find some, we should not jump down your throat because after you nominated the article for deletion someone did a search in a language you do not know and identified some articles. If the concern is someone not doing enough before research, what we should have is a proposal about that, arbitrary nomination limits are not in any way such a thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:21, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      If it is such a hugely complex process to bring up an article for deletion, how does Ten Pound Hammer nominate dozens in a day? How does a brand new user make his first 10 edits and nominate four articles for deletion in the space of ten minutes? (see [36]). Unfortunately, the opposite is often true. Bushxingu nominated 4 articles in 4 minutes. Nominating an article is much easier than defending one. It shouldn't be, because the nominator should do their research before making a nomination. I generally (sometimes more vigorously than others, depending on the circumstances) perform my own BEFORE before even commenting on an article - which leaves my input rather sparse compared to editors who seem to automatically vote - either "keep" or "delete" on dozens of articles every day, about subjects which they have no clue, without bothering to click on "scholar" when voting to delete an academic, without reading the article, etc. Thoughtless nominations and thoughtless !votes waste countless hours of serious editors. You should consider not only not nominating, but not voting if you are not willing to put in the work to offer a carefully considered viewpoint. Ill-considered nominations and votes are a middle finger to the face of the community at large. Jacona (talk) 12:30, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Nominating an article is much easier than defending one. Sadly, what is even worse is that creating an unsuitable article is much easier than going through the bureaucracy to delete it. Ill-considered nominations and votes are a middle finger to the face of the community at large. Low-quality articles in all sorts of topics are an even bigger middle finger to everyone (the community, but also our readers). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    (EC)*Oppose sanctions, along the lines noted by RandomCanadian, Aquillion, Iskandar323, Rsjaffe, and nableezy. Punitive restrictions are not the answer here absent evidence these AfD noms are actually harming the encyclopedia rather than speeding up removal of unencyclopedic content and improvement of articles on actually notable subjects (which everyone here should agree needs to happen at some point). It seems based on this discussion and the other one a vocal number of editors believe the purpose of an encyclopedia is to contain as many articles as possible as quickly as possible regardless of notability or quality or even existence of sources. And anything that makes deletion of pages easier, or restricts creation of pages in any way, is an effort to destroy knowledge. But if we operate with the goal that an encyclopedia should be informative and therefore accurate and appropriately comprehensive in its coverage of each topic, it makes a lot less sense to prioritize increasing article quantity above all else. JoelleJay (talk) 04:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • What would that evidence look like, JJ? I mean, we've linked above evidence that TPH himself admits to making reckless and ill-considered AfD noms. How could we prove to you that this is a bad thing that should stop?—S Marshall T/C 08:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      If the result of this discussion is TPH admitting their over-zealousness and voluntarily curbing their enthusiasm then a positive outcome has been reached. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You want him to admit over-zealousness again and promise to voluntarily curb his enthusiasm again? How many more last chances do you feel we should give him?—S Marshall T/C 13:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      What TPH is doing is good for the encyclopedia. You don't give ultimatums and last chances to people who actually do good stuff (as in finding low-quality or unsuitable content and doing what is really a necessary part of any serious work, quality control). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Only half the time though. The other half of the time he's wasting editor time nom'ing notable articles. And don't kid yourself that this other half is good because it leads to article improvement: "AfD is not cleanup" and "there is no deadline" so it's not really cool to require over 100 articles to be cleaned up in a week or be deleted. What TPH is doing is not good for the encyclopedia. Levivich 13:30, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Unless you have evidence that TPH has been nominating these in bad faith; this would just appear to be par-for-the-course. AfD might not be cleanup, but having unsourced (or unreliably-sourced) articles, or article which are database-entries-in-all-but-name is worse for our readers than somebody ruffling up some feathers at AfD. And ultimately Wikipedia is for its readers. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:10, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      "Ruffling up some feathers at AfD"? What? Come on: engage seriously with what people are saying the problem is. It's not "ruffling feathers". Here's a thing to do in these arguments to help reach understanding: can you state, in your own words, what my (and others') concerns are here? It's not ruffled feathers. Can you acknowledge and validate the concerns being raised? Levivich 14:17, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      How is it worse for the readers? If you didn't want to read an article, you are very unlikely to ever find your way there, unless you were just looking for something to complain about. Dream Focus 14:17, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      DF, I'm gonna say the same thing to you I just said to RC. Nobody is "just looking for something to complain about". Can you say in your own words what RC's (and others') concerns are here? "How is it worse for the readers": can you answer that yourself? People have been answering this question for years -- in discussions like these that both of us have been a part of. Can you acknowledge and validate the concerns of those you disagree with? Levivich 14:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      If readers are looking for an article about subject Y, and the only thing we have about subject Y is very superficial or not based on reliable sources; then we are effectively deceiving our readers and possibly giving them false information. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:29, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose all. Same reasoning as above. WP is ultimately being improved by these nominations, even if a very small proportion (so it would seem) are obviously bad. wjematherplease leave a message... 15:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, so I'm of the opinion that, like it or not, AfDs do function as a valuable clean-up method regardless of outcome -- I feel like editor time is only really wasted when the outcome is such an "obvious" keep that no one even bothers to look for sources, and a poor-quality, undersourced article then gets kept with no improvement. Or when someone comes along early on with a ref dump of trivial or non-IRS mentions and subsequent !voters don't bother to actually check them, or infuriatingly refuse to acknowledge the sources fail to establish notability once someone does assess them.
    HOWEVER, I am sympathetic to the complaints about TPH's nom rate and "accuracy". I can certainly see how an endless flood of nominations can feel overwhelming depending on how you participate at AfD; for editors who are very selective in which AfDs they decide to !vote in (e.g., I almost exclusively look at AfDs on STEM academics and sportspeople that are already controversial (or majority keep, or feature egregious misunderstandings of P&Gs), and only then do a thorough source search; I also only participate in sporadic bursts), increasing the volume of AfDs isn't really an issue since their involvement is dependent on other people's prior participation. BUT, for the intrepid few who try to hit every AfD in a particular area (and also perform their own BEFOREs -- there are a number of participants who clearly do not look beyond what is already in the article, if that, before !voting), I can imagine the exhaustion of going from 10 per day to 35 per day. And with with TPH's (real or perceived) low "success rate", editors primarily in the "keep" camp may feel more obligated to participate in all his AfDs because to them there is a greater chance a subject they believe is notable will get deleted.
    So from this perspective I would recommend TPH substantially scale back his nominations with the help of a temporary limit of AfDs/PRODs to some number per day that he submits to the community for approval, alongside a justification for how that number gives him enough time to do a thorough BEFORE for each nom. Violating this would result in lowering the limit or other sanctions. JoelleJay (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there is anyone who tries to participate in every single AfD, then they would be affected as you say. But it also affects the people who make well-considered AfD nominations. When you're trying to use AfD in a week when TenPoundHammer's purging some maintenance category by right-clicking to open tabs for the first twenty articles and then using Twinkle to AfD them all, then what the proper nominators will get is the usual crop of people summoned by their Wikiproject who make zero effort keep-!votes and nobody else shows up. Because we only have so many volunteers and TPH has flooded the venue. And it's those people who make the well-considered AfD noms who we're trying to protect here.
      You wrote "oppose sanctions", JJ, and I do feel you're rather missing the point. These aren't meant as sanctions, they're a flood defence.
      Your suggestion that TPH "scale back his nominations" does rather resemble the various promises he's made to do that when dragged to AN/I in the past, and the difficulty that I see with that is that TPH can't do it. Did you see the place, above, where TPH promises to stop and then nominates another three articles for deletion with his next three edits? Or the place where he admits that he can't seem to control his own behaviour? I do feel that you're suggesting the ideas that have repeatedly failed with this editor, and I ask you to consider re-reading the discussions that Cunard linked from his opening post in this thread.—S Marshall T/C 19:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I appreciate that sending tons of nominations to AfD dilutes the attention any individual one receives, which is why I suggested TPH justify to us why 5 or 8 or whatever number he chooses would still give him enough time for a thorough BEFORE. Maybe we should instead (or also) require that his BEFORE results be outlined in each nomination statement, too? That would limit his AfDs without actually restricting him to some magic acceptable number. JoelleJay (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      If the community won't accept a restriction to a specific number, then the simplest and most workable thing is to reinstate his topic ban from AfD. The one that the community only lifted because he promised to stop doing this.—S Marshall T/C 19:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. After seeing the extent of TPH's inability to control himself, I'm changing my !vote to support restriction to like 10 AfDs and PRODs per day, with a requirement to outline his BEFORE search results, with examples and why they aren't satisfactory, for both AfDs and PRODs. TenPoundHammer would you be able to stick to this? JoelleJay (talk) 04:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Quick proposal

    TPH acknowledges that his nominations have gotten out of hand both in terms of high quantity and low quality. I propose we start by closing all currently outstanding TPH PRODs and AfDs. This addresses the immediate pain/damage inflicted here. We can then continue to discuss further remedies here or we can get back to work on more pleasant tasks. ~Kvng (talk) 22:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    No, because he's actively nominating during this discussion so it won't serve any purpose. Star Mississippi 13:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And that's a bad thing? Most of the recent nominations (read: probably all, but I might have missed some) I have fallen upon are indeed blatant NOT failures. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A concrete example, launched after ANI:
    • In this AFD TPH claims “Nothing on Newspapers.com, ProQuest, or Google Books.” [37].
    • A number of book entries are found and listed on the discussion page, TPH claims “Everything I've found on GBooks appears to be a mere directory listing.“ [38] - the books listed on the page, which are from the first page of the search results, are general discussions of the topic and not directories. It’s unlikely TPH missed them if they performed the search, if they did direct links have been provide.
    • “I left out a word. Nothing significant found.” [39]
    • The word “useful” is added. [40]
    • In response to being told he falsely ruled out GBooks as an avenue of research: “"Nothing useful on Newspapers.com, ProQuest, or Google Books." Which avenue did I leave out?” [41] - note that they try to slip in the revised wording.
    • In response to another editor: “The two book sources are very tangential mentions; hell, the first one isn't even a full sentence.” [42] - they are referring to this: “The second was a pilot for The Adventures of Superboy, made in 1961. Johnny Rockwell played a young Clark Kent/Superboy in a light-hearted drama set in Smallville. Bunny Henning played Laura Lang. Thirteen scripts were written, but only the twenty-five-minute pilot entitled 'Rajah's Ransom' was made, and it can also be seen on YouTube.”, which is five sentences.
    • On changing the nomination text then responding as if it hadn’t changed: “Because no one in the history of Wikipedia has ever left out a word when typing before, right?” - note that the revised version is still inaccurate. [43]
    • Another one of the mentioned book sources turns out to have an entire chapter on the subject [44] “Nothing on Google books” is thoroughly busted, this will never be acknowledged.
    • At this point there are removing chunks of the article as “unsourced”. [45], said material has sources added after trivia effort and is readded to the article. Not technically any kind of rules violation on their part but still exhausting behavior.
    So yes, TPH is still causing problems and wasting editor time, not just diligently listing a few uncontroversial NOT violations. Artw (talk) 14:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What I want to know is why you're so upset over me removing unsourced content. That is allowed, you know. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Star Mississippi: It serves the purpose of getting us out from under the surge created by these activities. This suspends the potential damage and reduces the urgency to reach consensus on lasting remedies. ~Kvng (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kvng @RandomCanadian sorry I wasn't clear. It won't help unless he's topic banned or otherwise restricted because he won't stop. So we close ten and he opens twelve and... Here we go loop de loop for another fourteen years. Star Mississippi 01:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't proposing this as a final fix. You might want reset your expectations as to what the community is willing to do to remedy this. TPH has legitimate supporters in good standing. The real remedy is to give fewer fucks. ~Kvng (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh I know. I've been among his defenders in the past. I'm just utterly exhausted by his unwillingness to at least stem the flood. Because I can is a poor reason to repeat the same actions, on either side. Star Mississippi 01:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's really annoying when people go around just mass deprodding things for literally no reason. I've been trying to be more exhaustive in my reasoning. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been trying to be more exhaustive in my reasoning. That's what we're looking for! However, experience indicates PROD users won't use such discretion without active PROD patrolling. Don't worry, I will slide back to my preferred tasks improving articles in not too long and PROD may once again be a viable loophole for deletion. ~Kvng (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn’t sure where to put this but I feel the end here is recent enough to say I’ve had experience with their tendency to lie for their reasoning in proposals, in this case a merger on The Fairly OddParents: Fairly Odder, and they were parroted for it. They were debunked, but my worry is that such deception will be overlooked when it becomes time to close CreecregofLife (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    He does that in AFDs at times as well, insisting that everything is "press releases", even when they are clearly not. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Inspiration,_Please! he made that claim and it was refuted by the first person to respond. Dream Focus 19:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    A wider limit

    Proposal withdrawn. (non-admin closure) DonaldD23 talk to me 03:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Because there was some support for the idea of applying something akin to Proposal 2 (above) but to all editors, not just TenPoundHammer, I have started a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Limit on number of AfD/PROD nominations made per day. Please forgive me if it's inappropriate to advertise here! Elemimele (talk) 22:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Inspired by Elemimele, whose proposal snowball failed, I have made a second proposal that I think addresses the key aims of Elemimele and also addresses the reasons that led to its rejection.

    Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Competence requirement at Articles for Deletion CT55555 (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, that was about as popular as a fart in a small car. Proposal: withdrawn. CT55555 (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Vandalism?

    I'm going to boldly close this, as there is unambiguously no vandalism here. Whatever TPH's failings, he clearly has no intention of damaging the encyclopedia (key word emphasised). Anything that might qualify for actual harm is absolutely not vandalism without the intent to harm. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Assuming a user is bulk nominating articles without performing proper WP:BEFORE, and that AfD is insufficiently covered to double check the WP:BEFORE on each of those articles - a certain percentage are going to get closed as delete without proper consideration, some of which are going to be good deletions just by the numbers, but some of which will be articles that would be kept if WP:BEFORE was properly followed or if AfD hadn't been too flooded examine articles properly. Should the deletion of those articles be considered a form of procedural vandalism? Artw (talk) 00:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism requires intent to harm the encyclopedia, so no it's not vandalism. signed, Rosguill talk 01:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. It seems like indiscriminate deletion of valid articles would qualify as harm though, and they have to know that their actions come with the possibility of that? Artw (talk) 01:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am a little puzzled by the number of AFDs by TPH, however there is no question that in their mind the nominations are an attempt to improve the project. While I would agree that many of the nominations have been made too fast and that more care needs to be taken, vandalism requires an intent to harm as stated already. I would not call TPHs nominations indiscriminate, that would suggest they are deleting anything and everything without a care. Clearly the articles nominated are mostly very poorly sourced when nominated and for the most part, if further sources were not able to be located they may well succeed. The issue is that the volume and speed means insufficient checks are being done for sources. It is not vandalism and I think it is important to assume good faith, particularly by an editor that has been here for 15 years and contributed good content. They aren't here to harm, they are trying to help, albeit misguidedly in my view. Not vandalism. MaxnaCarter (talk) 02:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We should avoid using the term "vandalism" to refer to conduct that we disapprove of, except for what was clearly meant to be malicious. The sloppy use of the term "vandalism" distracts both from whatever dispute it is used in, and from real vandalism. I will comment that there are certain types of disruptive conduct about AFDs that might be considered vandalism, although even then it is better to be more precise. TPH is not a vandal. Genseric was a Vandal. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Redirect should not be a substitute for the established deletion discussion process (which allows at least for discussion and review) when a deletion is disputed. He is doing by indirection that which he cannot accomplish by direction. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    7&6=thirteen, do you have any evidence to support that TPH's intention is to harm wikipedia, or is this just a difference of opinion? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I offered my opinion about the process and its effect. It exists irrespective of motive. It is disruptive a fortiori. I did not opine on Ten Pound Hammer's motives. That is your accusation and creation, not mine. 7&6=thirteen (☎) (UTC)
    Since you picked the section called "vandalism" to post your complaints, of course we would come to that conclusion.
    So tell me, Mr laywer, where I apparently accused TPH of vandalism? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    These were simply factual observations. It is you who chooses to characterize and accuse. You have given nothing to argue about. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:42, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a ridiculous backflip.
    Where do you think that I made the accusation? If something I said accidentally implies this, I would like to clear that up. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Observation

    For years I've been arguing against the idea that "deletionists" and "inclusionists" are real things, and that a "deletionist" in particular only really exists as a convenient bogeyman for "people who want to delete things I want to keep". Whatever we want to call the positions, I can't help noticing just how... [partisan?] this, current thread about Lugnuts, and several similar discussions feel. There is IMO sufficient evidence to demonstrate several things in this thread -- some to TPH's credit, and some not. I don't know what sort of balance any intervention should strike, but the polarized comments which seem to treat this as the greatest of all problems or no problem at all just don't add up. I wonder what this thread would look like if we just took out comments by anyone with <10% keep votes and <10% delete votes. I know it's possible to have a great success rate and only vote one way, and that some people do good work while only really voting one way, but there's definitely an orientation about "what the problem is" in those numbers. I'm not proposing anything here, but I'm curious. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, these threads are just a proxy fight about what to do about unsourced and under sourced articles. Another front in the same battle is currently underway at the pump. There are enough people who feel strongly enough at either extremes ("delete them all" v. "every word is sacred", as I'd characterize them) but I think most people don't care much either way. Frankly I'm not sure this is even a problem that needs solving; more like containing. Let them argue about the notability of this or that, as long as it doesn't interfere with the larger encyclopedia (that's what AfD is for). When these threads come up, one can drop their !vote, but I don't hold my breath that any permanent solution will be found. Levivich 14:25, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm starting to wonder if this thread wouldn't look different if started by someone else.—S Marshall T/C 15:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Or what it might look like at ArbCom. Clearly, there's a behavioral issue the community has no stomach to solve despite multiple previous reports, so that's the logical next step. Jclemens (talk) 02:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. There's definitely brigading going on.—S Marshall T/C 11:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So I'm a bit of a Rip van Winkle, having been very active from 2003-2010, then being more of a reader than contributor, and in the past couple months being PRODded into more engagement, (as in, I'm getting a steady stream of email about deletions, complete with, shall we say, "pungent" characterizations of my past efforts, ha ha). What jumps out as a difference is that everybody is concerned about the sheer amount of toil that is a byproduct of success, combined with the realization that there aren't enough editor-hours available for the all the desired tasks. So when somebody is energetic, it's hard to tell them that they need to slow down, or be less histrionic about DOOM if some article is not deleted Right Now, or even just to follow our basic standards for behavior. I suspect that if there was a way to reduce toil to more closely match available editor time, it would be easier to say "this is a nice place; if you can't do that, go find a different activity". Stan (talk) 05:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I also agree that the degree of partisanship is striking (and not good). JBL (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The canvassing

    So far, the canvassing aspect of Cunard's treatise atop has been virtually ignored throughout this discussion. Just from viewing the list of nominations at a large number of AfD nominations for "List of people on the postage stamps of" alone, it is apparent that TPH is routinely and blatantly canvassing two users in many of their nominations or in comments, one of whom then reliantly comes along and then predictably opines for deletion in many cases. Aspects of the nominations such as "Obligatory ping of..." (discussion) and "As always, ping of @Fram: and @Johnpacklambert..." (discussion) do not inspire confidence that the user is even aware of WP:CANVASS. North America1000 07:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    An WP:AGF reading of this thread says there's a lack of awareness of multiple policies. We should remember that we're dealing with a veteran editor who for years has been operating in areas where these policies apply. This makes makes unawareness a not-so-good explanation of the behavior. What we're dealing with is obstinacy and it is clearly having a disruptive effect. ~Kvng (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Didn't he say he was going to put a hold on it for now?

    At this point, I can't follow this immense discussion, but I'm sure TPH promised not to do any more nominations or PROD's while this discussion continued. Here's one today (and I think it's a bad one). Is it possible they're trying to force the community to ban them so they can put an end to their compulsion? Let's do it, we'll all be better off. Jacona (talk) 11:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I mean, you say that, but did you not just significantly improve and add relevant detail to the stub in question as a result of that prod? Seems like a content win. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, TPH created that article, so it was a self-PROD of an article that had barely progressed since 2011 - a prime example of content needing a nudge. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    TenPoundHammer has access to newspapers.com. They could have added those sources instead of making others spend their time doing it. NemesisAT (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iskandar323, that is truly the most demotivating comment to contributing to Wikipedia ever. I guess we should only fight about this horrible behavior on ANI and not improve articles, because if we improve it, we confirm bad behavior as being good. That is sickening to me. Jacona (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm ... that is basically the entire point of the PROD setup: it's a form of less drastic, pre-AfD stimulation for either improvement or binning. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is it demotivating? Now, thanks to your actions, the world can see that Bill Armstrong had two Emmy noms. The body of knowledge moves on. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Had Jacona not noticed the PROD, the article on a notable subject could have been deleted without anyone noticing. That's what is so demotivating here, that we have to keep such a close eye on TPH's excessive nominations and spend time "saving" these articles, when TPH could just improve them themselves. NemesisAT (talk) 12:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's pretty clear TPH doesn't want to fix it, he either wants to kill it or try to force someone else to cleanup his mess. If this is how they are handled, why should I work on his articles (thus being proved to be his bitch), it's better to just remove the PRODs without comment. Jacona (talk) 12:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The positive spin is you did the body of human knowledge a service. Perhaps just pat yourself on the back instead. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The body of human knowledge would be better protected if people didn't repeatedly nominate notable subjects for deletion, as TPH does. NemesisAT (talk) 12:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Imagine telling other people how to feel about contentious actions that TPH has already promised to pare back in recognition of their errors, as seen earlier in the thread. Iseult Δx parlez moi 01:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    TPH created the article and is still responsible for 54% of the content, so it is not like they never invested time into it, and I doubt they created it in 2011 just to torment people in 2022. You assume that they could have found the same information, but perhaps not. We all search for things in different ways. That's why humans are better as teams, because we explore the world in different ways and through different means. I've certainly never been on newspapers.com - is that now a requirement for WP:BEFORE? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is, he promised not to do new prods while this discussion was in process, and here he is breaking his promise. That is not good faith. Jacona (talk) 12:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have access to it then I would say yes. TPH regularly states that they have searched on it. NemesisAT (talk) 12:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact of the matter, though, is that per WP:PROD, it is a process to suggest an article or file for uncontroversial deletion (bold emphasis mine). The purpose of Proposed deletion is literally for deletion. It is not intended as a tool to nudge other editors to work on articles. That is what the maintenance templates are for. Furthermore, per the policy page, "PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected." The notions being suggested above of Prod being used to nudge article improvements contradict this notion and are not part of the policy, nor should they be. North America1000 12:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    He violated that "promise" ten times in the course of this discussion alone and it's clear he won't stop nominating unless he is stopped via technical means. In the best of worlds, he doesn't understand what makes a good/bad nomination. In the worst, well, I've worked with him too long to call him a troll but he'd be trolling us. I'm hoping it's the former. Star Mississippi 13:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Another TPH Deletion Issue

    I think that another judgment error by User:TenPoundHammer should be listed here as long as this thread is open.

    The article was nominated for deletion by TPH on 4 June 2022. About 16 hours later, it was closed by TPH as Redirect, by consensus. (It may have been snowing in Antarctica.) A Deletion Review was opened by User:Jclemens, and was then closed when User:Star Mississippi reopened the AFD as a bad non-admin close.

    I don't at this time have an opinion on AFDs and PRODs by TPH, but I do have a proposal that TPH be topic-banned from non-admin closes of XFDs (all XFDs, if they don't know that closing their own XFD is an inappropriate involved closure). Robert McClenon (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support and acknowledge that my relist was likely also Involved (in terms of the discussion, not the particular AfD) but that was the only appropriate outcome since it never should have been closed. This is an example of TPH's complete unwillingness to listen to feedback even while this very discussion is ongoing and who this has been a 13 year issue going back to his RfA. TPH fundamentally misunderstands notability and deletion processes. Are there articles that need to be deleted, yes. Are there other options/editors who can handle them, yes. We don't need to continue to deal with these poor nominations. They're utterly exhausting, speaking as AfD patroller. Saving @Liz and other PROD patrollers' sanity is great. But dumping it on AfD isn't better. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shep Unplugged which he's utterly bludgeoning because he doesn't want it to be redirected (caveat, I !voted) because he doesn't understand what isn't a hoax. Star Mississippi 15:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly how many more people would have had to say "redirect" before someone had the nerve to do it? I disagree with the rules here and think they're overly laborious and bureaucratic. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That said, I do see how that decision comes off as hasty and as a possible unfair involvement. I'm going to let it stand as overturned. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as involved as I voted to overturn the early closure. The Darkover series wasn't the first AfD that TPH closed early, and it probably won't be the last. TPH clearly doesn't abide by policies and feedback. Even in the above comment TPH said that their decision was "hasty" and that he's going to "let it stand as overturned." No where did TPH state that he would stop closing AfDs. The only way to stop these early closures by TPH is a topic-ban from non-admin closes of all XFDs. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as involved and personally observing TPH's intransigence on this score. There's not much more to say than what's linked in the discussions involved: TPH doesn't perceive the behaviors as disruptive. Jclemens (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Because they're not! Everyone said redirect, so I redirected. Why are we making a mountain out of a molehill here? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Again, you fail to understand that you were not supposed to close a discussion that you opened. Failure to obey policy. And, "everyone" was, what, 4 people that decided to comment on it in the 16 HOURS (as opposed to 7 days) that the discussion was open. This isn't a molehill because it isn't an isolated event. Anyone perusing your editing history can find at least 5 that you opened and then closed yourself after a short time. DonaldD23 talk to me 20:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      So? Am I not allowed to withdraw when I know I'm wrong? I've seen withdrawn AFDs sit for literally days and days because somehow no one noticed they were withdrawn. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not seeing anyone object to you withdrawing an AFD once you realise it is a mistake. But you do realise don't you that closing an AFD as Redirect is not the same as closing it as Keep? ϢereSpielChequers 22:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You may absolutely withdraw an AFD and close it as a speedy keep (so long as there are no other deletion rationales in the !votes), but not close it as a redirect or any other close besides "keep". You said above I disagree with the rules here and think they're overly laborious and bureaucratic and thats fine for you to feel, you dont have to pledge undying love to the rules here, but you do have to follow them until they change, and if you do not make a commitment to do so well then your time in that part of the project may come to an early end. nableezy - 23:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Withdrawing a nomination and closing then redirecting are not the same thing. Do you not understand that? DonaldD23 talk to me 23:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      If literally everyone is saying "redirect", then what's the point in delaying the inevitable, anyway? No one can give me a straight answer on that. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      To repeat and summarise those above. Literally everyone in a 7 day AFD is one thing, the first handful of responses before someone has come along and found a source is a completely different thing. That 7 days is important for those who are checking for sources. ϢereSpielChequers 08:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You have been given a straight answer, several in fact. 1. Policy says the person starting the AfD shouldn't close it. 2. It was only open 16 hours, not enough time was given to allow more editors to weigh in. 3. There is no rush to delete, leaving it open for 7 days...or until an admin comes in and closes it early...hurts nothing. The fact that you don't understand these "straight answer(s)" is troubling. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Then maybe the policy is flawed. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      That might be true, but as a Wikipedia policy it is the current consensus of the community and you are obliged to follow it if you want to remain a member of said community. I really dont get why you are pushing this here, every single person in this section, including multiple people who above opposed sanctions, agrees your closure was improper. You can feel otherwise, but just saying all yall wrong and Im right wont get you very far in a collaborative project. And your deleted response below, at ANI in a discussion in which sanctions are currently on the table, is just dumbfounding. nableezy - 20:26, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as uninvolved; clear policy violations without recognizance, as well as an implicit ownership of the whole thing: I'm going to let it stand as overturned. Iseult Δx parlez moi 02:00, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as uninvolved passerby. TPH, re "No one can give me a straight answer on [why a nominator closing their own AFD is bad]", is this a serious request for an explanation? Because if this isn't already clear to you from your years on Wikipedia, then you absolutely should not be closing any discussions at all, let alone your own. A poker player can't just grab the pot after they see they have pocket aces and are likely to win, but they're allowed to fold and cede their own chips. A tennis player can't call their opponent's shots foul. A baseball pitcher doesn't get to call their own balls & strikes. And so on. Even when it's obvious, it's not their job: let the dealer / judge / umpire handle it. Having an impartial party make the call makes the result "stronger" than an obviously biased party; XFD results are taken seriously because there's a presumption of a community-sanctioned result, not merely the nominator's preferred result. This is why overturning an AFD takes more effort than merely ILIKEIT, while reverting a bold redirection of an article requires fairly little - you're blurring the line between two processes that are not the same. Anyway, if the consensus for a redirect is so strong - and I agree that in the case of the Darkover TV series AFD it's surely likely to close as merge & redirect - then let someone else close it and trust they'll agree with the obvious consensus. In the rare situations where there really is a "deadline" of sorts, you can even request an early close, citing why waiting out the full 7 days is bad for some reason (doesn't apply here, but maybe if someone opens an AFD on some sort of slanderous BLP article). But even when an early close is merited, you let someone else make the call. That's why nominators almost always can't close their own discussions, except when closing against their nomination rather than for it. SnowFire (talk) 04:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      He post an angry reply and deletes it immediately so no one can respond to it, but knows many will still see it. [47] His reply to you was posted and deleted the same minute. Dream Focus 18:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for flagging @Dream Focus.vWhat happened to I'm going to let it stand as overturned. @TenPoundHammer. Take it/me to DRV if you like and think every single one of us who have told you the same thing is wrong, but this conduct is not productive. Star Mississippi 18:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support If an editor has to be outright told that INVOLVED closes are bad, so be it. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Refuses to admit he did anything wrong. Past cases where he was told not to close things were superior examples than this one. But his response to everyone in this threat convinced me he can not be convinced to stop doing this sort of thing without sanctions. Dream Focus 15:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Per obvious reasons. JoelleJay (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - just arguing about this displays a lack of understanding. Wtf cares if it stays up 7 days before it is redirected, why are you getting angry about that? If it bothers you so much then move on to something else in the meantime. nableezy - 18:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. The lack of acknowledgement of disruption makes the need for this sanction quite obvious. MarioGom (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per MarioGom. starship.paint (exalt) 13:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Seems much more sensible than the alternative. This is normally reserved for administrators, especially when adminstrative closure is required. At the same time, there are occasional problems in commenting on other users' !votes in their own AfD's, such as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuperCars Exposed. If the two Arbcom case requests concerning XfD conduct are merged, then the issue can be brought up there. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support These issues are going beyond frustrating; per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shep Unplugged, they are now moving into troublesome WP:BLUDGEON territory when everyone agrees on a course of action and that a topic exists, and TPH continues to try to force a deletion consensus by badgering those who don't support the nom. Nate • (chatter) 20:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Maybe if people would stop going "la la la I can't hear you" when I press them for sources... Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - sorry, who is it going "la la la I can't hear you"?? Johnbod (talk) 00:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      All the people asking "Shep Unplugged" to be redirected with literally no proof that it even existed. Unless a blogspot blog and a forum are proof now. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Did you check for video of the halftime show? http://voices.washingtonpost.com/soccerinsider/2007/07/conflict_of_interest.html confirms he did a show then, and one person quoted they hit the mute button when he starts his "unplugged" segment. You might be able to find a transcript somewhere or footage of the game and its halftime show. I don't think anyone else doubts this is a real thing so they aren't going to spend too much time trying to prove it was, so why not just agree to the redirect and find something else to argue with everyone about? Dream Focus 01:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      A blog that literally links to the content on MSG's site that refers to Shep's halftime show which verifies it to the extent needed for a redirect, which is the only thing folks are advocating for. You're not even arguing in good faith anymore, which is disappointing. Star Mississippi 03:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Seems reasonable and I hate badnacs. scope_creepTalk 08:58, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Not closing your own AfDs (unless to withdraw them and speedy keep, when you've realized you're wrong) seems incredibly elementary. It's not like waiting a few days for a non-involved editor to close the AfD makes any difference one way or the other. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 00:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TPH clearly has no business closing XfDs of any kind if they don't see the conflict of interest in closing their own nominations, and the disruption chronicled in the course of this extremely long ANI multi-section entry makes it clear that they are incapable of stopping such inappropriate behavior on their own. An XfD topic ban is warranted. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support provided that there is a specific length of time for the ban. No editor should close an AFD where they are involved, no matter how obvioius it is. Seperation of duties is important.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    ArbCom?

    In my statement to ArbCom asking them to consider a case on conduct during deletion discussions, I have asked them to include User:TenPoundHammer as a party, largely because this matter remains unresolved. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Lugnuts at AFD

    At This discussion Lugnuts is niggling at Johnpacklambert again. The root of the issue is two fold. Firstly, Lugnuts has created a lot of sub stubs that eventually lead to the community banning them from making stubs and Lugnuts seems to have an aversion from JPL working on sorting out the articles, which includes prodding and AFDing. The second issue is that Lugnuts seems to be completely incapable about resisting the urge to personalise discussion and scattering aspersions. Normally this would be part of the give and take and general nastiness of AFD but as we have discussed here so many times Lugnuts is supposed to be on their final chance and has been warned specifically to avoid personalising discussions. I have blocked them a couple of times for this and no change in behaviour has been seen. The last time I unblocked early after a discussion to start systematic editing changes to avoid this in future but here we are again. I raised this latest incident with Lugnuts but they blew me off and short of an indef I don't see any block to be likely to lead to any improvement. That leaves us back here as an intractable problem. The only solution I can think off would be a one way IBAN for Lugnuts to stop them interacting with JPL in any way but that would mean he couldn't respond to any AFD nominations or Prods JPL might make but maybe there is a better solution? Spartaz Humbug! 17:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    How many times are we gonna discuss this at ANI before something is finally done? PRAXIDICAE💕 17:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You tell me. I have been the only admin enforcing decorum and I can't be the only one doing this. Spartaz Humbug! 17:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Praxidicae I agree, something has to give. Thank you @Spartaz for bringing it here because I think it has grown beyond our respective Talks and the repeat fights in the AfDs. Unfortunately I'm not sure what the answer is yet. Star Mississippi 21:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As a reminder, Lugnuts is not the only involved party under sanctions - as I understand it JPL is limited to one AfD per day aren't they? They are keeping to this sanction, but have a very poor "success rate" at AfD - a very quick sample suggested that recently no more than 20% of articles created by Lugnuts that JPL sends to AfD are actually deleted (and I would argue that in almost all of those 20% that redirection is a valid possibility; in some of the 80% of articles which are redirected or kept, there are clearly questions that could be asked about the need to send them to AfD, let alone whether or not they should be PRODed at all - given that this is clearly an area in which deletion is contentious and there are often obvious alternatives). In many cases there are obvious ATD, yet JPL continues to send articles to AfD, which I'm sure that if I'd created them at a time in which these sorts of articles were deemed acceptable, that I'd probably feel a little exasperated as well. I'm not entirely certain why keeping a total of articles which JPL has sent to AfD this year is particularly problematic, but there you are. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It takes two to tango. -- Vaulter 18:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The best long-term solution would be for User:Johnpacklambert to stop nominating articles for deletion when there is an obvious redirect target. He has been told many times that there is no need for a subject to be notable to have a redirect, but merely to be verifiable. In the short term the bickering should stop, but while such deletion nominations are being made the problem will not go away. Oh, and by the way, there is no such thing as a "sub stub". Our shortest articles are stubs. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried redirecting articles. Lugnuts mass reverted the redirects. Others have done so as well. So he has fought tooth and nail against that solution. In many of these cases there are multiple at least as near to notable as the subject. We also get discussions like this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Otto Schröder where multiple other editos supported deletion, some of them specifically saying it was not a good redirect candidate. No one has presented a good way to remove these articles that no longer meet our inclusion criteria when attempts to redirect them have been routinely reverted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The suggestion was "The best long-term solution would be for User:Johnpacklambert to stop nominating articles for deletion when there is an obvious redirect target"--it wasn't about you redirecting things, but about you no longer nominating such articles. Drmies (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The proposal to change "Articles for Deletion" to "Articles for Discussion" has been made several times, but has been rejected, largely because it makes six or seven million talk pages redundant and would completely overwhelm the AfD page. If a bold redirection is reverted then simply follow the WP:BRD procedure (I know that's "only" an essay but it encapsulates better than most policies and guidelines the essence of Wikipedia editing) and discuss it on the article talk page, rather than nominate for deletion something that shouldn't be deleted, but redirected, and needs no administrator to enact the outcome. And just forget the idea that redirects need to be notable, as you said in this discussion. If that was the case then we wouldn't have redirects at all, because they would all qualify to be articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just noticed (pardon me for being a little slow) that you are under a restriction that relates to creating AfD discussions. One advantage to you of the approach I outlined above is that article talk pages do not fall under this restriction. I would, however, advise you to make sure that you keep discussion focussed on the matter at hand. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My only potential solution to stop the disruption is a mutual interaction ban. There are many backlogs. There is no reason that John Pack Lambert has to be the one handling stubs Lugnuts is in the history for. If they're a travesty, another editor will notice. If they're not, oh well, they're mostly not BLPs and not hurting the project. Star Mississippi 19:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks SM - I'd be happy with this suggestion. I've got some things to sort out this morning (UK time), along with some c-word related stuff (cricket, of course), so I'll post a summary of my thoughts/concerns later today. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I admit, I giggled at c-word for cricket. If it ever returns to the summer games, the clash between that and Olympians might break Wikipedia in the best possible way Star Mississippi 17:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It could happen at LA 2028. With medals for best sandwiches at the tea break. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:36, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Observations:

    • Noting that half of someone's many AfD nominations are articles created by one person isn't a problem in itself. It's data, and about the mildest expression of frustration I can think of.
    • When you mass create stubs, you increase the likelihood that a spate of nominations will disproportionately affect articles you created, especially not long after the notability rules for those topics changed.
    • Especially when there's some bad blood, I don't agree that just going ahead and redirecting articles is a better or more diplomatic approach than giving them 7 days worth of discussion. Redirect is a perfectly valid outcome at AfD, so why not allow for discussion if there's anything controversial.
    • Lugnuts could avoid all of this by just going and redirecting those that need to be redirected rather than waiting for someone else to do it.
    • When we have another article that explicitly mentions someone, yes, of course a redirect is appropriate, contrary to what JPL argued in that AfD.
    • No idea what's going on with the Mr. Lambert/Lambert stuff. If you're looking for an abbreviation, I've not seen Johnpacklambert object to simply "JPL". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:16, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The claim that a name showing up in a sports results table is the same as explicltly mentioning them in not really a reasonable claim. Mention in a table is all we actually have at the proposed target article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course it's reasonable. A person is mentioned on Wikipedia, and we don't have a stand-alone article for them, so we can create a redirect. Whether in a table, on a list, or in a paragraph, they're mentioned. What is lost by redirecting, which of the the reasons for deleting a redirect apply, and most importantly, why is this worth the drama when redirects are cheap? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think you are misunsing the word "mention" when you braden it to include every apparence on a table in a long article. Most people when they see "mention" assume there is something of stustance said about the individual which realky is not the case with a table. Either way, the fact that I get accused of hounding someone for legitimate deletion nomiations since the person clearly does not meet inclusion criteria is very frustrating.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also many of these articles a search shows other people with the same name who are as close to being as notable or even more notable than the person the article is currently on. Also as I show above in many cases multiple other editors see this as an article that is not at all notable. I am tired of the constant claim I am singling out Lugnuts. I am in no way singling out Lugnuts. He created a huge amount of under sourced stub articles so much so he has been banned from doing so ever again. For him to treat someone trying to solve this problem he created as an attack on him to me shows he does not at all recognize how truly disruptive his activity in creating all these articles that lead to him being banned was. That not recognizing how disruptive his past actions were should be of concern to other editors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The main issue is I should be able to nominate articles without false and unfounded accusations that I am hounding another editor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • There was a decision that non-medaling Olympians are not notable for Olympic competition. These nominations are a clear attempt to bring Wikipedia in line with that policy. It is not the fault of me or other editors involved in this process that a very high percentage of such articles were all created by one editor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No idea what's going on with the Mr. Lambert/Lambert stuff. If you're looking for an abbreviation, I've not seen Johnpacklambert object to simply "JPL". this appears to be new @Rhododendrites. He requested it at my Talk and on his own today: User_talk:Johnpacklambert#Please_refer_to_me_as_Mr._Lambert. I admit I have frequently been guilty of JPL. Star Mississippi 19:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe this is just a cultural difference, but from my point of view it is egotistical to demand that other editors address him as Mr. Lambert. We are not his subordinates. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, that is really what confuses me. He can't dictate how editors call him. And it's a minor thing (at least for me). He can make a wish (like he did) but that's it. Or am i seeing that wrong? Kante4 (talk) 10:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I finally figured that out. At 12:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC), he complained a user was calling him by only his last name, referring to him repeatedly as "Lambert", and he found that rude. I'm happy to comply with either Mr. Lambert or his username, seems reasonable given the context. Jacona (talk) 10:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you placed a ban on me from nominating for deletion any stub created by Lugnuts it would be rewarding him for his rude behavior and will reinforce his constant false claim that I am in some way hounding him. That would clearly be a case of punishing me because Lugnuts was rude to me and made false accusations against me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You both have active sanctions against you. Neither of you has clean hands despite believing you're acting in good faith, which you both do believe. Star Mississippi 20:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • So if we put this policy in place, it would ban Lugnuts from making any comments on any article I nominated for deletion. So in the rare cases there is an Olympic stbu that Lugnuts did not create, I could nominate it for deletion, and if he made any comment on the deletion discussion he would be in violation of a ban and would immediately face more severe sactions. Is that correct?John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        You do realize that by phrasing that comment in such a fashion you are setting yourself for accusations of gaming the sanction when you inevitably start targeting Olympian articles that weren't created by Lugnuts. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 12:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose an interaction ban, at least if it will be interpreted to include every article that Lugnuts has started. That is just insane. This is a clear over reaction. What we need is something to get Lugnuts to stop claiming that people who are nominating a few of the thousands of articles he created, most of which at least at first glance lack both sources to meet GNG or meeting the current sports notability guidlines (or artist notability guidelines, he has flooded Wikipedia with sub-stubs on artist who were in the Olympic artist competition, which no one seems to want to either remove or add sources to to show they were actual notable artists, they clearly do not meet notability for Olympic contribution alone), is somehow targeting him. Many editors actually want to bring our coverage into line with the decision that Olympic competitors are not default notable for such unless they were medalists. It is taking much longer to review and search for sources on one of these competitors than Lugnuts normally put into creating articles (we know this because there were bursts of 10 minutes in which he created at least 4 articles). It is a long, trudging process that will probably take years to get to the bottom of. It does not help at all that those of us who undertake it are attacked falsely as trying to single out the work of Lugnuts. This is not a true claim. Any response to his false claim on this matter that limits the actions of other editors will amount in some way to validating his false claim.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just look at Category:Athletes (track and field) at the 1928 Summer Olympics. What percentage of those articles are stubs? What percentage were created by Lugnuts. I suspect both are well in excess of 50%. This could be duplicated for a huge number of Olympic pages. Currently there are only 4 Olympic related deletion disucssions open, 2 of which were created by me. How this amounts to hounding on my part I am not sure. Why we have so few I am not sure, I believe some people who were adding toward it have become so overwhelmed by the size, they are planing some future mass nominations. Lugnuts does not have lots of articles by him nominated for deletion because people are out to get him, this happens because such a high percentage of articles on Olympic competitors, most of whom were not notable, were created by him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:04, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suspect you've already counted and chose that category advisedly, but for the record, there's 704 articles in it; 586 are also in Category:All stub articles; Lugnuts authored the first revision of 384 of them; and 378 of the pages that Lugnuts has the first edit to are also in the stubs category. —Cryptic 01:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • As best I can tell today was the first day in which I nominated for deletion an article started by Lugnuts since May 25th, which was 8 days ago. He still posted a post on his page accusing me of singling out articles he created for deletion. He was asked to back down but doubled down instead, so the editor who asked him to back down brought this here. So now, because he did that someone is proposing I be banned from nominating any of the thousands upon thousands of sub-stubs created by Lugnuts, a group so large he has been banned from every creating stubs again, because he was fasely accusing my of hounding him. None of this makes any sense. Especially since people tried to work out ways other than taking all these sub-stubs to AfD, but he has consistently opposed other solutions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have been checking most bios of Olympians I am finding as I review Category:1901 births. It seems that about 80% of these articles were created by Lugnuts.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • My solution to this would be profoundly unfair on both of them, but, we've been here before and we'll come here again. None of the usual administrative tools exactly fit the problem, and if we want to be fair to them both, we'd need novel and creative solutions. If we're mainly trying to end the timesinks and focus our limited resources of volunteer time on other problems, maybe consider topic-banning the pair of them from AfD? Honestly, if you look at any AfD, you can always subtract both JPL and Lugnuts' contributions from it and get a better discussion.—S Marshall T/C 09:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. It should be noted that Lugnuts aggressive and incivil behaviour has not been confined to interaction with John Pack Lambert, especially concerning their creations, and there have been suggestions here previously that Lugnuts be topic banned from AFD, perhaps just in relation to articles they have created. Maybe it's time to give that serious consideration. I don't see that John Pack Lambert's actions in relation to Lugnuts warrant any restrictive measures. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would suggest that I've noted a change in the ways in which Lugnuts expresses themselves, certainly at AfD. They seem to have been restricting themselves to a fairly standard response without any further comments. Don't they? Perhaps I'm wrong, but my impression is that I've seen a change in behaviour from Lugnuts. Fwiw I think I've also seen a move in response to the change in the sports notability guidelines, with Lugnuts "voting" for redirects as a response whereas in the past "votes" would have been more likely, I think, to be keep. Again, that might only be my impression and I may be wrong. But both of those suggest to me that Lugnuts has responded to changes in the ways in which things are done. I couldn't say whether JPL has changed the ways in which they behave. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Indeed. Maybe wjemather has some diffs to back up their claim. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to be certain I understand the situation correctly: Lugnuts has created a large number of very similar stubs, effectively as a WP:FAITACCOMPLI, yes? My reading is that under such circumstances is is entirely appropriate for someone to go through and review all of them -- WP:HOUND contains a specific exemption for such reviews. When someone makes a large number of very similar contributions that they believe share similar problems, we are allowed (and it is sometimes necessary) to review them all at once, and it is acceptable and appropriate to go over the edit history of the user in question for that purpose. This is necessary to prevent FAITACCOMPLI situations - mass edits need to be subject to unified review; if they could only be challenged piecemeal then they could be forced through via sheer weight of edits. If Lugnuts feels targeted, the appropriate solution is to get consensus in advance before making mass-edits in the future; it's fine to be WP:BOLD when adding a few stubs or articles, but when adding a massive number of them, proceeding without discussion tends towards recklessness. Reviewing bulk-edits (including stubs that were bulk-created) is absolutely appropriate and should not be punished or discouraged. --Aquillion (talk) 19:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Observations from Lugnuts
    OK, for what it's worth, here are my thoughts. JPL has posted their frustration about my work on various users' talkpages, something I've never really bothered with. My frustration is trying hard to believe that their claim of "There is no attempt to single out articles created by you for deletion" is true. The stats I've posted, and update each day, show that for 90+ AfDs started in the past five months by JPL, almost half of them have targeted articles I started. Now if it was the other way around, and I was doing that same rate against one user, how long before someone would complain?
    Everything I've ever created has been in good faith, sourced (to the best of my knowledge), and in-line with the notability requirements as they stood the very second I hit the save button. Yes, WP:NSPORT has pretty much been removed, something I personally don't like, but I'm going with the community's consensus with it. For example, I don't think I've ever challenged any asspect of the update since it went through the RfC.
    I really don't have an issue on anyone nominating anything I've created for deletion. It's often a learning experience for editors on both sides of the debate, regardless of the discussion's outcome. Where I do have an issue is the feeling that it's one editor simply targetting that area of work. Their talkpage is littered with posts about articles they don't feel are notable either, but how many of them does JPL take to AfD? Very few if any. It feels very much as if they are trying to make a WP:POINT, certainly when they have said I write "junk articles" in the past (sorry, no diff for that, but they def. have).
    With regards to AfDs, there seems to be little to no leway in JPL's thinking when voting for delete. This AfD (a school, so nothing to do with me), shows no hint of WP:BEFORE work, or even reconsidering their vote, despite the comment on their talkpage to kindly review the discussion. And then there's the whole PROD issue.
    WP:PROD clearly states - "Proposed deletion (PROD) is a way to suggest an article or file for uncontroversial deletion", with WP:PRODNOM asking at point one "Is there a valid reason for deletion?", which links to WP:DEL-REASON. Looking through some of JPL's most recent prods, you find rationales such as This is an unsourced list in a series of unsourced or undersourced lists, This article on a race car driver does not have enough sources to meet GNG, The one listed source does not work. It has been notified as needing more sources for over a decade, The sourcing here is not enough to demonstrate notability, This is an unsourced article that has been notified as unsourced for over 7 years. That is enough time that we could expect a source to be added if anything was every going to change, The article is without sources. We need sources to have content or to show notability, and The article is without sources. We need sources to have content or to show notability. The latter one has no edit summary when the prod was done.
    Now the issue with their poor PROD rationales AND the lack of edit summaries when prod'ing was previously raised at ANI (by myself), with the closing comment of "JPL has agreed to take the feedback on board and act differently, the OP has indicated they are satisfied, and there doesn't seem to be consensus for anything else to happen". So why is that still continuing nearly two years later, with that last PROD with no edit summary happening AFTER admin Liz posted this on JPL's talkpage, reminding them again about the summary.
    Everything needs give and take, and I'm not as heartless as some of you think (or would like to think), so what if JPL would take a voluntary restriction of nominating Olympian/sportspeople articles for AfD to a "few times a month" (oooh vague!) instead of EVERY. OTHER. DAY. which is happening now. And that can be done without any I-BANs, one-way or two-way. I will ping JPL shortly. Thank you. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Diff on JPL's talkpage. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is totally not an acceptable set of comments. It broadens the attack to include more things that are not relevant to the disucssion at hand. It also does not acknowledge that that starting accusations was flase and malicious but instead doubles down on it. It does not acknoledge that the problem here is Lugnuts falsely accussing me of houding him. The net result is also a complete and total win for Lugnuts. There is no limit on the behavior of him, the false accuser, and only a limit on the behavior of me, the wrongfully accused. This is not an ANI about me, it is an ANI about Lugnuts rude and uncivil accusations against me. The fact that he is trying to turn it into a broad ANI against me shows that he is not at all understanding why his attacks against me were not acceptable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Noticing this line The net result is also a complete and total win for Lugnuts, if I could suggest trying to reimagine this away from a battle where one side wins or doesn't. This is less of a zero sum game, and more of a group project where healthy tension is expected and collaboration and compromise is a key component. CT55555 (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I am not the one who falsly claims someone is tagetting me in their deletion nominations. In fact, this week I have nominated as many articles created by me for deletion as I have articles created by Lugnuts for deletion. So the claim that I am targeting articles created by him really does not stand up to scrutiny.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      John, you must have made the claim that I said that you are targeting articles I created for deletion. Where EXACTLY have I said that - a diff would be most useful. The "There is no attempt to single out articles created by you" was said by YOU. If you can show me the diff where you claim I've said that you are targetting my work that would be great. But I suggest you don't keep making multiple false statements against me, esp. at ANI. Thank you. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Do you really think everyone here is too dim to understand implicature? It was literally your comment

      Number of AfDs started by Lambert since 1st Jan: 91
      Number of AfDs started by Lambert since 1st Jan on articles I started: 44
      "There is no attempt to single out articles created by you for deletion" - Lambert

      with the edit summary tick-tock, it's Lambert o'clock
      that @Spartaz recognized as a thinly-veiled aspersion and prompted him to take you to ANI. JoelleJay (talk) 01:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal for IBAN

    Robert, the two-way proposal was made by Star Mississippi. NGS Shakin' All Over 10:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be clear I propose a one way IBAN as Mr Lambert is not actually doing anything wrong. He tried to put in redirects, Lugnuts reverted him so all these articles have to go through a discussion. The whole reason we are here is because if Lugnuts' ownership and refusal to clear up his own mess. It would suit a lot of Lugnuts' enablers to force through a 2 way ban to protect the stubs so unless someone is going to step up and take care of these I would suggest that one way is the only way. Spartaz Humbug! 08:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      OK, Spartaz, where to start with your raft of false claims against me - it's clear you have a serious issue with me, and me alone. Firstly, I don't believe I've undone any of JPL's redirects, or if indeed I have, it's the odd one. Infact, how many times has JPL even bothered to redirect an article at all? "Lugnuts' ownership and refusal to clear up his own mess" - As you're not here everyday, you obviously missed this list of articles I've taken ownership to clear up "my own mess". Take a good look at that and let it sink in. Own mess indeed - the absoulte nerve of your comment is really something. It's work I aim to continue, along with the thousands and thousands of cites I've added to articles since the start of the year. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      At one point I did try to redirect some articles. Lugnuts came through and just reverted every single one of these redirects. A few of them later when they were at AfD he voted to redirect. I will let others judge if this beavior is acceptable. This proposal would however give Lugnuts exactly what he want, another rule that preserves the huge mass of sub-stub articles he created that was deemed to be such a discruptive creation that he has been banned from creating stubs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just chiming in here to say that I've seen the same behaviour - Lugnuts !votes redirect at AFD but reverts redirects outside of AFD, meaning that you HAVE to go through AFD to do a redirect. Maybe Lugnuts has now stopped this, which would be great? FOARP (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Any diffs where I have voted redirect at an AFD, and they reverted that redirect? Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hans Riedl. A related issue, and one that occurs much more frequently, is you reverting prods and then !voting redirect in the AfD, rather than just redirecting the article. BilledMammal (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't revert the redirect after the AfD was closed - check the dates again. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you have misunderstood the discussion here; no one was saying that you reverted the redirect after the AfD was closed. What they were saying is that you reverted the redirect, and then supported the redirect when the AfD was opened. As Star Mississippi suggested in that AfD, it raises questions about why you reverted the redirect - or in the case of prods, why you reverted the prod, rather than redirecting the article. BilledMammal (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly BilledMammal, the effect is to make it impossible to BOLDly redirect Lugnuts's stubs, meaning they all have to got through AFD. FOARP (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You can see from the edit summary re: undoing the original redirect - "hard to believe any WP:BEFORE work was done with the mass-redirecting done by this user" JPL did a mass-batch of redirecting. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Unlike AFD there is zero need for anything like a BEFORE check before redirecting. Yes, it is a good idea but nowhere close to as !required for an AFD nom (that is, even at AFD BEFORE is not required but it is strongly recommended to avoid unnecessary AFD discussions). Masem (t) 15:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wjemather. The only "mess" is the current NSPORTS coupled with the lack of any useful SNGs – a total shambles created by a small consensus of agitators in direct opposition to the ideals of Wikipedia:About which state: Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers by acting as a widely accessible and free encyclopedia that contains information on all branches of knowledge. If someone interested in rowing becomes aware of a rower called Charles Massonnat, why shouldn't they be able to look at Wikipedia and read that M. Massenet competed at the 1928 Olympics in the French men's eight team? Lugnuts has not created any mess – he has created articles that provide information for the readers. I think you should withdraw your messy comment above, stop making WP:POINTs and follow Lugnuts' example by building and preserving useful content. NGS Shakin' All Over 10:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Lugnuts was banned from creating more stubs because it was deemed too disruptive for him to do so. You are now essentially proposing that I be banned from nominating any of those stubs, that were grounds to restrict Lugnuts behavior, from nomination for deletion, even though they were found be community consensus to be disruptive. If this ban is put in place it will only encourage future behavior by him. Making it so I cannot nominate his stubs for deletion is exactly what Lugnuts wants, exactly what the point of his rude accusations against me was on his talk page, and bringing that about will be an act of rewarding the very behavior that brought him here to ANI.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ABOUT talks about a community of millions of contributors. How many were in this "community consensus" you and your deletionist clique are always banging on about? As many as ten? How many millions could not be bothered to take part in such a tedious discussion because they have much better things to do than put up with a load of claptrap? You should have an IBAN because you are a disruptive editor at AFD. You could redirect single source stubs yourself without going near AFD. But, you don't. You waste people's time at AFD by demanding deletion because you haven't found any source other than the one in the article. Sometimes, other people can't find any either. So, given that the single source found does meet WP:V, assuming it is a WP:RS, the remedy for the stub is redirect per PRESERVE, etc. Not for you, though. You invariably refuse to accept redirect as a valid alternative to deletion. That is disruptive behaviour which wastes time and then you wonder why other editors sometimes express their frustration with you. From what I have seen, Lugnuts willingly agrees with redirect pending additional sources.
    Lets look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Massonnat. You proposed deletion. Lugnuts suggested redirect per four policies and guidelines subject to more sources being found. Eight minutes later, you are back with We should not be redirecting names of not notable people it is just not justified which is complete and utter BS, as well as bad English. There are two sources in the article that satisfy WP:V and WP:RS. So, the subject has been verified and qualifies for redirect given that notability is uncertain. By objecting to redirect, you are in breach of site policy and there is good reason to believe that you are trying to provoke Lugnuts into retaliation. Your behaviour is disruptive and you should definitely be subject to an IBAN. NGS Shakin' All Over 12:48, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @No Great Shaker: Community consensus has already determined that Lugnuts mass-production of stubs was disruptive (hence the tban) and has left a huge mess that needs cleaning up. Also, we are not here to relitigate an RFC that reached a consensus that you didn't like. This is not a battleground, please don't treat it like one. wjematherplease leave a message... 19:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a two-way ban - seems like a pragmatic suggestion. I would oppose a one-way IBAN. Deb (talk) 09:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • This proposal punishes the victim. I was falsely accused of doing something I was not doing. Lugnuts was brought here for making this false accusation. This proposal rewards Lugnuts for making a false accusation and being incivil.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't see that it punishes you or indeed that it rewards Lugnuts. Deb (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        @Deb, you really don't see how banning JPL from nominating for deletion/redirecting/PRODding articles created or edited by Lugnuts -- comprising the vast plurality of non-notable athlete stubs that need to be deleted per community consensus -- is far more of a punishment than banning Lugnuts from participating in AfDs of articles JPL has nominated? JoelleJay (talk) 05:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        No. I see that Lugnuts' desire to improve Wikipedia is just as great as JPLs is. Deb (talk) 07:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        What kind of answer is that? JPL has spent a lot of effort and been a huge asset in getting P&G-noncompliant non-notable microstubs discussed and deleted, an enormous proportion of which happened to be created by Lugnuts (resulting in his current TBAN). Most or all of the interactions between JPL and Lugnuts are in the context of these articles being nominated for deletion. A 2-way IBAN would substantially restrict JPL's preferred primary method of improving Wikipedia (patrolling biographies for maintenance and notability assessment) without having any effect on Lugnuts' preferred activities. How is that different from a 1-way IBAN against JPL? JoelleJay (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong support per Robert and Deb. I also oppose a one-way IBAN. The biggest issues at AFD are the lack of WP:BEFORE in many of the cases raised and the refusal of certain people to accept that any subject can be a redirect if it is verified – it does NOT have to be notable to exist as a redirect. These people are in breach of WP:PRESERVE and other related policies and guidelines. To be fair to JPL, he is not the worst BEFORE offender but he is one of the worst redirect refusal offenders. To say that he is not actually doing anything wrong is like Rees Mogg saying that Johnson hasn't actually done anything wrong.
    And, just to be clear, the two-way IBAN must apply to AFD so that Mr Lugnuts cannot nominate an article which Mr Lambert has created or developed. And vice-versa, of course, in case Mr Lambert should happen to stumble across something created by Mr Lugnuts. If they both want to contribute to an AFD which doesn't directly concern either of them, that would be okay per point #2 of WP:IBAN as long as they don't reply to each other, even if they are in agreement. NGS Shakin' All Over 10:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is an insanely broad proposal. Lugnuts has edited virtually every articles on some topics. That is just plain way too broad. It is also an example of puinishing me for behavior by someone else. I am not the one going around falsely accusing people of houding me because a few of the thousands of sub-stubs I created have been nominated for deletion when they clearly do not meet Wikipedia inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alternative suggestion. We should automate a !Delete vote on every AfD for Mr. Lambert and a !Redirect vote on every AfD for Lugnuts, thereby saving them both an enormous amount of time. Secondly, we should automatically hide these two votes, thereby saving everyone else an enormous amount of time. The project would be greatly improved. Jacona (talk) 11:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose This proposal rewards Lugnuts for being incivil and falsely accusing me of things I am not doing by giving him exactly what he wants, a way to stop me from nominating the thousands upon thousands of sub-stubs he created for deletion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That looks to me like an admission of guilt. You ARE carrying on an anti-Lugnuts campaign in which your goal is to delete (not discuss or redirect) ALL stubs that he has created, regardless of the value they provide to our readers. Two more things for you to note: (1) whenever you write on a talk page, will you please preview it first so that your poor grammar and spelling can be improved; (2) stop using idiotic terms like sub-stub – a stub is a stub. NGS Shakin' All Over 12:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am glad people are finally calling out the use of 'sub-stub'. It's an inaccurate term that is used to try to frame Lugnuts' article creations in as negative a light as possible. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 12:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They were deemed to be so disruptive he was banned from further creating these sub-stubs. There is nothing wrong with the term. What is wrong is having Wikipedia weighed down with them. The fact of the matter is at least pre-1930 birth over 50%, maybe even over 80% of our articles on Olympains were created by Lugnuts, the majority of which were created by consulting one sports table and doing less than 3 minutes background research, plus writting, we know this because they were created that close to other articles on Olympains he created.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The lowest article classification is stub. There is no such thing as a sub-stub. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Johnpacklambert you too have created many very short stubs, some with zero citations. I think you must concede that creating shorter stubs on Wikipedia is a good faith activity?
    You can see the full list and order by length here Of the 2,426 pages you've created, 50.4% are stubs. CT55555 (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is that limited to articles I created but exist today? Because a lot of articles I created are no longer in existence. Being a stub is not the issue, lacking sourcing that meets GNG is, and those are two seperate issues. Go ahead and nominate all those articles for deletion you listed here if you want. I will not oppose any of the nominations (although I strongly suspect other editors will oppose some of them). I actually nominated one of them myself. This is 5 articles. In the case of Lugnuts we are talking about thousands if not tens of thousands of articles. It was determined that his creation of such was disruptive and he was banned from creating more stubs. I did not participate in any way in that discussion. Not did I participate in any way in the discussion that lead to the decision to say that only those who won medals at the Olympics were default notable. In fact I did not even realize that decision was made until about a month after it was made. Also many of the stubs I did create were created over 8 years ago. I have since come to better understnad what sorts of things we need to justify an article. The one exception I see here is an article on a governor of a state of Mexico. As I said, you are free to nominat that article for deletion, and I will not vote against it. I highly doubt such an article would be deleted, but I am not stopping anyone from trying. Also, a good many of the articles I created were redirects. Another good set were on populated places, and there are very broad inclusion rules for populated places. I may well have created unjustified articles. I have nominated two articles I created for deletion just this week. Is there a place where I can easily see a list of all the articles I created?John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You created 2,426. 258 have been deleted. 2,157 remain. Of them 1,225 are stubs. So of the 2,426 that were created, 50.4% remain up as stubs. I will not propose any for deletion, because I actually think each of the examples above (I picked the shortest ones to make a point) add some value. I would not advocate for their removal. I'm not trying to say they are a problem. I'm saying that you and the other person have done similar things - create shorter articles. I'm trying to guide you towards seeing Lugnuts activity as not inherently a bad thing.
      I linked it above, but you can see the list here:
      https://xtools.wmflabs.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Johnpacklambert
      I wish you well. CT55555 (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for your analysis, all the fives. Juni Bek's article in its current would be a slam-dunk AfD case if they were an Olympian! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I am not carrying on an anti-Lugnuts campaign. That is a malicious accusation. I am trying to cut back the number of Olympic sub-stubs on Wikipedia. Some of these are created by Doma-W. They are not all created by Lugnuts. In fact less than half of my AfD nominations this year have been of articles created by Lugnuts. I am trying to start the process of removing articles on Olympians that do not meet our inclusion critiera for Wikipedia. It is not my fault that over 80% of these articles were created by Lugnuts. Please remive your false accusation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly not. You said: a way to stop me from nominating the thousands upon thousands of sub-stubs he created for deletion which literally confirms you are seeking to raise millions (thousands upon thousands) of articles created by Lugnuts at AFD and, as I have outlined elsewhere, you will only be satisfied with deletion, not redirect, despite the policies and relevant guidelines which apply. With a goal like that, you are actively campaigning against Lugnuts (okay, a few other editors have created some Olympic stubs too). Wikipedia isn't weighed down by stubs – read the two opening sentences of WP:NOTPAPER and then read WP:ABOUT where it says: Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers by acting as a widely accessible and free encyclopedia that contains information on all branches of knowledge. Lugnuts benefits readers by providing information on all branches of knowledge and, per WP:STUB, the information is useful and always reliably sourced. And there is everything wrong with a stupid, meaningless term like sub-stub or microstub or "protostub", the latest (not by you, to be fair) and most idiotic of the lot because proto- means first. Just say stub. NGS Shakin' All Over 13:42, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as not actually addressing the problem. JPL has every right to redirect, prod, or AfD an article, whether written by Lugnuts or anyone else, and Lugnuts should be able to express his opinion and provide information that might be useful. But ultimately, an article that contains no information other than that a sportsperson competed at an event is doomed to redirection or deletion unless someone provides sources that show there is more to say about the subject. A more sensible restriction might be to allow both editors to lay out their case at AfD, then require them both to walk away and let consensus form. If the number of nominations becomes a problem, a restriction on the number that JPL can make in a given week or month might help. It might also help if Lugnuts could produce a list of articles he could live with being redirected so that discussions can focus on the ones he has strong feelings about. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      What if we gave Lugnuts a period of time (given the amount, a year or two might be necessary) to bring these stubs up to standards and prevented JPL from nominating any Lugnuts hasn't reviewed yet for deletion until that time has passed? Lugnuts could put the ones he couldn't bring up to standards in a list somewhere so we know what's been reviewed and not up to snuff vs. not reviewed yet to see if it could be brought up to snuff. Just a thought. Afheather (talk) 00:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a two-way ban (oppose a one-way ban, either way). If these stubs are so disruptive -- they're not -- there are thousands of editors capable of dealing with them. JPL's comments here -- see "a way to stop me from nominating the thousands upon thousands of sub-stubs he created for deletion" above -- make clear that this is some sort of crusade of his. -- Vaulter 14:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Last fall we decided that competitors in the Olympics who did not receive a medal were not notable. I have been trying to help in implementing this decusion. I have explained this multiple times. Yes, I am trying to bring our inclusion of articles on Olympians into line with our actual guidelines. That people treat this as somehow an attack on one editor is false and malicious. If this proposal is passed it will endorse the very uncivil accusations that caused this ANI to start.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've read your repeated replies and feel like it is necessary to remind you not to keep bludgeoning the discussion. I should also remind you about "people in glass houses" and the like. -- Vaulter 15:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also the scope is unclear. On what ground other than ownership, which Wikipedia rejects, can I be banned from editing an article based on who created it? Would this apply only to articles created by LLugnuts, or would it apply to any article ever edited by Lugnuts?John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • John Pack Lambert, it seems pretty clear that many of these problems could be avoided if you simply stayed away from Lugnuts's stubs. It is not up to you to correct the entire project, and the upshot is that we are here, again. And yes, it can be a requirement under such a ban that you check who created an article that you wish to nominate or redirect; there is nothing unusual about it. No, this is not "ownership"--it's avoiding trouble. Lugnuts doesn't own their articles, and that won't change. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • we are here because he falsely accused me of hounding him. This ban would reward him for his false and malicious attack on me. This is a clear proposal to punish the victim. If someone else engages in uncvil behavior towards someone, the solution should not be to punish the person who was the target of the unvicil behavior. That is exactly what this proposal is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          "we are here because he falsely accused me of hounding him" - Again, a diff please to back up your accusation. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, other editors have expressed the view that what will happen is the next time someone begans to try to clean out the articles that do not meet our inclusion criteria that are on Olympians, Lugnuts will try lobbing the same false accusations at that new editor. There is no rule against an editor nominating a large number of articles on the same topic for deletion, especially when that is 44 or a few more over a period of just over 5 months. I have not nominated articles for deletion more than once a day, have nominated articles almost not at all on weekends, and less than half of my total nominations for deletion in this period have been of articles created by Lugnuts. There is no objective way to see any of this as problematic when these articles do not meet our current inclusion criteria. There is no objective problem with that. The problem is Lugnuts rudely claiming in very uncivil ways that such behavior is actually a probglem, but there is no actual problem with the behavior itself. The way to create civility is not to punish those who are the victims of uncivil behavior.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. This situation is untenable. While it is true that Lugnuts created a lot of stubs that resulted in his topic ban, it does feel like JohnPackLambert is carrying out a vendetta against Lugnuts. I'll echo Drmies' advice for John, leave Lugnuts articles alone. It's OK. Someone else will get to them, and with the apparent bad blood between you two, I think it'd actually be refreshing if someone other than you were nominating his articles for deletion. Also just a point of advice, I don't think the victim talk is helping you either. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 18:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Oppose anything that would put any form of restrictions on JPL or in any way imply that he has done anything wrong. Nobody has produced any evidence that JPL has done anything wrong aside from nominating a bunch of Lugnuts' stubs; and since it was found in the past that Lugnuts' stub creations were problematic, it is not WP:HOUNDing to enforce that decision by going over them with a fine-toothed comb - on top of which, there is a specific exception to WP:HOUND for someone who creates the same problems across multiple articles. Mass-creating a large number of similar stubs clearly fits that exemption. Without the ability to specifically and deliberately go over a collection of similar stubs added by a single person, examining them simply because eg. Lugnuts created them, we would effectively be allowing people like Lugnuts to flood the wiki with whatever they please and have it be impossible to challenge their additions as a WP:FAITACCOMPLI; people are sometimes allowed to make bold mass-additions (though I think previous decisions have established that Lugnuts went far beyond what is usually admissible in that regard), but even under situations where it is admissible, doing so clearly allows anyone else to challenge them en mass as JPL has done. Therefore, JPL's focus on Lugnuts is not only appropriate and admirable, but something we absolutely must protect as defensible under such circumstances. A two-way interaction ban would effectively be protecting Lugnuts' (clearly problematic) flood of stubs from scrutiny by establishing the precedent that anyone who examines them will be barred from doing anything about them, and would invite people to make similar mass-contributions in the future knowing that they can simply interaction ban anyone who takes issue with it or tries to subject their contributions to review. Finally, I particularly oppose the implication that JPL has some sort of obligation to search for sources on Lugnuts' behalf before putting articles up for deletion - WP:BURDEN is a more important policy than WP:BEFORE and takes priority here. Lugnuts is the one who has to find sources for material he wants to add or retain, not the people who object to it. --Aquillion (talk) 19:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong oppose. As I understand it, JPL seems to be methodically nominating undersourced sportsperson microstubs by birth year, and is currently in the 1920s-30s. The fact that a large proportion of these articles happened to have been created by Lugnuts is irrelevant to JPL's behavior. Somewhat in line with Spartaz's proposal below, I would suggest in the future JPL redirect such articles when possible, and if Lugnuts genuinely feels a standalone should be retained then he or any other editor can revert the redirect, and JPL can then open an AfD. I also recommend JPL limit his non-reply comments in this (and other) discussion(s) so we don't get big blocks of repetitive stream-of-consciousness commentary as he workshops his own thoughts on a matter. JoelleJay (talk) 19:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Editors who are saying that other editors can deal with these non-notable stubs are missing the scope of the problem - Lugnuts makes this accusation against any editor who is reviewing articles on Olympians for notability. As such, topic banning John Pack Lambert will not resolve the issue, because it will reoccur as soon as one of those other editors start trying to deal with these non-notable stubs. BilledMammal (talk) 01:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose any further restrictions on AfDs by John Pack Lambert (JPL). He is limited to one per day and has honored that restriction. His attention to the Olympic "sub-stubs" has been productive . (And, yes, there is absolutely a difference between an ordinary stub and a "sub-stub" -- i.e., an "article" mass produced in one or two minutes where the entire narrative is limited to a single sentence saying that "Joe Smith completed in fencing for Freedonia at the 1928 Summer Olympics.") Some years ago, I favored more draconian restrictions on AfDs by JPL, but his noms in the past year, at the permitted 1-per-day rate, have reflected more thought and care. He's not always right, but his recent AfD work has been valuable. Cbl62 (talk) 02:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I offered John a compromise (last point in the sub-section "Observations from Lugnuts", above), and he's flat out refused. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, but please remember that you're not individually entitled to "offer" anyone anything. I would really recommend you opt out of this discussion now and I would recommend that JPL does too. Deb (talk) 08:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      OK, thanks Deb. I wasn't aware I could not offer anything in this case - thought it would be the right thing. Note that even while this discussion is live, JPL's very next AfD was this. Now if I was doing the same to his articles on a daily basis, well, you know how that would end. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional concern. I've already given support to the two-way IBAN but comments by and about JPL in the whole Lugnuts at AFD thread have convinced me that JPL is not a fit and proper person to be raising AFDs. I understand he is currently subject to a one AFD per day sanction and I propose we remove that sanction and replace it with a full AFD TBAN for a period of at least six months. I could quote numerous examples to support my view but here are just a few.
    At the Charles Massonnat AFD, Lugnuts suggested a valid redirect and JPL quickly responded with: We should not be redirecting names of not notable people it is just not justified. Besides the bad English, he is completely wrong. In this thread, Phil Bridger said early on that The best long-term solution would be for JPL to stop nominating articles for deletion when there is an obvious redirect target. He has been told many times that there is no need for a subject to be notable to have a redirect, but merely to be verifiable. This point has been reiterated several times by Phil and others.
    Why does JPL have to be told something "many times"? Obviously a WP:IDHT issue and someone who wilfully ignores other people should not be part of a collaborative discussion which impacts WP content.
    Then, although it's a sideshow really, there is all this condescending "Mister" stuff which prompted Lepricavark to say: it is egotistical (and) we are not his subordinates.
    The last example I'll give is JPL's statement that: This proposal rewards Lugnuts (by giving him) a way to stop me from nominating the thousands upon thousands of sub-stubs he created for deletion. Whatever interpretation he has tried to place on that statement, it confirms that his purpose is to obliterate everything Lugnuts has done and that amounts to a personal vendetta against another editor. He cannot be allowed to use AFD as a weapon against someone he dislikes – and remember his stance on redirects when you think about that – a case of delete everything, redirect nothing.
    To summarise, I propose a full AFD TBAN on Johnpacklambert for at least six months. NGS Shakin' All Over 09:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, I'm not convinced that it was egotistical. That was just one possible interpretation, albeit the most likely interpretation if someone in my culture made that kind of demand. At any rate, I agree that the evidence provided in this thread supports a full AFD tban for JPL. His understanding of deletion policy is inadequate, and he is far too hasty to support deletion in most cases. Furthermore, he has yet to acknowledge any problems with his editing and seems to only provide argumentative responses. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 13:30, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I'd Support this. There's a huge WP:CIR with JPL's understanding of the whole deletion/prod/notabilty requirements, highlighted in the sub-section, below, that has been going on for some time. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's start TBANNING everyone who routinely spouts P&G- and consensus-noncompliant arguments at AfDs, oh and also everyone who repeatedly receives NPA warnings regardless of venue. That should take care of a lot of the drama. JoelleJay (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be one hell of a cull on the keepkeepkeep side. Reyk YO! 00:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose two-way IBAN - Frankly the issue is not simply between Lugnuts and JPL but between Lugnuts and the community as a whole. JPL is obviously no saint, but it is the mass stub creation and obstructionism towards clean-up that Lugnuts engages in that is the main cause of the problem. FOARP (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      And here's the third false statement you've made against me in this ANI thread. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Groundless allegations are also an example of uncivil behaviour. FOARP (talk) 15:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    New Proposal - redirect & ban on reverting redirects

    We could end the whole thing by a) redirecting all the unsourced stubs and they can be undirected if anyone finds sources, and specifically banning Lugnuts from reverting a redirect. If someone else wants to revert the Mr Lambert can let someone know and they can review and nominate at AFD. This is a bit clunky but stops the disruption in its tracks. Thoughts? Spartaz Humbug! 08:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support. This would be a simple clarification/extension of their existing topic ban. I proposed similar in a previous ANI thread, with a caveat that in order to revert, the article must be substantially expanded from multiple instances of significant coverage, i.e. meeting the terms of the current topic ban on stub creation. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Again, another false assumption aimed at me. Apart from some VERY early stubs when I first joined WP (2006-07), I don't believe anything I've created is unsourced. You'd certainly have a hard job in finding anything from say the past 10 years I've created that is unsourced. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      what is false is your claim that I am targeting articles created by you. I am targetting in part Olympian articles that no longer meet inclusion criteria. You have not yet apologized for your false and malicous accusations. Nor have you apologized for your doubling down on condescedingly referring to me by a name after I had asked you multiple times to stop using it and to start calling me Mr. Lambert. This is the only proposal that actually shows that the community does not approve of rude behavior and false accusations, the others reward rude behavior.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      An extremely high percentage of these mass-produced stubs do not have a single source that would contribute to passing GNG. Too often, the reliability of the source used is questionable, and there has been zero effort to substantiate any of the information from other sources. wjematherplease leave a message... 19:49, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong oppose. For a start, I don't believe Lugnuts – the usual target – has created ANY unsourced articles unless he has inadvertently forgotten to add a source somewhere. I'm in favour of deleting anything that remains unsourced for a reasonable period, especially if the author has been asked to provide sources. If a stub has five words with a source and is undoubtedly noteworthy, it is a valid article. If it has five words and a source but there is reasonable doubt that it is noteworthy (e.g., someone who played in one EFL match for a fourth tier team), then it is a redirect per WP:V, WP:PRESERVE, etc. To restore an article from redirect, additional citations from reliable sources must be introduced. NGS Shakin' All Over 10:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose any action. It doesn't seem like there's been any real abuse here. What's the big deal? 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support This is the only proposal that shows the community actually cares to stop false accusations. The other proposal rewards false accusations and will lead to more. Every other proposal will basically endose Lugnuts false claims that he is being targeted, and will enbolden him to go after other editorss who dare to try and enforce the current rules on Olympic participant notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose this is severely one-sided and would not actually resolve the problem since, according to NGS, Lugnuts does not create unsourced stubs. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 12:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, User:Lepricavark. Good point about severe one-sidedness. It amounts to a witch-hunt. NGS Shakin' All Over 12:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, it was Lugnuts who was going around falsely accusing another editor of targeting his creations for deletion. Lugnuts should be the only person punished for such false and malicious actions. If the proposal limits the actions of the editor he falsely accused, than it supports his false accusations, and amounts to endorsing his incivil behavior. When one person is engaging in incivil accusations against another, the person they have falsely attacked should not be punished. Doing so rewards the behavior, which is exactly what Wikipedia should not do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Doing so rewards the behavior, which is exactly what Wikipedia should not do. Really? May I recommend some light reading for you? This will tell you what does happen on this site, even though it should not. NGS Shakin' All Over 12:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support in the sense that AfD is completely flooded and it absolutely does not need to be with all of these stubs, which can and often are handled by redirects. This is not exclusively a JPL problem (see User_talk:Star_Mississippi/Archive_6#Poul_Nielson_AFD for example), but I would say that JPL needs not to complain about the redirects, which he subsequently does sometimes simply because he thought it should be deleted. As far as my two way (courtesy @Robert McClenon, @Spartaz) it's because I don't think a one way will completely solve the problem. Some of the Lugnuts redirects have been subsequently kept at AfD. John Pack Lambert is working through a number of category backlogs (wonderful, needed), but I personally think there is enough of a backlog that someone else can handle Lugnuts' stub XFDs. Granted I think we'll end up here with that person, but the community is not willing to take action on Lugnuts' conduct so there hasn't been an option there. Star Mississippi 13:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose On further thought, the real problematic behavior here is the rude accusations that Lugnuts posts on his talk page. We need to A-get him to accept that due to the size of his contribution to the number of lacking any source that meets our guidelines and not meeting our inclusion criteria Olympic articles, he is going to see lots of those nominated for deletion. That is not a result of targeting him, it is a result of the fact the vast majority of such articles were created by him. 2-that he should not accuse others of houding him, when there are simpler, less malicious explantions for the behavior. So ultimately if we want to come to some consequence, the best one would be some clear restiction that will be placed on Lugnuts, and only Lugnuts, the next time he falsely makes accusations against people who are nominating Olympic or other articles created by him for deletion. I say other, because the place where Lugnuts comes cloest to having created a whole class of articles is in the Olympic Arts competitors articles. I have not seen one of those not created by Lugnuts, and almost of all of them are about like this "John Jones (1905-1975) was an American panter. He competed in the Olympics art competition in the 1948 Olympics" with just one source. Actually I will show you. Here is an article I picked at random. It was Konrad Hippenmeir, which as random pick is not the worst such article. Now if you follow the Olympedia source you will see it says more about Hippenmeier. He was the chief of the planning office for construction in Zurich. That one source is not enough to show he was notable, and it does not look like his positions were enough to make him inhernetly notable, but it is possible that there are more sources that could shed light on him, so someone wants to go digging for them. Clearly this is not a biography, and considering that Olympedia says more about his non-Olympic competition than Wikipedia does, we have the odd result that Wikipedia is more narrowly focused on the Olympics than Olympedia is. This is a very odd occurance, and since Lugnits created this article (which was the first Olympic Arts competitor article I found, it took me going to 3 articles on a list to find one not by Lugnuts and it was Frantz Jourdain which is the type of substantial article we need to justify having it. basically either people were like Frantz Jourdain and truly notable artists who happened to be in the Olympic arts competition, or we should not have articles on them. I once tried to interest the Arts Wikipedia project in this issue, but no one seems to have been willing to try to go through these articles and either expand them or nominate them for deletion. The source hunting is not going to be easy, but I keep hoping if I bring it up someone who knows something about this will at least try and start some review. Category:Olympic competitors in arts competitions has 1,710 article plus 146 articles in sub-cats related to medals (I do not know if there is any overlap). Still I do not see exactly what proposal will work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think what we need to do is tell Lugnuts "people are not targeting you, they are targeting a set of articles. The fact that the majority of those were created by you means that many of the deletion nominations will be of articles you created." Lugnuts knows that I am not just nominating for deletion any sub-stub Olympian article I come across. Some I find sources for and add sources to. In one case he reverted my doing this because he did not like my link or text or something, and then he reented it in edited form. I still do not understand why if he was going to keep the general text and I believe even the link, he did not just edit my contribution to a form that he thought was acceptable, and why he found a need to revert my contribution at all. However the episode not only shows that I am not just trying to mass delete every article on an Olympian who was not a mdalist I come across, but it also shows that Lugnuts knows I do editing besides nominating for deletion on such articles. He knows it, but he does not acknowledge it because it would undermine his ability to falsely accuse me of targeting his articles for deletion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think in this case we should propose that we tell Lugnuts to stop falsely accusing those who are trying to implemnt the fall 2021 decision that non-medaling Olyumpic competitors are not default notable, of going after him. We also need to say the next time he brings one of these uncivil accusations over this matter we will do something sepcific. Say block him from editing Wikipedia for seven days.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the Olympic Art competitors, my review of Category:1901 births just came across Filippo Sgarlata. He was a sculptor who was in the 1948 Olympic Arts competition. That is all our article says. The article was created by Lugnuts. the one source listed, Olympedia, has 3 paragraphs on Sgarlata. From the Olympedia article we learn that Sgarlata lived in the US from 1926-1932. We learn that he was a professor of sculpting in both Palermo and San Luca. He crfeated a gate for a notable building in 1961, and created some works that somehow were deemed to be "in line with fascists ideology". Is this one source enough to have this article survive? Porbably not? Was Sgarlata a notable sculptor? I am not sure, but really wish there was a way to get people to look into it more. I know there is a well developed set of notability criteria for artists, but I am less than sure what it is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. This would greatly help with the problem at hand. It's not about either one of them "winning". Jacona (talk) 13:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Conditional support. I think on my third review this is a good idea. I think though we need to be clear on scope. Is this saying that any current Olympic article on someone who was not a medalist, which is only sourced to stanrd Olympic and spots table articles can be redirected. Lugnuts is not allowed to revert the redirect, but other editors who chose to can do so. Also, it appears we will have somewhere where such redirect reverts can be posted in notice, so that another editor will look over it and see if either they can find more sources or if it really does need to go to AfD. Thus if one editor comes along and say, redirects every person who was on the 1924 Mexican men's Basketball Team in the Olympics to a general article that mentions them (either on the team, or more likely because we probably do not have an article on the team, the men's basketball at the 1924 Olympics article), and then some other editor decides to revert all those redirects, we will not put the onus on the first redirector to go through and nominate all those articles for AfD, but will have other people willing to at least try to sort through these articles. Well, OK that example does not exist. The first basketball was at the 1936 Olympics. My first glance makes it look like most if not all Peruvian competitors do not have articles. In the article Basketball at the 1936 Summer Olympics we have redlinks to most of the members of teams who did not actually play in the Olympics. Hmm, actually some of the non-competitors we have articles for. So, yes, I think we need clearer guidelines. Partly because the issue is not "unsourced" per se, but "lacking sources that are giving in-dpeth coverage". the problem is the articles are sourced to sport stat pages, and not articles giving in-depth coverage that are indepdent, secondary and reliable, not that they have no sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • John Pack Lambert, I think there is a calculation that relates the number of comments made by someone who starts an ANI thread to the chances of success for whatever they propose: the more comments, the lower the chances of success. Drmies (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Drmies while I think JPL is bludgeoning this discussion, in his defense, it was @Spartaz who opened the main thread as well as this specific proposal. Star Mississippi 17:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • User:Star Mississippi, you are correct: my apologies, JPL. But I hope you will take the hint. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • So it is OK to punish people for finding a behavior so problemtic that they bring it to ANI, but if they are a silent victim and wait for other people to find the behavior truly problematic, it is a little less OK to punish the victim. Are people here really serious about standing up to the uncivil, unfounded attacks Lugnuts has lobbeb at me, or am I ton conclude that falsely accusing someone else of something that all the evidence shows is not the case is acceptable behavior and that the real wrong behavior is speaking up about uncivil actions?John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • Can you point us to one comment in this thread (or ever) where you've admitted even partial responsibility for this conflict (or any conflict ever)? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                • I have apoligized for all sorts of things. I even have an apology notice on my talk page. It is not my fault that Lugnuts falsely assumes that someone who nominates many Olympian articles that are 3 sentences or less has a vendetta against him, when the much more simple explanation is that since he created roughly 80% of such articles, there is no intention to target him. I know I have nominated articles on Olympians who did not on my review seem to fit any in inclusion criteria that were created by other editors than Lugnuts.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                  • That in response to a question about what you have done, you say "It is not my fault that Lugnuts falsely assumes..."--and that is precisely the problem. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as most of the stubs are sourced, and redirects often go unnoticed and receive little attention so AfD is the best place for disputed redirects in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose any action, far as I am concerned, and I don't know how much weight my suggestion has is that JPL should be TBANNED from all sports related AfDs nominations, comments, voting. I truly believe he has no interest in sports subjects let alone wanting to perform any WP:BEFORE style research. Govvy (talk) 23:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Govvy, you've hit the nail right on the head, there. NGS Shakin' All Over 11:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. As I have stated below, some of these stubs are not entirely unsourced and it seems to me that Johnpacklambert is using the redirects to effectively "delete" articles and circumvent any sort of AfD process, which, in my opinion, is pretty outrageous and seems to be an abuse of rules. Two articles created by Lugnuts had this happen to them in February, which I asked Johnpacklambert about doing without doing a proper WP:Before, then expanded the articles and added more references. They did this to two more articles today, that myself and another user added references to and I expanded one. Redirecting all sports stubs that are "unreferenced" isn't a good idea as it seems to depend on what some users consider "unreferenced". Some of those (at least four that I was made aware of) were referenced, or at least had a foundation and can be expanded. ExRat (talk) 23:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as mentioned above, this is one sided per LEPRICAVARK and NGS. Kante4 (talk) 10:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Far too many of Lugnuts' stubs are expandable/notable. I am also highly against anyone redirecting them without first taking them to AFD. Lastly, they are not unsourced. Scorpions13256 (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as at least a solution to part of the problem. I hope the closer of this section reads the above !votes carefully, as this proposal is for redirecting all the unsourced stubs and I want to emphasize unsourced, so opposes on the grounds that they're not all unsourced aren't speaking to the actual proposal. This proposal does not propose redirecting sourced stubs, just the unsourced ones. Levivich 02:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • If we actually limit this to allowing redirects of Olympic articles that have no sources at all of any kind, I am not sure it will have any effect. Pretty much any Olympic articles is sourced to at least one sports table. If we expand this to allowing redirect of other non-Olympain unsourced articles we need to be clearer about the scope, because we actually do have some unsourced articles that at least if we could find one source to just verrify them it would be an acceptable article. This might have some effect if we worded it as "we can redirect articles on Olympians sourced only to a sports stats table, and Lugnuts cannot override that redirect", but I am starting to think people really do not like unilateral redirect. What we really need is to make it so at AfD people can say either delete or redirect or merge in their initial nomination, because as far as I can tell we have no good forum to discuss redirect in a way that will get large amounts of community feedback.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Opppose This doesn't solve the long-term issue at all, it only makes modificaitons to the current state. I might support "specifically banning Lugnuts from reverting a redirect" down the road, but not at this moment. Preventing any editor from proposing discussion at AFD is not the right move. I personally think that Mr. Lambert does a lot more AFDs than I like; I personally think that Mr. Lambert doesn't like sports articles; and I admit that I have personally become frustrated at times from the volume of AFD discussions brought forth by Mr. Lambert on the articles that I do like. And none of that matters. As long at it remains civil, not disruptive, and otherwise avoids policy violations (BLP, Copyright, etc.) anyone can propose a discussion on anything.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal – stubs at AFD

    NOT HAPPENING
    Per WP:SNOW. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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


    With immediate effect, a complete ban on all AFD stub nominations until conclusion (however long it takes) of a thorough Village Pump discussion about the acceptability or otherwise of stubs, including any terms or conditions applicable. Exclude from the ban any article that: (a) is a suspected hoax; (b) definitely lacks notability (e.g., a non-league footballer or a film extra); (c) is completely unsourced; or (d) obviously enough, is not a stub.

    It is no good anyone saying that we already have clear guidelines on stub notability and redirection. We do not, as AFD cases like Charles Massonnat repeatedly prove. We need to get right down to the very basics of WP:STUB and decide once and for all what is acceptable as a stub, what is not acceptable as a stub and what, of the latter, can be redirected.

    Also, as Phil Bridger mentioned above, can people please stop using ludicrous expressions like sub-stub and microstub? A stub is a stub, whether it has one sentence or ten, and whether it has five words or 500. NGS Shakin' All Over 21:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I would have thought that a so-called sysop would know and respect WP:CIVIL? Calling me silly when I try to find a way forward from all these arguments is uncivil and disrespectful to say the least. A ban on stub creation is an "overreach" and is also out of scope because the issue is deletion, not creation. Frankly, I wonder why I bother. NGS Shakin' All Over 21:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They are not calling you silly. They are calling the idea silly. Because it is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose We should delete more of these proto stubs. 2601:2C3:57F:3F80:2CF6:872A:911D:531B (talk) 21:48, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Oppose 50K articles are already sitting around with notability questioned and a low liklihood of every being AfDed because it would take an army to review. Adding to that backlog is not in the interests of the encyclopedia.21:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
    • This should be closed as a time sink; there is no way this proposal will get consensus.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose This is the silliest proposal I have ever seen. We do not need to make it even harder to remove articles on non-notable people. Delaying processes even more will help nothing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. This is a proposal to engage in filibustering. No chance. wjematherplease leave a message... 22:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I mean to only way this would maybe make sense is if there was any hope we would ever say "we will not allow any articles with less than 2 sources, that have less than x amount of text". Even if that might make sense as a general rule (which I am unconvinced, some rulers are going to be undersourced and we can say little about them, but we know they actually did rule some country, so having the article is justified), exactly how would we use such a rule to deal with the thousands of one sentance articles on artists. Making it so no one can do anything to remove problematic articles is not good, and focing people to add primary and non-reliable sources to an article to get it above the stub threshold so they can then turn around and nominate it for deletion does not make sense either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:16, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I just read the Wikipedia entry on stubs, at least some of it. It throws out multiple possible thresholds, one 250 words, another 1,500 characters in mainspace, and then in bold says there is no set size at which an article stops being a stub. I think this proposal would fail on not having a clear enough scope to apply it, even if the underlying idea behind it really made sense, which I do not think it does.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • oppose It's no secret I'm a big fan of stubs as I've seen what can become of them over time through collaboration. However, a complete ban on all AFD stub nominations is not in the best interest of Wikipedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Thinking outside the box: raise the stakes for JPL's redirects and Lugnuts' reverts

    IBANs and TBANs are not ideal. Let's just raise the stakes?

    1. as soon as JPL redirects two articles that turn out to pass current notability guidelines, he is topic banned from redirecting articles and all deletion activities for 3 months, and
    2. as soon as Lugnuts undoes two redirects that turn out to fail current notability guidelines, he is topic banned from undoing redirects and all deletion activities for 3 months (an exception: if topic banned, Lugnuts can still participate in AfDs of articles they created, but cannot undo a redirect)

    The goal is to make sure neither party is redirecting/reverting indiscriminately. Whether something passes/fails notability guideline would be based on consensus, probably through AfD, with a "no consensus" close not triggering either sanction. This is to be enforced by any admin who observes the conditions have been met. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support as proposer. Just trying to think outside the box. I want both of them to be able to contribute productively, but think they should be more careful. I'm sympathetic towards Lugnuts for having so much work undone, which has got to be really frustrating, but in the end, the work that's undone so quickly was also created quickly. Requiring other people to do the thorough search for sources required at AfD, when you didn't do it to begin with (assuming the sources exist), isn't reasonable. But I also don't think JPL is going to do a thorough search for sources before redirecting. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment much like TPH thread above, the issue is volume. Virtually none of the articles that either editor is working through are BLPs. This is not a crisis that needs deletion today, and it can wait for an uninvolved editor. I'm not sure whether this is enforceable, technically, but might get some peace and quiet. Star Mississippi 14:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support with "any admin can impose these tbans if the conditions are met" (so we don't need another discussion) and without the exception for Lugnuts being able to participate at AFDs of his own articles (a tban from AFDs should also be a tban from AfFs of his own creations or else it reduces the incentive to not get tbanned). I like that this is self-regulating and automatic and puts consequences on the editors' actions. Kudos on the creativity. Levivich 15:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added the enforcement line. I still prefer to err on the side of allowing someone to comment in AfDs of their own work, but we can revisit that if enough people support this idea without that exception. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Would it be a good idea to define some kind of time period or volume of good decisions for the between the first and second action? A second failed redirect / revert that comes after 500 correct ones probably doesn't need to trigger a topic ban. Scribolt (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe, but what number makes sense? Both of these editors are capable of making a ton of similar actions in a short amount of time. If this slows them a bit, I wouldn't consider that a bad thing. What about just making it appealable by either party after six months? 500 correct actions sure would be convincing evidence that it's not needed. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Misses the point. The problem with JPL is that he persistently opposes redirection because he appears to think that any article he doesn't like must be deleted. You need to rethink this proposal. JPL's attitude to redirection is illustrated by the comments he has made at the Massanet AFD.
    The comment by Levivich about stopping Lugnuts from taking part in AfDs about articles he has created is not only stupid but reprehensible. How can he not be allowed to defend his own work? NGS Shakin' All Over 17:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It may not address what you think is the most important point, but it doesn't miss the point. JPL opposing redirects at AfD is a problem, but it's a problem subsequent to what this addresses. If you want to stop him from doing that, you can propose it. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • And Lugnuts opposes deletion or redirects to point where they reverted them. No one seems to be making a big deal about that, except a few, like Rhododendrites, that are addressing both sides of the issue rather than just focusing on one. A closer of an AfD is expected to understand policy and weigh !votes accordingly, not just tally up numbers, so Mr. Lamberts misunderstanding of policy would be quickly disregarded in that case. And a reverted redirect can be challenged giving the community a chance to form a consensus through discussion. The system will work when it's allowed to work. Of course none of this would be happening if both Lugnuts and Mr. Lambert would assume good faith in this dispute and try to find common ground. This absolutist philosophy doesn't work anywhere, either in inclusion or deletion on Wikipedia, or in our interactions with each other. --ARoseWolf 18:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC) --edited 18:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Lugnuts ownership behaviour in defence of the kittens they have spawned is half the problem; there cannot be an exception for these. wjematherplease leave a message... 19:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ownership behavior has to do with editing an article. The exception here has nothing to do with editing the article. It's to allow surfacing sources at AfD. Maybe the exception should be worded that way. Ultimately, if he doesn't add anything useful to AfD, the closer should discount the !vote as with anyone else's. If there's a problem with Lugnuts' behavior at AfD, propose a sanction, but the evidence and arguments in this thread so far don't logically point to that IMO. This proposal is instead about [what seems to be] particular root issues (for one side, that many of these should never even reach AfD because they're obvious redirects; for the other, that there are too many uncareful redirects). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • The aim here is to end disruption. Disruption by Lugnuts has been mostly (if not entirely) related to the articles they created; excluding such articles from any sanction reinforces ownership and renders the proposal impotent and unsupportable. wjematherplease leave a message... 20:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've been going through afds he's participated in for articles he created that are currently redirects, in an attempt to substantiate the accusation above that he reverts redirections of his articles only to !vote redirect at the afd. I haven't found any evidence of that. I also haven't yet found a single instance of him providing a source. (I'll grant that he may well have done so at an afd that didn't result in a redirection or deletion, and even that that may be why it didn't; those aren't the ones I'm looking at.) What I have seen, over and over and over, are comments similar to the one here, almost to the word. If you're that concerned that he be allowed to add sources, he can do so by editing the article. Like he should have done in the first place. —Cryptic 21:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think that the similarity in terms of comments at AfD is probably a response by Lugnuts to being told to change their behaviour at AfD. The comment you're highlighted is neutral, based on "policy" and avoids any judgemental comment about the AfD. I see that as a mature and flexible compromise made by Lugnuts. It still allows them to vote, but by restricting their comments to a boilerplate response - which is, fwiw, a perfectly reasonable suggestion to make - there's less chance of causing anyone to take offence. As I've said above, I can't make a comment on whether JPL has changed their behaviour as a response to sanctions and other suggestions, but I will state here that the number of comments made by them in this discussion concerns me. I would hope to see more compromise; I don't. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. For what it is worth, I have raised the issue with Johnpacklambert in February about him unilaterally redirecting articles created by Lugnuts without any sort of discussion. I do not know of discussions that have taken place that permit a single editor (not an administrator) to effectively delete an article and circumvent an AfD. Possibly, there are, I am just unaware of them. Two of the articles they had done this with (Peeter Mürk and Edgar Puusepp), I have found decent references for. So, these redirects seem to be done without them doing any proper WP:BEFORE. Johnpacklambert has done this again today with two more articles (Artur Amon and Georg Vinogradov) that, again, I have been able to find decent references for and even expand the article for Artur Amon. I find it frustrating that editors who are not admins can simply "delete" articles by doing a redirect. It seems to me to be a crafty way of getting around the entire nomination for deletion and discussion process. As for Lugnuts, I have found that many of the articles they have created are an okay foundation, and if an editor takes a few minutes like I did today, they can be expanded. ExRat (talk) 23:31, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are lots of editors out there who on multiple occasions say "all these articles are going to end up as redirects anyway, stop wasting our time by taking them to AfD." Really Wikipedia needs to create a way so that AfD easily allows you to nominate for redirect, for merger or for deletion there. Merger nominations on talk pages get way too little views. To have AfD turned into a forum where you can chose delete, merge, or redirect as your initial nomination choice would really help things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • 2 redirects over what timeframe? I bet I can find 2 that go each way for Rhododendrites (who I consider an exemplary editor) or myself (less exemplary but not someone who should be topic banned I hope). I will also note, neutrally, that this proposal only appears to be fair. From what I've read, it's actually asymmetrical against JPL because JPL has interests in this work beyond Lugnuts, while Lugnuts is mainly concerned with protecting his creations so JPL has far more "risk" here. Perhaps that's intentional, but if not I thought it was worth noting. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I actually disagree. Lugnuts "risk" is similar to John Pack Lamberts because John Pack Lamberts is not the only editor redirecting or prodding articles created by Lugnuts. BilledMammal (talk) 02:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      That's a fair point. Still leaves an unfair timeframe for both of them though. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Editors are not expected to be perfect, but these proposals expect perfection of Lugnuts, who is expected to be able to perfectly predict the results of an AFD, and of John Pack Lambert, who is expected to not miss any source, however obscure. However, I like the general idea, and would propose an alternative:
      • For John Pack Lambert: If he redirects or prods more than two articles in a month where it is clear that a WP:BEFORE was not done, then he is topic banned from redirecting articles and all deletion activities for 3 months.
      • For Lugnuts: If he reverts a redirect or a prod on more than two articles in a month without ensuring that the article includes at least one source that a reasonable editor could believe meets the requirements of WP:GNG, then he is topic banned from undoing redirects and all deletion activities for 3 months.
      • The following exceptions apply to both editors: If topic banned, they are still permitted to change a prod into a redirect under any circumstances, and they are still permitted to participate in AFD's on articles that they have created.
    Rather than expecting perfection from both of them, this instead requires that both put a good faith effort into their work that shows that their actions are reasonable and in good faith. BilledMammal (talk) 02:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a pretty good proposal. It should clarify for Lugnuts that DB entries are insufficient. A standard for Mr. Lambert on BEFORE might be harder to clarify, what a reasonable person would see as an obvious violation would be debatable to a committed wikilawyer.Jacona (talk) 11:45, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This whole discussion was started over the trivial fact of Lugnuts 'niggling' at JPL. Their interactions will hardly ever go any differently, and it's petty and pointless to want to control something like this. The potential for actual 'disruption' is already limited by existing restrictions on the numbers of stubs created and articles nominated, not to mention that pages already can only be redirected once before they're reverted. So, just close this without any further action -- no interaction ban, no sanctions, no arbitrary limits on nominating/reverting, for either of them. Avilich (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This proposal doesn't look like it's going anywhere. No objections if someone wants to close it to reduce sprawl. I would like to point to #Observation under the TenPoundHammer section of this page, though. I suspect in both cases the best outcome is going to be one that won't make most vocal participants happy, though I don't know what that will be. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose The problem here was how uncivl to others Lugnuts has been. Putting others on notice for punishment does not address this problem at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As mentioned above their is no requirement that people do a before prior to doing a prod. On what grounds can we start imposing special rules on one editor that do not exist for any other editors?John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      "heir is no requirement that people do a before prior to doing a prod" sorry, but you're wrong here. Look at point 1 of WP:PRODNOM which links to WP:DEL-REASON, and then read point 7 - "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" - IE doing a WP:BEFORE. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Precisely. This has already been outlined somewhere above – so, another instance of WP:IDHT by JPL. NGS Shakin' All Over 12:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, no. If you read above multiple editors spell out that there is in fact no requirement for doing before prior to making a prob. You are free to try and get the wording on such things changed, but the current wording requires no such thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, it is actually below. The statement is "But again, the relevant policy pages rather glaringly do not obligate a search for sources -- something that one would very much expect to be in at least PRODNOM if it was actually required". So yes, that is a clear assertion that a Prod can be issued without doing before at least per the policy. I see that this is generally not liked, and I will try to do before more when I start a prod in the future.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I posted the following on my talk page. I am posting it here in hopes that it generates some traffic of people looking at the issue in question. Thomas Forbes is an article that has been posted as having no sources since 2008. I looked through the links to find sources, and nothing was looking to be about him. The name is common enough that it might take a really deep dive through sources to be sure. There seems to be a contemporary businessman with this name, and there are lots of other people with it. My initial search brough up nothing, and we need sources to verify. Not all poets are notable just because they published, but some people have claimed I have over done Proposed deletion nominations, so I am hoping this notice might get some interest.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose This is simply punishing editors for not agreeing with consensus--it could be a simple mistake, it could be that they are incorrect in their understanding or whatever. And it's a lousy precedent. Editors are free to disagree. Now, if they violate WP:3RR or something like that, then we take action--but we don't need "another rule" to take care of the "one that's already in place" -- and if 3RR is now no longer adequate, then we discuss 3RR (or whatever else we need to apply). Too focused, no benefit, slippery slope.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:19, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Does JPL understand notability and the PROD process?

    Trying not to be too blunt, but does JPL actually understand notability, PROD and deletion? These are the examples from just yesterday:

    • Autrey Nell Wiley - prod rationale of "a reference connected with the collected papers of a person collected by that person's employer is not enough to show notability"
    • Veysel Turan - prod rationale of "Being one of the last survivors of a conflict is not a sign of notability in and of itself, yet that is pretty much all we have on this person"
    • Rhoda Truax - prod rationale of "We have no sources telling us anything at all about this writer. All articles need sources. The article has been tagged as unsourced now for over 12 years. It is far past time something was done about this"
    • Fujio Shido - prod rationale of "The one reference here is not enough to show notability and chefs are not default notable just because someone somewhere once published a short blurd on them". Shido's article was sent to AfD at 17:27. ONE minute later, JPL votes delete. What WP:BEFORE work has been done?

    There were two redirects (Georg Vinogradov and Artur Amon) which also suggest little to no WP:BEFORE was done. Maybe I'm not looking at the right bit of WP:PRODNOM and WP:DEL-REASON, but please can someone show me where an article that is unsourced or poorly sourced equates to being eligible for a PROD? Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:34, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Lugnuts. The only mentions of sourcing in DEL-REASON are points #6 and #7 but these concern articles where exhaustive attempts (as for BEFORE) have failed. There is no valid reason for anyone to PROD or AFD an article on the grounds of unsourced or refimprove unless tags have been in place for a reasonable time and the BEFORE search then fails. Hope this helps. NGS Shakin' All Over 10:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you - it does. I'm not really involved with the PROD process, so I wasn't 100% sure on valid/invalid prod rationales. Thanks again. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for flagging these @Lugnuts. I have seen instances of The article has been tagged as unsourced now for over 12 years. It is far past time something was done about this" far too often in deletion nominations lately. It's far past time for AfD is not for clean up to be enforced. It may be true that there aren't sources, but the nomination gives no indication the person has looked. And it's a larger issue than John Pack Lambert, unfortunately. Personally I think PROD should only be used for clear-cut cases. "being one of the last survivors" is something that definitely needs discussion since consensus isn't clear community wise. Star Mississippi 12:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wiley is clear-cut notable in my opinion in her roles as department head and chair. Someone more intricately tied with academic policies can cross check me there and I'm fine if it ends up at AfD. I'd be voting keep though as I think she published well enough for a woman in the era in which she worked. Star Mississippi 12:25, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    NPROF requires the highest-level admin position, e.g. president of a university; department head or chair absolutely does not qualify. There is nothing whatsoever in the article to suggest academic or GNG notability, so a PROD was perfectly reasonable. I'm less experienced with assessing humanities scholars, especially pre-internet ones, but it does not appear her publications are remotely at the level of impact expected for a C1 pass, even "for a woman". JoelleJay (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, I'm confused. Criteria 6 clearly supports what you've just said, but criteria 5 would indicate that department chairs would indeed qualify. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @78.26, C5 requires holding a named chair, e.g. "the Julie Smith Chair of Electrical Engineering". JoelleJay (talk) 05:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Totally fair @JoelleJay. I wasn't able to identify whether the Dean or department head were named positions, even if those type of roles were named at that time. I still think a reference connected with the collected papers of a person collected by that person's employer is not enough to show notability" is not a particularly valid because about five seconds of google found that there was much more out there. An AfD could discuss whether her writing was well cited enough for academic notability. Perhaps I'd change my vote, but I think this is too much of a gray area for PROD. Star Mississippi 00:59, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it's certainly not a subject I would PROD, I just don't think it's as clear-cut a case of BEFORE not being performed as it's being made out to be. Editors who aren't experienced with academia could pretty quickly come to the conclusion she isn't notable based on there not being any TWU-independent coverage on the first page of Google hits (not that people unfamiliar with a field should necessarily be making judgment calls on notability within it). JoelleJay (talk) 02:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Where does PRODNOM or DEL require an AfD-style BEFORE search? All they ask for is a valid deletion reason, of which failing to meet a notability guideline is one. Neither of them specifies how one is supposed to determine that a subject fails N. JoelleJay (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The whole point of the WP:PROD process is that it requires a subject to qualify for deletion, so to be a valid candidate for WP:AFD, and in addition that the deletion should be uncontroversial. It would completely defeat the object if it required a lower standard than WP:AFD. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, I agree that that is a reasonable inference from the WP:AfD page, but neither of the actual policy pages says anything whatsoever about doing a BEFORE. One could read just PRODNOM, follow the link for valid reason for deletion to DELETE, read the DEL-REASON section, follow the link to N, read just the GNG and/or SNGs sections as instructed by DEL-REASON (subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline), and still never come across a requirement for doing BEFORE-type searches. The fact that it isn't even alluded to in the relevant policies can then be interpreted as an intentional omission excepting PROD nominations from doing a BEFORE (a PROD is supposed to be an easier method of removing articles, after all). JoelleJay (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, WP:PROD is supposed to be an easier method of removing articles, but only of those articles that could be removed by other methods. It's not a method of removing articles that shouldn't be removed. Why would anyone with Mr. Lambert's amount of experience, and who is here to build an encyclopedia, need to be told by policy or guidelines that one should look for sources before proposing anything for deletion on the basis of their lack? It's not as if it is rocket science, or whatever metaphor is used these days for something that is too difficult for my baby grandsons to understand. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, we don't know that JPL doesn't do a minimal BEFORE for each PROD. But again, the relevant policy pages rather glaringly do not obligate a search for sources -- something that one would very much expect to be in at least PRODNOM if it was actually required -- before prodding an article, so it's incorrect for people to claim he is violating some policy when they feel a sufficient BEFORE wasn't done. And it could be that the ease with which a PROD can be contested is considered enough of a counterbalance to justify not doing an AfD-level search (especially if, in the nominator's eyes, a deletion wouldn't be controversial). JoelleJay (talk) 22:30, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Just been looking at the Shido case and mention should be made of the considerable expansion done by Nihonjoe only a few hours after JPL's comments. As Lugnuts says, what BEFORE was done? Seems that Nihonjoe had little difficulty in finding plenty of information. NGS Shakin' All Over 10:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at the sources added, comprehension of and ability to search in, Japanese would be a prerequisite for finding them, don't you think? wjematherplease leave a message... 17:34, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    And for Rhoda Truax, I've just done a very quick scan of Google and immediately found this and this. I daresay I could find a lot more if I tried but I think the PROD nominator should do that. I've added the obituary and archive refs to the page given that, as the PROD says: It is far past time something was done about this. Indeed. NGS Shakin' All Over 10:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. It is a fair assumption that JPL doesn't particularly understand notability, though I can't really comment on PRODs as I haven't seen him using that feature. However, where notability is concerned virtually all of his votes at AfD are delete and his rationale appears to be a copy and paste job. His arguments for deletion are often weak and regularly at odds with established notability inclusion guidelines. There have been some recent cricket AfDs where the subject is clearly notable, multiple people have also reached that conclusion, but JPL comes along and votes delete with the same copy and paste rationale. One cricket AfD multiple sources were discovered, and the article expanded to a good standard. JPL claimed there were no sources to be found, which makes me question if he bothers doing WP:BEFORE. It also makes me wonder if JPL is just a delete troll, as he seems to vote nothing but and at times borders on WP:POINT and WP:DISRUPTIVEUSER, though what constitutes that isn't for me to decide! StickyWicket (talk) 11:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good point, Jacona. His messages to this AFD (the overall piece) are littered with poor spelling and grammar. Several times, I've had to read his comments two or three times to be sure of what he's trying to say. I've asked him to use preview but to no avail because it seems another of his faults is WP:IDHT. NGS Shakin' All Over 11:44, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A paid obituary and a genealogy archives database, really? Do you understand notability? Truax has a handful of reviews for one of her books so is likely notable through NAUTHOR, but the easiest way to verify this is through a university library account, which is certainly not expected of PROD. JoelleJay (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    JoelleJay, JPL's PROD was about verifiability (no sources), not notability. The point was that JPL raised a PROD without looking at Google and so he did not perform a BEFORE or seek the missing sources. If JPL felt so strongly that "it is far past time something was done about this", then I think he should have done something about it himself. NGS Shakin' All Over 19:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you're right that your comment was actually about verifiability, I was reading it in the context of all the other parts of this discussion that are on specifically notability and people's understanding of it. I'll be sure to keep all those other things you said about me in mind, too. JoelleJay (talk) 19:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, Joelle and I apologise to you. I think I shouldn't be here at the moment because I've just spent hours completing forms for HMRC. Sorry for sounding off. I've amended my entry above. Sorry again and all the best. NGS Shakin' All Over 20:16, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, he does not In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Easley High School, he voted to delete an article about a school that was 113 years old and is on the national register of historic places, that has a huge number of alumni with articles, and has a large number of references in the article. The nominator wisely withdrew the nomination, but Mr Lambert had thrown out an unconsidered !delete vote, and in spite of being asked repeatedly both in the discussion and on his talk page, ignored it (he continued to edit during the time period). He is either not competent, NOTHERE, or outright rejects community standards. He is a huge negative to the deletion process as he gums up the works and rarely provides reasoned input. Jacona (talk) 12:43, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do not see why disagreeing with you makes Mr. Lambert suddenly incompetent. The Banner talk 13:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Disagreeing with me is fine. Deliberately gaming the system is or fubbing it is not. But Mr. Lambert jumps in and makes a quick Delete vote on articles with dubious rationale, and rarely re-visits even when consensus has been met that the article is clearly notable, thus keeping it in AfD to be reviewed by many editors. I believe he is deliberately doing this to waste others time to keep AfD flooded so that other editors do not have time to respond to his many other deletion priorities. Jacona (talk) 13:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        ...And it's not sudden, we've been discussing it here for many years. Unfortunately, each attempt to reign in the problem is just a finger in the dike as he finds a new way to make things worse. Jacona (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:DEL-REASON point 8 specifies notability as a rationale, which covers the first, second, and fourth reasons; and being tagged for twelve years without anyone finding sources obviously satisfies DEL-REASON point 7. People can reasonably disagree on what qualifies (hence why PROD requires only one disagreement to prevent it from happening), but I'm not seeing these as justifying sanctions. Neither does WP:BEFORE apply to PROD - the entire point of PROD is that it is a lightweight process; and I would strenuously oppose any attempt to make it applicable there, since it is not workable to have so many heavier restrictions on article deletion than we have on article creation. As I said above, if someone can create dozens or hundreds of stubs, it is important that other people be able to at least suggest their deletion in some form. Requiring an extensive WP:BEFORE check for a mere PROD would effectively make it possible for people to flood the wiki with specific types of stubs they believe we ought to have as a WP:FAITACCOMPLI and leave absolutely no reasonable way to challenge them in a reasonable timeframe. --Aquillion (talk) 18:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Ridiculous. As I have already said, WP:PROD is an easier way than WP:AFD to get articles deleted, not a way to get articles deleted that shouldn't be. This is a project to build an encyclopedia, not a game that requires some sort of balance between people who want to create an encyclopedia and people who want to delete it. I get the impression that there are mamy people who would prefer it if we didn't have any articles, so they could argue to their heart's content without those pesky things getting in the way. And why all this language like "extensive WP:BEFORE" when it is not an extensive process at all. It only takes a few minutes to see that some PRODded articles have loads of coverage in reliable sources available online. but many people don't even want to spend those few minutes. I thought that WP:NOTHERE was a reason for blocking, so why do we continue to tolerate people who treat this as an "inclusionists vs. deletionists" game rather than an encyclopedia that needs building? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have worked on quite a few articles about topics listed on the National Register of Historic Places and am aware that any such listing includes a link to a PDF that almost always contains additional links to reliable independent sources that devote significant coverage to the topic. These are commonly assessments by academics of the historical significance or architectural significance of the topic. In my experience, the National Park Service does an excellent job evaluating the significance of these sites. So, if any editor chooses to PROD or nominate one of these sites for deletion, I would expect a robust analysis explaining why the NPS got the matter wrong, and why the random Wikipedia editor understands things better. Cullen328 (talk) 06:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • FWIW this was the state of the Easley High School article when JPL !voted, so he may not have been aware of the NRHP listing. !Voters generally aren't expected to return and change their !votes if circumstances change; closers will account for any improvements to the article, and in this case the obvious Keep outcome would have come one whole day earlier. –dlthewave ☎ 16:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          He was aware of the NRHP listing. He was notified on his talk page and cordially asked to review the article. Jacona (talk) 18:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      No matter how strongly you feel about what the appropriate requirements for WP:PROD ought to be, please remember that WP:AGF is policy. Characterizing disagreement with your position as a game that requires some sort of balance between people who want to create an encyclopedia and people who want to delete it or saying that I get the impression that there are mamy people who would prefer it if we didn't have any articles are honestly shocking. Disputes over deletion have long been a fraught area; we need efforts to calm things down and stick to a general presumption that this is a good-faith disagreement over what sort of stubs are necessary and the rigorousness of the process needed when there is a disagreement over them. Anyway, as I've said elsewhere - the gist of my position is that WP:BURDEN is what takes priority here, which means that the requirement to find sources is on the person who wants to retain text, never the person who wants to remove it. This is needed because otherwise we end up with nobody motivated to find sources and unsourced stubs lingering for ages (as they, in fact, are.) The suggestion that someone should be able to create a stub or remove a PROD without having to search for sources, while implying that the person who places the PROD has some requirement to do so, is a clear inversion of WP:BURDEN and per the logic behind that would lead to undesirable outcomes. --Aquillion (talk) 08:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Counter-proposal

    Where JPL takes an article by Lugnuts to AfD, he may make no further comments beyond his nomination rationale. Lugnuts may offer his keep rationale, which must refer to the article and not the nominator, but may not participate further in the AfD. This does not prohibit either party from improving the article with sources which prove or disprove notability. Any off-topic remarks or personal attacks from either party should be removed or refractored by any uninvolved admin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:00, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    HJM - that's pretty much what I've been doing in any case. You can see from the last few most recent AfD noms from JPL one, two, three, four, five), etc. Infact the second comment in that fifth AfD was to remind JPL about a WP:COPYVIO issue that he had done. Oh, and the bit "Lugnuts may offer his keep rationale" - I don't always !vote keep, but I know what you mean. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If people are so worried about JPL and Lugnuts (I don't have an opinion on that); what about just putting an IBAN as suggested earlier? Why is everybody looking to reinvent the square wheel. IBANs have worked in previous instances, I don't see why the imperative to come up with more and more fancy alternatives to a problem that already has a solution. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:16, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @RandomCanadian, a two-way IBAN would essentially be a one-way IBAN against JPL, since it would prohibit him from nominating for deletion or participating in AfDs for any articles Lugnuts created or substantially edited -- so, the vast plurality of sportsperson articles -- while it would only restrict Lugnuts from responding to deletion nominations from JPL. JoelleJay (talk) 22:36, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But JPL's talkpage is littered with notes about articles that he belives are non-notable, the last three being Norman Raeben, Ray Reeve and Robley Rex. To the best of my knowledge, I don't believe I've had ANY input to those articles, let alone created them. By JPL's own admission, he's now reviewing people born in 1900 - 6,000+ pages. Sure there will be a few Olympians in there, but plenty of other people too. Picking some at random, maybe JPL would like to review Augurio Abeto, Adila Bayhum, Henry Ah Kew, George Alapatt, etc, who fall into the unsourced/poorly sourced bracket. I don't know about the notability requirements of those people/subject areas, but there's a starting point, and everyone can get back to what they enjoy spending time on. I agree with RandomCanadian here - it's an attempt to make a fancy solution to problem that already has a solution. I've offered JPL a compromise (above, somewhere...), and he's said no, so I've added my own support !vote to the 2-way IBAN. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:43, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This was meant to be a discussion on the problem of Lugnuts falsely accusing others of targeting articles created by him when they are actually targeting articles about Olympic competitors that do not meet our inclusion criteria. I think the above statement shows Lugnuts is still involved in such unfounded accusations and is not realizing that the problem is his attempts to personalize the broad campaign to bring Olympic coverage into line with the fall 2021 decision that non-nedalists are not default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      "Lugnuts falsely accusing others of targeting articles created by him" - John, you've been asked to provide diffs of this claim - you have yet to do so. The quote of "There is no attempt to single out articles created by you for deletion" was said by YOU here. So unless you can back up your claim, you are the one who is now casting aspersions, and I suggest you stop doing so. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I believe the first time you made that accusation against me was at this ANI discussion - see this diff. You have made it many more times since then, and while I don't have diffs for you making it against other editors, I would not be surprised if they exist. BilledMammal (talk) 04:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      So your only diff you've presented is from the best part of six months ago, and not related to anything to do with myself or JPL. So in other words, aspersions. Thank you. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Wait a minute, you've just PROD'd approx 35 articles in LESS THAN 1 HOUR including two batches of ten articles in one minute (05:58 and 06:12). What WP:BEFORE work has been done here? Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The statement you quoted was Lugnuts falsely accusing others of targeting articles created by him. Others include me, and while that was the first accusation, there have been many more by you since then; or are you saying that that was the only one?
      On the topic of aspersions, please stop claiming editors are not conducting WP:BEFORE searches without providing evidence. Evidence would include sources that a WP:BEFORE search should have found. As for how I can nominate ten articles in one minute, I do the research and write the nominations beforehand - often well beforehand. All the ones I nominated today I started reviewing on the 25th of May, though the list I presented at WP:VPP consists mostly of more recent efforts. BilledMammal (talk) 08:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose This would block any attempt to provide further analysis on issues like how a name is not suitable for redirect because there are actual notable people who share the same name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • And after a couple of edits to ANI and some talkpages, your VERY FIRST edit today was to start this AfD. So again, how true is your statement of "There is no attempt to single out articles created by you"? Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • John Pack Lambert, what were you thinking? Drmies (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is there anything that suggests that this person meets inclusion criteria. I have seen at least 12 similar pages on Olympians that have less than 3 sentences on the subject. 11 of those were originated by Lugnuts. Multiple people have above shown that nominating such articles for deletion is not problematic. It is an article sourced only to a stat page, it does not meet our inclusion criteria for Olympians, and my multiple searches did not turn up any other sources. With the sheet magnitude of articles created by Lugnuts, it takes effort to not find an article by Lugnuts if you are looking at the set of articles with less than 3 sentences of prose on Olympic competitors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          @Drmies: - "what were you thinking" - well my blunt answer is that he isn't thinking, and this sort of behaviour continues, such as redirecting this article, his one and only redirect since you posted your question. So add WP:HOUND to WP:CIR the WP:IDHT issues already highlighted. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          Now JPL has nominated that article for AfD too. And it's a good hour inside the one AfD per day limit too. I wonder if I would still be editing right now if I had continued this path of tenacious editing. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:30, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          This edit summary in reverting the redirect leaves a lot to be desired, especially in light of the persistent civility issues being raised again here and now. Also, "one per (calendar) day" is not the same as one within any 24 hour period, and the nomination clearly falls within that (someone else advised you of this recently on your talk page). wjematherplease leave a message... 20:08, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      "And after a couple of edits to ANI and some talkpages, your VERY FIRST edit today was to start this AfD" Lugnuts, how is this relevant in any way, shape or form? Who cares if JPL nominated an article that you created for deletion? What's wrong with that? What rule is he breaking? –dlthewave ☎ 16:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, when the discussion is about an two-way IBAN, and JPL goes straight ahead to target those articles... Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      No, the discussion is about your unfounded, uncvilly expressed view that someone nominating a few of the literally thousands of less than 3 sentance long articles you have created on people who do not meet the current inclusion criteria for Olympic competitors, is somehow an attack on you. It is not, and the fact that there are so many of these articles should mean that no one should believe your claim that this is targeted at you at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      That's an argument that you made ad nauseam. If someone else feels the same, they're welcome to make it in the discussion. Star Mississippi 18:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      John - why are you continuing with a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality with you posting on multiple editors' talkpages with posts that are basically attacks one, two, three, four. If I was doing the same about you across multiple talkpages, would you find that acceptable? Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an ANI about your rude, uncivil behavior. That is why this ANI was opened, saying so is accurate. My complaints beyond that do not say anything about exactly who did this. It is your behavior that was found unacceptable and caused this ANI to open. That the end result of the ANI should punish anyone else because you were so rude and uncivil that you were brought to ANI I think is a fatal flaw in ANI. That it would punish the person who you were attacking in ways that caused you to be brought to ANI who was not even the person who brought it to ANI is not at all good. The fact that I express this view should not be used to punish me. People have a right to comment on unfair process, and an ANI process that punishes someone other than the person who did the disruptive behavior that opened it is not a fair process at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Never heard of WP:BOOMERANG, then? The reason why this ANI has turned into one about you is because you are widely perceived to be incompetent at AFD and people are sick and tired of trying to drum sense into you when you just play WP:IDHT all the time. All sensible editors recognise Lugnuts as a prolific editor who builds the encyclopaedia, while you and your "community consensus" of eight or nine cronies (enough to get your consensuses because sensible, normal people have better things to do) contribute little but persistently make idiotic WP:POINTs to try and justify your misguided deletionism. The four posts which Lugnuts highlighted just above are effectively breaches of WP:CANVASS. Of course, you haven't heard any of this, have you? NGS Shakin' All Over 20:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not the reporter. I did not open this ANI. So I do not think boomerang applies to me. Also, the fact is that Lugnuts has been banned from creating stubs because his stub creation was deemed to be disruptive to Wikipedia. Also, since those were posts to people who had already commented on this discussion, I do not see how this could fall afoul of canvass. I was not the person who brought this ANI, so I think the claim that those who report a problem are fair targets of ANI (which I think is a horrible policy in and of itself) can not be reasonably applied to me because I was not the person who brought this to ANI. The fact that I am supposed to sit back and take abuse dished out on me like the above I do not believe is the actual expectation of Wikipedia. You have specifically put me in a group who are not "sinsible", have called others who have tried to delete Olympic articles my "cronies", and lots of other things. You have also called my points "idiotic". All of these are examples of abusive language which should not be done on Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • And it isn't BATTLEGROUND to create a whole discussion section essentially saying JPL should be TBANNED from AfD for being incompetent and not understanding notability or PROD? Especially when it's seemingly based on a couple examples and an appeal to policy guidance that doesn't exist? JPL isn't helping himself with all these repetitive comments, but you've been far more uncivil in this discussion overall. JoelleJay (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, that's pretty blatant canvassing @Johnpacklambert and I'd recommend you not keep that up. cc: @Spartaz who I know has been trying to help you and find resolution Star Mississippi 20:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not canvassing. It was comments to people who had already voted at the discussion. Thus, there is no way it was an attempt to recruit people to vote on the matter, since they had already voted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's like trying to deal with Johnson. Perhaps you were canvassing them to try and get them to change their votes? NGS Shakin' All Over 20:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Except all the people in question voted in exactly the way that I am most likely to expect them to. Considering the truly mean spirited and abusive language you engaged in above, it is hard to take any comment from you as worth considering. This is expecially true because you are attacking me for nominating articles on non-medaling Olympains for deletion. Last fall an RFC determined that non-medaling Olympians are not default notable, and I have tried every search I can think of to ensure I find in-depth sources on these people before I nominate them. The language you used above should not be used against other editors on Wikipedia, period.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that I've got your attention, do please tell us why you never want an article about a verified subject to be redirected? NGS Shakin' All Over 20:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. This whole kerfuffle may have been avoided had JPL not made a knee-jerk statement against redirecting in response to Lugnuts in the aforementioned AFD in question [48]. -- Vaulter 14:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose although Vaulter is right about JPL and his knee-jerks. I have to oppose this proposal because my own, recorded above, is a two-way IBAN and a full AFD TBAN for JPL, with no TBAN on Lugnuts. NGS Shakin' All Over 15:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: this is basically a milder IBAN, which I'm fine with because this would prevent AfD discussions from getting dragged out interminably, while taking a lot of the sting out of disputes on AfD. If they want to take it to their talk pages, that's a different issue and can be credibly addressed later. There are plenty of other editors at AfD who are willing to hear each party's case, me included, providing that this doesn't become a time sink, as it evidently has. If it then proves that Mr. Lambert here is far too hasty in PRODing or AfDing in general, we can take further measures. Iseult Δx parlez moi 18:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support As the only proposal likely to get people to close this discussion, which has dragged out long enough.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - Does not solve the actual problem. Seems to be part of an effort to turn this into a JPL vs Lugnuts discussion when the reality is that, as the original complaint notes, repeated and intractable incivility by Lugnuts in general, despite repeated warnings and bans, is the real problem. No objection to having a discussion about JPL separately to this. FOARP (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support on the grounds that both the parties that have ended up being discussed have indicated their general support for this. That's a good starting point. It should, of course, be possible for either editor to strike their comment at AfD - say, for example, an article is expanded massively and either has suggested deletion. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose the problem isn't that the editors extend their discussion. The problem is that those discussions become uncivil and/or disruptive. Both parties can write giant responses for all I care as long as they are civil and otherwise not disruptive.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Mr Lambert's editing

    WP:DENY. Levivich 21:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

    Since we're discussing Mr Lambert's editing, what about this edit to Alexander Burnstein. Mr Lambert's edit summary says reverted edit that needs to be done, because the subject of the article may run afoul of a topic limit I have on me and I am trying to abide by this limit. The edit here was based on birth year and what places existed then and so was doable without realizing anything more (bolding mine). Mr Lambert acknowledges that it violates his topic ban but claims that it "needs to be done" and apparently he is the only person who can do it. Alexander Burnstein is described as "a rabbinic ordinand of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America". Dillytypes (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    he does this almost daily on his Talk to get others to proxy for him. Discussions have been opened about the TBan violations but they're apparently never serious enough to merit sanctions. Star Mississippi 21:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, this again raises the CIR issue raised above. Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire in 1900 so his edit is wrong, and the edit summaries are bizarre. I increasingly believe we should be looking at something more than any TBAN. NGS Shakin' All Over 21:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Star Mississippi: I don't want to just delete this subsection because you've commented in it, but we should not tolerate people creating accounts just to criticize another editor at ANI (Dillytypes has 3 edits, check them out). I wanted to bring this to your attention and if you agree with me, please consider just deleting this thread (and maybe blocking the account). Thanks, Levivich 21:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How many edits should one have before one is allowed to comment here? Dillytypes (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Enough so that an easily-spotted troll account isn't so obvious. Heading straight for the administrative boards is a sure sign of someone with an agenda that doe snot include the Wikipedia itself. Zaathras (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to block the account as I'm definitely !involved (this thread, the topic ban), but you have my blessing to delete this thread as the only other participant. @HJ Mitchell @Drmies FYI if it's this editor. Star Mississippi 21:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The edit was reverted because it involved editing a subject I only realized after I edited the page it was not within the acceptable scope. This was a mistake on my part, but an edit that could be made knowing only place and year. I reverted it due to the broader issue. The topic ban explicitly says reverting when I realize a mistake was made is acceptable, so I did so. What I do on my talk page is post notice about low source articles that look likely to not be notable. Multiple editors have thanked and praised me for doing so. The most common outcome of posting such other than absolutely nothing is that another editor comes along and adds sources. This is the first I have seen anyone try to claim it violates topic bans. I should have reviewed this article before editing it and apologize for not doing so, however the correct name of a place when a person was born is determined by when they were born, and is not at all affected by any other information about them, so changing the way a birth place is described actually can be legitimate done while knowing nothing else about a person except when and where they were born.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • A two second glance at the article history Alexander Burnstein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) shows that JPL made two edits and then reverted them within two minutes. JPL's edits to this article are a non-issue that is distracting from the other issues being discussed above. I woudl delete this thread but since someone else did that and it was reverted, I'm closing it in the spirit of WP:DENY. Levivich 21:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Start 2 Arbcom cases instead

    Two requests for arbitration have been initiated at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, one for User:Lugnuts and one for User:Johnpacklambert. Anyone is free to initiate a case regarding User:TenPoundHammer if they feel it is warranted. North America1000 13:40, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    All the above is not leading to any improvement or solution it seems. I would suggest starting 2 separate Arbcom cases, one dealing with JPL and his Prod/Afd issues or genral competence (while they often involve Lugnuts' articles, they are not limited to it and don't seem to be targeting them especially), and one dealing with Lugnuts and his issues (civility, editing in general, e.g. his repeated uncivil refusals to change his Linter-error creating signature: these issues are not restricted to his dealing with JPL). Mixing them in one ArbCom would be problematic, as their behaviour vis-a-vis each other is just one aspect of the overall problems they have. Fram (talk) 10:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Three. The TenPoundHammer thread above is also about behaviour at AfD, and it too is not coming to a conclusion.—S Marshall T/C 11:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I do not think the issues with AfD and Prob merit Arbcom at all. I have limited myself to just one AfD a day, and I do not think there is anything related to this issue that needs to be taken to Arbcom. I try to limit my Proposed deletions to very clear cases, and will take in mind what has been said above and try to limit it even more.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The counter-proposal above seems to be getting wide support, and would solve the problem at hand for the foreseable future.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1. Strong support for taking JPL to Arbcom. As Fram says, JPL's competence is seriously lacking, he blatantly practices WP:IDHT, and his entire approach to both AFD and ANI is WP:DISRUPTIVE. Then, there are additional issues like WP:CANVASS as shown above and all this bizarre behaviour around what people should call him. These things are largely generic so, to be more specific, his refusal to comply with WP:REDIRECT in the face of WP:PRESERVE – which is editing policy – and recommended options like WP:CHEAP has for some time now been a considerable issue at AFD, occurring on virtually a daily basis when he is limited to one nomination per day. The perception that he is pursuing a vendetta against Lugnuts is borne out by several of his comments above.
    2. Oppose any Arbcom case against Lugnuts in relation to JPL because Lugnuts has already been warned about his understandable retaliation to provocation and he has apologised – for example, he has stopped addressing JPL as Lambert and now always calls him John. The seven or eight people who dislike Lugnuts need to recognise that he is WP:HERE whereas some of them spend most of their time disruptively by repeatedly indulging in WP:BURO and WP:BATTLE. However, if JPL is retained as an editor, I would support a 2-way IBAN between Lugnuts and JPL.
    3. Although I haven't been involved, I support the additional proposal by S Marshall to take the TPH matter to Arbcom. NGS Shakin' All Over 12:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - The biggest problem I see is with Lugnuts' conduct, but both editors have been the subject of multiple ANI posts where the community has not been able to resolve the perceived issues. Even a finding of "no misconduct" would help quell the constant accusations. Fram, my only quibble is your use of "Lugnuts' articles". I assume this is shorthand for "articles created by Lugnuts", but it also legitimizes the idea that Lugnuts has some sort of ownership over certain articles or that the article creator should play some special role in a discussion about allegedly problematic deletions. –dlthewave ☎ 13:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Should actually be articles created and/or developed by Lugnuts. You are right about implied ownership. NGS Shakin' All Over 14:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • agree as it's clear this issue has spiraled beyond Administrator fora at least in terms of JPL. Regardless of the status of the accounts bringing them, JPL regularly skirts the edges of his topic ban and shows no indication of a willingness to edit more collaboratively nor have there been firm sanctions for doing so. Oops my bad for the 87th time is not an apology. I won't call Lugnuts a saint, but I don't think ArbComm is needed. I think some form of interaction ban between the two of them under whichever of the sub proposals above would stop the needling of one another which is what's exhausting and has eaten this board. Star Mississippi 13:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Dlthewave; the issues with Lugnuts' conduct is the greater issue, but the community has not been able to handle any of this - even a finding of "no misconduct" for one or both would at least stop the constant ANI discussions. I will note that I don't see editors consistently !voting for a redirect even when none is suitable, or editors consistently !voting against a redirect even when one is suitable, as a significant problem worthy of any attention; most of the time, the closing admin will ignore those !votes. BilledMammal (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Arbcom for Lugnuts in the absence of a siteban/block, Neutral on JPL - Really Lugnuts repeated uncivil behaviour, which we've now been discussing on here for years, and for which they have received repeated block and warnings, should have had him indefinitely blocked years ago. Contrary to what is said above, Lugnuts is most definitely WP:NOTHERE but instead focused only on racking up article-creation stats regardless of policy on what articles should actually have, and obstructing any effort to clean up the stubs he created. The failure of this forum to do anything about Lugnuts leaves only an Arbcom case as the outlet. These repeated discussions are a pure time sink and this should be the last one of these we have. JPL obviously has a mixed record on here but frankly if it's a problem and the community agrees it's a problem then I don't see why he shouldn't just be blocked - possibly I just haven't been part of the discussions around his behaviour and haven't seen efforts to do something about it repeatedly fail. FOARP (talk) 14:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      "Lugnuts is most definitely WP:NOTHERE but instead focused only on racking up article-creation stats regardless of policy on what articles should actually have, and obstructing any effort to clean up the stubs he created." Which, of course, is utter rubbish. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So, your response to my comment on your repeated instances of incivility is ... more incivility. Care to remind us what happened in January 2022 that prompted you to create this list? FOARP (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    FOARP, you claim Lugnuts is guilty of more incivility (yawn!!!!) because he says your utter rubbish is utter rubbish? Why don't you try to BUILD the encyclopaedia like Lugnuts has done instead of boring everyone else with your repetitive WP:POINTs? NGS Shakin' All Over 20:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Who are you calling a cheerleader? –dlthewave ☎ 17:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Lets face it. You, FOARP, BM and a handful of others are always on Lugnuts' case. Maybe you should try and BUILD the encyclopaedia like he does instead of indulging in WP:BURO and WP:BATTLE to try and discredit one of the most productive editors on the site. What have you actually done to improve and develop the encyclopaedia? Less than me, even, I should think. As Lugnuts says, a pack of cheer-leaders, also known as a clique. NGS Shakin' All Over 19:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • A proposal to take this to arbcom in a thread that fails at least in part because of polarization/partisanship is going to fail at least in part because of polarization/partisanship. If you think it should go to arbcom, submit the case request and let them determine whether it should be heard. See how they think it should be scoped.
      There is no shortage of evidence that Lugnuts, JPL, and TPH have all been taken to ANI many times for behavioral issues related to the creation and/or deletion of low quality articles, all three have taken up large amounts of time, and the issues have persisted for a long time. Where it may fail is (a) figuring out a scope that avoids having a bunch of person-centered cases, and (b) that there have been various restrictions placed on all three AFAIK, so the argument that the community is unable to handle the problem is complicated.
      I'm weakly inclined to think arbcom should accept a proposal, but scoped to particular areas/activities rather than individual editors. So perhaps "behavior around the mass creation of articles" (and their deletion/redirection), and "behavior in deletion discussions". That scope might be overly broad, but if we could come out of a case with some ground rules for engaging in those two areas, or a mandate to address recurring procedural conflicts, and not just sanctions (or lack thereof) on these three editors, that would be most useful. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support sending one case to ArbCom on Conduct in Deletion Discussions, with at least three parties:
    • Lugnuts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    • Johnpacklambert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    • TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    I had been about to compose a post to Idea Lab to ask for input on how to compose a community general sanction regime for editors whose conduct in deletion discussions is disruptive. It will be even better if ArbCom reviews the history of these three parties and decides on appropriate remedies for each of them, as well as a regime of ArbCom general sanctions for disruptive conduct in deletion discussions. The parties are three editors whose conduct has divided the community, and each case should have the deliberative review that ArbCom can provide better than WP:ANI. More generally, issues involving disruptive conduct in deletion discussions come to WP:ANI often enough that ArbCom discretionary sanctions are a better way to deal with these issues than the long cases that are currently open. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose I feel that there are a lot of disagreements on who does what where that get way too long and heated, and I'd feel that way even if there weren't a big long sprawling discussion on myself. I don't think anything here is contentious enough to warrant an escalation. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pretty sure the only vote that matters for sending something to arbcom is the arbcom vote on accepting or rejecting the case. AFAIK any user can open a case request if they feel it necessary, and that does not need a proposal at ANI. nableezy - 16:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    What is the problem that ArbCom would be asked to solve? What would be the desired outcome that can't be achieved anywhere else? On the basis of what evidence? Because this thread is generating a lot of heat but very little light. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    HJM, the answer to your first question is JPL. Simple as that. The answer to your second question is that the JPL issue apparently CAN'T be resolved anywhere else so lets try Arbcom in case they can sort it out, the desired outcome being an indef block for someone who is surely the most disruptive editor on the site. Third, the evidence is above. I agree about the heat but the light is dazzling – JPL must go because he is a net negative. NGS Shakin' All Over 20:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a personal attack. You might disagree with his opinion that Wikipedia is better off without a great many of these articles but it's an opinion he's entitled to hold. He may not find consensus for it, but Wikipedia is a broad church. What I'm not seeing is evidence of him violating policy. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Arbcom would handle NGS's bludgeoning better than ANI, to take one example. Levivich 21:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Levivich indeed. This is way out of hand. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, points taken. I will step aside as there is probably little else to add, anyway. HJM, you say my criticism of JPL is a personal attack? What about all the personal attacks on Lugnuts by certain people over the last year or more, where he has been called a net negative despite his massive contributory efforts? JPL is entitled to his opinions, of course, but his actions and many of his statements go way beyond holding an opinion. As for violating policy, he is held by many to be a disruptive editor (see above and previous JPL-related issues at ANI for evidence) and that is surely a violation of the spirit of WP embodied in WP:5P4 – WP:DISRUPT and WP:POINT apply, inter alia. I shall go back to building the encyclopaedia, when I'm next available – which may not be for several days, as it happens, because I have much more important things to do. NGS Shakin' All Over 21:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't believe this needs to be said to people who are presumably adults, but the solution to bad behavior and personal attacks is not retribution and your response is completely tone deaf. This isn't a playground, we aren't school children (at least most of the people here, I hope.) PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    People who use playground analogies are nearly always the equivalent of playground inhabitants themselves. As for your prescient "tone deaf" remark, it just so happens that I am 50% deaf in my right ear and 75% deaf in the left. I wear digital hearing aids in both ears. [redacted insult -Floq] NGS Shakin' All Over 21:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @No Great Shaker are you itching for a block yourself? Good to know that personal attacks are only ok as long as they come from you. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC) Comment. I do think the issues with these editors is getting to the point where the community is just too exhausted to deal with them. However most of the reason these monthly discussions go on so long without any lasting resolution is because they're really a proxy for preferred AfD outcomes, and these editors represent exaggerated examples of one "side" or the other. So people on one end will bring up even the most minor P&G/sanction/whatever violations by the editor(s) in question whenever he is mentioned at ANI and use these as evidence of the other end being a terrible blight on Wikipedia. Editors on the same end of the spectrum as the accused perceive this as an attack on their deletion/creation/retention preferences and oppose any type of sanctions, to the extent that they'll overlook behaviors they've criticized in the past from the other side. And then the discussion becomes a platform for each group to air their frustrations with "editor behavior" and propose increasingly abstracted and inappropriate sanctions, and no one can keep track of what's going on or even where the end of the discussion is.
    I don't see a way the community can avoid this happening, because everyone here already knows all this and we still mostly participate along partisan lines every time. So while I imagine the same thing would happen at any ARBCOM case we put forth, at least it would provide a structured environment where unfocused PA-laden spinoff proposals can't be added and SNOW-closed, where responses are character-limited and threaded by user, and where the "close" is less dependent on participant arguments and rough numbers and more on essentially 8+ supervotes (that are supposed to be) based on independent, P&G-based analyses of the facts.
    So for these reasons I would support some kind of case addressing, in no particular order:
    1. Lugnuts' behavior with respect to personalizing JPL's deletion nominations, in particular his constant poking (e.g. calling JPL "Lambert" and making it into a big THING when asked to not do that; posting AfD notices from JPL on his OWN talk page (because he has forbidden JPL from using the automatic notification system when nominating a Lugnuts creation -- mixed this up with his characterizing other editors' automatic notices as harassment) with "tick tock it's Lambert o'clock" edit summaries and "current stats" on JPL nominations; agitating for sanctions on JPL at every opportunity).
    2. Lugnuts' responses to deletion noms/PRODs/redirects. Here are my thoughts: things would go so. much. smoother. if, whenever these happen, instead of immediately contesting them he went and found at least one hard-to-dispute SIGCOV IRS on the subject and added it to the article first. Accusations of the nom not doing a BEFORE would ideally not be made at all, but if he really believes it he should back it up with GNG-satisfying sources or extremely strong reasons for why SIGCOV is guaranteed in specific offline locations.
    3. JPL's AfD nomination reasoning and BEFORE searches. A substantial number of editors have brought up that his nom statements often imply he is only looking at the current sourcing on the page, and if any BEFORE is performed, it is superficial and not thorough. A <70% hit rate does suggest there's a deficiency somewhere in the process of searching for sources. I think a lot of the concern would be alleviated if JPL outlined exactly what his BEFORE consisted of and linked a few results that he has dismissed as not counting toward GNG (and why). Honestly this should be expected of all AfD noms.
    4. JPL's prod rationales. Even more than the AfDs, these seem to be based solely on the current sourcing in the article. JPL knows that people scrutinize his deletion activities and will use any perceived failures against him. The best way to counter this is to ensure his PRODs are not facepalms, which he can do by performing a solid BEFORE even though it is not required by policy or even mentioned on WP:PROD or WP:DELETE. He should mention this in the PROD NOM too.
    5. JPL's tendency toward overcommenting in discussions (*gestures vaguely above*).
    6. TPH's arguably unsustainable prod/AfD volume, especially with how low his "success rate" is. I'd suggest the same thing here as I did for JPL.
    7. Behavior of other participants at ANI and when interacting with the editors in question. I'm looking at the repeated aspersions, condescension, and PAs in the above thread and pretty much all the prior ones involving at least Lugnuts or JPL. JoelleJay (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "because he has forbidden JPL from using the automatic notification system when nominating a Lugnuts creation" - Again, another false claim that's been made about me. How could I have possibly done that? Diffs please. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, sorry, I got him mixed up with the other editors you've banned from posting AfD notices or or other automated templates on your page. JoelleJay (talk) 17:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmmm... one advantage to an ArbCom case request would be that the arbs and clerks wouldn't put up with the ... what, two dozen maybe? - discussion-derailing personal comments that multiple editors on both "sides" have made here. I've often derided the idea of the Civility Police, but even I am tempted to start page-banning multiple people from ANI for a week, to try to salvage something useful from this discussion. Come on, we're better than this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support an arbcom case, though I hope these two (or three now) editors aren't the only parties whose conduct Arbcom looks into. -- Vaulter 22:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Support per JoelleJay, though I still hold out hope for the counterproposal, which I feel tries to thread the needle. Iseult Δx parlez moi 23:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support ARBCOM whether one with all parties or three separate cases per OPRAH and washing hands of issues ranging back years. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support ArbCom case for TenPoundHammer for reasons listed above. No restrictions or warnings of the past stop him from doing what he is doing, nothing anyone says gets through to him. Dream Focus 02:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I have started 2 Arbcom cases, one about Lugnuts and one about Johnpacklambert. Anyone is free to start one about TenPoundHammer if they feel the need of course, but he isn't the focus of this discussion. Fram (talk) 09:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, User:Fram. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Proposal: TBAN JPL and Lugnuts from deletion and redirection

    Proposed: JPL and Lugnuts are topic banned from deletion and redirection, broadly construed, appealable in one year.

    • Support as proposer. Pretty much everybody reading this is an intelligent adult and experienced editor. Everybody knows that these two editors' participation in deletion and redirection processes has taken up a bunch of other editors' time at AFD, ANI and elsewhere. Some people think JPL's conduct is worse; others think Lugnuts is worse; does anyone think that either of their participation in deletion and redirection amounts to a net positive for the encyclopedia? Is their participation in these particular areas worth all of this editor time from others? This thread has already taken up much time from many people. We don't need to bring in another dozen arbitrators to figure out what's obvious. We don't need a months-long investigation. We don't need a forensic analysis to figure out what the problem is. We can all see what's wrong and we can all predict how an arbcom case would play out. Let's save ourselves and each other a bunch of time. Neither JPL nor Lugnuts are going to be harmed if they can't participate in AFD or redirect discussions for a year; but the rest of us will continue to have our time sucked up if we don't exclude them from these areas. This is a relatively quick and easy way to gain a year of peace and quiet. Levivich 22:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. At some point the community has to protect itself, and Levivich is right: this is an enormous waste of everyone's time. Mackensen (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. -- Vaulter 22:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support on waste of time argument. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:58, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Just on the basis that this is a massive waste of everyone’s time. I assume this includes redirecting and reverting redirects, PRODing and removing PRODs, commenting at AFD etc. FOARP (talk) 03:26, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I did a couple rounds of circular argument that had me wondering if this had become the new norm for WP; it's a relief to find out it's not just me! Stan (talk) 03:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I understand where this is coming from; given the amount of time that we have wasted in discussion after discussion on this topic, both could be seen as a net negative within AfD. In particular their votes don't add much to the discussion, and sometimes cause disruption. However, they do both make reasonable nominations, and many bold redirects will go unnoticed if we don't allow Lugnuts to address them.
      As such, I propose an alternative:
      1. Lugnuts and John Pack Lambert are topic banned from commenting on deletion and redirection, broadly construed, including nominations they made and articles they created, appealable in one year.
      2. For the duration of the topic ban, Lugnuts and John Pack Lambert are permitted to freely nominate articles for deletion, to freely prod articles, and to freely boldly redirect articles. However, they are required to conduct a WP:BEFORE prior to doing so. Failing to do so will result in the topic ban changing to deletion and redirection, broadly construed.
      3. For the duration of the topic ban, Lugnuts and John Pack Lambert are permitted to remove prods and revert bold redirects, but they are required to ensure that the article includes at least one reference that a reasonable editor could believe meets the requirements of WP:GNG. Failing to do so will result in the topic ban changing to deletion and redirection, broadly construed.
    • This will address the three underlying issues; inappropriate nominations, inappropriate deprodding/redirect reverting, and disruptive commenting, but still allow them both to benefit the encyclopedia through their work in this area. BilledMammal (talk) 03:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don’t see the need for the additional complexity here. Particularly a requirement for WP:Before is going to be very hard to enforce - except in cases where there is clear SIGCOV in an independent reliable source on the first page of Google results, how do you prove that it wasn’t done?
      Levivich is right, this has become a massive time-suck and it’s time to cut the Gordian knot. Frankly Lugnut’s behaviour (repeatedly ignoring admin warnings and bans and continuing to engage in incivility for years) is long overdue for an indef ban, and with any other editor that’s what would have happened years ago. This isn’t an indef ban but it does at least ban them from the area where they are the most trouble. For JPL I’m just a lot less familiar with his behaviour but I’m happy to defer to the community on this. FOARP (talk) 05:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      For WP:BEFORE, I would expect it to be proven by providing sources that should have been found in a before. If such sources don't exist, then you can't prove that it wasn't done, but you also don't know that it wasn't done.
      Regardless Lugnuts, the situation I want to avoid is us redirecting thousands of articles without any sort of check. Lugnuts provides that check, and so long as the consensus is that the encyclopedia is not better off banning him, and so long as can prevent him from disruptively reverting redirects, then I don't think we should stop him from providing that check.
      John Pack Lambert is similar; his AfD nominations generally benefit the encyclopedia, and if we can address the WP:BEFORE concerns several editors have raised then I believe we should continue to allow him to make them. BilledMammal (talk) 05:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The answer as to who should do these things if Lugnuts/JPL are banned from doing them is “literally anyone else”. I don’t believe that repeating the same redirect vote over and over is a productive use of anyone’s time or a valuable contribution. Indeed, getting editors engaged in the problem of fixing these poorly-sourced stubs will be easier if they are less likely to be subjected to incivility. FOARP (talk) 06:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      This would stop those votes, by topic banning both of them from commenting at AfD. I understand where you are coming from, and don't oppose the original proposal, I just believe that a more nuanced solution would be better. BilledMammal (talk) 08:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      BilledMammal's proposal is fairly solid, but the BEFORE part is too ill-defined to be workable. That said, I think this is on the right track might be the start of the right thing. Hobit (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support the proposal of topic ban for both. This seems the best way to restore more light to deletion discussions and take away the heat. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I get the idea, but here's a hypothetical situation: some random newbie PRODS an article that is clearly notable. One of these two editors has it on their watchlist and, for sake of argument, no one else does so no one else sees it. It would concern me if neither could remove the PROD in that case. If the PROD is followed up by an AfD then, fair enough. But we risk losing articles unless we provide for that possibility.
    I'm also not sure that a year is a fair first step tbh - 3 months might be more appropriate. And I'll say again, that I've seen changes in the behaviour of one of these editors as a result of previous discussions - and tbh I'm really not sure that the initial complaint here isn't a teeniest bit over sensitive. Yet we've ended up with a quite draconian solution. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue here is repeated bad behaviour from which the subject refuses to learn. Think of all the editors who have come across this board and received indef blocks for exactly that - far from being drastic, this is lenient. As for who can handle such Prod/deletion issues if not them, the answer is "literally anyone else". Particularly in the case of prods they will be checked by an admin before deletion occurs anyway, so if the scenario you identify occurs then the admin will refuse to delete. FOARP (talk) 08:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. An arbcom case is better than this. Trying to close a discussion like this because the conflict is annoying instead of trying to solve the problem properly is not good. This section has no chance on actually passing because most oppose votes for the other proposals above are definitely also oppose votes for this - at least those that see no problem or call less intrusive actions too harsh.Lurking shadow (talk) 11:23, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I have been trying to make reasonable contributions to deletion discussions. I have tried to respond to imput and change my behavior. This is far too broad and all encompassing a decision. I also do not think it is a reasonable response to the issues at hand. I have been doing lots more work on studying the background of articles before nominating them. This is far too broad a rule, that would impact way to much behavior that has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - for better or worse, content creation is down to practically zero. The crux issue is whether we're attempting to create a vertical project (more than just a single sentence/paragraph of information), or a horizontal project (creating as many articles as possible, thus creating the impetus for further article fostering). And while we are disagreeing on this matter, there is no way to continue. I could name half a dozen serial article creators who have been discouraged from creating articles and have thus left the project. The crux of this issue is, what are we attempting to achieve? And the fact that we are talking at cross purposes shows what we have become. (Not a criticism of any individuals). Bobo. 12:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have tried to consider advice on how better to contribute to AfD discussions and am trying to do so with more deliberation and consideration of more issues than I have at times in the past. I feel that imposing such a braod, long lasting and inflexible ban at this time is not justified. For example on Moulton-Udell High School I looked up more sources and proposed a solution other than outright deletion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, sorry--I think it's best for the project if JPL is banned from deletion discussions unless it's about something he created. This very thread, or this umpteenth subthread, indicates well enough just how disruptive JPL is, and how little he understands what his behavior is causing. Throughout this process at ANI he's been commenting on almost every aspect with an astonishing level if IDHT, there's comments on tons of user talk pages trying to goad others into sympathy, and while all this is going on he's nominating Lugnuts's articles for deletion and, when he gets called on it, starts talking about the merits of their nomination. If JPL is bothered by Lugnuts's behavior on AfDs, why nominate one of his articles in the midst of all this? It's mind boggling. And it's part of a pattern, it looks like a persecution complex, and it just sucks up energy. Edits like this one are ill-advised already (and it's the fourth in a series), but when you throw in the edit summary it's obvious to me that JPL simply does not understand (or care to understand) what it is we are doing here, why we have sanctions, or what is expected of editors. Lugnuts's behavior at AfDs or elsewhere--it doesn't even come close to this level of disruption. No, enough already. And someone who produced Read Elding, Adeyemi I Alowolodu, Enrique Muñoz Arístegui really shouldn't be participating in AfD in the first place. Drmies (talk) 13:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • All three of those articles meet our inclusion criteria for policial leaders by quite wide margins. I have added another source to the article on Read Elding. I would like to see better sourcing on them, but they clearly fall into a section of coverage where we have agreed we will keep articles as long as we can verify their content. The use of the phrase "Lugnut's articles" is not justified. I nominated one article for deletion, and no one has argued to keep the article, so it is not like it was at all an unjustified article, not that nominating an article that others feels should be kept actually shows that the nomination was in error.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Multiple editors have affirmed above that my nominating stub articles on Olympic competitors that do not meet our current inclusion guidelines for deletion is not unacceptable behavior. I am not seeing why such a nomination, which no one has voted keep on, is being treated as such a problem.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Keep in mind that the nomination I am being attacked for above Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raúl Antoli even has one editor saying that it should have just been done unilaterally as a redirect (I think we really need to avoid encouraging that, and develop a better way to discuss redirects in the same forum as deletions) and has another editor calling for a snow closure. This is an article that no one is supporting remain an article, and thus to use this nomination as an example of bad editing makes no sense at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • An unverified article cannot meet any guidelines. You still don't understand that when you are in a serious conflict with an editor, and you started a thread that's taking up huge space on this board, you should probably lay off of nominating their articles for deletion. Again, this is not about the actual articles; we're not here to judge whether you are nominating for the right reasons. We're here to see what the disruption is, and your continuously arguing about other things is a huge deflection and thus a disruption. Drmies (talk) 17:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question, if passed, would this mean that Mr. Lambert is no longer allowed to comment on/open AFDs and Lugnuts would no longer be able to comment on AFDs? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think is the intent, but it may not be as clear as it should be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oppose, although I am not a fan of Mr. Lambert's views on inclusion v. deletion, I do not see how this would help WP, as most of his AFDs seem valid (and he has a 97.2 match percentage ([49]) in the past 200 AFDs commented on). I also oppose sanctioning Lugnuts; I do not see anything that should warrant a one-year ban. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • To answer your question, yes. A TBAN from deletion, broadly construed, would include all of deletion: opening, closing, commenting on AFDs, tagging/untagging PRODs and CSDs, etc. A TBAN from redirection, broadly construed, would include redirecting articles and reverting redirected articles. Regardless of who started or editing the article at issue. BTW, in my view it doesn't matter what either of their AFD match rate is, because their participation in these areas is disruptive, even if they "match" the consensus result. Both of these editors have been editing for 10+ years. Whatever they're doing, they're doing it wrong, because it causes all these ANI threads. 99% of editors are able to participate in AFD and redirection -- and have a perfectly fine match rate -- without any of this disruption. We have 12-year-old editors who edit less disruptively than JPL and Lugnuts. I don't think it's too much to ask that they both figure out how to conform their editing styles so that they are less disruptive than the average 12-year-old editor. They've both been given ample opportunities over 10+ years. Levivich 16:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose The existing restrictions on them (stub creation for one and <1 daily AfD for the other) are probably already doing their job if the complaints brought here against either side consist of such things as 'niggling' (OP wording), poor English, and low-quality voting on AfD. The latter isn't an issue since the two don't even have bad AfD stats overall. As for the rest, I'm sure someone will go on about how some policy on 'personalizing disputes' or 'civility' is being violated, but I can't bring myself to make a big deal out of occasional unfriendliness between two editors who will never like each other anyway. Filing a report based on 'niggling' was a silly idea, and whoever likes to write entire walls of text on this cannot complain about 'community time' being wasted. At the very most an interaction ban or a restriction on redirects, reversions and prods, but a total ban on AfD participation for either is not justified atm. Avilich (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I think we'd need a much more focused discussion on what the actual issues are with these editors' deletion behaviors before jumping to ban them from such a broad area. The thread right now jumbles the AfD/PROD/redirect problems into a sprawling mix of allegations of targeting, allegations of allegations of targeting, claims of incivility and incompetence, personal attacks, and numerous proposals and subproposals to address some or all of the above. So I don't think it's reasonable to interpret lack of consensus for any particular proposed sanction as evidence that these editors are incapable of improving. I especially think JPL would be much more receptive to an explicit, un-nuanced outline of adapted expectations on his AfD/PROD noms rather than arbitrary restrictions. JoelleJay (talk) 18:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. The sooner the better, it’s only getting worse. Jacona (talk) 22:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, as it does not truly address the issues at hand; for example, Lugnuts persistent incivility and John Pack Lambert's bludgeoning are not confined to deletion issues. It also ignores the good work they (at least try to) do in this area – they are both in good faith trying to improve the encyclopedia. I would rather see measures that seek to prevent these time sinks reoccurring, i.e. in 12 months time when restrictions expire, or before then when the problems occur outside of deletion issues. Kicking the can down the road is precisely why we're (still) here. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - we shouldnt sanction people without actually identifying what they have done that merits a sanction. And that isnt done here, on either side. Its just a pox on both your houses without being able to justify it outside of "they're wasting our time". No, if you dont want to waste your time on ANI threads about JPL or Lugnuts then dont do that, if you choose to waste that time you cant then say oh no you wasted my time. If somebody wants to say because of X, Y, Z actions done by either JPL or Lugnuts they should be sanctioned that might well make sense. But there isnt any rational basis for any sanction in this proposal. nableezy - 13:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. An arbcom case is better here since there are mutiple long term issues. If we TBAN them, the problems will just continue elsewhere. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 16:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - in their hugely different ways both are productive editors and neither of them is anywhere close to being a net negative, although JPL seems determined to make himself appear so. I think the fairest and probably also the least ineffective measure is the two-way IBAN proposed somewhere up above. I must add though that the background to this is the continuing war of attrition between deletion and inclusion in certain areas, at the moment especially sports, which is independent of these two, and that will not go away. Ingratis (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. The proposal goes too far and is not warranted. Cbl62 (talk) 04:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I agree with Cbl62, this goes too far and is not warranted.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    IP sockpuppets of Jinnifer

    Lots of activity from LTA Jinnifer tonight, the usual talk page harassment coupled with edit warring about how popular Spider-man is and decade sections for horror films. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jinnifer/Archive for some history. The IP ranges involved are unfortunately quite busy, but blocks on 2600:387:15:630:0:0:0:0/61 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) and 2600:387:C:7135:0:0:0:0/61 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) should cover it for the moment, if anyone is so inclined. MrOllie (talk) 02:27, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, I'd appreciate a bit of action. My revert finger is getting tired. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked the 64. Thanks my garden friend for flagging. I'm about to go offline so any admin can feel free to modify as needed. Star Mississippi 02:50, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Whacked another /64 which was being actively used. firefly ( t · c ) 10:15, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And back again as 2600:387:15:637:0:0:0:8 This is AT&T mobile, the /64 isn't going to be wide enough. I again encourage a block on the /61 MrOllie (talk) 11:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    HJ Mitchell has placed anon block on the /32. Thanks, all. MrOllie (talk) 12:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This indicates just how troubled this editor is. Drmies (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A block of OsscarKnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) would stop their current disruption. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:10, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    OsscarKnight is blocked, has now moved on to GuntherVold (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) MrOllie (talk) 02:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    GuntherVoid blocked before I saw this report, but definitely connected. —C.Fred (talk) 02:41, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And now on to SpiCapHul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - MrOllie (talk) 12:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Now EdLorJudWarr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) MrOllie (talk) 01:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked, no tags. Star Mississippi 01:53, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Now TBTSP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) MrOllie (talk) 13:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked, no tags. Lather, rinse, repeat. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Busy sock today. NationalEditor2500 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) currently active. Block appreciated. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:46, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Another one blocked, no tags. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Now Ydheosyrje5wis53j3e6sue6e (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) MrOllie (talk) 13:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Now Ksyystwjwye (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) MrOllie (talk) 01:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Another new contestant, DiamondBlocked (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Tony Fox (arf!) 04:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Korean nationalist engaged in WP:NPA

    User:Zessede engaged in WP:NPA with users User:Qiushufang and User:Esiymbro.

    Consistent and habitual accusations based on race, ethnicity, and supposed political affiliations. See edit summaries, [50], [51], [52], [53], Talk:Goryeo#Chinese_editors_sabotaging_page, Talk:Balhae#Sources.

    Zessede consistently deflects by accusing and insulting others of political and ethnic affiliations including being part of the CCP, state sponsored historiographical projects, being wumao, being Chinese, and coordinating together because they are Chinese buddies.

    Probably also WP:NOTHERE based on this edit summary:

    • Bent on a mission? When in fact Chinese users like Qiushiubang and Esiymbro sabotage Korea-related contents, for instance, other wiki pages of Korean kingdoms, ranting in demand of 'no primary sources' and 'no Korean and only English sources'. When in fact foreign scholarly works done on the Later Three Kingdoms or other eras of Korean History are minor and near to none. Simple fact is, Han Chinese folks have less to do with Balhae than Korean people who are actually tied via blood, culture etc [54]. At no point did I insist that Korean sources not be used. Zessede was originally the one who removed an English source [55].

    Insult and accusation of being Wumaos:

    • Wonderful coordination between two Chinese buddies keen on disproving Balhae's role in the Unification of the Later Three Kingdoms and the Founding of a unified Goryeo. Keep up the good work, Wumaos. [56]

    Insult and accusation of being Chinese ultranationalist as well as deflection:

    • Hurts much? You can't even refute a single statement I make and outright brand me an ultranationalist when in reality you're the one sabotaging Korea-related contents. If you aren't an Chinese ultranationalist, then answer my two question. Do you think Tibet and Uighur are genuinely Chinese? And what do you think about the Tiananmmen Massacre? Thank you. [57] Qiushufang (talk) 02:53, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • For my part, I strongly believe that Tibet and Xinjiang should have the right of self-determination, that the Tienanmen Massacre decidedly happened, that the PRC's rewriting of history is highly objectionable, and in all the other proper talking points. So stipulated. But it does not therefore follow that Chinese editors are by definition incapable of following Wikipedia guidelines and policies or editing in a neutral fashion, debarred from editing Korean-related articles, or set beyond the protections of WP:NPA that every editor enjoys. If Zessede has charges to make and evidence to support them (beyond "I don't like their edits"), let's hear it. If not, they can stifle. Ravenswing 03:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Qiushufang and Esiymbro on Korea-related contents undoing lengthy edits backed with verified Korean sources both academic and primary without provision of detailed explanation as to why. Korean sources are main and foremost when it comes to Korean History. This idea is aligned with mainstream academia as well. Both users are inconsistent with their demeanor on Wiki Policies regarding the preference of secondary sources and non-English based evidence. They are active on only on pages of Korean Kingdoms that have become politically sensitive since China's state-led Northeast Project such as Goguryeo,Balhae,Buyeo,Goryeo and use wiki regulations as an excuse and tool for their own ends. The Northeast Project is one of the CCP's state-led historiographical policy based on revisionism for political interests concerning Communist China. The idea is basically about laying claim on Northern Korean kingdoms that have held territories within modern-China despite accumulated academic work and historical accounts that proves otherwise. The point is to solidify China's grip on Manchuria and strenghen the rationale of their motives on North Korea. The same is concurrent with Tibet, Uighur, Inner Mongolia, and Vietnam. Qiushufang and Esiymbro have been causing disorientation through the spread of misguided information that are highly debatable in mainstream academia and are likely aligned in idea, if not direct affiliation, to the CCP and Wumaos that are present in almost every corner of the internet. Not to mention that calling one a 'nationalist' and one's editing a 'nationalist' source was first fired from the other side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zessede (talk • contribs) 03:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Show us some diffs, then, supporting your charges. (With that, both Qiushufang and Esiymbro have been editing on the English Wikipedia a lot longer than you have, and there is no policy nor guideline canonizing Korean sources as somehow more valid than those from any other nation ... rather an odd stance to take from someone who resents the implication that he's a nationalist.) Ravenswing 03:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This comment by Zessede illustrates some of the problems working with him. My suggestions to him to stop personal attacks and reduce reliance on primary sources were not heeded. His responses were similar to his comment here: [58], [59]. Not once did I mention Uyghurs, Tibetans, ethnic minorities, or the CCP. Afterwards he continued to edit war at Goryeo and has been reported for edit warring. Qiushufang (talk) 03:23, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


    《If you think that "primarily working on Chinese sources based on works of China-based scholars" is a reason for deletion, then do not add any Korean source on controversial topics. The article's reference list is already heavily biased towards Korean sources. Either way, we don't need any more unverifiable Korean ultranationalist claims as in your edits, especially considering that some of the claims are clearly not mentioned in the sources. Esiymbro (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)》 > Tell me, since when did the original Korean narrative on Korean history become 'ultranationalistic' while the Chinese state-led ones became 'objective' and 'non-biased'? Branding someone an 'Ultranationalist' was the first move you forwarded on me and not the way around. The Korean narrative on 'controversial' topics as you put it, in Korean history, like Buyeo-Goguryeo-Balhae-Goryeo, have always been consistent (=Korean History; while Balhae stands as a multi-ethnic Koreanic Kingdom led by Korean elites) and no one argues with that. I remember you and Esiymbro's editing and undoing of my revisions on the Buyeo page before when I cited Korean sources. Of course, they were all undone by you and Esiymbro. Pulling off the same 'vassal' or 'under jurisdiction' statements when those texts that have not been attested thoroughly by western scholars reflect something different than historical accounts. Your understanding of the difference between a tributary and vassal is thin. And your sources for them were primary sources from classical Chinese records. So I guess the usage of primary sources is only allowed for Chinese users it seems? You see, unlike Chinese or Japanese history, Korean History is relatively minor and new to the western world and it is rarely covered. Researches and works and accounts that laid the foundation for Korean History Studies, like anywhere else with their own national history, are built upon native academic sources. Not to mentioned the aforementioned Korean kingdoms weren't even conceived as Chinese or Tungusic but Korean by Chinese folks themselves (until the state-led Northeast Project spearheaded by the CCP that is). Your peoples' claim and theft of Korean history, cuisine, culture, entertainment, copyrights, and sovereignty are off the charts and beyond imaginable in scale and space. I remember the Hanbok page going under revisionism caused by Chinese users when it came to its 'origins' of which you people claim are Chinese (which isn't). Your president Xinnie the Pooh even make false statements on diplomatic grounds about Korea being part of China. A clear lack of understanding of their own traditional code of diplomacy that was standard in ancient, medieval Asia, shared by most of the Sinitic states. My edits on Goryeo highlights the legacy of the Unification of the Later Three Kingdoms of Korea which cannot be explained without Balhae. In fact, the role and amount of Balhae refugees that came to Goryeo are significant. They, along with the Goguryeo people who founded Goryeo, are considered focal highlights that marks the importance of the unification that took place back then by Korean academia, in the sense that Goryeo was the first Korean kingdom to actually forge a singular identity shared amongst Koreanic people of different backgrounds. Which of course includes Balhae. And yet, you undid every edit I made to make underline that point. You and Esiymbro don't even consider Korean Academic researches to be verified because they're 'Korean' when in fact the history and foundation is deeper than your own on Korean history. And you and your 'buddy' Esiymbro post primary Chinese sources + narratives, or leave them be on the Buyeo page? You guys might fool some innocent Western people who are generous enough to allow you do what you do but know this: your government are culture-less barbarians with their own hands destroyed every historical, ideological connections between the people and their past, now seeking to do the same with other countries. One of them being Korea on an especial sense after Korean culture became recognized worldwide only recently. Your government and people who blindlessly follow state-fed crap is what happens when the intellectuals get killed off and red guards loyal to their dear leader fill in the void. Like 1966. The qualities of creativity that comes from studying your own classics and humanities are gone. You burnt them all down. Hence the theft of copyrights owned by Korean companies and an Ultranationalist narrative that believes everything that was in China was Chinese + China must be Great Again.

    Now tell me, why not add some useful English-based, non-primary sources as citations for the Later Baekje page I was worked on a while ago? Since the Korean sources are unverified, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zessede (talk • contribs) 04:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Another lengthy deflection and I'm not going into the obvious lies in Zessede's post here (such as "Branding someone an 'Ultranationalist' was the first move you forwarded on me and not the way around." when the editor have been making personal attacks on ethnicity/nationality since months ago [60]).
    But let us be clear: Zessede's content cannot represent the actual "Korean narrative" at all, only their own imagination. Zessede's edits have a consistent pattern of adding false citations to otherwise unsourced content. This, along with consistent attempts to remove Korean and western sources cited by others, is at the root of every edit war involving them, not the "Korea vs China" controversy as Zessede claims. I've listed some examples of this behavior over several months at the DRN thread and there are very clear examples of deliberate false citing in several articles.
    In both cases it was impossible to engage in any meaningful discussion with the editor. They immediately resorted to personal attacks when challenged, much like what they are still doing right now. Esiymbro (talk) 05:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To keep it short this is another deflection. The immediate incident began on Balhae on 6 June over a source in English that was neither in Chinese or affiliated with the Chinese government. This was the trigger. There was a three day gap between this and their previous edit. Everything since has been Zessede weaseling out of what that source says, which is that there were possibly less refugees from Balhae to Goryeo than originally believed. See their reasoning for why it is invalid: [61]. Part one of the argument is that it does not use enough Korean sources and that the author does not specialize in Korean history. Part two is an ad hominem attack on users regarding their stance on Tibetans and Uyghurs. Now Zessede is accusing Esiymbro and I of using primary Chinese sources (I have not) or Chinese government sources (I have not), when the original dispute was Zessede removing a source that was neither. Qiushufang (talk)
    • Ooof. To be honest, I'm somewhat indifferent to whether Qiushufang and Esiymbro are engaging in "anti-Korean" edits or not. Zessede's response here, choked with personal attacks and insults, combined with the pervasive hostility of his edits and edit summaries [62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69], make it clear that he's here to push an agenda. With a paltry 88 mainspace edits, it isn't as if he's got a body of work remotely offsetting his battleground behavior, and as such, I propose an indef site ban until such time as he can convince the community he can collaborate with others, even they are from nations he hates. Ravenswing 07:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    This is ridiculous. The primary sources for the Buyeo section that says Buyeo was under 'jurisdiction' of the Xuantu Commandery, go and change it now then with the same reasonings you used on me. And don't get me started with the texts regarding Queen Uihye since previous citations were outdated sources that have been rebutted. And you Chinese folks didn't answer my question yet. You call me an Ultranationalist but then again what are your opinions on the Tienanmen and Tibet/Uighur Issues? Do you condone it? Yeah, I figured not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zessede (talk • contribs) 08:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Zessede you must sign your comments with 4 tides ~~~~ 223.226.219.15 (talk) 08:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zessede, putting aside than an editor above did, in fact, do just that...that's all irrelevant. Their positions on Tibet et al are irrelevant to if they are capable of editing Korean articles accurately or not. Indeed, it wouldn't even of itself make it improper for them to edit any Chinese article or not. If you believe they are soapboxing or making ongoing biased edits then bring them here. Instead you are indeed violating the personal attack prohibitions, and likely several other areas as well - certainly your edit summaries are hostile and unwarranted. Additionally, your comment addresses none of the points raised by non-involved editors above. I would concur with Ravenswing's position. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A case request has been filed at DRN concerning the Balhae article and Zessede. I have closed the DRN request while this conduct dispute is being resolved here. I have not researched the dispute further and am not offering an opinion at this time, which I may or may not do later. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Before this was taken here, there was also a 3RR violation report at WP:AN3. Esiymbro (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef site ban. Zessede has never been here to do anything but push a minority point of view. From the creation of their account, their purpose on Wikipedia has been to assert arguments from Korean nationalist historiography in controversies and to remove the opposing consensus from peer-reviewed books and journal articles published in "the West", China, Japan, Russia, et cetera. They subtly remove late-20th and 21st-century sources from publishers like De Gruyter and Cambridge University Press while asking for "mainstream academic sources that are not outdated back to the 'colonial era'" [70]. At the same time they label most editors who contest them as "Chinese buddies" [71]. MGetudiant (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Software projects crosswiki LTA

    Username/IP range
    Articles (incomplete list)

    This crosswiki LTA (under multiple IP addresses in this and other ranges), usually proposes for deletion or remove large ammount contents on software-related articles. This happened since August 2020, originally in the Spanish Wikipedia, where the user and IP range have been already blocked and editions reverted (at the Spanish Wikipedia and here). I request to undo every edition on software-related articles from the IP range, and the range be blocked. --Amitie 10g (talk) 18:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Shit, I didn't know this existed, and started an independent discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Software#Multiple_PRODs_by_an_IP_reverted. Either way, I have fixed the header for this section, and can provide an example of the user blanking large amounts of unsourced content: [72]. Truevision3D was redirected in response to a deprod; the user has also tagged ILAsm since this report was filed. All of the PROD rationales by this user read, "Not notable. There are no independent sources." –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Amitie 10g: What should I do with the PROD tags at QuickWin and XAMLPad? Did you leave them up because they seem to be genuinely non-notable? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The initiator of this thread provided to me the following link to a relevant report at eswiki: es:Wikipedia:Tablón de anuncios de los bibliotecarios/Portal/Archivo/Nombres inapropiados y vandalismo persistente/2021/11#Nombre de usuario no válido 30. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:55, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Would be possible to move them to the Draft: or my sandbox instead of deleting? Due the years of abuse (altrough good editions between), I cant't assume good faith for this user (Mdggdj). Amitie 10g (talk) 19:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I did ultimately open two AfD nominations for those two pages, QuickWin and XAMLPad; I could determine that at least XAMLPad is likely non-notable. It is still possible that some of the remaining articles are also non-notable, but that will require more AfD discussions to decide. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:50, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear, I don't oppose the deletion of those articles per se, but being "handled" by an LTA, and also, subjects of my interest. I'll try to improve those articles in the next days. Thanks for raising this. --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I just wanted to say thanks to you both. Those IP-hopping PRODs and deletion of content after deprodding looked suspicious to me, but I had no idea how to handle it. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 15:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't normally visit ANI but I looked into why an article had been de-PROD'd and it pointed to this discussion. I have noticed, for years, this IP editor, mostly geolocated to Madrid, Spain, who would tag a software or internet company article for a PROD and then hop to a different IP account. They are responsible for many proposed deletions and I just assumed that it was one of our regular editors who preferred to log out to make a PROD tag for some reason. Most of the articles, if I can remember rightly, were for products that could be considered out-of-date. I don't remember seeing many of these articles ever de-PROD'd so I thought they were legitimate PRODs since none of the editors who do PROD patrol ever removed the PROD tags.
    At this point, I wouldn't know how to compile a list of PRODs they were responsible for, you could issue a query for articles deleted with PROD in the edit summary but then you'd have to work through hundreds of articles that had been PROD'd to find those that were relevant. Does WikiProject Software maintain a list of articles that have been assessed? I do know that they have been active for the several years that I've been looking over the daily PROD list. I'm not familiar with the Mdggdj editor, just the one edit IP accounts and I wasn't aware they were doing major content removal. I was frustrated that they kept hopping to a different IP account because I did want to initiate a discussion about their activity PRODding articles so I wish they had stuck with one account. Liz Read! Talk! 03:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi guys, I want to remove fake content from Wikipedia. In doing so, we need to stick to Wikipedia rules and remove non-notable and unreferenced content. I have a bad wireless Internet connection and it seems like my IP address change. Do any of you want to keep non-notable and unreferenced content? I am also worried of users like User:Amitie 10g, he reverts PRODs, templates and unreferenced content without providing any explanation. Should we review his edits? Should we notify that behavior? I also want to thank User:LaundryPizza03 and User:Liz for objetively assessing the situation and rethinking that User:Amitie_10g maybe the vandal in this situation. 85.48.185.84 (talk) 09:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Many sysops (here and the Spanish Wikipedia) don't thing so. Two oif the IP addresses used by this user are currently blocked at the Spanish Wikipedia. Due the facts and disruptive editions since 2020 (and the user being able to edit from two different IP ranges, 85.48.184.0/22 and 90.174.0.0/22), is hard to assume good faith, but calling me (a long term contributor) a vandal confirms this user is WP:NOTHERE "behind good intentions", therefore, I'll consider any maintenance template adding or content removal as disruption. --Amitie 10g (talk) 11:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz, please don't assume that because they were not DEPRODded they were good PRODs; Staffing at WP:PRODPATROL is thin and variable.
    I have removed some of these PRODs over the last couple weeks and some I have let stand. They're usually on marginally notable software subjects so not the consistently uncontroversial cases where we would like to see PROD used. ~Kvng (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    88.64.187.33

    Blocked one month for disruptive editing and inability to work collaboratively with others. If disruptive editing resumes from this IP after one month, please let me know. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 20:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    88.64.187.33 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been disruptively editing for nearly a month. It began with edit warring on RMS Queen Mary and AvtoVAZ; current activity is repeatedly re-adding content to List of Ford factories that has been revdel'd multiple times as a copyright violation, in addition to ignoring WP:SUBCAT on Rolls-Royce Ghost despite requests to stop. Talk page warnings are promptly deleted and un-heeded. The disruption is just sporadic enough that it's deemed stale at AIV by the time I get to it. The copyright violation alone should be enough for a block of reasonable length given that this is clearly a dynamic IP. --Sable232 (talk) 00:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    no, Sable232 did edit war and disruptive editions. My edits were precise and correct as reality is. RMS Queen Mary indeed had the portside harbour boats removed and scrapped, I have the video and many saw in Facebook groups. AvtoVAZ is also from me more correct as reference the Russian Kolesa.ru website demonstrating the history with Renault. Ford Factory is another more complete and accurate from me edit, Fordlandia was an assembly tyre plant from Ford in Pará, as well as Ford Camacari Research continue operating as Ford, only the production was abandoned. So, Ia am since long all richt but Texas and othe USAguys destroy Wikipedia. But as wiki was never Fair, believe it is just the weak part, me which suffers sansanctions, USA wrong people never 88.64.187.33 (talk) 11:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is, your edits lack proper sourcing. Just because you "have the video and many saw in Facebook groups" doesn't constitute the required reliable source. As for the Ford plants, the content you've been adding is copyrighted, and so CANNOT be used in Wikipedia. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I had encountered this user via an ill-formed AIV report. I agree that this user has ignored several warnings and requests to provide reliable sources at Jumbo Kingdom.
    The copyvio at List of Ford factories was with regards to the title given for one of the references, [73]; the title of the news article is "Rui diz que negociação para atrair nova montadora de veículos para Camaçari está avançada" (Rui says negotiations to attract new car maker to Camaçari have advanced), but the IP used about a kilobyte of text from the news article as the title. I did not use this source when re-adding these factories to the new status quo version, since it provides insufficient information to verify the details about the Ford factory in Camaçari, Bahia, Brazil. I had to update the RD1 tag on this page. I can provide one diff per, except for the List of Ford factories edits:
    –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ok, guys you win, leave wikipedia in english wrong... it is ok, we all know in Brasil that a TAV never had and never will, this is fact, so leave the verb tenses wrong. About Ford, leave incomplete as well, what matters is just USA anyway for Ford. Henry Ford decided about a Plantation in middle Amazon in initial years, but no one cares today. The tires with natural rubber went to ipiranga São Paulo plant, but forget, wiki is mess and leave so. The Governor of Bahia ever says that because is Elections, but even if one day Ford sells the Production site, the R&D continued as Ford. It sucks you guys, but I am totally right. Personal experiences do not count in wiki, so lets leave it unreliable. Period.. I am out ! 88.64.187.33 (talk) 21:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Personal experiences ARE unreliable, which is why they do not count; without reliable sourcing, we have no way of knowing whether "I saw the video" is a lie or not. If you cannot understand that, Wikipedia is a poor fit for you. Ravenswing 04:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    personal experience are very reliable, because were felt on skin. They do count a lot, if you think i am a lier, maybe then u then a hitler. if you can not understand that, you are ignorant 88.64.187.33 (talk) 10:51, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    but agree wikipedia is poor and a caos in many places, indeed one of worst encyclopedia because poor knowlege guys like u, 88.64.187.33 (talk) 10:53, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, no. If I argued that "it's quite usual for Brazilians to eat babies for breakfast" and inserted that into the Wikipedia article on Brazil, then justified it on the basis of "everyone knows that" / "I saw it with my own eyes when I was on holiday in Recife" / "it was in a Facebook video" etc I would rightly find my time here extremely short, since anyone can invent a "personal experience." That's why we have WP:VERIFY and WP:RS, precisely to avoid the sort of chaos of people arguing over their own "personal experiences." If you can't get that then I'm afraid your time here will be short. Valenciano (talk) 11:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    those Verify and Reliable Sources are really not reliable, many pretending to be reporters do a blog, an online site and voilà and it is already news for you wiki
    The problem continues, Wiki Articles of Ford Factories, Rolls Royce, Queen Mary Ship, HK ex Restaurant, Trem de Alta Velocidade Brasileiro are Article now because you 5, totally not Reliable, but I know the Truth--- It is a pity because someone goes ready and is handicapped from all Ford instances and still think one day in Brasil, por causa do Luis Inacio da Silva no terceiro mandato de presidente espera alguma coisa a mais de trem, que em outras circunstâncias nunca virßa porque mais de 8 anos se passaram e o momento é outro... boa sorte 88.64.187.33 (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that Godwin's Law has been invoked above, the continued removal of a copyvio template, and the gibberish responses, an extended block is in order - this user is a clearly a net negative to the project. --Sable232 (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    wow, you are also very gibberish with bad english and very negative, the block is ok, if you are arrogant in thinking only in infantile way, but is just to change 1 million times the ip that this unvaluable attack is solved, if necessary. the edits of Sable232 are very inconsistent, but as said in wiki only a small group of USA club is valuable as editors. A way that shows how schools in USA are so low level, we see them here in wiki 88.64.187.33 (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    At this point the WP:NPA violation should lead to a block. MarnetteD|Talk 20:17, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Block evasion

    Unfortunately but not entirely unsurprisingly, they've returned with a new IP: 92.76.156.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) --Sable232 (talk) 13:47, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked 72h given I don't know how dynamic the ISP's assignment patterns are. If disruption resumes after the block expires, ping me and I'll happily extend. firefly ( t · c ) 13:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Ownership being asserted over articles concerning "Yoruba topics"

    Blocked for 1 week by Black Kite. Possibility of escalating sanctions if problems resume. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Block extended to 1 month with revocation of talk page access by SpacemanSpiff. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Otelemuyen has posted to my talk page User talk:Doug Weller#Yoruba topics saying the following: Hi, my name is Otelemuyen, the author and general overseer of all Yoruba-tagged topics as it relates to the Yoruba Members Page here on Wikipedia. Feel free to check out all our pages, our authors, contributors and monitors. Without sounding out of pocket, it’s probably best you go and check the history of the said article. Firstly, as an authority in this field, it was me who authored the said article. It was a fellow publisher who alerted me to the changes made to the article. Apart from the fact that the changes that corrected were minor, wrong, absurd and completely and utterly out of place, neither of those edits went through due process. Due process being a discussion on this the talk page, tagging me and or other contributors to the article ( all these contributors are listed on the “Yoruba Group members page). Secondly, could you kindly provide the justification for the inclusion of those edits. Let’s talk about those absurd inclusions into an article that is being monitored and updated by active Yoruba Group Members, one of whom is texting you right now. Furthermore, anyone attempting to edit any of the articles under our jurisdiction ought to be aware that they need to put their thoughts in the talk page first and then we can discuss. The absence of such process can only be considered vandalism. Otelemuyen (talk) 9:45 pm, Yesterday (UTC+1) Otelemuyen (talk) 9:53 pm, Yesterday (UTC+1)" and in response to a comment by User:Tryptofish who pointed out WP:OWN "Im not here to argue with you or anyone else regarding anything over inconsequential banter, again, the discussion here is regarding the edits made on one of the pages i’m responsible for its publication in the first instance."

    Also see User talk:Tryptofish#Color me gobsmacked.

    This seems to be about an editor removing CN tags and my removing the unsourced material.[74] Doug Weller talk 07:48, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Doug Weller and Tryptofish are purposely misconstruing the point I was alluding here.

    Never claimed to own any topic.

    User:Doug Weller started an edit war regarding a WikiProject Yoruba article , and perhaps no one got the part where it says, “as it relates to Yoruba Members Group tagged topics”

    “As it relates to WikiProjectYoruba tagged topics via the “Yoruba Group Members page”

    “Im not here to argue with you or anyone else regarding anything over inconsequential banter, again, the discussion here is regarding the edits made on one of the pages i’m responsible for its publication in the first instance.

    Assuming you want to discuss the content then, the talk page of the said topic is meant to be put to good use” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otelemuyen (talk • contribs) 08:20, June 10, 2022 (UTC)

    • (edit conflict)For someone reverting others with the "discuss on the talk page" rationale, it is a bit weird that their last contribution to an article talk page was in 2013! I'm not familiar with the subject matter but the most recent edits appear to be simply reverts of other editors' contributions and/or removal of references rescued by the bot. The grammar/typo fixes are anything but grammar or typo fixes. —SpacemanSpiff 08:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Doug Weller began an editing war over a WikiProjectYoruba related topic.

    And the point I was alluding was that the proper channel was to use the talk page to discuss those things. Instead, he began to pick hairs and misconstrue what was being said. Otelemuyen (talk 09:33,10 June 2022 (UTC)

    There you go again with your ownership issues. In none of your reverts have you articulated any reason for anything. All you do is ask others to go to the talk page while you yourself perform dubious edits with inappropriate edit summaries such as "fixed typo" or "grammar fixes" etc. You need to understand the policies of the encyclopaedia first. —SpacemanSpiff 08:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And I’d love evidence I was edit warring. I don’t think this user knows what that means. WP:CIR? Doug Weller talk 09:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Their edit summaries are misleading. This one[75] says "false positive" and deletes sourced text by someone who seems an expert. That's followed by the deletion of a cn tag with the edit summary "typo".[76] The next edit also removes a cn tag and says "typo".[77] Then we have a "grammar" edit, changing "European to "Orthodox".[78] Another "typo" edit[79] removed "Olodumare: God in Yoruba Belief and the Theistic Problem of Evil" (PDF). African Studies Quarterly'" from the citation leaving only a dead url.
    Not misleading, simply wrong, [80] "‘sub Sahara is derogatory, there’s no need to add such a prefix anyhow'". "Sub-Sahara" is an important qualifier.
    They've also told User:Midnightblueowl that they've been reverted and should use the talk page. No attempt to explain the reversion.
    They created WP:WikiProject Yoruba in 2011 but haven't been active there much since, in fact it's pretty inactive. The "Yoruba members page" mentioned above is just a list of 10 members, most of whom haven't edited for a while and includes one account that has never existed. I don't see "As it relates to WikiProjectYoruba tagged topics via the “Yoruba Group Members page” anywhere, but that's irrelevant.
    I'm not sure why the OP is claiming to be the author of the 401 related articles, and we certainly can't have "overseers" of any articles, in particular the idea of articles on a religion being controlled by that religion is unacceptable. I don't know who alerted them but it wasn't on their talk page. Doug Weller talk 12:12, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) WikiProjects have no jurisdiction or authority to control any article including those that may be of interest to the project. Likewise, no editor, whether they are the content creator or not, may unilaterally decide what is permissible for inclusion in any article and purposely limit other editors from editing simply because they don't like the edit being done. The very first thing a new editor learns when joining Wikipedia is to BE BOLD. We hope they learn additional things like proper etiquette, among many other nuances of editing here, along the way. The danger here, as I see it, is a complete lack of understanding in regards to WP:OWN and WP:BOLD and how that may have a chilling affect on the encyclopedia's libre mission. No editor has to discuss their edits to any article, exceptions being those under special sanction/protection, on the article talk page prior to making said edits. As we advance in our experience here we may conclude at certain times that the best course of action is to seek consensus prior to making edits but it is not a general requirement. Everything that followed that in the discussion above has only served to push the issues further down the path of what is unacceptable here (The incorrect use of reverting and subsequent false edit summaries). Wikipedia allows us to watchlist certain articles but that does not give us special authority to be an overseer displaying ownership of those articles. We must still follow Wikipedia policy and guidelines. I think, at the very least, this editor needs to be reminded that they are part of a larger community and one that believes anyone may edit any article on any topic at anytime provided they follow policy in doing so. --ARoseWolf 14:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • These recent edits from said editor on Yoruba art are completely unacceptable. As is his insulting, oblivious language here: User_talk:Otelemuyen#Yoruba art, and here: Talk:Yoruba art#Bigots will be challenged. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • As alluded to above, I saw the initial comment on Doug's talkpage, and I posted this: [81]. I'm pretty sure that's a polite and WP:AGF explanation of how to understand the right and wrong ways to go about this on Wikipedia. It's clear from what's above what the response has been. I briefly wondered whether, given the over-the-top nature of what Otelemuyen keeps saying, we might be getting an elaborate, albeit futile, attempt at trolling. But I don't think that's really the case. So, the first question becomes whether this is a case of misunderstanding WP:OWN and being willing to take advice and do better going forward. I'm normally quite willing to give that a chance, but there's a limit to how many chances are reasonable. At this point, there have been numerous explanations given to Otelemuyen, but these have been met repeatedly with defiance. Explaining is clearly never going to work here. We are dealing not only with massive WP:OWN that is starting to interfere with good-faith content edits by other editors, but WP:IDHT, WP:CIR, and WP:NOTHERE.
      • At a minimum, our options begin with a page-block or community topic ban from Yoruba topics broadly construed, although that would, in effect, cover all of Otelemuyen's editing interests. At a maximum, the possibly best option would be an indefinite block or a community site-ban. Honestly, that's where we are at. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Update, block extended to one month and talk page access removed. Doug Weller talk 11:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    FMSky, personal attacks, WP:HOUNDING

    FMSky (talk · contribs) appears to have problems with refraining from insulting other editors, as well as letting things go. I reverted them on Björn Borg for removing a link without explanation, which they then proceeded to revert themselves, citing MOS:OVERLINK as the reason for removal. I disagreed that it is an overlink and asked them to gain consensus for the removal on the talk page, at which point they stopped. Since it was not the first time I had seen this editor remove the link, I went to their talk page to ask for clarification on their reasoning, as I had previously seen them link New York City which is used as an actual example for an overlink on the MOS itself. The discussion was quite fruitless, and immediately after archived by FMSky. Towards the end of it however, FMSky all of a sudden showed up on Alexander Gustafsson, an article I have been somewhat active on which seemed too much of a coincidence so I let them know that I don't appreciate WP:HOUNDING and said I hope that is not what they were planning to do. They said they weren't planning to do anything, and that they wanted to be left alone, so I believed and respected that and ended the discussion hoping that would be it. This is where the behaviour becomes absurd, they go against what they said, going to another article I often edit Erling Haaland claiming to make an edit making the text closer to the source, which it did not, specifically reverting text I had recently reverted back to myself. I reverted and explained that the sources are in the body of the article and told them what section of it, too, which they refused to accept and so decided to tag it as uncited, make a useless edit to talk through edit summary (which they restored in their next edit, and edit war refusing to listen to the fact that the text is based on sources in the body.

    Upon seeing FMSky had followed me to Haaland's article, I went back to their talk page expressing again that I do not appreciate the petty behaviour, which they reverted with a charming personal attack calling me a ″freak″, this is right after I had reminded them of the WP:NPA policy after they called another editor a ″clown″ after they had asked FMSky to stop following them around, which at this point would not be hard to believe, but that is between them. This can be seen in their archive. Not only is this blatant disregard for policy, but it's downright unpleasant and by far the most bizarre interaction I've had with an editor. There is not only a complete lack of respect, but a lack of temperament. It escalating to this behaviour over something as simple as a discussion over links is indicative of a person who clearly has a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and difficulty to move on. I refuse to be harassed and strongly believe FMSky needs some sort of sanctions as they are not only treating fellow editors like garbage but disrupting articles out of spite. --TylerBurden (talk) 11:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I dont follow you around at all, in fact i would love to be left alone by you as already stated. I edited the Haaland page because i edit football players all the time --FMSky (talk) 11:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have never seen you before on either article, and your edit on Haaland was specifically a partial revert of one of my recent edits there. Looking at your recent edit history, I don't see much football at all either, not until tonight after our encounter. TylerBurden (talk) 11:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    i edit them all the time, literally my first edits on Wiki Commons were cropped pics of football players: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles&dir=prev&offset=20210515145351%7CKAS-Barschel%2C_Uwe-Bild-7734-1_%28cropped%29.jpg&user=FMSky&ilshowall=1 --FMSky (talk) 11:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    also here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eden_Hazard&action=history, and i admit i specifically have an issue with "considered the greatest /best" whatever being inserted in almost every decent football players article FMSky (talk) 11:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you really expect me to believe that this is all some magical coincidence? Even if that's true, like I said looking at recent history you suddenly started editing football articles during our little discussion, and I find it hard to believe you would happen to stumble upon Haaland and specifically alter text I had recently edited, just by some random chance. Not to mention, Gustafsson is not even football related. I'd respect you more if you just admitted that you have a problem with following other editors, because I don't believe you and I don't think many other people will either. TylerBurden (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "like I said looking at recent history you suddenly started editing football articles during our little discussion" did you even read what i said? FMSky (talk) 11:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you having edited football articles before has nothing to do with the fact that you specifically went to this article because of me. Have you ever made an edit on Erling Haaland before that one? TylerBurden (talk) 11:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No i didnt specifically went there because of you ffs. How would i even know you visited this article before??? Doesnt even make sense. And yeah i have edited this article before https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Erling_Haaland&diff=1030279054&oldid=1029188846 ---FMSky (talk) 11:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I edit tons of articles currently (mostly cleanup stuff), i'm bound to cross paths with some users --FMSky (talk) 11:40, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't act naivé, you were smart enough to dig out edits I had made in November to try and prove a point, you are smart enough to press on someones edit history. Anyway I have laid it out, clogging this anymore is pointless, I will let the people who read it decide what should be done as it is pointless to debate with someone who seemingly believes in their own lies. Shitty start to friday eh? Hopefully, upwards from here. Ciao. TylerBurden (talk) 11:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    do you seriously believe I looked through your edit history, then chose a completely random article that you have once edited in the past, and then made an edit in a manner that would be annoying to you? I'm sorry to burst your bubble but you are not that important to me. But yes this is indeed pointless, people are going to believe what they want to believe FMSky (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, because that is what you did. One article would be one thing, but you suddenly showed up on two articles I had made recent edits on. If you really want nothing to do with me, and believe me the feeling is mutual, then follow your own words and "try to avoid me" instead of doing the opposite. TylerBurden (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't. I want nothing more currently, then to not engage with you. --FMSky (talk) 20:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The Haaland page wasn't even a recent edit of yours. I would literally have to scroll back a bunch of pages in your edit history and then find this one edit in a clutter of other edits (seriously try it yourself, try to find this specific edit in your own edit history rn, you probably wont find it) FMSky (talk) 20:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Implying that is the only way to find articles I edit on, Haaland is one of my most edited articles and there are tools I am sure you are aware of you can easily find for that. Your excuse for Haaland is that you apparently "edit football articles all the time", so what is it for Alexander Gustafsson? TylerBurden (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the specific edit, it is in the recent edit history of the article. TylerBurden (talk) 20:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "tools"?🤣 sorry but this is ridiculous. i have nothing more to say. --FMSky (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yea, Xtools? Like I said, the edit you altered was recently made, it is not far back in the history at all. Literally on the first page. TylerBurden (talk) 20:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea what that is, what it does, or where to access it.--FMSky (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you stop avoiding my question and answer why you suddenly decided to show up on Alexander Gustafsson? TylerBurden (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You last edited Alexander Gustafsson nine days ago, and have made 300 edits since then; their edit to that page does not have anything to do with any text you edited, and is in keeping with their general editing habits. The reason no one else is jumping in to agree with you is that your accusation is very dubious and also a clear violation of WP:AGF. -- JBL (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Was not going to write anything more here, but since the editor who is siding with FMSky on their talk page has now chosen to enter this discussion, I will reply to their input. The reason their edit on Alexander Gustafsson is suspect is that it happened during our discussion, it was related to what the discussion was about (Swedish people), and they had never edited the article before. FMSky dug through my edits all the way back to November, I don't think it is unreasonable to think that they would find an obviously Swedish article to make a pointy edit on, which is what that seemed to me. Even ignoring that, the Haaland situation is obvious, and happened directly after they supposedly decided to conclude it all. Even ignoring the hounding, the personal attacks and general hostility is all well and good then? That's really all I have to say to you. I assume good faith, but I am also not an idiot. TylerBurden (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You are suffering from a persecution fantasy when you should be reading and abiding by WP:AGF. They apologized for the personal attack 10 hours ago, at which time you presented as accepting it; to still be yammering about it is gauche. You should chill out, withdraw this silly complaint, and act with more grace the next time you are reverted. JBL (talk) 21:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    there's also another post on my talk page regarding this case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FMSky#Notice, if someone wants to read it --FMSky (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So you say you want to be left alone, conclude the discussion (which was great) and then proceed to follow the editor you claim to want nothing to do with to an article manually reverting their recent edit. You're right, this is ridiculous, it's ridiculous that you think you are fooling anyone (well, apparently you did fool that editor). TylerBurden (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to add that FMSky did apologize for the personal attack directed at me shortly before this report was posted, me not noticing it, otherwise I would have included it. It's appreciated but shouldn't happen in the first place, and I think there are still many issues with behavour here. TylerBurden (talk) 11:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ok so what are we talking about? you think i stalk you? i literally try to avoid you. as for me calling you "freak", that was after you accused me of stalking and left tons of messages on my talk page--FMSky (talk) 11:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Tons of messages? So calling you out for following me, that's all it took for you to call me a freak. TylerBurden (talk) 11:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    [82] compares the edits between users. Dream Focus 11:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that they both have edited The Bureau: XCOM Declassified is enough for me. Site bans for both! (I jest, of course. Happy Friday.) Dumuzid (talk) 20:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's so obscure, reverting pesky vandals as a complete noob in November was a fun time. Can't say much for the game itself, I loved Enemy Unknown so was interested in it at the time of release but never got around to it. Thanks for lightening the mood, have a safe and happy friday. TylerBurden (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    TylerBurden and FMSky - can I please humbly and respectfully propose that you take self imposed breaks from this section for a few hours? I fear the current trajectory is for some sort of "pox on both their houses" measures. That said, your call, obviously. Dumuzid (talk) 20:38, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I have been off the Wiki for 10 hours, enjoying my friday, I come back to the thread and no one has as much as condemned FMSky's personal attacks, in fact, the only thing that has happened is that an editor sided with them on their talk page. Of course that's disappointing, but like I said, it has been laid out and I think the hounding (albeit minor, but still absurd after all these claims of wanting nothing to do with me) is obvious. I am happy to not clog this discussion up anymore. TylerBurden (talk) 20:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) The problem is when both sides in an ANI start going back-and-forth like the above, it makes the thread longer, and will take longer for an admin to respond (certainly that was the case back when I was an admin). As per Dumuzid, both parties need to take a step back now. You have both laid out your positions. It is time now for an available admin to review. It may not happen right away (certainly not necessarily within 12 hours). That's just how things work sometimes in ANI. Singularity42 (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I was alerted about this on my talk page and I did accuse User:FMSky of following my edit recently on Take a Step Back, to which they gave the reasonable response that they follow the Template:XXXTentacion, and that's how they realized I made the page and made format-related edits. I apologized for that specific accusation because they gave a reasonable explanation, though I did not appreciate them calling me a "clown". However, I have no doubt that FMSky has stalked my edit history in the past, and admitted to looking over all my edits on the XXXTentacion page here. You'll also see on that link pages I mentioned where they have without a doubt sought pages I have edited and targeted my work which only they object to generally. I am a frequent editor on the XXXTentacion page and on that link they said they look over all my edits there because they are "unhelpful", but only them (and one other editor who I won't mention to not drag them into this) find my edits particularly objectionable there. FMSky has definitely toned down stalking my edits but I have no doubt they have many times in the past. I hold no animosity towards them but that's my side. Regards, TheXuitts (talk) 3:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

    mate, i look over your edits on the XXXTentacion page just like i look over every one else's, because that page has been on my watchlist for at least half a year. FMSky (talk) 03:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry but FMSky has numerous music articles on his watchlist, I have bumped into him on numerous occasions across various articles in music. Just because someone hasn't edited an article recently doesn't mean that they've got an eye on it... and plus you say stalked my edit history, and admitted to looking over all my edits on the XXXTentacion page, well which one is it? You've mentioned a singular page, I look over all the edits made to Tirzepatide because I created it. Doesn't mean I hound people. Rather non sequitur really... X-750 Rust In Peace... Polaris 08:49, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I found this ANI thread after seeing mention of it on TheXuitts' talk page. The problem with all this is it's very hard to "prove" hounding, and nobody ever admits to doing it because they know it is against our behavioural guidelines. I've read all manner of excuses as to how editors who've hounded me have just so happened to "stumble" across an article I edited minutes after I last edited it, and even after several admins asking them to stop, this kept happening for months because we edited in the same topic area and they felt justified in doing so. It does get extremely annoying and makes you feel unwelcome to edit. I do admit that I find TylerBurden's point of FMSky manually reverting their edit on Erling Haaland (after their edit on the article the previous day) and then editing after them two minutes later the next day (and directly after a talk page message, if I understand it correctly?) pretty convincing "hounding" (or clear evidence of clicking on somebody's contributions to edit an article after them), but also, editors click through to others' contributions and edit topics after them like this all the time. A one-off should not be much of an issue—it being a pattern/reoccurrng thing is an issue. That being said, I do find it puzzling if this occurred after FMSky said they want nothing to do with TylerBurden. Speaking generally, if you genuinely want nothing to do with an editor, don't click on their contributions to find more issues you can take with their edits elsewhere. Pretty simple, really. If you have an issue with their pattern of edits, leave a talk page message for them (multiple if it reoccurs), then inform an admin if it's a genuine guideline- or policy-disregarding issue, or a relevant WikiProject/the article talk page if it's a content dispute.
    So long as it's not a recurring thing where the editor is indirectly or directly reverting your edits across a period of time (days, weeks, months) after you've ceased contact or last directly talked with them, it's debatably not hounding. At this stage I feel all that can be done is to ask both editors to steer clear of the other, including if their edit pops up on a watchlisted article. Unless it's a contentious edit or a pattern of contentious edits, in which case, as said, there are avenues to deal with this. If one genuinely wants nothing to do with the other, it shouldn't be an issue, right? Ss112 17:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Damianbolek

    THEYDUNNIT
    (non-admin closure) Damienbolek blocked and subsequently had TPA revoked for personal attacks and disruptive editing. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 00:56, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Damianbolek initially came as an IP user (89.64.63.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)), which I had noticed by their first edit on their account, and since then they have been edit-warring with different users across multiple pages since May. They only broke WP:3RR once on June 2, and they have been primarily vandalizing Confederation Liberty and Independence, and have added unsourced content on multiple pages. By their latest edit, I can tell that their account has been primarily used for COI editing, since they had stated that they are a member of Confederation Liberty and Independence party. I'd also want to request further protection for that page since it has also been the target of several IP vandals. --Vacant0 (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    But you're the one waging an editing war, so skip such lies. It is you who revert edits to the version that has no sources and destroy the page "Confederation Liberty and Independence". I am asking the administrators to protect this page from vandal Vacanto. Damianbolek (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You've removed sources and added none in these two edits (1, 2). Vacant0 (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Damianbolek: Do not accuse others of vandalism without clear evidence in the form of diffs. Doing so is considered a personal attack, which is not allowed here. You've already been blocked on Polish Wikipedia for this kind of behaviour, so you should not repeat this mistake here. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drm310 Don't accuse me of accusing others of vandalism without clear evidence. Doing so is considered a personal attack, which is not allowed here. On Polish wikipedia I was blocked, because Polish wikipedia is poisoned by leftist liars who regularly slander righteous parties and use their power to fight people who refute their lies. For 3 years now, people have been reporting problems with toxic leftist moderators, so stop using that argument. I was blocked even though I didn't break the rules. This is the case with many people in Poland. Damianbolek (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You literally called Vacant0 a vandal in your last post above, " I am asking the administrators to protect this page from vandal Vacanto", no clearer evidence is required. Canterbury Tail talk 21:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Users

    Users User:12-years-old girl from Marseille, France and User:ഓഘരലഗജസാോദജകേ്ജോദേവ appear to be socks, making unconstructive edits and drafts, apparently posting personal information. Nythar (talk) 03:48, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    That first account has no contribs button! El_C 04:17, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nythar: The former username does not exist; make sure it is spelled correctly. The latter is already blocked at time of this writing. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Click on the first one and then go to the talk page, thank you. Nythar (talk) 04:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That talk page has now been deleted per WP:CSD#U2, being that the user does not exist. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 07:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Join Instagram at Under 13, by the way. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 17:48, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive Australian IPs

    Over the past few months, I've been dealing with a series of Australian IPs (usually located in New South Wales or Queensland) that have been relentlessly reverting my edits even when I have made it clear to them that they are violating various policies. The most obvious example includes major disruptive editing on The Motown Song (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), where, even thought I have constantly pointed out that the song was released in the UK on 3 June 1991, they insist it was first released on 5 August. All you have to do is check these two sources to know this is untrue. Whether or not the song was released in the US on this date is irrelevant, because they are not using the earliest known, reliably sourced date—they are replacing it with an uncited date.

    Other disruptive behaviors include removing maintenance templates ([83], [84]), leaving rude messages on my talk page ([85], [86]), and especially adding unsourced recording years, which is their main focus. I'm starting to get tired of dealing with this immature behavior and waking up to multiple random reverts, and it's getting more and more evident that this battle is turning personal. I was wondering if there's something we can do to deal with these IPs without affecting a sizeable chunk of Australia in the process. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 12:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: here are some more IPs (Queensland), going back to the exact same articles they've been targeting before.

    Not to rush anyone, but this is getting out of control. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 17:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    ResolutionsPerMinute, I’ve given 1.146.0.0/17 a couple of days off for disruptive editing, some abuse[87][88] and block evasion (1.146.93.149 was blocked by Widr yesterday; 1.145.0.0/17 was blocked by JBW in February). You may want to cast an eye over the edits in that range. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Malcolmxl5: They're back and badder than ever. Another IP has gone back and reverted 13 edits of mine: 1.128.104.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
     IP blocked. May have to just Whac-a-Mole for a while. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 03:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I recall dealing with this one before, and it seems to be the same person who triggered the block on 1.145.0.0/17. Blocking single IPs is going to prove pretty useless. Switching to a new one is easy, just turn your mobile data off and back on again. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:56, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tamzin: And they're back on another IP (1.128.104.67) on 1.128.0.0/17 editing in one of the topics that was 1.145.0.0/17's favourite before being blocked, infobox stuff on named places in Eastern Australia. I had my doubts that the music disruptor and the geography disruptor were the same person, but all doubt has now been removed. Possibly consider using a /17 sized hammer to whack the mole? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 02:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd really rather not block the /17 if I can help it, but concede that it might be inevitable. For now, still blocking one at a time. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 03:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:PleaForFairness recently posted a legal threat on their talk page, and their only mainspace edits are baseless POV edit warring. Their attempts at “discussion” are inflammatory borderline word salads. Seems like blatantly WP:NOTHERE. Dronebogus (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked PleaForFairness for making a legal threat. Cullen328 (talk) 16:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Another possible CLC sock

    73.22.122.66 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)); This IP has been reverting vandalism for the past month, similar to CLCStudent, and the IP address traces back to Mundelein, a suburb of Chicago where CLC claims to live. Additionally, another sock of CLC (2601:246:CF80:3990:0:0:0:0/64 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))) was blocked, who was also from Mundelein. It seems pretty suspicious, based on the editing pattern of CLC. 162.219.198.189 (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    CLC? That's a name I don't recognize. 172.112.210.32 (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The user I am referring to is CLCStudent, a former anti-vandal who was blocked last year for disruptively editing logged out, and has since been using sock puppet accounts to edit Wikipedia. 162.219.198.189 (talk) 22:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    7&6=thirteen’s behavior *still* hasn’t improved

    I generally only participate at NCORP-related AfD's. In the past I have had some unproductive interactions with a small number of members of WP:ARS including 7&6=thirteen. Generally their participation amounted to a guaranteed !vote to Keep an article with simplified !votes such as "Meets GNG" followed by an avoidance of any policy/guideline based discussions, snarky comments and generally disrupting the AfD process. The participation of 7&6=thirteen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Chapter appears to be the same conduct that was the subject of a lengthy discussion last November Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1085#7&6=thirteen’s_behavior_hasn’t_improved. Although no actions were taken at that time, it is noticable that 7&6=thirteen's participation at AfDs fell away in the immediate aftermath. It appears though, after the voluntary sabbatical, 7&6=thirteen is back to the same conduct that landed the original report and which it might be seen as a little harsh or early to draw the communities' attention to one single AfD, I feel it is best to nip any potential issues in the bud earlier rather than later. Bearing in mind that 7&6=thirteen had received a final warning on 3 November, I again propose a topic bad on deletion related activities for 7&6=thirteen. HighKing++ 20:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    In the discussion in question, there is a lot of not-entirely-friendly substantive back-and-forth, involving many different editors -- and then there are 7&6's contributions, which consist primarily of non-substantive attacks (in some instances directly, in others via sarcasm etc.) on those with a different opinion. Not a good look. Maybe Fram & Robert McClenon should add this to the list at ArbCom. --JBL (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is this ridiculous attack against the ARS? After a request by the article's creator was posted for help, some showed up and turned the article from 1,419 bytes when it was nominated for deletion to 24,339 bytes now. 7&6=thirteen was one of those who did some improvements. [89] Can you post specific examples of what you believe he said that he shouldn't, in the proper context? And I explained in that AFD at [90] there is clear evidence there is no canvassing, that just ridiculous based on the evidence presented. Dream Focus 22:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My comments addressed the merits of the article, potential sourcing and sources. User: HighKing inserted his perenial and untrue canvassing accusation; and sought to WP:BLUDGEON contrary positions. He has been openly hostile to me for a very long time. User:MrsSnoozyTurtle did her usual attacks and accusations; she hangs out at WP:ARS to troll and disrupt it. I answered the questions they posed. I do not have any interest in the subject of this dispute, but I think it should be fairly heard and closed appropriately. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I went to and read the deletion discussion after seeing this discussion and I note that HighKing wrote Article improvement is *not* a proper response in the middle of an AfD where the article is essentially rewritten and materially different and Rewriting an article when it is at AfD and after multiple !votes have been case is not the correct way to go about things. You're essentially trying to do a run-around on the !votes that have already been expressed. You should instead have requested the page gets moved to Drafts while you worked on a new article or a significantly new version. which seems to be at odds with what is written at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Gusfriend (talk) 05:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Having read the exchange, this honestly reads like a retaliatory report. 7&6=thirteen gave an actual rationale for voting Keep and was promptly badgered by HighKing. HighKing's claim that it's misconduct to improve an article in response to an AfD (Quote:"Article improvement is *not* a proper response in the middle of an AfD where the article is essentially rewritten and materially different - that should have been an outcome of the AfD discussion where consensus was achieved that the article *could* be improved through further editing.") is also bizarre and goes against the very spirit of Wikipedia. I think WP:SATISFY is relevant here. Darkknight2149 05:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I dunno. I'm neither a friend of 7&6=thirteen nor of the ARS gang generally, but normally I'd have written off his smarmy and snarky behavior at that AfD with a trout slap and a warning to shape up. But when I see wording from the ANI discussion in November such as "However, editors raised concerns about the behavior of 7&6=13 unrelated to the alleged fabrication such as civility concerns and the quality of sourcing offered in general at AFD discussions ... While there is no consensus for a formal sanction, this discussion should serve as a sufficient, final warning." At what point are we actually going to take the words "final warning" to mean "And if you step out of line again you're going to be sanctioned, hard"? Ravenswing 07:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I'd agree this is a meritless complaint. Seems some of the delete voters got vexed as 13 declined to engage in in depth discussion on how much particular sources counted to the WP:GNG pass. There's never any need for a participant to do that, especially with such an obvious case of WP:HEY. Even more so as the sourcing analyses was laid out with admirable rigour and clarity by editors Paul McDonald and Cielquiparle. I note that while HighKing didn't agree with Cielquiparle, he did at least thank the editor for their time. I'd suggest the ideal resolution here is for HighKing to re-read the discussion, then apologise to 13 for this needless ANI, and thank 13 also for patiently taking the time to explain applicable policy points that some of the delete voters seemed to be missing. FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Unlike User:HighKing and User:MrsSnoozyTurtle, I never made any accusations. Every factual statement was true.
    I am acutely aware of the warnings, pained by them. Even though the prior warning was premised on a false assumption, since I never made up sources. Why would I? After 14+ years and more than 140,000 edits, I know how to find sources and reference them. There is nothing to be gained or won by doing that. To be sure, there may have been a mistake by me, for which I apologize. But typos happen inevitably if you do enough edits.
    And User: High King was already on a search and destroy mission.
    Neverthelesss, I thought y'all meant it; I take finality very seriously. My training and business is built on that. Your prior decisions are what they are. I don't take our process lightly, and stayed within bounds. My participation at AFDs has been severely limited. I don't vote much.
    The filer here has an agenda, and this is meritless.
    Please dismiss this and WP:Boomerang. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 09:38, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • There will be no boomerang here. That AfD does not reflect well on a number of editors, including yourself - you commented ten times and at least half of them contained some measure of snarkiness (and you've made one in this ANI as well). You should know by now that even when you're right, you still need to conduct yourself properly. Black Kite (talk) 09:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      (nods) Nor am I comforted with the people pleading boomerang all being associated with the ARS claque. It'd be good to hear from more neutral editors. Ravenswing 14:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I welcome the scrutiny by disinterested editors.
    N.b. Ravenswing continues with his disparaging cant — "the ARS claque" — so we know where his predisposition lies. Guilt by association and Poisoning the well might apply.
    Repetition of mere allegations and alleged Prior bad acts, or warnings, does nothing to prove that the current attack has any factual basis.
    Over 81,000 bytes on an AFD suggests how broken and divisive that system is. That, and indeed this exercise, was a misallocation of limited editor resources. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    By way of background, after joining on January 3, 2021, I stopped participating in ARS after I reviewed the April 2021 Attack on the HMS Invicible AfD and the statement by the closer. I've kept the little flotation device icons on my userpage in a Selected Work section, mostly to help keep track of articles I've found sources for so I can continue working to expand them, because I have continued to independently review AfD.
    On March 3, 2021, 7&6=thirteen had been "warned to avoid personal attacks or other aggressive conduct towards fellow editors, or they may face sanctions." As noted above, on November 3, 2021, there was another warning, which also included, If problems continue, administrators responding to editor concerns should consider resolving the issue using existing tools.
    In this discussion, 7&6=thirteen cites Rule 404. Character Evidence; Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts [91], apparently to suggest past warnings do not prove a factual basis for the current complaint, while FRE 404(b) states, "(2) Permitted Uses. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident." This is not a court that seeks to punish, and instead is a forum that addresses urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems with a goal of preventing harm to the encyclopedia, and it does consider prior warnings relevant when assessing new complaints. Beccaynr (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ravenswing: I have no association with ARS and (from the looks of their talk page) neither does Gusfriend. My analysis was also based solely on reading the exchange linked above. Are you a member of this elite curated group of "more neutral editors"? Between "I'm neither a friend of 7&6=thirteen nor of the ARS gang" and this, you're one of the only ones here who sounds like they have an agenda. Darkknight2149 18:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Ravenswing I first learnt of ARS when reading this thread and have no association with them. I only commented because I was concerned by the comments about article improvement that I mentioned. Gusfriend (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. HK is a very difficult editor to encounter in AfD who takes the most extreme readings of NCORP in their mission to purge WP of articles of corporations (ignoring the litany of non-corp trivia on WP). HK has even advocated for the deletion of largeer listed corporations. I would amend the title of this AfD to include HK's behavior as well. 78.19.228.144 (talk) 16:24, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't believe that anyone can write, "Article improvement is *not* a proper response in the middle of an AfD...", and not be blocked as being obviously not here to build an encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't get past Article improvement is *not* a proper response in the middle of an AfD where the article is essentially rewritten and materially different - that should have been an outcome of the AfD discussion where consensus was achieved that the article *could* be improved through further editing. That is not, and has never been, how deletion works, and you probably shouldn't be involved in AfD if you think that's the case. An article getting rewritten during a deletion discussion to more policy-compliant is an anticipated and indeed welcome outcome. If that means that the deletion discussion gets thrown out because the article materially changed then so be it. Mackensen (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not only is article improvement an appropriate response to an AfD on it, it's a welcome response, and I think a significant problem people have with the ARS is that they have a reputation for not doing this, but rather argue about their "keep" !vote excessively. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      7&6 improved the article during this AfD. And does so in most cases. Often dramatically. He has a strong reputation of improving articles, anyone who doesn't think so is not paying attention. ARS is interested in keeping articles and improving them is the best way. However arguing with editors like HighKing is often required as you can see they made numerous outrageous statements that without defense would have tipped the balance towards delete. -- GreenC 16:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can we just all agree that much of this was a tremendous waste of time, and that some unfortunate things were said, so we can all move on? This was my first time witnessing this type of behavior (OK I'm still new-ish) and I hope to never see it again. I learned a lot from both HighKing and 7&6=thirteen regardless, perhaps each got a little overexcited, they've each gotten burned in their own way already, and will hopefully learn not to provoke or overreact unnecessarily. Let's just close this off and move on. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seeing as everybody is focused on my comment, I agree it was wrong and clumsy, definitely didn't express what I intended it to express, didn't have any material effect on the AfD in any case, and it is unfortunate that it is distracting from the issue I raised. What I was trying to say is that, at the AfD, we were discussing sources and debating over whether they met NCORP or not. I don't have a problem with articles being changed and/or expanded during AfD, happens all the time and anybody that has come across me at AfD knows this. The article had already been expanded two or three times throughout the AfD, nobody had a problem with it. What I was trying to express is that a rewrite of the article took place *without* that rewrite being done to address the reasons for deletion being discussed at AfD. If the AfD had been closed at that point, the consensus was that sources did not meet NCORP and the article would likely be deleted. So if the rewrite wasn't addressing those issues, what was the point of the rewrite? The effect of the rewrite was to put a new article in front of the participants and invalidated all of the prior participation and !voting. Anyway, that's what I wsa thinking at the time. But I'm not trying to dig in on what I wrote - even I can see and admit that on a reread, what I meant to say is different (and wrong) from what it actually says. HighKing++ 12:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My remarks at this AFD were measured and related to whether the article should be kept or deleted. They responded accurately and properly to HighKing's bizarre position. His words speak for themselves.
    I am not disputing the prior warnings, even though they were wrong in my opinion. I am not asking for a rehearing.
    But I did nothing untoward here.
    I am here to defend my conduct at this AFD. Nor did I initiate any complaint against User:HighKing and User:MrsSnoozyTurtle. But since we are here, you should address their conduct
    I was tag-teamed by User:HighKing and User:MrsSnoozyTurtle, and I responded only with facts. They made accusations which were irrelevant to whether the article should be kept or deleted. They both have a long term history of hostility toward me personally, and WP:ARS. This is not the first time. It is long term and endemic. If you require details, they can be supplied; but if you are a regular here and or WP:ARS you have seen them. And it was in full display at this AFD. Both of them ought to be warned to desist from the attacks, and they both deserve to be warned. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, I agree with User:Darkknight2149 and User:FeydHuxtable, that this complaint is reactionary and without merit. We can't keep bringing editors to WP:ANI just because an WP:AFD discussion didn't go our way. SailingInABathTub (talk) 15:15, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • A statement like HighKing's should not go unrecognized. A 60 day topic ban from deletion discussions, (i.e., go find something else to do on Wikipedia for 2 months) would be a measured, appropriate, and encyclopedic response. I'd favor an immediate termination if this user earns a WP:DTQ award. The idea isn't to be punitive, but to encourage users passionate for one side of processes to demonstrate their competence in the other. Jclemens (talk) 19:15, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would argue that such a sanction would actually be preventative. "You can't improve an article in response to an AfD, you have to let the AfD play out first!" is a telling statement that tithers the lines of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:NOTHERE respectively. When someone shows their motives this explicitly, I'm inclined to believe them. Darkknight2149 21:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes why don't we TBAN everyone who makes blatantly incorrect statements about policies or guidelines or consensus... JoelleJay (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    JoelleJay, there's a difference between misunderstanding policy and conducting yourself in a way that's not here. Anyone who only wants to "win" deletions and openly advocates against article improvement has no business in deletion discussions. Darkknight2149 21:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll note that 7&6 posted this about the discussion here: [92], which is arguably not a neutral notification. In context, I don't think it's a big deal, but I just felt editors here should be aware of it, and I agree with some others above that this is something where there was suboptimal conduct all around. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    European Colonization of the Americas

    Cbinetti has been partially blocked from editing European colonization of the Americas indefinitely by Bishonen. The editor can discuss changes on the talk page or request an unblock on their talk page. -- LuK3 (Talk) 23:58, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    DeCausa is threatening to block me, even though he is not even an administrator as far as I know if I do not self-revert matter on European Coloniztion of the Americas that makes the article better. I am asking for arbitration or mediation. I do not want to get silenced because of one person who disagrees with me on one article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbinetti (talk • contribs) 21:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    [non-admin comment]DeCausa has not threatened you, they placed a standard warning on your talk page for edit warring. Then, shortly afterwards, they removed it again, as another user had already placed the same warning. I suggest reading the warning that others have given you, and learning Wikipedia policies. It will make editing here much easier for you. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I hadn’t noticed that Doug Weller had already given the OP the 3RR notice a couple of minutes before me so I took mine off. DeCausa (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not edit warring. These two guys are bullying me because they are afraid of new and different ideas. I wrote new material that is not edit warring. Cbinetti (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not revert three times only twice. Weller and DeCausa revert three times together and then accuse me of reverting three times when I did it twice. The third time was a new formulation not reverting. Cbinetti (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How do I sign my complaint? These guys are bullying me. I have warned them in writing that they are bullying a disabled Italian Catholic academic, but they might not care. How I supposed to edit the European Colonization of the Americas if these two guys revert everything I do? DeCausa threatened me. He is lying. He sent me a warning threatening me very seriously. DeCausa is an ideologue/ activist editor trying to stop true collaboration, aided and abetted by Doug Weller. Cbinetti (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You may want to slow your roll and chill with the direct personal attacks against other editors. If two editors are reverting your changes, you should discuss it on the talk page, and explain your position and provide your sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I see after reviewing their talk page that this has been an issue for several months. The pblock Bish put in place was a good call. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Cbinetti, you should be discussing the changes that you think should be made to the article with sources supporting your changes on the talk page for that article. As far as I can see, all you've done on the talk page is demand to be told how to flag the article for bias and then arguing that others editors are against you. Stick to discussing the article, cite the sources that support your argument, and get consensus for the changes before making them to the article. Schazjmd (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve made a grand total of 2 edits to the article and 3 posts to the article talk page: I must be a poor quality “activist”. DeCausa (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've page-blocked Cbinetti indefinitely from European colonization of the Americas for persistent disruptive editing and POV-pushing going back to December 2021. They can still edit the talkpage, even though bad-faith-assuming nonsense like this post made me a bit dubious about that. Bishonen | tålk 21:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]
      I want to appeal this. I am a political scientist PHd and expert. i should not page-blocked. I am a male by the way. I am pushing back against POV-pushing. There is bad faith by DeCausa and Doug Weller. This is not disruptive editing. I am asking for the block to be removed. Cbinetti (talk) 23:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you wish to be unblocked, request at your talk page, not here. Thanks, 162.219.198.189 (talk) 23:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive editing and likely COI at Eric Feigl-Ding

    Sahiljain and the IP are the same person, though both have been acting disruptively. I also have a strong case that Sahiljain22 has a WP:COI with Eric Feigl-Ding, and hence should not be permitted to edit this article.

    IP disruptive editing: Here and especially here the IP used false edit summaries while removing well-sourced criticism of Feigl-Ding's claims during the pandemic, as well as removing POV tags with links to the talk page where Joelmiller, GlobeGores, and myself, laid out the problems with the article and high-quality sources that supply the criticism that has been purged. The IP made an edit with the same issues here.

    IP is Sahiljain22 violating WP:LOUTSOCK: Here and here the IP edits the material about the study about the drug Vioxx, then a mere 40 minutes later Sahiljain22 edits the same material with the same POV. Here and here, among other things, Sahiljain22 adds the inaccurate claim that Alexis Madrigal "recanted" his criticism, the same exact word and claim sneakily added by the IP here.

    Sahiljain22 has a COI and is disruptively POV editing: Sahiljain22 was warned on his talk page by Bueller 007 about COI, but he denies it. However, his behavior shows otherwise - he is an WP:SPA almost solely focused on promotional editing about Eric Feigl-Ding. Browsing his contributions makes that clear. Here, he uses an alternative weekly from Vancouver to tout Feigl-Ding's credible pandemic risk information that Canadian health officials were not telling the public, and as knowing better than the health officials in what rules need to be in place. Over and over again, he expunges sources that are critical of Feigl-Ding, and with edit summaries that do not mention he removed anything - note that the first one says "necsi" in regards to the New England Complex Systems Institute but fails to mention he deleted material, covering it up much like the IP did. Here he touts Feigl-Ding as a leading TV and media commentator upon the COVID19 pandemic and goes on and on about Feigl-Ding has published many academic papers and is a 'Highly Cited Researcher' in Web of Science...

    Even though Feigl-Ding is almost exclusively known for his COVID commentary, having been quite obscure before 2020, Sahiljain22 was lobbying at an AfD in 2018 to keep an article on him, alongside some other SPAs. Most of his non-Feigl-Ding-related edits are about the Boston University School of Medicine (BUSM), or the Center for Biomedical Imaging, part of BUSM's teaching hospital - and Feigl-Ding attended BUSM.

    A look at all the unaddressed complaints at Talk:Eric Feigl-Ding and at the contributions of the IP and the account show that the disruption and whitewashing needs to end. I think that Eric Feigl-Ding should be indefinitely semi-protected to prevent further logged-out socking, and Sahiljain22 should be blocked from Eric Feigl-Ding. Crossroads -talk- 22:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I also agree that the Eric Feigl-Ding article would benefit from indefinite semi-protection. GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 04:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've put temporary protection on the article to interrupt the edit war. Deb (talk) 09:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, though to be clear this is only a very temporary stopgap, as history shows this user comes back every few weeks or months to whitewash the article. Crossroads -talk- 15:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Very very likely COI, I agree. Bueller 007 (talk) 15:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi folks- Sahil here, not EFD. Have I watched EFD's page over the years? sure, but out of personal interest, not any COI. I'm a busy physician and I don't sit in front of Wikipedia regularly. I don't know him-- he was just once a famous dropout at BU, which i found fascinating. I have made edits in the past to add more context to things. And like most of you, I post article links, insert only facts, and context. Each of my edits yesterday on EFD's page were focused on adding links to articles and adding context. For example, I actually clarified that EFD was not involved in the drug Vioxx's withdrawal, but rather its implications on when Merck should have known the risks -- and added context on the aftermath after the withdrawal of those who suffered harm from the drug. I know all this because I'm a primary care physician who knows these major medical events well. Also, sharp eyed people would have noticed that I have sometimes agreed with some of the critical edits on EFD's page, and I have disagreed too. I have engaged regularly on the EFD'S TALK page for many years -- I have not been some silent ghost editor -- I have strived to be a good Wikipedia member and engager whenever I have time. Sahiljain22 (talk)

    Also, I don't engage in congratulatory and editing coordination like Crosswinds has with GlobeGores, or GlobeGores has had with others like Bueller or Joel. Joel Miller is also a former Harvard dept of epidemiology researcher, who has a much closer potential COI. I don't. Sahiljain22 (talk)

    I've never coordinated with anyone on edits or engaged in "self-congratulation". I'll take this statement by you to be an admission that you keep adding things against the consensus of other editors. Bueller 007 (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    okay, think I then misspoke, and I take that back. I just saw some cross-talk on various TALK pages in the past, but maybe misremembered you. apologies to you B on that part. Sahiljain22 (talk) Sahiljain22 (talk) 23:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Secondly, why was the Georgia Straight article that focuses on EFD (its in the article's title)[1] get deleted? that article is important context. Georgia Straight is a well known long running Vancouver based Canadian newspaper. I know the article because my medical practice is based in British Columbia, and hence I encountered it. And its an article written a few months ago that I casually found while googling yesterday--its not like I rushed to Wikipedia the moment it was published in April 2022 to get it on EFD's page. I don't have time for that. Also I'm willing to provide identification that I'm a Canadian physician. And unlike most of you, I use my actual name because I have guts like that. I'm not some ghost editor. The Georgia Straight article written by its editor clearly shows the influence of EFD's public health comms on uptake of health information in contrast to local and provincial health leaders. It shows direct impact and thus should be added/kept in EFD's page--its an objective article, and it deserved to be cited and quoted from. Sahiljain22 (talk)

    Finally, I want to reiterate the importance of historical context during the pandemic. Wikipedia is one draft of history--and the historical topsy turvy turns of the COVID pandemic has been incredibly up and down like a rollercoaster, and its very polarizing on many topics. Yes, many called EFD an alarmist in early pandemic even before it was declared a pandemic, while many others think of him as a whistleblower who just tried to warn and inform the public. We should include ALL the reliable articles that discuss all the facets of the complex arc of the pandemic, in which EFD has been often involved in. I've interestingly noticed that mentions of EFD's role at the Federation of American Scientists have often been muzzled or cut down. There are hundreds of more articles that cite EFD or quote EFD's warnings, but Wikipedia doesn't have space to incorporate them all, but it should try the best it can for full context. Also, nobody has ever mentioned that EFD is on a WHO COVID expert committee--why is that? I don't have time to follow everything EFD is involved in, but I find in fascinating nobody has put his WHO role on EFD's page given WHO's influence. And I don't have time to follow everything or insert all possible edits about EFD, and I'd like to remind that neither does anyone else have 'full context' to follow EFD 24/7 either--that's what Wikipedia is for and why we are all here--to edit and be fair and balanced as much as possible. Sahiljain22 (talk)

    All in all, I feel that if we include articles on EFD regarding the pandemic, it should not be casually inserted in the INTRODUCTION -- but rather it should have full historical context discussion in the DEBATE SECTION of his work. Thus, rather than inserting into the intro cherry picked phrased like 'he was criticized'-- without mentioning time and when such criticisms were first made or other context. Context is king in this world, especially regarding the history of the COVID pandemic, whether how people felt / science said at one time or another about mask wearing, airborne, reinfection, etc. Thus, I commit to all of you to fairly edit and do fair vetting of all articles and commentary on EFD's role in the pandemic. I hope you all try to see that full picture of EFD's role too without outright dismissing articles that either applaud him or criticize him. COVID is a very polarizing issue, and we live in very polarizing times. I'm here to make sure we get a good draft of history with you all. Thank you. Sahiljain22 (talk)

    Wanted to add: The pandemic requires fuller context, and especially medical and public health context, and historical timing context of when something is perceived as 'misinformation'. There were a lot of people who said covid is 'just the flu' or 'you dont need to mask' or 'its not airborne' or 'covid is mild / not mild' or 'reinfections dont happen' or 'herd immunity will/wont work'. what was once labeled 'misinformation' in one period of time is actually the reality in another period of the pandemic. hope you can understand why context matters when editing a page of an epidemiologist like EFD. Sahiljain22 (talk)

    Also for example, people cite the Health Journalism criticism article by Tara Haelle. But Tara Haelle once wrote an article in March 2020 that "No, You DO NOT Need Face Masks For Coronavirus—They Might Increase Your Infection Risk" -- which she doesn't adhere to anymore.[2] But she once accused EFD of misinformation. The context of time is important in the pandemic -- and that's my point above. Sahiljain22 (talk)

    You want to talk topsy-turvy turns of the pandemic? Then why do you keep expunging the EFD article of well-sourced criticism of his ongoing approach to the pandemic, as seen most readily in Undark Magazine [93] and Science (journal) [94]? Numerous experts criticize his ongoing approach. This is from well after the pandemic was underway. And that Georgia Straight article is an example of this - portraying him as better than the actual public health authorities.
    And as for his supposed WHO expert committee role, I am unable to find any WP:Reliable sources independent of himself supporting this claim.
    I have made edits in the past to add more context to things. And like most of you, I post article links, insert only facts, and context. Each of my edits yesterday on EFD's page were focused on adding links to articles and adding context. - as I showed above, this is not true at all. You consistently expunge high-quality critical sources and add promotional text. Your editing pattern goes way beyond "personal interest" in someone you have no COI with. Crossroads -talk- 22:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not 'expunge' the undark article. it was mentioned elsewhere in the debate section. that article has been linked his page for a long time if i recall. I think in the Science article, not sure what happened - but Carl (the interviewee) also expressed regret about his early criticisms on EFD too if you read carefully-- that was never quoted, only the negative parts. isn't it that interesting that only negative comments get highlighted by folks usually? just saying - let's all check our biases. Sahiljain22 (talk)
    A quick check of the WHO website found EFD's name listed on the COVID mortality technical advisory group. I used a few simple keywords in Google, and it's there. just search his name on the first WHO page result. I think its fair to say a WHO website is a reliable source. Sahiljain22 (talk)
    https://www.google.com/search?q=eric+feigl+ding+who+mortality+committee+covid
    https://www.who.int/data/technical-advisory-group/covid-19--mortality-assessment/membership
    If i was intrinsincally promotional, I would have pushed the positive quotes from the Science article (i clearly didn't), and I would have pushed the WHO covid committee role (which I hadn't). let's please be fair. Sahiljain22 (talk)
    also I kinda agreed with your Madrigal edits. i agree it wasn't a full recant, but Madrigal clearly express regret about how the article portrayed EFD. Can't we come to common ground? and can't you see I didn't try to revert/remove your edit on that? don't just try to see what you want to see. Sahiljain22 (talk) Sahiljain22 (talk) 23:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You removed Undark as the IP, there are other RS which you removed, and there are no positive quotes from the Science article (unless you took one phrase out of context of the surrounding criticism).
    The claim about the WHO group is more dishonesty. You claimed he was "on" the expert committee, but he is not listed as a member, but only at the bottom as part of a list of "observers". And at the bottom of that it explains that one can apply to be an observer to the TAG. Crossroads -talk- 23:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi - so, its clear EFD is on the technical working group. he's listed there clear as day on the 'membership' URL webpage, even if he's an observer and not a full standing member. And above, i said above he's on a 'WHO COVID expert committee', which he is. bottomline, he's on the WHO COVID working group. there is no vagueness about that. Sahiljain22 (talk)
    https://www.who.int/data/technical-advisory-group/covid-19--mortality-assessment/membership
    We can debate the Science piece all day long, but its clear Bergstrom and EFD are not enemies, just have mostly stylistic differences. And they seemed to have made peace too. and Bergstrom says this "I would have done better to be a bit drier, a bit more dispassionate.” but its okay if readers have different interpretations, thats why we have multiple editors who weigh in for balance. Sahiljain22 (talk)
    https://www.science.org/content/article/studying-fighting-misinformation-top-scientific-priority-biologist-argues Sahiljain22 (talk) 00:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The URL is to the same page that lists the members, but EFD is not among them but an observer to the group. The Science article is very clear about alarmism and misinformation. Crossroads -talk- 03:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, EFD is listed on that website--we can debate another time whether non-voting observers in the group, listed on the 'membership' website of a group, are part of the group. Neither of us know the degree of engagement. and the Science article is 99% not about EFD, but about Carl, who has expressed some regret. Carl has also directly shared info by EFD too and even acknowledges/hat tipped EFD for bringing him important information.[95] Again, let's avoid extreme interpretations please. Going forward, we can acknowledge both sides / different interpretations in editing while being professional. Thank you for listening. Sahiljain22 (talk) 06:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a tweet, and about the Trump campaign, not COVID. Crossroads -talk- 15:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, I actually kinda agree that EFD's page should perhaps be semi-protected -- editable by only registered editors. Anonymous edits can be chaotic. Though anonymous edits to the page have been both anti-EFD and pro-EFD too, just pointing that out. But semi-protected isn't a bad idea if admins feel it is necessary now or down the road. Sahiljain22 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Counterpoint on semi-protected: that said, are there pros for allowing anonymous sources to edit, even if some are disruptive? i think so during the pandemic. Wikipedia English has an English world bias. but the pandemic spans the globe, and EFD's microphone during the pandemic spans beyond borders too. There could be many valid insights that come from other countries that English-speaking editors may miss. Just a thought. Sahiljain22 (talk) 03:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How convenient. There is a history of very suspicious IP edits being used to win edit wars: [96][97], [98][99] Crossroads -talk- 03:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well its also convenient, there is also a history of very suspicious IP edits used to win edit wars against EFD too: [100], [101], or to insert clearly biased/narrow info that EFD is merely a nutritionist [102]. See my point always was that there were pro-EFD and anti-EFD anonymous edits. I overall supported the semi-protected proposal (which we kinda semi agree on), and i just merely offered a side counterpoint that i see both sides. I didn't take a hard position on the counterpoint, but you somehow had to use snarky language, which reveals your implicit inherent inner bias. When I try to be balanced, you only somehow see the negative and don't constructively comment in a professional manner. Let's be kinder and fairer. Sahiljain22 (talk)
    Those IPs have many other edits in other topics, and only one of those has to do with an edit war, while the IPs I listed were used solely for that purpose. In an article discussion I am balanced, but this is a behavioral report, so it's obviously going to be critical. Crossroads -talk- 15:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Georgia Straight https://www.straight.com/covid-19-pandemic/living/why-bother-with-bc-ministry-of-health-when-eric-feigl-ding-is-there-to-educate-you-about. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
    2. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20200301071220/https://www.forbes.com/sites/tarahaelle/2020/02/29/no-you-do-not-need-face-masks-for-coronavirus-they-might-increase-your-infection-risk/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

    Update

    Sj221234 and his sock Dthut have been blocked indefinitely after Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sj221234, but the history of WP:LOUTSOCK at Eric Feigl-Ding, as laid out in my opening comment and my recent 03:57, 13 June 2022 comment, remains. So, I still think semi-protection is the way to go. With the disruptor blocked, and any IP socking easily addressable, it may be a good time to lift the full-protection. Crossroads -talk- 23:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Anthony Kelly (martial artist)

    I'd like to bring the edits of KungFuKelly to your attention. Based on their username and extremely narrow focus of editing, the only reasonable assumption to make is that this person is Anthony Kelly (martial artist). While it is done so very infrequently, this 11 year old account has only been used to edit his own article, often violating guidelines while doing so. The only exception to editing his own article was a violation of WP:PROMO by adding his personal website as an external link to a different article [103]. In November 2018, I left a friendly message on this user's talk page explaining what was wrong with some of his edits and why I had reverted them, and offered my help if he had any questions; he has never taken me up on this offer. In 2020, I modified some of this user's problematic edits to his own article, clearly explaining my reason for doing so.

    Yesterday, the account made two problematic edits, modifying the title of an existing source to make it look like it verified something it did not, and removing information that is not favourable to the subject: [104]. As I was assuming good faith, in my reversion I clearly explained what was wrong with these edits, and why I had reverted them. Despite this, KungFuKelly has simply reverted my reversion without explanation. I feel like I've been very patient with this user, in spite of the fact they are clearly a single-purpose account with a conflict of interest, but they've just crossed a line by insisting on reinstating problematic edits after it was explained to them why this was wrong. Suggest admins take appropriate action as the account will not listen to or interact with me. Damien Linnane (talk) 23:55, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Falsifying sources is a bad sign. KungFuKelly hasn't declared a COI, but perhaps they should be limited to using the article's talk page to request edits. edited to add: They may not have seen the talk page messages, their contribution history shows they're editing on a mobile device. Schazjmd (talk) 00:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have indefinitely pageblocked KungFuKelly from editing Anthony Kelly (martial artist). The editor is welcome to make well referenced edit requests at Talk: Anthony Kelly (martial artist). Cullen328 (talk) 00:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing at Peru national football team

    At the Peru national football team article, User:CarloPE22 keeps disrupting the article by deleting sourced information and adding biased content (see [105], [106], [107], [108], [109]). The user refuses to discuss changes, following the WP:BRD process, instead demanding that I communicate in Spanish and imposing lesser-known nicknames of the Peruvian team in the infobox. Moreover, the user deletes Alejandro Villanueva from the introduction and imposes calling Hector Chumpitaz "captain," which is likely indicating the user is a Universitario de Deportes fan with an ax to grind against cross-town rivals Alianza Lima. I took the article to FA status and know the Peruvian national team's history and significant details. If an administrator could please take a look at the situation, it would be kindly appreciated. Regards.--MarshalN20 ✉🕊 04:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Big rangeblock needed

    2607:fb91::/32 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)): This range was blocked for three months back in early March by Justlettersandnumbers due to excessive unconstructive editing. Has since resumed spouting garbage soon after the block expired. All unblock requests in the intervening period were clearly written by the same person, and none suggested anything besides an intent to continue vandalising if unblocked. At least one subnet has been blocked, but these smaller blocks don't seem to stop the overall flow of trash from this range. They are fairly subtle, adding little bits of out of place information, some incorrect information, and just a wide variety of disruptive editing. Then there's the shitposting on talkpages and the old favourite, blanking. I'm not going to notify all 79 octillion or so IP's (If anyone else wants to crash the servers then that's up to them). Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 04:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • I doubt very much whether every edit from this range is the same person, as it's the T-Mobile range for a good chunk of the USA (the geolocation for the first 3 I looked at was Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida). Also, there are decent edits in there as well. Mobile ranges are a pain - they're very big, and people jump IPs all the time. I'd be wary of blocking such a wide range for a significant time. Black Kite (talk) 09:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw this earlier, but held off from re-imposing the same block as before so as to get some input from others; I remember being unsure as to the advisability of blocking such a wide range. Black Kite, can you suggest a narrower range or series of ranges that would work here? With a few exceptions, the edits are pretty disruptive.Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it's tricky. Actually, this /32 appears to be half of T-Mobile's currently used IP range (the total range is 2607:fb90::/28 but only 2607:fb90::/31 appears to be active) - and a quick look shows that the other half (2607:fb90::/32) is actually checkuser globally blocked for three years, which means we're already blocking half the T-mobile phone users on IPv6 in the USA anyway... Black Kite (talk) 10:01, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, we could try just blocking 2607:fb91::/34, which would get the talkpage shitposter at a minimum, and probably more than half of the other disruption. Anything narrower probably won't be effective. On closer inspection, it looks like there are at least three separate people who are using this range abusively. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 10:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, when I was referring to "the same person", that was limited to the unblock requests. The same person clearly wrote all those, despite the fact that more than one person is editing through this range. To me this implies that the only people who care about editing through this range are not here to build an encyclopedia. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that the distribution of unblock requests is a good indicator of who cares about editing through this range. As large mobile ranges go, this one is pretty bad, but not nearly as bad as some I've blocked. When I checked last night, we were at 124/214 reverted since the previous block extended, but the 90 remaining edits do include significant positive edits. I don't know why this T-Mobile range is, relatively speaking, not nearly as bad as the other one (which happens to be my own mobile range), but it seems to be just on the margin, cost-benefit-wise. If we do reblock this, I think we should at least leave account creation on (the template {{rangeblock|create=yes}} can be used in the block summary for such cases); if there's a lot of abusive account creation, a CU can always disable that later. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 00:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't oppose allowing account creation, that seems a good idea. Mako001
    Re-blocked for a year with account creation allowed, per suggestion from Tamzin (thank you for that!). Please feel free to modify at will (or if I messed it up!). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

     (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC) Apparently, this clearly shows how some people regard edits from mobile IP ranges like "crimes." Quite interesting. --2607:FB91:388:22B3:210C:4989:8DF8:7AB2 (talk) 00:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Struggling to see why the partial block of this range shouldn't be made a full block

    User:Jake Wartenberg made a partial block inviting additions, but I see the same sort of disruptive editing and also casual vandalism at most contributions for 2409:4042:0:0:0:0:0:0/36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Doug Weller talk 10:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Martiné Lopez Media

    Martiné Lopez Media (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) spam, spam, and spam. Username and edits suggest that they are merely a spammer. Also clumsily moved a couple of pages and now I can't revert their stupid moves. They seem to be in the process of hijacking an article. Reporting here as will need someone with higher permissions to revert their moves. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 15:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Details: Abandoning their Draft:Tinu Thomas Kannur, Martiné hijacked Tinu Verma by moving it to Tinu Thomas Kannur. They blanked the redirect left at Tinu Verma, then restored the content, but the article history for Tinu Verma is now attached to Tinu Thomas Kannur which they also blanked.
    The article history and talk page at Tinu Thomas Kannur need to be restored to Tinu Verma. Schazjmd (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reported the username at Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention, as a promotional user name. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh joy - cleaning up now. firefly ( t · c ) 16:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems NRP beat me to it :) firefly ( t · c ) 16:08, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm used to cleaning up article hijacking. It's quick and easy for me. We could partially block the editor from mainspace, which might be enough to stop them from being disruptive. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've given them an indef block for the user name and the promotional edits. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Ban evasion

    73.158.47.129 proclaims to be HazelBasil who proclaims to be Ashley Gjøvik, subject of an AfD I nominated under WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E, who was banned by ArbCom for comments and conduct made both on- and off-wiki.

    Comments are also inappropriate on the AfD.

    Sebastien1118 (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like the user was indefinitely blocked by ArbCom, not banned. —C.Fred (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @C.Fred: While the OP seems to be confusing blocks and bans, WP:BLOCKEVASION notes that IP addresses used to evade a block should also be blocked. I had opened up a thread at WP:AE about this prior to this getting brought to ANI by the new user, since it involves a violation of an ArbCom-imposed remedy. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 21:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And yet ... Sebastien1118 your account seems to be a Single-purpose account, created solely to get the Ashley Gjøvik article deleted. And you seem to be able to word that AFD in a Wikipedia style, including linking WP pages to prove your argument. — Maile (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am a long-time IP user who wished to start participating in AfD, which requires an account. You can see I've done just that, begun participating in AfD. I also have started adding the events (and the subject) to the article I feel they belong on. Sebastien1118 (talk) 20:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Indef block proposal: SquareInARoundHole

    SquareInARoundHole has communicated off-wiki that they do not intend to challenge this CBAN request. As a courtesy, I am closing this thread early, with consensus to ban. The ban may be appealed in no less than six months, through the normal means. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 20:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Instead of accepting where SquareInARoundHole is wrong, he is now claiming that he is being framed and the SPI results are false.[110]

    But the findings of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SquareInARoundHole shows that this was the height of deception and clear-cut harassment against the user he is banned from interacting.[111]

    I don't think that the community would trust SquareInARoundHole for evading that ban for months by using multiple socks.

    SquareInARoundHole is alleged to have COI with Ashley Gjovik as per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 184 which remains 'unresolved' as rightly mentioned by SVTCobra.[112]
    While the history of SquareInARoundHole (likely a sock himself) with Ashley Gjøvik has been already explained, he is also alleged of COI on Cher Scarlett where he made his 3rd edit [113] and didn't take long to make a large edit to Ifeoma Ozoma,[114] where he is also alleged of having COI.
    Not only the sock account Sebastien1118 but before that he used Bobrossghost for months for socking at Ashley Gjøvik. We can say that Gjøvik was herself not wrong by accusing SquareInARoundHole of harassment.[115]
    This whole chapter looks like a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. This was not the end of harassment by SquareInARoundHole because he also filed at least three bogus reports against me to get me sanctioned[116][117][118] by falsely accusing me of making personal attacks and violating BLP when none of that happened. He never seemed to realize where he is wrong.

    Overall, I really don't see a reason why there shouldn't be an indef block on SquareInARoundHole. He can appeal the ban per WP:SO but not before addressing any of the issues that have been raised so far. TolWol56 (talk) 01:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I've added SquareInARoundHole's name to the section title just so it's more apparent at a glance who's being discussed. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 02:15, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, @TolWol56, please notify SIARH of this thread. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 02:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @TolWol56: Ahem. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 18:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tamzin: Notified. Was just waiting for vanishing issue to resolve first. TolWol56 (talk) 18:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 18:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @TolWol56: To clarify, what you are asking for is a WP:CBAN? If that is the case:
    @Mhawk10: Your first question regarding CBAN/indef block was asked and was replied above. See GenuineArt's message at 10:34 right above.
    I think NinjaRobotPirate found something more conclusive that's why they indicated socking to be "confirmed". TolWol56 (talk) 20:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your reply. I was looking to make sure that was your intent. I'm going to wait from a response from NinjaRobotPirate before making a more substantial comment here with respect to sanction. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 20:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Unban proposal: HazelBasil

    HazelBasil may appeal her block to ArbCom as described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Ban appeals. Any proposal to change the interaction between ArbCom block jurisdiction and community unblock jurisdiction would need to take place in the form of a well-advertised RfC, and is thus beyond the scope of this AN/I thread. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 20:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:HazelBasil has been the subject of horrendous harassment here by SquareInARoundHole. Whatever tweets HazelBasil sent in defense of herself are excusable, and HazelBasil's ban due to SquareInARoundHole's say so can not stand. HazelBasil should be unbanned immediately. --StellarNerd (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. --StellarNerd (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue with that is this is an ArbCom block, and will need to be reviewed by ArbCom to be lifted. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We are the community, we can decide over ArbCom, they have to follow the community vote. --StellarNerd (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the community has already decided that only Arbcom can lift Arbcom blocks. That decision is memorialized at WP:BLOCK, among other places. Levivich 19:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Levivich, if you say Wikipedia:Blocking policy is an impediment, then I tack on an adjoinder to the proposal: Wikipedia:Blocking policy is modified by an overriding provision: the community by a vote at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents may overturn an ArbCom block. Problem solved. --StellarNerd (talk) 19:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not that easy. We have global consensus about how global consensus is changed; if you want to change a policy like WP:BLOCK, you need to follow WP:PGCHANGE (which, to save you some reading, will tell you to follow WP:PROPOSAL procedure). Specifically it'll take a widely advertised RFC, and before that, an WP:RFCBEFORE would need to be done. This is a dead end at ANI; you can't change policy in an ANI thread. Levivich 19:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, so this ANI thread will function as RFCBEFORE, and then we'll do a PROPOSAL procedure proposing the addition of "Notwithstanding the above, User:HazelBasil is unblocked and unbanned from date of passed proposal" to the bottom of Wikipedia:Blocking policy as a 12th section on the page titled "community amendments". --StellarNerd (talk) 19:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You should read the pages I linked to; that's not the procedure they set out. ANI is not for any kind of RFCBEFORE; it is, as the top of page states, for chronic and urgent behavioral problems; it's not to discuss policy changes. Unfortunately, this thread will need to be addressed under existing policy. If you want to change the policy, you need to go to another page (I suggest WT:BLOCK is the place to start). (PS, just so I don't lead you down the prim rose path: there is zero chance that the community will implement this change; the entire purpose of Arbcom is to make decisions that are not reviewable by the community. With all due respect, you probably need more experience on Wikipedia before even so much as proposing what would, in effect, be the end of Arbcom.) Levivich 19:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree because HazelBasil being blocked while being harassed is an urgent behavioral problem, she is unable to defend herself from defamation on Wikipedia. For now, it is my opinion that the opinions of more users at ANI should be heard out, and if others agree that HazelBasil should be unblocked, then the best marshals among the supporters could start this cumbersome procedure you suggest. --StellarNerd (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    New Editor with a lot of previous knowledge?

    New IP Editor putting up Speedy Deletion Tag. Any recently very active. Possible sock or vandal. 192.91.253.6 BlackAmerican (talk) 21:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    This is about the article Robin Chapman (Judo), please see its history for context. 192.91.253.6 (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @BlackAmerican: So, IP192 tagged your article Robin Chapman (Judo) for G11 speedy deletion, and your response was to remove the tag against policy and, when they pointed out that that was against policy, to come here and accuse them of being a "possible sock or vandal", with no evidence other than that they know how to CSD a page? There's no such thing as a "new IP editor". When someone's editing on an IP, we have no way of knowing if they're brand new or have been editing for 20 years under different IPs. I've declined the G11 as I don't think the standard was met, but I'm seriously unimpressed with your handling of this. I'm also unimpressed with the quality of that article. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 21:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't mean to offend anyone. I simply believed this could be a sock. I have seen what appeared to be a new editor who put up an AFD and had no major history and was banned. [1] I thought it was something similiar. BlackAmerican (talk) 21:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bushxingu
    I wish people wouldn't assume that new editors have to be ignorant. My first edits were to WP:AFD discussions, and I made sure I had read and understood relevant policy before making them, just as I would expect others to do. It seems that RTFM isn't a thing any more. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Whodatttt

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

    Whodatttt is obviously the user account of recently blocked IP 2A04:4A43:4D0F:D59F:0:0:0:0/64, as they both attempted to add and revert more or less the same addition in Theories about Alexander the Great in the Quran; [119] [120] [121] [122] [123]

    Following the block of the IP, Whodattt started editing from his user account once agaon, continuing the IPs edit warring, and also made WP:HOUNDING reverts of edits by me [124] and User:Apaugasma [125] [126], because we both had reverted him in Theories about Alexander the Great in the Quran. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    More than one IP. I'm involved so can't deal with it. I'm hoping User:Zzuuzz will when back online. Doug Weller talk 07:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I should clarify what I did there, because it's a bit unusual and I see it's already been misinterpreted. The block is anon only, a de facto restriction on logged out editing, which is another way of saying, "please log in to your account". This makes for easier and less ambiguous communication. In some senses it's a variation of WP:PBAGDSWCBY. Whether we can reach this editor to inform them of the errors of their ways remains to be seen, IMO. Over to others... -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Continues to edit war with account. Doug Weller talk 09:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Whodatttt has also been edit warring at Mu'awiya I ([127] [128] [129] [130] [131]), Al-Jahiz ([132] [133] [134]) and Barbary lion ([135] [136] [137]). Especially in combination with the random hounding reverts [138] [139] [140] and the silence at their talk page I'm thinking WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE. An indef would force them to talk to us about it. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Whodatttt is still edit warring, and he also just made another WP:HOUNDING revert of a edit made by me in another completely unrelated article [141]. This user is clearly WP:NOTHERE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Now he is hounding other users who reverted him as well [142], and he continues the same towards me [143]. Can someone please block him already? --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    5 reverts on one article today, see WP:AN3#User:Whodatttt reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: ) Doug Weller talk 20:26, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Now 6. Doug Weller talk 20:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Indefinitely blocked by Bbb23. Doug Weller talk 20:39, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Date-changing vandal from Mexico

    2806:106E:23:37AA:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

    We have a date-changing vandal in the range Special:Contributions/2806:106E:23:37AA:0:0:0:0/64, geo-locating to Nuevo Leon, Monterrey, Mexico. This person makes unreferenced and wrong changes to dates.[144][145] Can this person be blocked? Binksternet (talk) 03:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Fasscass

    On User:Fasscass, Fasscass has been consistently casting aspersions that another user (Philip Cross) is engaging in ownership of The Grayzone since last year. Philip Cross took objection to this in October and removed it as a personal attack, but it was reinstated by the user twice, claiming that they are not making any personal attacks.

    I encountered Fasscass today after they became involved in a discussion regarding the neutrality of The Grayzone and I noticed the personal attack on their userpage. I asked Fasscass to strike the accusation of article ownership from their userpage, though the user claimed that it was not an accusation. I then asked for clarification about what the user means by the statement, to which Fasscass replied I am not asserting anything by the phrase. I found it rather odd that the user meant literally nothing by the statement on their userpage that they had been repeatedly asked to remove, so I asked the user to remove it a second time. Fasscass responded again that they are not asserting anything.

    The editor is clearly not taking the concern seriously, and I'm apparently not the only one who's had it, so I'm bringing this here as the user is refusing to remove what appears to be an obvious case of casting aspersions. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I have indefinitely blocked Fasscass for personal attacks/harassment/casting aspersions on their userpage. Any administrator can feel free to unblock without my input if this editor agrees to remove the personal attack from their userpage, and never cast aspersions against their colleagues ever again. I will be going to sleep shortly. Cullen328 (talk) 05:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    block circumventing brag

    I don't know if this is the right place for this but I don't know a better 1. I also have no idea if something can (or should) be done. I came across somebody bragging about getting around being blocked off-wiki. Here it is: https://www.reddit.com/r/WikipediaVandalism/comments/vb1qrt/i_used_to_use_my_old_ip_address_for_a_mix_of_good/ Dutchy45 (talk) 08:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think it's worth doing anything about it at this time, though regulars might find it quite a funny read whether it's true or not (I have my doubts). If they have to phone AT&T to get a new router every time they're blocked, well, let's have more like that pls. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:26, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attacks and profanity by Tigerikkada

    Tigerikkada (talk) This user is using abusive words on my talk page that too not in English (in Telugu). He is allegedly making meaningless statements against me on my talk page. Out of his statements, I only concern about the edits realted to K.G.F: Chapter 2 because there is a discussion going on related to film's box office collections. But other statements are meaningless. For example, he stated that I have made edits on RRR, but in reality I have not made any edits on that article. I have said the same as a reply them. I even asked him to vist the corresponding article's talk page, even then he is abusively replying on my talk page. The abusive messages are not in English as I mentioned earlier........Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 10:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I have left the missing ANI notice at Tigerikkada's talk page. The issue was a mere content dispute which should have amicably settled at the article talk page. However, Tigerikkada took to Jayanthkumar123's talk page, leaving this note which ended with "This won't be good for you" (translated from Telugu).
    DaxServer has already left a standard warning about WP:No personal attacks which Tigerikkada must take cognizance of. Regards -- Ab207 (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The user has went to extreme level of personal attacking by uing abusive words.....Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Despite this ANI thread, Tigerikkada has resorted to personal attacks on Jayanthkumar123, abusing him with an equivalent of B word ([146]). Kindly requesting an admin intervention. -- Ab207 (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would ask for a revdel under WP:RD2 for the edits linked above if that's fine with Jayanthkumar123. I've for now replaced them with {{RPA}} — DaxServer (t · m · c) 20:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mathsci at Double group

    Double group is a (very) technical article that has been created as a redirect on 27 February 2009‎, and as a true article on 17 March 2022‎ by Petergans. This article belongs to the relationship between advanced group theory and some physical sciences, especially magnetochemistry and theoretical physics. This may explain the difficulty of resolving content disputes, because of the lack of editors competent in these scientific areas, who are also competent in dispute resolution. In particular, the disruptive behaviour of Mathsci may be difficult (for non-experts) to distinguish from content disputes.

    Disruptive behavior of Mathsci comprises but is not limited to

    • WP:OWN and WP:GETTHEPOINT: every other's edit of the article is either reverted or rewritten in his own style. If editors disagree, he continues an edit war until the other gives up.
    • WP:edit warring not only for content questions, but also for for removing maintenance tags without addressing the issue ([147], [148], [149], [150]), for restoring his personal attacks ([151], [152]), moving or hiding replies to these personal attacks ([153], [154], [155]; note also the strange comment in this last edit: in 2013 at AE, they wrote "I think that the arbitration committee should be informed of the recent disruptive behavior of Mathsci here and elsewhere. This behavior consists mainly in flaming (at least) anybody who disagrees with him, whichever is the subject of this disagreement. " - at that stage user had enabled sockpuppet troll edits of User:Algebraic Jordanian), or against a short description that is not his own work ([156],[157], [158], [159]).
    • Personal attacks (generally by accusing others to be incompetent) in edit summaries as well in the talk page. This includes judgements on the professional works of other editors
    • WP:IDONTHEARTHAT: When something is discussed on the talk page, he rarely discusses the point; instead he gives mathematical courses that are not clearly relevant (see User talk:D.Lazard#FYI), accuses others to be incompetent, or boasts his own mathematical competences (alleged article in inv. math. and talks at ICM and in Paris). An example of this behavior is Talk:Double group#Expert tag, and, in particular, the paragraphs entitled "Puzzlement" and "Observations".

    The effect of this behavior is that there is no way to improve this very confusing article, since all editors that are competent in the subject (except Petergans) are discouraged to edit the article, as they are immediately reverted or their advices on the talk page or in the previous AfD discussion are systematically ignored.

    This behavior of Mathsci is not new. It is at the origin to an IBAN and several editing block. It has been also the subject of many discussions here, at WP:AE, and at WT:WPM; for example, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1045#D.Lazard and Differential geometry of surfaces. Each time, Mathsci avoids a ban by promising to stop his behavior. After so many promises without effect, nobody can believe in any future Mathsci's promises. So, its time to definitively ban Mathsci from English Wikipedia. D.Lazard (talk) 11:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    ReviewingTalk:Double group, it seems Mathsci has contributed over 90% of the quality analyses concerning what the best available WP:RS have to say on the topic. Accordingly, it's quite reasonable that Mathsici is mostly getting his way in shaping the main article. If you want to change that, then rather than trying to get Mathski permabanned, you could try engaging in serious & open minded source based discussion. Alternatively, you could just take the article off your watchlist - sometimes finding another article to edit is the pragmatic solution.
    @ Mathsci, while I find the proposal for a permaban rather ridiculous, this doesnt seem to be an entirely meritless complaint. You do seem to invoking WP:CIR a little too often, perhaps it's as you are too clever for your own good. My own UG research project, for which I got a first, was on a related field (albeit over 30 years ago) and I also find much of the article hard to understand, with difficult concepts under explained. WP:CIR does not apply to readers! The Double group article could be improved if you'd be more receptive to the points made by various other competent science editors on both the talk page & the AfD, rather than doubling down by claiming various complex sub topics are "not specialised". Still, I think a light trout slap is the worst you warrant here, and some might think you deserve a barnstar for the quality improvements you’ve made to the article. FeydHuxtable (talk)

    @Qflib, Dirac66, Chalst, Mark viking, Oaktree b, Trovatore, Xxanthippe, and DePiep: Notification to editors who have manifestedtheir interest by commenteing on Talk:Double group or on the old AfD discussion. D.Lazard (talk) 13:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Survey: site ban Mathsci

    Someone needs to make a WP:HIPAA essay. I am extremely sympathetic to health problems, but it has no bearing on the issue at hand as usual with Mathsci's comments. Arkon (talk) 20:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support Per nom. Way too much time wasted over the years on trying to manage one editor. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 21:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not involved in any of this but because I happen to be wheelchair bound I made a neutral observation on a recent thread and it has been on my watchlist since. It's not related to this ANI case, but it may shed some light on Mathsci's style of collaboration in general. His comments there appear, IMO, to possibly be Harassment. What no one seems to have noticed there is that the Words to watch talk page is under Discretionary sanctions, as plainly warned in its header notice and there may be a case for invoking it. I have not investigated further and I don't intend to, nor to post here again, but I hope it helps others to reach a decision. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • On Talk:Double group, back in April, Mathsci wrote, Using a sandbox to create a preferred version of an article is an example of wp:own, contrary to wikipedia policy. This is an ... unusual interpretation of policy; working on a significant revision of a page by creating a draft in one's own user space is often a good idea, and one from which Mathsci could actually benefit if, for health reasons, he works by adding up many smaller edits. Later, Peterganz wrote, The background that is covered by the cited articles is certainly of interest to students of mathematics, but is all but unintelligible to others. For example, I don't know what GL2(Fp) and SL2(Fp) mean. In response, Mathsci invoked the Competence is required essay. It seems to me rather confrontational to imply an editor lacks competence simply for failing to recognize one of the many different notations used in a subject. Elsewhere in the same talk page, Mathsci uses, for example, PSL(7) rather than PSL2(F7); he quotes the notation T*, 0* and K* and in another place breaks out the Fraktur letters and writes , , . Mathsci implied that Peterganz lacked knowledge taught at UK sixth forms for maths A levels (when modular arithmetic is at best a prerequisite for a prerequisite to the article topic). When Dirac66 pointed out that Peterganz had simply not recognized an unfamiliar notation, Mathsci's response was, The articles general linear group, special linear group, projective linear group and field are all easy to find — essentially, "If you already knew what the notation meant, you could have looked it up and learned what it meant." This is simply not a reasonable way to have a discussion. The topic is one that is naturally approached from multiple directions by specialists with differing backgrounds. Consequently, writing about it requires not just expertise, but an even temper and a willingness to recognize that what is familiar to you may not be so to another editor. XOR'easter (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per nom, Fuchs, XOR, etc., per a history of disruption going back years, and mostly per WP:CIR. I don't think Mathsci has the competence to collaborate with others on this project. For example, when I posted a message on Mathsci's talk page about not stalking RC, Mathsci removed it from their talk page and then responded on RC's talk page instead. Now, AGFing that this wasn't intentional harassment of RC, it seems Mathsci lacks the competence to even understand a simple thing such as "leave so-and-so alone". Reading Talk:Double group, and Mathsci's comments here, I don't even understand what Mathsci is saying most of the time. I'm almost to the point of questioning their English fluency. The comments are non-responsive to whatever others are saying and instead are a string of mathematics vocabulary words and phrases. Again, AGFing that this isn't trolling, an intentional attempt at deflection, a passive-aggressive attempt at intimidation, or anything bad-faith like that, it seems Mathsci lacks the competence to communicate effectively with others. This failure to communicate contributes to the WP:OWNership problem that others have raised. I can see in the history that these problems have been re-occurring for years, there were previous blocks and unblocks... nothing has worked to raise the level of Mathsci's competence. While I appreciate the hours of volunteer work Mathsci has put it, unfortunately not everybody is suitable for collaboratively editing an online encyclopedia. It's time for Mathsci to cease volunteering here, because their participation is ultimately counterproductive to our goal of building an encyclopedia. Levivich 19:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please add what this is a survey for at the top of the sub-section? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:15, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak oppose "Weak" as I don't know the much about Mathsci history here, so I put weight on the fact several editors I respect seem to view it as significantly problematic. But I've re-read the Talk:Double group and I'm still strongly of the opinion mathsci's conduct & sourced based arguments were generally good. Granted XOR'easter's criticism is valid, but I feel mathsci was to a degree provoked, and in a certain limited way, his raising of WP:CIR may have been justified. (i.e. in the sense of someone may be competent in nuclear physics but incompetent in ballet dancing - obviously not in the wider sense, as the other editors there are clearly also good editors in an overall sense.) Mathsci is a cultured and erudite editor who has created almost a hundred articles - some of them really nice such as Symmetric cone, and he's expanded countless others. We should not lightly take down such an editor. 20:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)FeydHuxtable (talk)
    • Strong support I think Levivich's comments above in particular are exactly correct Gumshoe2 (talk) 20:15, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I participated at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Wheelchair_bound, where it does look like Mathsci was hounding Smasongarrison, who has been going around to edit articles to bring disability/illness-related language in line with e.g. WP:WTW, WP:SUFFER, WP:TONE, MOS:DISAB, etc. Here's the interaction report. All of Mathsci's edits there, even after this discussion, are to do things like change "reliant on a wheelchair" to "confined to a wheelchair", insist that "mental retardation" be in Wikipedia's voice, change "intellectual disability" back to "mental retardation", change "had Asperger syndrome" to "suffered from Asperger syndrome", etc. There are dozens of these, across a variety of articles, many of which Mathsci has never edited before starting to follow Smasongarrison, and all the while simply insisting that he's right when, in nearly all of the cases I can see, he is not. If you're going to hound someone, you really need to be right. Smasongarrison made a few mistakes in there, making the same edit more than once in a couple instances, but otherwise has tried to engage on various talk pages and requested not to be hounded to no productive effect.
      I don't know Mathsci well, but I've seen the name around often enough to know we're talking about a particularly difficult kind of case: someone who has a lot of expertise and has done a lot of great content work but just can't seem to treat people with the respect that this collaborative project requires. Sometimes a certain amount of hostility + dogged determination gets things done, as with dealing with a persistent group of POV pushers, but other times it drives away otherwise productive editors and saps a huge amount of community time. Looking at the long record of blocks, etc., I guess it's time for the age-old question: do we opt for a really-real, totally-seriously-this-time warning until the next time, or are we past that point? No boldtext vote from me at this time until doing more research, but figured the diffs may help. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Both Levivich and XOr'easter have summarised the main points well. I don't know if there's an underlying reason, or whether or not that even matters. From my own brief experience, and reading the experiences of others, consensus building with Mathsci is tedious at best. From the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Wheelchair_bound I'm quite concerned at how Mathsci brought up the university of another editor seemingly without context to the rest of the discussion. In isolation it could maybe have had a good faith answer, but as Mathsci has been blocked before for harasssment and outing (2008), and is subject to at least two IBANs, I regretfully think it's probably best for all of us, Mathsci included if he is CBANned. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment

    I had stroke while editing wikipedia on 29 December 2017; there were several periods of hospitalisation, one of which was recorded was mentioned in 2019 in an arbcom case. My "email this user" account changed several times due to post-stroke complications; I now use a gmail account in my real name and mathsci.wiki@gmail.com. Administrators User:Johnuniq and former arbitrators such as User:Doug Weller, User:Drmies and User:Newyorkbrad know my real name. User:Charles Matthews and User:William M. Connolley also know me from wiki-meetups in Cambridge. User:Elonka knows my name because we had a meet-up in Aix-en-Provence around 2008. User:Roger Davies also knows my name because of WP:ARBR&I and my connections with Marseille. Music editors such as User:Smerus and User:Gerda Arendt know my real name. user:Graham87 knows my real name.

    In July 2018, when I was too ill to edit wikipedia , a mathematician and a theoretical physicist created a BLP on me. Historically in 2009, there was an ANI report by User:A.K.Nole (Elonka backwards) that originated from a well-known sock farm going back to User:Echigo mole. That started with the article Butcher group. The sockfarm also disrupted arbcom cases and as a result there was a motion about enabling sock puppets. Eventually, A.K.Nole's activitied stopped in May 2013 and he apologised,[160] revealing at the same time disclosing previous unused sock accounts to checkusers (Deltaquad, Timothycanens?). At the same time, when I was creating material on Jordan algebras and Hurwitz's theorem (composition algebras), A.K.Nole was disrupting edits as Algebraic Jordanian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

    D.Lazard has a record of making negative comments about mathematics articles. That goes back to 2013, and I am too tired to unravel the comments D.Lazard has made previously. One quote from 2013 was, "I think that the arbitration committee should be informed of the recent disruptive behavior of Mathsci here and elsewhere. This behavior consists mainly in flaming (at least) anybody who"disagrees with him, whichever is the subject of this disagreement". D.Lazard has edit-warred on Talk:Double group and shown no knowledge of the subject on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Double group. In Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive134#Discussion_concerning_D.Lazard, D.Lazard disclosed facts about himself. Some of the history is here.Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive/2013/May#Posting_by_D.Lazard

    My real identity is Antony Wassermann. It can be rev-delled if necessary.

    D.Lazard's comments are odd. Presumably he has access to mathscinet, so could work out what "double group" meant. At no stage He has D.Lazard made any mathematical comments on Talk:Double group. Mathsci (talk) 13:39, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Apart from baseless sock accusations, pointing to a frivolous AE report you filed in 2013, and weak accusations of edit warring (what, someone removing your personal attacks and objecting to your hatting of their comment?), it is very hard to see what this "comment" has to do with the accusations, apart from giving you the opportunity to link to a lot of users you have better experiences with? Fram (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not had the time to discuss this in detail. The sockpuppets of user:Echigo mole were all indef blocked in 2013, mostly done by checkusers. Which personal attacks are you referring to? I have hastily copy-pasted links and that's all I have had time for. I have not recovered from stroke, so cannot respond very quickly. My stroke consultant at Addenbrooke's Hospital is aware of that. As a courtesy, given the Fram case, could you please not intervene? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 14:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Given the Fram case"? You mean Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram/Evidence, where someone posted my block of you as "evidence" of some issue, but everyone agreed that this was a normal block and not "evidence" of any issue? Why would I "not intervene"? Why do you think linking to a lot of people you know in real life (i.e., canvassing), is acceptable, but someone with previous negative experience (someone who correctly blocked you) should "not intervene"? Fram (talk) 14:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Mathsci, comments like these (that Fram is somehow not allowed to comment) will get you indef-banned in no time, since it's such a blatant attempt to deflect. I don't quite understand how you have time to write up a bunch of long paragraphs including personal history, but find not a single minute to devote to the actual issue: ownership, in that article and in general. Come on now. BTW, I'm not aware that I knew your real-life identity, but it's not relevant here anyway. Drmies (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I was aware of some of the issues being discussed in this thread with regards to Mathsci, via their recent contributions at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Wheelchair bound. One thing that struck me there, as it is again now, is the sheer amount of non-sequiturs in Mathsci's replies. While I have no doubt surrounding, and great sympathy for his health problems, I do not see why they nor why details about his name, or which hospital his consultant is at are relevant to this discussion. Nor at the discussion at the WTW talk page, what relevance organising conferences at the university another editor graduated from, or helping of French exchange students with internet problems had to that conversation.
    While I naturally want to assume good faith on this, so I don't want to speculate on whether it's as Drmies has said a blatant attempt to deflect, I'm reminded of the essays Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy and meta:Wikipedia is not a convalescent center. Is it possible that these non-sequiturs are perhaps symptomatic of some other health issue that may be unknowingly impacting on Mathsci's ability to contribute in a cooperative manner? Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Considering the behaviour at and highlighted in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Wheelchair bound from last week and this week, it seems that this is (again) a common occurrence for Mathsci. E.g. at Pearl Harbor (film), an article they never edited before, they started edit warring to reinsert text they preferred with the reason "nothing to choose bertweev" the two words, and knowing well that the other editor prefered to other version as less ableist and potentially hurtful. If you have no reason to prefer one or the other, you have no prior history at the history, and still you feel the need to edit war to prevent someone from using a word they believe to be less hurtful, then you are just WP:HOUNDING for the sake of it. I would therefor concur that enough is enough, and support ban of Mathsci. Fram (talk) 15:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) @Drmies: That was careless shorthand and I apologize to Fram, who has been fair. I have not yet read D.Lazard's statement (I have not slept so that does not help). I did email you in Feb 2021 with my real name gmail account, but as you say it's irrelevant. As far as Double group is concerned, and the claims of WP:OWN, I have not removed any statements by User:Petergans, but added mathematical content only fairly recently because it was not available on wikipedia yet. There was no claim to being original: I did glance over graduate courses I gave in Cambridge in the 1990s and 2000s to jog my memory. That included the character tables for the double icoshedral group and icosahedral group. Petergans deleted the character formulas, stating they were wrong. However, they can be checked in multiple sources. I do not WP:OWN the article – I am just preparing a small amount of preparatory content; I know this material well, having won the Junior Whitehead Prize for it in the 1980s. As far as adding content on "Definition and theory" (not complete), that's the normal way of adding mathematical content. The only other material that is still lacking is the statement that the representative functions form a Hopf algebra; or equivalently, that the pointwise multiplication and convolution are compatible in the sense of Frobenius algebras. From that the Peter-Weyl theorem follows along, along with Frobenius reciprocity. That implies the branching rules from irreducible representations of SU(2) to those of its (double) finite subgroups. That is how it's reported in physics and chemistry texts that are in the reference section. That ties in with the original paper of Hans Bethe and other texts. Previously Petergans has disgreed with standard content on mathematics, e.g. for articles related to convolution: he has created forked articles which were inaccurate and were deleted.
    The trolling by Echigo mole socks was properly dealt with here.[161] User:Salix alba removed sockpuppet interventions; the BLP is inaccurate as it does not include my period at the University of Liverpool where I was appointed as "new blood" lecturer in 1983 (at the same time as Mary Rees) until leaving for the University of Oxford in 1999 as a Royal Society URF; I played piano duets with Peter Giblin. In these diffs,[162][163] D.Lazard questions the blatant sockpuppetry of Hyperbaric oxygen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The diff of D.Lazard I wanted is here.[164] In that case, D.Lazard inserted himself into an WP:ARBR&I discussion writing, "This behavior consists mainly in flaming (at least) anybody who disagrees with him, whichever is the subject of this disagreement. Although WikiProject Mathematics lacks of good mathematics editors, his behavior has led a good editor, .... , to retire from Wikipedia. I know that all of this is unrelated to the present case, but the systematic use of bad faith (in my opinion) arguments by Mathsci makes me suspicious about his arguments in this discussion. In that case on 14 May 2013, D.Lazard was enable the socktroll Hyperbaric oxygen. Mathsci (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe you should spend your time reading the filing instead of the useless paragraphs you posted above? How do you have time to post counterclaims and talk about how important everyone knows that you played piano with Peter Giblin is and not read the ANI filing? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:41, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @David Fuchs: this content is still being created, nobody else is producing the missing material (i.e. defintions). The references were created to be compatible with the language of quantum mechanics and representation theory. Charles Matthews' comments are correct are about the lede, which at the moment needs tweaking, because it duplicates material in the lede and section "Definition and theory". Like me, Charles must have learnt Part IB QM and Part II Rep Theory in the Mathematical Tripos. In turn, I taught the material as a lecturer in Cambridge. Charles' summary is accurate; we last bumped into each other in June 2018. Because of stroke, I cannot write in a spontaneous way, so it probably comes across as stilted. In the time-scale of edits, I have made 90 incremental edits.[165] I am slowed down because of stroke; the material on "group theory and quantum mechanics" is standard and that has been the approach adopted. As Charles correctly comments, this is how I would normally edit, but slowed down. Mathsci (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    My name was mentioned above. I have known Mathsci in real life, for many years: not that well, since I left mathematics around 30 years ago. He is a distinguished mathematician, who has suffered serious illness. What I know of D.Lazard is only from WP discussions; where his contributions have seemed to me to be well argued. (I should also note that in the past I have blocked Mathsci.)

    This discussion is not heading in a direction likely to resolve the dispute, such as it is. I have looked quickly at double group, which may fall between two stools in terms of expository style, since there is the scientists' way of looking at double covers, and the mathematicians'. The lead section should be hammered out, probably, to clarify the topic.

    I can quite see how anyone would be annoyed at being addressed by Mathsci here in a certain tone he adopts. That aside, the subject matter of the article is not really contentious, and content discussions on the Talk page should be the way to go. Talk page guidelines should be adhered to, of course. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    In 2005, representation theory of SU(2) looked like this.[166] The corresponding QM theory looks like angular momentum operator. Mathsci (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The subject matter of the article is not really contentious, and content discussions on the Talk page should be the way to go. I disagree: there are really contentious content disputes. One of the main ones, and the least technical one is whether the article must be written for pure mathematicians only or for an audience that includes physicists and chemists. For every question where somebody disagree with Mathsci, the discussion is truely impossible on the talk page because of the disruptive behavior of Mathsci. In fact, this is the main reason for this thread, since I do not really worry of personal attack against me. D.Lazard (talk) 18:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I know what you mean. But I don't call disagreement on expository style a classic "content dispute". If the essential content is mathematics, and I believe it is here, we have in this case the situation where the mathematical facts are not at issue. The way to do the exposition cannot be settled under the heading of verifiability, in other words.
    So my position here is that, from an encyclopedia point of view, it can be OK to insist that the main burden of the article is to state the mathematical facts. In other words compile reference material, rather than trying to write textbook material.
    This topic is close to the theory of spinors, and I remember a London meetup where I got into a discussion of spinors with someone whose background is in physics. It became clear that he might be just as happy with an intuitive, geometric treatment, as with a definition. This is really no surprise; on the other hand spinor algebra exists as "pure" mathematics, independent of the physical applications. It is troublesome to get into arguments about the "essential nature" of something like a spinor. (Before 1950 there were many ways of looking at this aspect of the geometry of rotations, and personal notations. This is an area where Bourbaki did good work, believe me.)
    I am a strong supporter of the basic behavioural guidelines on civility and ownership. Onsite, I wish people always used a measured tone for difficult discussions. My meetup conversation ended on a friendly note, even though I remember saying something like "that is meaningless, that is meaningless, that is meaningful but wrong ..." There are two sides to what goes on here, and I can see that this particular topic may well be the source of debates where both sides feel they have a strong case. But I don't think we do "equal time" in this case. There is some mathematics, and some applications of the mathematics, and "tail wagging the dog" is not, in my view, what should be in Wikipedia. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not contributed to Double Group page, but have interacted many times with mathsci on other math pages. I am in complete agreement with D.Lazard on what it is like to interact with mathsci, to the extent that I will almost never edit a page if I see that mathsci has contributed to it at any time in the past - since virtually every time it leads to exactly the impossibilities that D.Lazard says (most recently here [167] as a result of him following me to the page). As a separate matter, I am also aware that he has egregiously wiki-stalked some users, as recently as RandomCanadian (talk · contribs) a few weeks ago [168]. Gumshoe2 (talk) 20:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Previously at WP:AN, Gumshoe2 was in agreement with D.Lazard about Symmetry of second derivatives, with claims of WP:COPYVIO. Diannaa did not agree that there was a copy-vio.Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive324#Steps to resolve a mathematics content/conduct dispute Gumshoe2 also wrote, "Mathsci's talk page behavior and commentary is simply far too erratic; it usually feels like conversing with a loquacious AI trained on a few stock phrases and a database of math textbooks." "Egregious stalking" contradicts the 2008 article on Riemannian connection on a surface, which gives the standard existence proof of a Riemannian covariant derivative of do Carmo and Kobayashi & Nomizu. It's the same as the proof in the 1998 Part III course on the Atiyah-Singer Index Theorem. Other courses dealt with loop groups, boson-fermion correspondence, etc. Some bits of the representation theory were common to all. The SU(2) theory was routinely taught using raising and lowering operators (i.e. the usual QM method). My colleagues and friends have been Peter Goddard, Richard Borcherds and the late Vaughan Jones. Mathsci (talk) 22:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not understand the relevance of your having worked with Borcherds et al., nor do I understand the phrase "Egregious stalking" contradicts the 2008 article on Riemannian connection on a surface. The remark about wiki-stalking concerned your interactions with RandomCanadian, who has never edited that page or its Talk page. Moreover, I do not see the relevance of a dispute from 2020 about whether part of a math article was too closely copied from its source. D.Lazard and Gumshoe2 both had concerns (see the comparison of passages here). It looks like their concerns were addressed, not by another user saying the text was fine, but by your rewriting the section in a way that both of them were satisfied with. XOR'easter (talk) 23:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I created that content. D.Lazard edit-warred out content on the basis of WP:COPYVIO. But the content was added by me in a shortened version.[169] I asked Doug Weller about copy-right issues[170], and got straightforward answers – in the end I decided to condense the content myself from the same source. To be self-contained and elementary, care with iterated integrals was required (some version of Fubini's theorem).[171] Mathsci (talk) 11:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I understand the history of that discussion. What I do not follow is why it is relevant here. XOR'easter (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Your first paragraph is great; I particularly like the direct way you chose the wikilinks so that A, D, E appears. You have rescued an orphan. Thanks! Mathsci (talk) 17:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'm glad I could make a constructive contribution to the double group article, but I still don't understand the relevance of any of the things you mentioned to the topic at hand. XOR'easter (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    These seem to be small complaints. One article that R.e.b. suggested I helped with, was Tomita–Takesaki theory, because I knew it well (cf Séminaire Bourbaki, No. 800). The easiest case is the the commutation theorem for traces: D.Lazard argued about that at Hilbert algebra, a disambiguation page. For type III factors, the theory is complicated: there are both left and right Hilbert algebras these require unbounded operators. Bratelli & Robinson and van Daele & Rieffel found a trick to reduce the theory to bounded operators.
    Returning to "Double group", there's always a choice got finite groups of Lie type – Ian Macdonald writes GL<sub<n(F) and Sandy Green writes GL(n,F). For zonal spherical functions, the notation is usually SL2(R) and SL(2,C). Mathsci (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked about three things: (a) Why does it matter that you worked with Borcherds et al.? (b) Why does your having created an article in 2008 have anything to do with your seemingly following RandomCanadian around Wikipedia in 2022? (c) Why does a discussion from 2020 about whether a page was too closely copied from its source relevant now? So far, you have provided answers to none of these things. XOR'easter (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe mathsci's response here, containing not a single word of relevance to the message it is replying to, is good evidence of my belief that it is not possible to have discussions with mathsci. Gumshoe2 (talk) 00:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a regular reader of ANI I find the presenting of real name, email address, medical history, academic history, etc. and finding myself in possession of that information somewhat confronting and wonder about the thinking behind posting something where you feel the need to say It can be rev-delled if necessary. I also wonder about the relevance of such information to the discussion.

    As a separate note I realise that the name is probably grandfathered and may have been previously discussed but the username MathSci can easily give the impression that it is an account tied to MathSciNet or the American Mathematical Society and an official source of information leading those with a mathematics background to be wary of changing a page when they see the username in the page history. In fact, for the first few weeks when I saw the name that is exactly what I thought. Gusfriend (talk) 07:17, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    This goes back to 2009 troll sockpuppet edits by User:A.K.Nole[172][173] - see Talk:Mathematical_Reviews. The spelling is different. There was also a long 2009 post on ANI related to this.[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive550#Block_review - uninvolved admin request]] A.K.Nole, user:Abd, etc. Mathsci (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe you missed in Talk:Double group where Lazzard stated your mathematical competences ... do not matter here, and cannot be verified, as Mathsci is not your real name. Mathsci is demonstrating the contrast between Lazzard & himself. Mathsci is a prize winning mathematician who has done specialist work closely related to the topic. As per the AfD, Lazzard seemed to know nothing about double groups beyond what he'd gleaned from a quick google search. Yet he's been interfering with Mathsci's improvements, without even mentioning a single source that supports his thinking. AGF is not a suicide pact - it seems quite possible Lazard is motivated not by any desire to improve the article for our readers, but by ill will towards Mathsci based on their past interactions.
    There would be no need for mathsci to boost his credentials if other science editors would only concede that Mathsci clearly has the best understanding of double groups. Or at least that he's best representing what the quality WP:RS have to say on the subject. Sadly though, few seem to have the good grace to do that, and seem to prefer kicking a man when he's down. I'll concede that while his credentials may be germane, 70%+ of what Mathsci's wrote above is irrelevant. It's not typical of his on point talk page discussion so it's not caused by his stroke alone. More like the stress of being subject to an ANI witch hunt, which would unnerve all but the coolest. I remember back in the naughties when we used to have a tolerant culture, and used to try to solve problems with minimal sanctions. These days permabans are handed out left right and centre. While most of these are admitedly for socks, more indeffs are now handed out in a few months than our total number of (reasonably) active editors. Bah! FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your accurate comments here which I appreciate. The naughties were different. All those requests for comments on users ... Mathsci (talk) 10:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your opinion on my competence and my motivations, but they are not the subject of this discussion. If you have some doubts on them or on my desire to improve the quality of mathematical articles you may consult the history of my edits or ask any member of WP:WikiProject Mathematics. May I ask you which mathematical competence do you have to judge the mathematical quality of Mathsci edits. It is very strange that, generally, the Wikipedians (like you) who talk of the mathematical quality of Mathsci's edits are not mathematicians and are not involved in the improvement of mathematical articles. D.Lazard (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrong on several counts. If you start a thread trying to permaban a quality contributor like Mathsci, you open yourself up to scrutiny, and can indeed become the main subject of the dicussion. See WP:Boomerang. I already indicated my relevant experience in the comment I made yesterday. To expand, said research project involved heterometallic compounds & digital storage. As to your competence, I hadn't ventured an opinion on that - only your apparent lack of knowledge on Double groups. In fact, a quick look at your contribs suggests that generally you're a most useful maths editor. I think Mathsci was wrong to raise WP:CIR on the talk page, as already indicated in my first post. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Mathsci's high-quality research work from the 80s and 90s is barely relevant to the editorial problems at hand, since exactly analogous conflicts have come up with him several times before, even for extremely non-research matters, see for instance the edit histories/talk pages of symmetry of second derivatives and differential geometry of surfaces and fundamental theorem of Riemannian geometry and many, many others. Many times it may superficially look like he is engaging in discussion on a talk page while in reality he is saying nothing relevant or of substance. The situation in every one of my interactions with him (on mathematical material) is exactly like his responses on this very ANI thread.
    As for the present troubles on the double group page, we can look as an illuminating example at the first section on talk page, "Three deletions". Petergans and KeeYou Flib say there that they cannot see the relevance of certain of mathsci's writing for the double group page. Mathsci responds by saying that the basic theory of SU(2), SO(3), and finite groups are well-known, that there is a well-known theorem on subgroups of SO(3), that Petergans' home university has/had experts on the questioned material, that Petergans' original article was not good and did not contain sufficient mathematical detail, that he has previously used good sources on editing Henry VII of England and John Cabot wikipages, that a research paper of mathsci's had previously reprinted some character tables of certain groups, and asks whether his interlocutors know group theory. Even if you don't understand the mathematics (and I don't know if you happen to), you can see that none of this - not a single word - actually responds to the questions raised, which are specifically about whether certain material on McKay correspondence and character tables of crystallographic point groups belongs on the double group page. This is 100% par for the course with mathsci. Gumshoe2 (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I draw an almost opposite conclusion from Talk:Double_group#Three_deletions. I think it shows Mathsci doing the better job at discussing matters in a thoughtful, engaged and source based way. A key bit of context is the very first post on the talk page (also repeated at the AfD) where , leaning on good F. Albert Cotton, Mathsci expressed his view that "double groups" concern the character theory of the double covers of the finite subgroups of the SO(3), so finite subgroups of SU(2). Cotton does indeed set out such a position, including character tables in his appendix.
    The next bit of context is that the "Three_deletions" section relates to this subsection deletion by Petergans, where discussion of character tables, SO(3) & its double cover SU(2) were removed. Petergans even declared the section was "completely irrelevant to the topic of the article", which could be taken as implying an editors OR opinion should override a quality source like Cotton. Generally, others were just making terse replies, totally devoid of mathematical content or reference to WP:RS. Whereas Mathsci kindly deployed his masterful knowledge of the sources to the benefit of all - if folk actually took the time to read his posts and have a basic understanding of things like lower order special orthogonal groups, that is. So totally fair play that Mathsci gave some basic examples of the importance of sourcing, such as the fact he used citations in edits to Henry VII. All that said, while I think Mathsci's posts were mostly excellent, I agree parts of his wider talk page engagement were problematic. Cant fault the criticism XOR'easter made here. I'd even admit I found the Petergans version of the article much more comprehensible, especially before XOR'easter's recent improvement to the lede. But IMO none of that adds up to even a tenuous case for a permaban, even accepting Mathsci may have had a long problematic history. Still- it's the community at large and whatever admin who finally closes this thread that will decide Mathsci's fate. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Mathsci's responses there are basically cogent in and of themselves, but they cease to make any sense when understood as responses to certain specific concerns. It's as if they are lifted in from an entirely different conversation about double groups. As I say many times, in my experience this phenomena is a virtual constant in discussing with mathsci. Gumshoe2 (talk) 20:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to cosign with comment (without venturing an opinion on the larger question): I have never seen anyone in any context engage in the level of cogent-but-entirely-unresponsive nonsequitur that is routine from Mathsci. JBL (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've read that discussion twice today, and I can't figure out how any of Mathsci's replies actually pertained to the complaints that were raised. For example, the first thing deleted was a Reference to the article by Bethe, because Petergans was unable to verify whether the cited article contains material relevant to double groups or not. The response was not to explain the contents of Bethe's article, but to treat merely listing it as sufficient: On wikipedia, the standard process, when editors question the relevance of references, is to list those references on WP:RSN—in this case the five text books and Bethe's 1929 article in German and English. That's not the purpose of the Reliable sources noticeboard, and it doesn't help resolve anything. Sorry, but I can't see that as "kindly" or "to the benefit of all"; it's just a failure of communication. The deleted section on the McKay correspondence was a ramble through half a dozen different mathematical ideas, ending up in string theory. What does string theory have to do with the chemistry of metal ions? It's like taking the fact that the mathematical concept of "double group" relates to the Platonic solids and using that as an excuse to give a biography of Plato. Just because one can take a walk from one concept to another doesn't mean that one should. XOR'easter (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Petergans deleted both Bethe's German 1929 article and his English translation multiple times. There is a second English translation in the 1968 reprint by Cracknell, "Applied group theory". I've mostly used Bethe's English translation, checking the footnotes for Wigner and von Neumann. Petergans wrote many times that those references were "irrelevant". I was the person who added content about Carbon 60/Fullerene and Quasicrystals. Most references to the classification of finite subgroups of SO(3) have pictures of the 5 platonic solids; see for exmample page 46 of Cotton's 1971 "Chemical Applications of Group Theory" with "TABLE 3.2 The Five Regular Polyhedra or Platonic Solids". Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I came here not knowing a great deal about Mathsci, and after having a very minor brouhaha with him over at Pachelbel's Canon. My intention was to come and stand up for his good faith, though he can certainly be prickly. That is still my stance, however, the responses here trouble me. Mathsci, if you are still editing here when all is said and done, you really need to stop deflecting and start editing collegially -- which certainly means sometimes your preferred version of an article may not win out in the short term. I will leave it to the great and good of this site to decide what to do, but I have to say that reading this section did not inspire great confidence in me. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hanan Wadi publishing by copy & paste

    A new editor Hanan Wadi is publishing articles that don't meet notability/sourcing requirements, so they are being sent back to drafts. More to the point, they seem to be developing the content in the draft space, but then publishing by copy & paste into a new article. This has happened a few times already, and there are many more drafts sitting in the draft space, so looks like this could go on for a while. I've tried communicating the issues on their talk page, but so far to no avail. These may be entirely in good faith, but this is creating extra work for others, so would be great if we could get the message through somehow (maybe a short block just to catch their attention?). --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks to be part of an editathon, given the #KMUOS edit summary here. Slywriter (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, every one of their edits has that hashtag. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @DoubleGrazing@Slywriter see Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Archive 21#Project #KMUOS for the background on who's running this. This is the second time this project has caused issues. Most of the articles are unattributed machine translations of pages from other wikis, e.g. Forgetfulness.com is an unattributed translation of ar:نسيان.com_(رواية) 163.1.15.238 (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Pinging Timtrent who started that discussion, in case he has anything new to add here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @DoubleGrazing Aslo, if it's useful, you can use this tool [174] to find all the edits related to the editathon. Most of them have the same issue, being copyvio machine translations of pages from other projects. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 15:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @DoubleGrazing They did not respond to me previously. It is a well intentioned misunderstanding of how to edit Wikipedia, with deficient articles, usually. The tutor is letting their students down badly and repeatedly, assuming the same pattern is being followed. I have not checked this iteration. I am sorry for the students. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They did respond to my messages, although their English seems to be lacking. —C.Fred (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent disruption from an IP range; WP:LTA

    See [175]; persistent edit warring while switching IPs, adding, deleting and changing content without explanation or sources. How broad a range block is practical? 2601:188:180:B8E0:0:0:0:D869 (talk) 12:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Invasive Spices: bad faith misuse of noticeboards, false accusations of vandalism

    User:Invasive Spices falsely accused me of vandalism for this edit. I do not think that anybody could honestly consider it to be such; instead, the user was making this false claim simply because they disagreed with the edit. They used a noticeboard in bad faith to try to get me banned from the page that I had edited [176].

    They have been told by other editors that my edit was not vandalism, but they have not retracted their false claim or even acknowledged that they were wrong. Instead, they have doubled down on their attacks ([177], [178]), and also accused one of the people telling them they were wrong of making personal attacks themselves [179].

    I think that editors who make such obviously false accusations of vandalism are a serious problem. Worse still is the aggressive refusal to admit any error. If this behaviour is not dealt with, it will no doubt be repeated. So I suggest that some administrative intervention may be necessary to assist this user in distinguishing vandalism from edits that they simply disagree with. Benchijiguando (talk) 13:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Benchijiguando: I'm not convinced the initial report was a bad-faith assumption of bad faith. When an account goes dormant for four months and change and then comes back to resume an edit war, and when they do not participate in the relevant article's talk page, then it looks fishy.
    That said, there's a point where the reporting editor needs to drop the stick and move along. Invasive Spices hasn't edited since that last talk page comment, so there's nothing to say they haven't done that. —C.Fred (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You think anyone could sincerely believe that my edit was "deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose"? I do not think anyone could. I think it is absolutely impossible for anyone to describe my edit as vandalism and be acting in good faith. You could disagree with it, or dislike it, or even find it disruptive; none of those things turn it into vandalism.
    Furthermore, the user has already been given several opportunities to admit their error. They have aggressively rejected them all. Benchijiguando (talk) 14:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point. As is noted at WP:NOTVANDALISM, Edit warring is not vandalism. —C.Fred (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I am and was aware of the difference. I was not reporting on the basis that they are the same thing. I have explained my motives below. Invasive Spices (talk) 13 June 2022 (UTC)

    Blocked Benchijiguando for 48 hours for edit warringm basically coming back and starting again. Warned Invasive Spices. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 14:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    C.Fred is correct. The edit in question is
    a resumption of edit warring after six months
    after being reverted by myself and another editor because it was contrary to the source
    is merely the flipping of one word to its opposite
    repeating the same edit summary
    an edit summary which is impertinent to the edit being made
    and without participating on Talk
    I will not hairsplit that kind of edit from vandalism. I and many other editors revert that kind of edit several times every day without controversy.
    Benchijiguando's edits in this matter speak for themselves especially the incommunicative edit warring followed by suddenly verbose demands that I be struck back. Unfortunately the admin I "accused" did indeed employ a falslehood (the other admin who "warned me this was not vandalism" had done no such thing) about what was occurring and made a very peculiar personal attack. The one admin "warning" me to stop using the v word has the unfortunate effect of shutting down debate as to whether I sincerely believe that. Naturally I do.
    As for WP:Drop the stick I haven't said anything about Benchijiguando for the past 4 days. C.Fred is noticing my comment on the admin in question's conduct. Invasive Spices (talk) 13 June 2022 (UTC)
    @Invasive Spices: if you can't hairsplit that kind of edit from vandalism then you're going to need to find a different project to work on because wikipedia will not tolerate that, trust me I know I went through what you're going through now years ago. Being obnoxious/difficult/uncommunicative/verbose etc and being a vandal aren't the same thing, you will need to learn to be more precise and accurate when using the 'v word.' Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    aren't the same thing Yes but those are not the edits in question. These are [180][181][182][183][184][185]. Invasive Spices (talk) 13 June 2022 (UTC)
    Surely those can't be the right diffs, theres nothing remotely resembling vandalism there. A good faith content dispute escalated to edit warring is a problem, but it certainly isn't vandalism. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Part of the dispute here is that some of the relevant facts are near at hand and some are far. describe, do not prescribe is most immediate and gives the instant impression that this is a difference of opinion. Next we examine the diff and see a very small change which reverses the meaning of the sentence and which does not resemble the edit summary. This gives us the suspicion that this may be a very common kind of less than wonderful edit, of which we see many on Wikipedia. Next I check the source and I am confident this is where almost everybody on WP parts ways. Checking sources is a big labour and almost no one does so – I am required to do this many times every day and so this is no trouble. I see that within the first few words the source says that the previous was correct and this edit is the opposite – I am tremendously grateful because this is chemical terminology which I will never learn. I accept that the source knows what the deal is – I do this every day. This has taken ~5 seconds. To me this is all very quick. Invasive Spices (talk) 13 June 2022 (UTC)
    I agree you do an amazing job with sourcing. If I can try again with the core message: using the 'v word' outside of a very narrow context makes you vulnerable and the actor doing the 'v word' stuff no less vulnerable than they already were. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Invasive Spices: Your WP:AIV report was replied to with a template that says the vandalism noticeboard is for obvious vandalism and spammers only. I think it's a reasonable inference to go from "this noticeboard is for obvious vandalism" to "the reported conduct is not (obvious) vandalism". —C.Fred (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My inference was the reported conduct is not obvious vandalism no (). I immediately thought that was understandable as my definition of obvious would require finding and opening the reference in question and then reading it and that assumes the responding admin has access. Not having seen AIV before I took the meaning that that is too much time. Invasive Spices (talk) 13 June 2022 (UTC)
    Others will also be curious: BKFIP. Invasive Spices (talk) 13 June 2022 (UTC)

    Garashov Farhad and Disruption of AFD

    I had nothing to do with this article or its deletion discussion until, for some reason, I and other editors were pinged, and have been asked to unsalt it. It isn't salted. It isn't deleted at this time, because the AFD is still being discussed. Having been pinged, my observation is that the AFD is being disrupted by comments by IP editors, so I will request that the AFD be semi-protected. The article was recently created by a now-blocked sockpuppet, which is more reason why the AFD should be protected against possible block evasion. Checkusers and SPI clerks can deal with the sockpuppetry, but the IP editors are disrupting the AFD and pinging editors who had no involvement until being pinged. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Ditto confusion. I was pinged to Please cancel the consensus, I think it was wrong to discuss this kind. Let the discussion be repeated, the title should ask whether the person is encyclopedic or not. However, all I did was relist to give the discussion more time since non-English sources need more digging and can't find any indication I was involved in a prior discussion related to this subject. Star Mississippi 16:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some clarity. It apparently also existed at Special:Undelete/Farhad_Garashov (thanks @Cryptic for the heads up). Neither you nor I appeared to have any engagement there either. Star Mississippi 20:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Need help with move error

    Without any discussion I can find, Kalākaua's 1874–75 state visit to the United States and its talk page were moved to 1874–75 state visit by Kalākaua to the United States by Peter Ormond July 2, 2021. I just tried to move it back and I seemed to have made it worse. As far as I can tell, this is now at Wikipedia:Kalākaua's 1874–75 state visit to the United States. Can someone please move this back to its original title before Ormond's move. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Should be fixed now. It happens, a couple times I managed to move my RfA nominations and forgot to change the prefix so I ended up with some really garbled page titles. Let me know if there's something else that needs to be straightened out. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it looks good. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 19:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    IP disruption on article Danny!

    Weird IP from California is partrolling this article for the last couple of months and reverting every new edit without clear explanation, including the addition of an image to the infobox (1), adjustment of categories (2) or the fixing of links to disambiguation pages (3) --FMSky (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    They just revert and revert, even clear improvements, agree. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:39, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    these were the last edit summaries

    • "undid unnecessary edit done for wiki points"
    • "unnecessary pedantics for wiki points"
    • "Page currently being brigaded by wikipedia editors looking for points and clout, article reverted and authors reported"
    • "reverted unnecessary edit by amateur 'editor' looking to increase wikipoints"

    FMSky (talk) 20:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    What are they meaning by the amateur bit? Is the IP saying they are a pro? Pure disruption regardless by them. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Another one:
    • "reverting racist editors with baseless "disruptive" accusations. There are tons more sites than AllMusic to validate these titles that you are so insistent on editing for WikiPoints. They are all in the reference section. Please find another low-hanging-fruit page to make minor pedantic unintelligent edits on".
    X-750 Rust In Peace... Polaris 21:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    There are tons more sites than AllMusic to validate these titles that you are so insistent on editing for WikiPoints. They are all in the reference section. Please find another low-hanging-fruit page to make minor pedantic unintelligent edits on, those titles have remained on this page for years clearly because they have references beyond your 10-second skim on AllMusic. Do better. {{{}}}

    Ok, troll --FMSky (talk) 20:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So instead of adding them yourself you bestow the onus onto other editors? This isn't the old Gamepedia, there's no "points", you don't have "achievements". Quite funny how you call others amateurs without a fundamental understanding of how Wikipedia works... Even Danny!'s own Genius page (written by himself) lists him as a recording artist and producer, but go off with your aspersions. X-750 Rust In Peace... Polaris 20:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Danny! should have a picture of Danny!
    The IP is repeatedly removing File:Danny Drake Atlanta Concert.jpg, this removal is simply not an improvement. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My impression is that the IP doesnt want "Danny!" to be seen as a rapper or something, despite this being the only thing he's even known for. He also removed it from his occupations, instead adding singer-songwriter and composer FMSky (talk) 20:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editor Clam chowdah

    Editor: Clam_chowdah is on a crusade to right great wrongs at the article President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief with the latest diff (Special:Diff/1092965454) from the discussion at Original Research notice board showing that they are unable or unwilling to understand Wikipedia policy about original research and synth.

    The thread on NORN and the Talk page of the article are littered with further rants and their most recent edit to the article (Special:Diff/1092866380) was to delete the introduction as "lies" since it does not match their worldview.

    Page Block likely necessary as no editor has found value in their position and they are purely disruptive now.Slywriter (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Right now the opening paragraph comes from a primary source that is contradicted by news articles prior to its publication in 2010. So the following PBS Frontline interview contradicts Bush’s and Rice’s recollection of what transpired at the turn of the century:

    You went to see [then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza] Rice … in early 2001. Were you talking about the Global Fund then, and what was her reaction?

    I came in to the White House, the first year of the Bush administration. I came in to see Condoleezza Rice, with whom I worked in 1989 when I was advising the new post-Communist Polish government, and she was in the National Security Council. ... I went in 2001 to say, "Here's another chance for a wonderful initiative; we need to help treat people that are dying of AIDS; ... here's a $3 billion-a-year plan," and put it forward.

    It was interesting, the reaction. Well, first Condoleezza Rice said, "The president is interested in this." Thank goodness. And "It's interesting to hear you discuss this, but our experts tell us that people can't be treated." And I said: "Well, that's not true. Not only have I seen it with my own eyes, but I'm lucky to have as colleagues some of the world's leading scientists and clinicians in AIDS, and they've all just agreed on the fact that treatment is feasible, and it's even feasible in the clinical conditions you would find in impoverished places." Well, there was lots of philosophical argument -- no, it's only cost-effective to do prevention, and all sorts of misunderstandings. ...

    I was utterly shocked, I think, completely stunned, when the newly appointed head of USAID [United States Agency for International Development], Andrew Natsios, then made the most remarkable and chilling set of statements about all of this as he was coming into office. He said: "Well, you can't treat Africans. Africans don't know Western time. They won't know the time to take their medicines." He said: "They may know mornings; they may know noon; they may know night. But they don't know Western time." Hard to fathom, actually, how a senior American official could ever make such a statement. But that was the statement of the USAID agency -- in his early days, admittedly, but absolutely shocking. And I talked to [then-Secretary of State] Colin Powell and others, and of course Secretary Powell said: "I've been to hospitals all over Africa. This statement is not our policy." But it showed how steep the hill was going to be with this administration.

    https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/aids/interviews/sachs.htmlClam chowdah (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Again in their unblock request [187] --Masem (t) 21:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is what is currently the first paragraph under History which is from a primary source via a journal in which the editor wanted publicity for their new journal:

    PEPFAR began with President George W. Bush and his wife, Laura, and their interests in AIDS prevention, Africa, and what Bush termed “compassionate conservatism.” According to his 2010 memoir, Decision Points, the two of them developed a serious interest in improving the fate of the people of Africa after reading Alex Haley’s Roots, and visiting The Gambia in 1990. In 1998, while pondering a run for the U.S. presidency, he discussed Africa with Condoleezza Rice, his future secretary of state; she said that, if elected, working more closely with countries on that continent should be a significant part of his foreign policy. She also told him that HIV/AIDS was a central problem in Africa but that the United States was spending only $500 million per year on global AIDS, with the money spread across six federal agencies, without a clear strategy for curbing the epidemic.[5]Clam chowdah (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    G’day mates, I’m new to Wikipedia and I came over here after seeing a primary source being used in a history section AND the information was wrong to boot. I was then directed to this stonker right here. I don’t condone the editor’s incivility but he’s got his facts correct. And I know his facts are correct because I remember that period of time and I read his links and those links are to solid secondary sources and primary sources that are consistent with the contemporaneous news accounts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShortTermLoanRanger (talk • contribs) 22:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC) ShortTermLoanRanger (talk) 22:14, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Only 72 hour block and still need to sock? Good way to earn an indefinite. Sigh.Slywriter (talk) 22:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought this was so blatant it must be a joe-job, but no. Sock blocked and Clam chowdah now blocked indef.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And such a waste of a cool username “Clam chowdah”. Truth69420 (talk) 00:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I played a minor role in this psychodrama, but the checkusers did the heavy lifting. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 05:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Bullying and abuse by User:Buggwart65

    User:Buggwart65 has engaged in two instances of abusive language directed at me in their edit summary when reverting my edits. Here [188] and here [189]. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 19:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I threatened with consequences, but now I'm taking a deeper look and am wondering if they and Fatboy912ga (talk · contribs) are socks. --Golbez (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Cullen328 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) caught on as well and popped an indef. --Golbez (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have indefinitely blocked User:Buggwart65 as not here to build an encyclopedia. Looks like a sockpuppet account set up for personal attacks and harassment. Cullen328 (talk) 19:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Cambial Yellowing

    Around 2 weeks ago I noticed List of Scientologists and other Scientology-related articles had been redirected (some without reasoning like L. Ron Hubbard House) and links were removed from the Scientology template, including a FA which was not redirected (?). I reverted these because there was no discussion and it seems these should be AFD instead of redirected. List of Scientologists is highly sourced, was created almost 20 years ago, and is obviously a popular page since it has almost 3.2 million views within the past 7 years alone. Most of my edits were reverted and the L. Ron Hubbard House article was slapped with unwarranted templates such as notability and sourcing. That page was a DYK in 2009 and is sourced, so I removed them. When I asked Cambial Yellowing about the redirects, the response was an accusation of me being a Scientology propagandist. (I'm interested in providing readers info, the basic purpose of this site) I responded but there was no further discussion until a little while ago. The user does not wish to engage any further, so I'm here asking is it appropriate for a user to restore redirects or should they nominate it for deletion. I asked for help on what I should do at WT:RFD and was told the burden is on the person redirecting the article. APK whisper in my ear 08:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @APK: Please refrain my misrepresenting my actions to make them appear improper. It’s completely inappropriate. The response to your message on my talk, as anyone viewing it can see, concerned the reasons for removal. It’s quite telling that you offered no response whatsoever to those reasons. I asked you to confirm you were not advocating for the group; given that literally hundreds of editors have done so in the past and continue to do so, that’s a perfectly reasonable request.
    Before coming here, you’ve failed to respond to all requests for your reasoning as to why you believe these articles, most tagged for fourteen years, should not be redirected to the subject article of which they form a constituent, given that removing the primary content would render them source-less and barely even stubs. You've also failed to respond on article talk.
    Your apparent refusal to discuss the issues raised and misrepresentation of another editor’s actions suggest a BOOMERANG is the appropriate response here.
    p.s. yes, I removed a link to A Very Merry Unauthorized Children's Scientology Pageant in the template; once it was pointed out that it was an FA, I’ve left it. APK, you need to learn the difference between behaviour issues (the purpose of this page) and people disagreeing (the purpose of article talk - where you’ve failed to respond before coming here).Cambial — foliar❧ 09:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You didn't start a discussion at Talk:List of Scientologists until a little while ago or explain why you redirected a sourced article like L. Ron Hubbard House then added templates without reasoning when I reverted. Accusing someone of advocating for a group without evidence can be interpreted as a personal attack, and for what it's worth, I'm not religious...at all. I'll wait for others' opinions on the redirects. Thanks. APK whisper in my ear 09:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But I did start that discussion, on the article which you are complaining about, before you came to this page. Yet you came here to falsely claim my actions are worthy of sanction, rather than responding on talk. I specifically asked you to confirm whether you were advocating for the group; I have no interest in whether you are religious or not, which is a different question. Thus far you have not denied it, but on my talk page you have, apropos of nothing, started talking about the fascism article – which I have never edited. I suggest using article talk, and perhaps responding to the issues raised, something you have still entirely failed to even attempt to do. Cambial — foliar❧ 09:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I was writing the original post here while you were starting that discussion. It takes time to write a post while I'm at work, so when I clicked publish here your post there showed up. You're trying to make others think I'm some type of operative or paid propagandist when I am neither, so stop it immediately. APK whisper in my ear 10:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    While this discussion is ongoing, Cambial Yellowing thought re-adding a notability template to L. Ron Hubbard House mentioned above was helpful. APK whisper in my ear 10:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm doing nothing of the sort; it's you who opened a discussion here. I asked you to confirm that when you restored promotional material of the Church of Scientology used for WIKIVOICE, you were not doing so in order to advocate for the organisation. You are still yet to offer any actual reasoning for restoring promo content. I've never suggested you were an "operative" or paid propagandist: stop making obviously false accusations immediately. The irony of your doing so in the same breath as trying to accuse me of doing the same is not lost on me.
    I note that you even misrepresent the advice you received at Talk:RFD, which was to discuss with the user (me). I've already opened discussion for you at article talk; you've not responded.
    You could spend your time more usefully, from the point of view of your expressed aims, in giving a single reason why we should retain promotional material as wikicontent, or why you think tabloid/chumbox-style lists of celebrities (dubious source) are something deserving of an encyclopaedia article. There's an appropriate section for such content at Scientology and celebrities.
    Yes, I've restored a relevant tag at L Ron Hubbard house, given that multiple sources are either primary sources (specifically, late-19th/early-20th century archives) or, like this one, do not mention the article subject at all. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:35, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to me that "List of Scientologists" is a perfectly reasonable article, as it is quite similar in scope and notability to "List of Latter Day Saints" and "List of Jains" and many other such articles. As long as all the entries are intrinsically notable, there is nothing wrong with them.
    And perhaps more importantly, @Cambial Yellowing, it would have been prudent to create move/redirect discussions as soon as these met resistance. It is never a good idea to do things unilaterally when it is so clear that others disagree, and there exist consensus-based alternatives. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 11:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Shibbolethink: The criteria for list articles is WP:LISTN. We need reliable sources to discuss the list as a list. Tabloid sources are not RS. But this discussion is not for here. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cambial Yellowing: Regardless of what the criteria are --and you are right I had forgotten about LISTN-- the proper action would have been to create an RM discussion so that others may weigh in, and so that the redirect would have stood the test of time and not been a unilateral action that can be unilaterally reversed. Disputes on this site get worse because of users trading and round robinning unilateral actions instead of reverting to the status quo, and creating a discussion which sets a precedent. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 11:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There was no reason not to boldy implement this, having looked for RS discussing *the group*, finding chumbucket listicles and these two lists – the opposite of the article subject. One could maybe make an argument for an article "Former Scientologists", but I don't think the tiny number of articles would justify that either. The reversion ES were: "no consensus for this and WP:NLIST does not say all list articles cannot exist" – NLIST indeed does not say this, but that wasn't why I referred to it, so I restored my edit with a proper full explanation; the other was "nominate it for deletion if you think the page should not exist" – I don't think it should be deleted; it should be redirected to Scientology and celebrities, where RS have established that topic as a notable subject, far beyond a titillating list of everyone who ever took a course. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Remember to follow WP:BRD. I appreciated the discussion you started on the talk page, but immediately continuing to edit back and forth redirecting and restoring, with @APK (who is also at fault here), right up until the hard and fast 3RR, was absolutely not the proper course of action. Either of you could have started a redirect/merge discussion instead of letting things escalate to this point. That would have been proper dispute resolution imo. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 12:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BRD is an optional method of seeking consensus. Neither I nor APK were anywhere close to 3RR; we haven't even passed "1RR" (check the history). Cambial — foliar❧ 12:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, if WP:BRD (or WP:ONUS), though generally recommended, were non-optional, they'd basically just be Consensus required. El_C 13:18, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cambial Yellowing simply waiting longer than 24 hours to revert again does not absolve you from edit-warring policies... I would say with the number of reverts over the course of a short period of days, it is close. But I am no admin and it is not up to me. I am simply giving you (and @APK) unsolicited advice on how approaching discussion would be better than continuing to revert to maintain your (or anyone's) "preferred version" of the page. It certainly would be more productive. Thank you for your comments on the talk page indicating you will start a redirect/merge discussion shortly. It is much appreciated. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    [Responding as pinged] @Shibbolethink: Given the latter reverts were nearly two weeks later, I would say that it does, and that it isn't close, either in regular font or italics. I am aware you are not an admin. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I looked into this a bit last night when APK inquired at WT:RFD what to do when an article is BLAR'd. It's simple. @Cambial Yellowing: If you BLAR an article, and it is reverted in good faith, the next step is discuss on talk, file a merge request, or file an AfD. Redirect-warring is extremely disruptive. Please don't do it again. Furthermore, redirecting a clearly notable article like L. Ron Hubbard House (an NRHP building in a historic district), using only the edit summary "to", and then tagging that for notability issues when challenged does not seem like good judgment here as to when it's appropriate to boldly BLAR an article. I also do not think the remark Can we just confirm that you're not looking to advocate for the organization or the cult members was remotely acceptable in response to a challenge to your bold actions. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 18:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tamzin: A point of fact - L Ron Hubbard House, despite APK’s continuing efforts to portray it as such (including linking to a nomination form lodged by a Scientology organisation) is not an NRHP building. This is easily checked - register is viewable here, the house is not on it. Neither is it mentioned on the accepted nominations or descriptions noted as part of the Dupont District. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have never once said it was listed on the NRHP. I wrote it's a contributing property, which it is. Nomination forms such as the one I used as a reference are used for literally all NRHP articles. If you think the article shouldn't exist, then nominate it for deletion. APK whisper in my ear 20:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I just received a legal threat from BertieTheBrain on my talk page here, just because apparently I am not part of Anglo-Saxon culture and therefore I should not edit en.wiki ? Anyway, I don't know exactly what is the procedure in this case, but I also notified the other user. Yakme (talk) 13:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I mean, at least he's not subtle. I will note that for someone prattling on about "Anglo-Saxon culture," his use of language is a bit different. Perhaps he's more used to Old English? Dumuzid (talk) 13:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked him indef, for the legal threat, and the underlying OTT belligerent attitude. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Behaviour of User:Sabbatino

    User:Sabbatino is constantly blindly removing (undoing edits) official data by the Territorial Health Fund by the Ministry of Health of Lithuania, analysis by the Bank of Latvia and other well sourced material, removing the newest statistics in the page of Vilnius. He is also Poisoning the well by ridiculing these sources or sources, who are using these official statistics. In doing so, he is warning another user with blocking, invents absolutely fake stories like, quote "before continuing your very well known behavior from the past, which got you blocked more than once" (a lie). Please, help to resolve this problem. Thank you. --78.56.247.147 (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I mean, define "blindly" in this scenario. The page history suggests he's pretty detailed on his objections. He's not merely hitting the undo/rollback button. Sergecross73 msg me 16:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) IP editor, as the red text near the top of the page states, you must notify the user in question on their talk page. I have done so for you this time. Also please provide diffs. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I mean, blindly here means, that he firstly removed a government data (the latest statistics) and ridiculed sources (in these cases, he ridiculed mapijoziai map makers, who use only official government data and the most popular solid journal Veidas, a well sourced article), that uses that data. Then there were explained, that this is an official data with the additional links to the government (Territorial Fund by the Ministry of Health of the Republic of Lithuania; the newest official data) pages provided, he just again removed this data despite of such links and wrote warnings and ad hominem. What is this behaviour and how it makes an article of Vilnius any better? Now, for example, Vilnius metro population is without any source, just some random illogical figure (urban population larger than metro population - 'an absurd') as he removes the latest sourced data. 78.56.247.147 (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    First of all, per longstanding consensus we list the population of the last year (2021), because this year (2022) is not over and we also do not do daily/weekly/monthly update the the number of population. Secondly, "Mapijoziai" is not reliable since it is user-generated, which is WP:OR (despite using official statistics). Thirdly, the National Health Insurance Fund under the Ministry of Health (not the Territorial Fund by the Ministry of Health of the Republic of Lithuania like you try to claim) does not list correct numbers, because it also includes non-residents of Vilnius. You do not have to be a permanent resident of Vilnius to join a clinic in Vilnius (Šeškinės poliklinika, InMedica klinika, etc). If you want to list correct numbers then use Oficialiosios statistikos portalas or even Registrų centras. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I still don't understand your use of the word blindly, but it doesn't really matter. There's nothing wrong here, it's just a basic content dispute. You have provided content and sources, Sabbatino has contested them on multiple plausibly valid grounds. Sabbatino has done nothing wrong. Now it's up to you to get a WP:CONSENSUS that supports your changes, or drop it. If what Sabbatino says is true, you may need to overturn some previous consensus related to this scenario. Anyways, please work with Sabbatino rather than trying to report them. Sergecross73 msg me 20:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Revdel request at Kyriakos Mitsotakis

    No privacy concern, just unpleasant material.

    See contribs by 176.220.3.74 (talk · contribs) and 78.168.26.166 (talk · contribs)

    The edits themselves are garden variety vandalism, but the summaries are unusually nasty. Squeakachu (talk) 17:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) This looks like a threat of harm. I've e-mailed Emergency, as it says at WP:EMERGENCY. weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 18:02, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The threats have been revdelled, although their credibility is negligible. Cullen328 (talk) 19:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1093152393"