Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User CejeroC disruptively editing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T274359

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User disallowing others' edits performed during their vacation

User Yaakov Wa. has been on a wikibreak (per this announcement). Upon return today, editor reverted to the last revision before this break, effectively rolling back all edits by other users during their absence. Following my reversion of this action, user repeated the rollback. I have attempted to discuss this with the editor at Talk:Messiah in Judaism#Suggestion and am unable to intervene further due to 3RR.

For context, this page has since 19 February been the venue for a high volume of tendentious editing by Yaakov Wa., largely without consensus or substantial discussion (notwithstanding Yaakov's attempts to contact other users via email and video conference). Exasperated attempts by Warshy at discussion in more appropriate venues led to one prior ANI report. Attempts by myself and Editor2020 to at least improve the quality of Yaakov's edits have led to the incident I am reporting here. Ibadibam (talk) 07:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted. Seems to be a bit of a WP:OWN situation going on here. — Czello 07:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• This is a fairly new editor. Ibadibam did mention why it wasn't a great idea, but there hasn't been real discussion of it. Technically, WP:BRD still applies and this is really a content issue, although his reverting twice in 24 hours isn't good. This really needs to be on the article talk page, with an attempt to resolve it there. Hopefully it won't have to have admin intervention, but at this time, it really isn't ripe for sanctions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear Ibadibam, and any other editors,

Firstly, in regards to discussions where communication is paramount, I believe it is preferable to use verbal and visual communication. I am available for approximately 4 more hours from posted time. If any editor wishes to set up zoom meeting, please put message on User_talk:Yaakov_Wa. and this meeting will be open to all editors. Up until verbal/visual communication is achieved, I will do my best to understand and respond via non-verbal communication.

Now, in regards to situation:

I will lay out response in three parts. a)will lay out general background of editing Messiah in Judaism, b) then discuss edits over break. c) will discuss rational for keeping proposed structure until discussion at talk page.

a) In regards to general background, started editing feb 19. Was advised to discuss at talk page. I discussed proposal at talk page feb 21. Was given feedback on this proposal as well as support. and feedback discussed. After feedback was inputted and WP:consensus achieved, began overhaul on feb 23. With lots of discussion about content in edit history.

b) Up until the break, the page had the organization[6] along proposed overhaul, with exception of etymology which was discussed. Ibadibam, and other Editors chose to keep organization mainly along proposed overhaul.

Then, during the announced break, as Ibadibam mentioned above, major changes in organization were done. I found this peculiar because these changes in organization started during week when I announced I would not be editing. There were ample opportunity for editors to request changes in organization before the break.

c) Based on the above, I believe that the article should be temporarily kept according to prior consensus of overhaul (with exception of etymology). I am very open to discussion and feedback. Ibadibam appears competent(I have probably asked at least 10 users to give assistance and feedback to this article). I welcome Ibadibam's future discussions and contributions. I encourage any editors (preferably with hebrew and technical skills) to make proposals and edits to this article. However, as Dennis mentioned, we must go according to WP:BRD, which in this case requires us to temporarily have Messiah in Judaism at prior consensus.

Blessings,

Yaakov W. Yaakov Wa. (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

References

• the response above rather than alleviate concerns only increases them in particular that the editor is not familiar with WP:OWN and WP:NPOV. The editor is attempting to over-represent a one-sided accounting of the issue according to a particular religious sect. They also claim a consensus for an overhaul when really, one lightly active editor gave a message of support. Maybe this can be solved at the talk page but if nothing else, they should be warned that they are not to revert edits because they need time to personally review the edits before restoring the ones they find acceptable. This isn't a pending changes queue and they are not the sole arbitrator of what readers can see. Even now, they are expressing opinions on which editors are competent (and what skills sets are preferred to edit the article) and I am concerned that point c is a belief that WP:BRD gets their version restored and other editors will have to negotiate consensus around their preferences. Slywriter (talk) 22:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• BRD isn’t about giving an editor time to review edits before the public is *allowed* to see them. Reverts should be only for when an editor has a reason to disagree with an edit. (Never thought I would have to write that.) That and their tone in the above post seems to suggest they think they are the editor-in-chief for this article. But, given their newness, I suspect it’s more WP:NOCLUE than WP:OWN. Probably of greater concern is what appears to be their POV editing that’s already been referred to. DeCausa (talk) 22:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• I completely agree with Slywriter and DeCausa's comments above, and I would like to fill in some other details, if I can. Ibadibam, Editor2020 and myself have been so far the only regular, veteran editors who have edited the page since this completely biased, one-sided religious POV so-called "overhaul" was one-sidedly 'declared,' pretty much out-of-the-blue. I want to be on the record again here, as I have been consistently on the article's talk-page discussions, that the new one-sided declaration above, that a supposed "consensus" for this so-called "overhaul" was ever achieved with me is completely false and misleading. I continued to consistently oppose the "overhaul" up to the user's one-sidedly declared "break," and I am still opposed to it at this moment. I posted several more in-depth arguments against the basic motivation and the completely biased religious POV that this new user brings to the task, based on all the primary sources he is singularly using for the proposed task, and I also declared there that I was still considering going back to the article's last stable version, before this so-called one-sided "overhaul" started. I still have this version specified in the article's talk-page. My suggestion at this point would be to go back to that stable version, and allow the new editor to re-start his attempts at changing certain paragraphs or sections by proposing localized, limited changes on the talk-page first, and have this proposed localized, limited changes discussed and approved. Once every new localized, limited change is proposed, discussed, and approved by all involved editors, then it can be implemented. That is how I had originally suggested the new user goes about his intended task. He gave me a short reply at that point, which I did not bother to reply to, and he took it then one-sidedly to mean I was withdrawing my explicitly stated reservations about the entire "task." Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 23:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Warshy: Starting over seems like a good idea. I suggest you propose a revert to the stable version on the talk page and see what the other involved editors think. M.Bitton (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I believe it will be preferable for anyone with questions to join zoom meeting on my talk page. Non-verbal communication is not-very-effective communication.Yaakov Wa. (talk) 23:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

This isn't how we handle things on Wikipedia. We discuss articles on their talk page, not through a Zoom meeting. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I remember already explaining to Yaakov Wa that relevant talk pages should be used, so that WP:CONSENSUS can be assessed, not only by the article's history, but also by the talk archives. That is also where RFCs take place, etc. Wikipedia editors are free to refuse invitations to off-WP venues and the state of the article should not depend on their presence (or absence) there. Some editors may even consider such invitations suspicious. —PaleoNeonate – 03:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• I notice that Yaakov Wa has a habit of posting invites to multiple editors’ talk pages asking them to edit Messiah in Judaism. It’s been claimed on the article talk page that Yaakov Wa is editing to push a Chabad POV, and a cursory look at their edits seems to justify that claim. It’s not clear to me how he’s selecting these editors he contacts (he usually refers to seeing relevant ‘skills’ in their edits elsewhere) but what he said here, and this post to an editor with a Chabad user box, raises a question of an attempt at WP:CANVASSING. DeCausa (talk) 09:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• There is a branch of Chabad who does not acknowledge the existence of streams of thought different from their own regarding moshiach. NPOV is literally against their religion. if Yaakov Wa is part of that sect, he should probably be topic-banned until he gets a sense of how Wikipedia works and decides whether it's for him. 207.172.174.5 (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Yaakov Wa., you talk of non-verbal communication being ineffective, but that is what we use at Wikipedia. If it isn't effective for you, then this is the wrong hobby for you. I'm not going to Zoom with you (or anyone), and most other's aren't either. Besides, all discussion about an article are supposed to take place here so everyone can participate. Reverting to your favored version is still edit warring and WILL get you blocked. Read that last line twice, please. Read WP:BRD. Twice. You don't seem to understand how things work here. They don't work according to your preferences, there is an established set of guidelines and policies that you are expected to follow. Reading your replies, I don't have high hopes for your future. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal (Yaakov Wa.)

Given the ongoing issues with Yaakov Wa.'s editing evidenced above and in prior ANI discussions, and taking into account this very recent response that suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of our policy concerning original research, I think that a topic ban from Jewish theology, broadly construed, for 1 month is appropriate. I also think that they should be formally warned against inviting editors to resolve editing disputes through off-Wikipedia venues. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Given the tone-deaf response, I would agree but would opt for 90 days. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support But could his return (whether 30 or 90 days) be conditional on satisfying an admin of his understanding of WP:OR, WP:PRIMARY, WP:NPOV and, well, basically what’s expected in writing full grammatical sentences when adding content? I’m not sure what’s going to change just through a period of absence. (Btw, I wasn’t even sure if he was replying to me (in Rosguill’s diff) or just carrying on with his original post as if my post was invisible. I think the latter. Either way I could see there was no point in saying anything else.) DeCausa (talk) 09:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose for now per mine and Slywriter’s today’s comments below. On condition of finding and their accepting a mentor. DeCausa (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC) Per this, back to Support. DeCausa (talk) 11:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support I have deep concerns about the insistence to take article development off of talk pages. This effectively creates an elite group who edit this one article and anyone who is unable or uncomfortable joining their clicque calls doesn't get to collaborate. WP is a place of written communication- which, by the way- is still verbal communication- it is purely verbal, where spoken communication actually includes more non-verbal with tone of voice, pitch, volume, and facial expressions coloring what is being said. WP is for everyone to contribute to- and in order for that to happen, previous discussions must be accessible to future editors- not a summary of what one person heard- but the actual words used. Anyone who tries to take away this fundamental facet of WP creation- is missing our purpose and what makes us special. And, I believe, is experiencing a serious case of WP:OWN. For this reason- I support a t-ban until the user can learn to collaborate using the appropriate tools and share knowledge and ownership among all editors. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Strong Support Block Editor has resorted to disruptive trolling and needs a break- possibly permanently but I would support less to start with Nightenbelle (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support a topic-ban. The insistence on Zoom discussions violates various policies and guidelines, including article ownership, and has aspects of not being here to edit collaboratively. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support wouldn't go so far as to say he's Not Here, he does not understand how Wikipedia works and I think that misunderstanding makes him a net negative on these topics. I don't think 30 days will be enough, but he's a new editor so 90 days might be too much. StarM 16:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Upgrade to strong support for TBan if not a site ban based on the below subthread and Talk:Olam_katan where he shows he does not understand or respect how Wikipedia sourcing works. Since a topic ban will not prevent him from editing, I'm not sure it will stop him. StarM 13:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: from their responses, I honestly think that he may not have a good grasp of English and may not understand what we are saying.

h 13:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• comment looking at their other contributions- I think they don't understand why WP won't accept them as an expert- they are arguing for inclusion of their own analysis on multiple articles- yes it might be a language issue- but its a problem that they seem disinclined to discuss or stop. Nightenbelle (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• They’ve posted these thoughts on their user page. Taking that with this self-revert and this on the talk page of that article, I don’t think language or NOTHERE or OWN etc is what’s going on. It’s just a bad case of WP:NOCLUE and they are, in good faith, really trying to get the hang of Wikipedia. They’re struggling to and now seem to understand they’re struggling to. Although I supported a TBAN above I think what they need instead is a mentor. Understanding of WP is not inherent and for some people isn’t obvious, intuitive or easily learnt. For some it is. But there’s something very dispiriting about seeing someone genuinely trying to understand WP in that way but being told (by me included) that, in effect, there’s no place for them here. DeCausa (talk) 16:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose for now, per Decausa and because editor appears to be a genuinely good-hearted person. They are not here to make trouble; they won't be edit-warring over religious views, like so many nationalistic SPA editors would. There is a real chance that their worldview is ultimately incompatible with the wikipedian community and all I am supporting is kicking the can while giving them more WP:Rope and adding work to other editors but at least others won't be demeaned, insulted or threatened as a consequence of letting him remain an unrestricted editor for now. Slywriter (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

  Sigh. Hope everyone has a great day today. Slywriter (talk) 12:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support: while it is indeed very important for editors not to bite newcomers and to assume no clue, it seems to me that the editors who have been dealing with this new user have done this rather admirably in most cases. The problem is much more that the user has been somewhat of a slow learner. While it is also true that they appear to be acting in good faith and show genuine signs of wanting to understand, competence is required, and a lack of this can be equally disruptive. Administrative sanctions on Wikipedia are not punitive, and I think that it may be helpful if the user would edit on other topics for a while, just to get the hang of it. A core problem has been that the user is very knowledgeable, but strictly from the point of view of original, mostly non-secular research. If they would be willing to try their hand on subjects which fall outside of the scope of this research, they may have an easier time getting used to the strict source requirements, and to the secular academic perspective of Wikipedia. A mentor, if such is possible, may also be enormously helpful. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 23:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose such punitive sanctions. Two main reasons. First, many of the diffs are just not as damning as people make them out to be, and if folks paused for a few seconds to think about this from the perspective of a newcomer used to collaboration in different environments they might be able to see the diffs in a more favourable light. For example: Zoom is of course not how we do things around here, as established editors will know, but this editor's rationale for why verbal/face-to-face communication may help in dispute resolution is not wrong. For a new editor who isn't aware of how WP does communication, or is unfamiliar with the community's desires for transparency and onwiki discussion (along with the fact that many Wikipedians don't like to communicate outside of text mediums), the proposition seems far more reasonable to make. The ownership/OR concerns are more pertinent, but not only are they relatively low in frequency but it appears the editor is understanding the now clearly raised concerns around that, and for a newbie not familiar with our cultural norms (such as WP:OWN) such an error is slightly more tolerable. (And ironically, I've seen even admins exhibit very similar OWN conduct before and get off without even a warning. Why are experienced editors who are expected to know better held to lower standards, and newer editors who are trying to learn proposed for sanctions?) Some editors have switched to support presumably because the editor contested a PROD? (a PROD which is now also contested by an admin). Have editors forgotten that policy does not require edits to provide a rationale to remove a PROD? Besides, the editor didn't just remove the tag without further comment (which would be all policy requires), they left a comment saying pretty much that 'this is discussed in lots of sources. I don't have sufficient expertise on this complex subject to contribute fully, but I believe it's notable and I'm happy to give pointers to sources'. That conduct is entirely proper. It's irrelevant whether the argument is true or not; take it to AfD, as you would if any established editor challenged the PROD. Not a valid basis to criticise an editor. Second, the editor has shown introspection and is improving.[7][8][9][10] That's not to say there are no problems here, but there is no evidence that self-correction has proven to be impossible and that non-voluntary community intervention (via sanctions) has become necessary. But intent matters, as do assurances, and this entire section is rather saddening. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone switched to support because of a contested PROD. You may have missed the fact that the sources the editor pointed to after explicitly being asked for scholarly secondary sources are all religious primary sources (Tanya and other 18th/19th century Hasidic texts, as well as late medieval and early modern Kabbalistic sources). The fact that this happened after having been explained about WP:NOR numerous times and after the whole thread above (including the topic ban proposal) tends to confirm the tone deafness. I concur that they seem to have good intentions, which indeed renders all of this rather dispiriting, but I for my part believe that we should be much firmer in making sure that content policy is understood and respected. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 02:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

At least one comment adjusted their vote explicitly citing that talk page. Again, no editor is required to provide sources to contest a PROD. That's policy. The talk page diff you link isn't a violation of the original research policy. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and that updated comment explicitly cites the lack of understanding with regard to sourcing. Though I see only now that I should have removed the PROD myself given the objection (I too am only ~5 months here), the PROD really is irrelevant: we both agreed that the article needed sourcing, and we were having an open dialogue about that (it would help if you would try not to see it as a battle of any kind, since we didn't either). Showing a lack of understanding on a talk page is indeed not a violation of anything, but it of course accompanies and supports edits in mainspace that are violations (e.g., citing the Tanya mentioned above as a source for an evaluative statement about the subject matter of that source). This combination of (mostly) friendly and open dialogue on the talk page with blatant OR edits in mainspace has also been going on for nearly two months now at Messiah in Judaism, and I guess that for some the interaction at Talk:Olam katan (as well as the minor incident in the collapsed thread below) was the last drop in the bucket. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 06:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: I switched to support, but it’s nothing to do with contesting a PROD. I had switched to oppose earlier because he appeared to show recognition of what he needed to do to stay on WP, and was willing to assume WP:NOCLUE. I switched back to support because he:

• Added this to this thread in response to the PROD; and
• What he did at Talk:Olam katan and Olam katan showed that his claims of changing his ways had no follow-through.

Final straws. There’s a history there. DeCausa (talk) 08:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

The PROD along with the editor's subsequent request to stop the PROD with a section titled "Keep[] this article temporarily" backdrops and defines the entirety of the editor's involvement on that article. It's appears to me that they were just trying to stop a deletion, claiming the topic is notable and that more sources exist. Maybe one could argue these remarks are attempts to introduce OR if there were a concrete proposal to add specific content. But they weren't even proposing a specific content change here, just trying to stop the deletion with claims of existence of sources. I mean the gist of the comments is summarised thus:

• Am first working on gathering sources, then adding info.
• Only have knowledge of this concept in regards to ... I do not possess the time to wade through and understand ... texts on this ... subject. I will only be able to contribute partially ... If you are an expert, and are willing to go through some texts, I can give you some pointers if you are going in the right direction.

Exactly what policy are you saying this is violating? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

He has a history of mis-using primary sources for OR. And that’s what he’s referring to on the talk page and did on his edit to the article. But that’s not the main point. The main point is what he added to this thread and which I already linked to. Any WP:NOCLUE sympathy I previously had was squashed by that section he added. His edits at Olam katan are just the icing on that particular cake. You may have missed that I made in this thread the same points you made (and linked to the same diffs) about “introspection and improving” before he proved me wrong. DeCausa (talk) 09:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I didn't bother mention the sub-section below because it's even less concerning to me (and if that's the main point then this case really is built on a house of cards. Not only because great latitude tends to be given (at least to experienced editors) in relation to doing strange stuff during conduct-related discussions, presumably under the premise that people have worse judgement when stressed, worried, or overly excited. Overall I think this is an issue blown wildly out of proportion and many of the diffs just don't portray the story some believe they do. Others can evaluate the comments and come to their own conclusions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough; that’s your opinion which I obviously don’t agree with. I only responded to you because you seemed to be under the misunderstanding that anyone changed to Support/strong Support because he objected to the PROD. There’s no indication of that. I think his history primarily at Messiah in Judaism and talk is what’s driven inputs to this thread, not Olam katan. DeCausa (talk) 10:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

*Support topic ban: Reading this thread has been one of the more incredible experiences of my years perusing and contributing to AN/I. This editor appears to misunderstand how Wikipedia functions at a baseline, from the way they rolled back the page when they checked back into the office after the break, to saying that others can be penciled in for Zoom calls. Everything that can be said about content will be said on this site and anything off-site should never have an impact on content. I would have opposed a topic ban, as they are still learning, but that stunningly disrespectful letter down below was something else. I support a temporary topic ban, as they hopefully learn how things are done around here. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 04:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Also, opting to declare a bunch of other AN/I cases closed while your own spirals downward is a poor idea. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 09:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Site block: Their persistent attempts to close all the other AN/I threads, on the basis of this board being full of "prosecutors" demonstrates a fundamental misalignment of priorities. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 17:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• I don’t know what to make of Yaakov Wa.’s spree a few hours ago of trying to close down a number of other AN/I threads. Disruptive? Maybe. Bizarre? Definitely. this, this, this, this, and this. DeCausa (talk) 09:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

If these were only slightly disruptive, this request not to comment is crossing the line. Perhaps they are just testing the limits because they desire this discussion to be closed (and I certainly agree that it is taking too long), but some kind of response is needed. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 16:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Can someone reopen the discussion he just closed? versacespaceleave a message! 11:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Strong support topic ban as they are simply a drain on our time and energies (the two most important resources, etc); I'm somewhat surprised there has been no proposal to simply indef on grounds of competence. If there is, then you may consider me a strong support for that option also. ——Serial 12:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear all,

WP:CIRNOT,

Blessings,

Yaakov W.Yaakov Wa. (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Yaakov Wa.: Instead of demanding closure of other threads at AN/I (you’ve just done it again - I think it’s the 5th or 6th one in the last 18 hours) why don’t you focus on what you need to do in response to the feedback you’ve been getting consistently over the last 2 months. Two editors have just reverted you at Messiah in Judaism yet again for misuse of sources/poor sourcing. Take on board what they’re telling in you instead of ignoring it (or worse you seem to be reverting now). These calls for threads to close look like displacement activity. DeCausa (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to close (Warning for Apaugasma (OWN violation))

This isn't going to go anywhere and just demonstrates a lack of understanding of how enwp works. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Dear all, I believe this thread has wasted enough time of valuable contributors such as DeCausa and Slywriter who have probably spent hours on this thread. Besides that, it has wasted many hours of my own time as well. I believe it is time to close this thread. Also, should we propose warning for Apaugasma for what appears (to me at least) to be an attempt at owning the topic of Olam katan through deleting competing articles and attempting to topic ban a user involved? Although it is possible that Apagausma does not mean to do it, just the appearance of WP:OWN is rather troubling and should be avoided. Sincerely, Yaakov W. Yaakov Wa. (talk) 00:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC) Support: As proposer.Yaakov Wa. (talk) 00:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC) @Yaakov Wa.: I give up! I don’t think it’s ever been proved so comprehensively and so quickly that I have appallingly bad judgment. You’ve managed to do that by the above post and this edit (“G-dliness”?!) and what you’ve written at Talk:Olam katan. It’s perfectly reasonable for Apaugasma to suggest AfD for a sourceless article like that which duplicates an already existing article. (What’s a “competing” article?) How can it be OWN? And what on earth makes you think it is appropriate for you to say this thread should be closed as a “waste of time” when the consensus is clearly that you should be topic banned with only myself and Slywrite, somewhat tentatively, opposing. You’ll be lucky if you’re not site banned now. DeCausa (talk) 07:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to close

This has gone on long enough, with subsequent behavior that appears to be trolling, or further proof that this editor does not have the competence required to edit collaboratively. I was initially in favor of a topic ban, but further conduct moves me toward a block if not ban. Can an uninvolved admin weigh in and assess the consensus before this closes with no action? StarM 17:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support site ban User’s contribs show he’s moved on to disruption. DeCausa (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support full site ban After reading through the above, I do not see how this member could ever be a collaborative contributor without becoming a complete time sink for anyone else they run into, Heiro 17:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support site ban per WP:NOTHERE. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 17:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Tentative support I think that a block is warranted given the disruption at ANI, but am not sure indefinite is appropriate at this time. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Courtesy @ProcrastinatingReader: as the primary oppose to be sure PR has seen the latest in the form of the diffs from DarthBotto . StarM 17:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support site ban: what this user needs is a Chabad-wiki, where their contributions would no doubt be very productive. However, their whole method (OR based strictly on undue and unreliable Chabad-sources) is fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia, and allowing them to stay would be nothing but a drain on everyone's resources (including, in the first place, on their own). Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 18:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

M-Mustapha

M-Mustapha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has been using his rollback without warning users, see their contributions, trying to misrepresent user scripts, see this. I propose removal of rollback rights, as they do have prior warnings for misuse of rollback, upon other types of warnings from other users, and administrators. They may be hat collecting as well, see 1 and 2. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 02:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Zppix, I'm not aware of any requirement that an rollbacker needs to warn the offending editor, although the RedWarn thing was a little strange. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Zppix please provide your diffs regarding the misuse and the other types of warnings, I can provide a valid defence of all my revert actions here. Twinkle is not mobile friendly that's why I don't often warn users as it's a bit tedious to do it manually whenever I'm using my mobile phone to edit, I hope you know that twinkle doesn't work on mobile view. Thank God that's all you have seen from all the work I have been doing in fighting vandalism to keep Wikipedia safe. The Living love ^talk 04:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I would generally recommend using not-Minerva when you are working from mobile and need access to advanced tools. Since you're logged in, I might suggest using the desktop domain and either Monobook or Timeless, which both have a mobile-friendly (and fully functional) interface. Izno (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

M-Mustapha, Diff for prior warning for rollback usage, see 1 For other warnings that you have been issued in the past for various things, see 1, 2. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 16:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry Zppix! But apart from this Slip, I don't think these diffs are related to the use of my rollback in any way. Please make valid accusations and insist on the right. The Living love ^talk 17:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

M-Mustapha, Note, I never claimed they all had to do with rollback, I simply mentioned them to establish a history. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 17:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Zppix:! And those were all you could get to establish a history, not bad! History is always clear in good faith. The Living love ^talk 17:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Zppix: as others have said, there's zero requirement to warn people when using WP:Rollback. As the guideline says, due to the lack of a proper edit summary rollback should generally only be used for clear cut vandalism or other cases when the reason is clear, for blocked or banned editors, or when a reason is provided somewhere else (and 2 other cases not relevant for general usage). But I had a look at M-Mustapha's recent use and most of them seem clearly appropriate e.g. 1 was reverting an edit calling someone Nazi man, one was reverting an edit saying someone's little brother was a pain in the ass, and the third was an edit changing someone's name to Ritzcracker. The other 2 weren't so obvious with just the preview but if there is a problem you're the one who needs to provide evidence. Please remember that there's also zero requirement to warn vandals when reverting their vandalism. While I understand it can be frustrating for some since editor's often can't be blocked without a prior warning, for a variety of reasons plenty of editors do not warn. Nil Einne (talk) 07:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Sdrqaz & Nil Einne, sorry for the delay, but Wikipedia:Vandalism#Warnings even states warnings should be issued. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 15:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Zppix: right, but there is no requirement to do so, and it would be completely inappropriate to sanction someone for not issuing warnings. Nil Einne (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Nil Einne, OK, maybe that part of what I said was a bit hasty, therefore i'm striking my proposal statement above, however, something should still happen, as I do believe it is problematic. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 16:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• I’m kind of lost here @Zppix, asides all else, you implied that @M-Mustapha was engaging in WP:HATC, how so if I may ask? They definitely aren’t so if I may ask why did you say that? If you are going to accuse someone the least you can do is provide diffs to substantiate your claims. If not then you are just making unwarranted baseless accusations. Celestina007 (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

  Celestina007, I said they could be, and I did provide two links in my opening statement of this thread about that. "may" and "are" very different, I said "may" explicitly because it may not be the intention of the user, but still wanted to bring it up, just to see what others may think about it. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 22:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes! @Celestina007:, it might be someone is hat collecting. I can see that because I recently requested Rollback access on Commons and mentioned that 'I have experience in fighting vandalism on other Wikimedia projects' not knowing that Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ had already requested to be autopatrolled there, I think that is where he saw me and quickly came here to request my rollback removal with baseless claims that I'm not warning vandals. The Living love ^talk 14:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

M-Mustapha, baseless claims that you arent warning vandals? You legit just admitted that you don't warn them because you are on mobile not even a few comments up... Secondly, I didn't even realize you requested any rights on Commons. Please do not cast aspersions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 17:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Again, there is no requirement that the person being reverted must be warned. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• There should certainly be no action taken against this user, because, as has been pointed out already by more than one person, there is no requirement whatsoever that vandals should be warned when using rollback - indeed the whole point of that tool is that it's a quick, no-questions-asked, revert of vandalism. And, as for the hat-collecting accusation, the original poster here seems to be doing more of that than the target, so, if there is any action taken here, it should be as a boomerang. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to close (Warning for dragging to ANI(Accusations of hatcollection)

Dear all,

It appears that the original case has little to no merit. This should be closed as soon as possible with a warning for dragging to ANI,

Blessings,

Yaakov W, Yaakov Wa. (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Please keep the lawyer in the courtroom and out of ANI. Thank you. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 17:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring on Panthera pardus saxicolor

The user @LPFCW: has repeatedly changed the page Panthera pardus tulliana to that of an old synonym, citing several outdated sources [11], and then going on a rant on their talk page (User talk:LPFCW) about how the editors of the page were censoring the information on the article. They have reverted edits more than 4 times in less than a day, and seemingly tried to edit the page in the same way before without an account: [12], [13], [14]. Also has no qualms with edit-warring when warned [15] and has even admitted to it [16]. I have done my best to correct their wrong edits without reverting, as I am currently on a no-revert period. I believe this user's talk page and edit history speaks for itself. I also hope @SilverTiger12: does not get blamed for edit-warring, they are trying their best to revert the user's edit warring. Ddum5347 (talk) 03:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I gave you scientific references while I knew you are not looking for that! You are the real warring editors! So, I will be back to you with my IT team! You are purposefully spreading false information and you do not have the right to do that! Change the title of the page otherwise this edit war will be forever!--LPFCW (talk) 03:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)LPFCW

^ I believe that should be enough for you, admins. He even changed the title of this complaint. Ddum5347 (talk) 03:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

If I come back tomorrow and I see tulliana is still instead of Persian leopard, I will hack this page! Now as you wish! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LPFCW (talk • contribs) 03:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@LPFCW: Your threats are meaningless, all this means is that you will get blocked faster. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Their edit history [17] reveals that they are only here to edit war surrounding this subspecies. Their suggestion that "this edit war will be forever" unless other editors accept their edits show that they are not here to build an encyclopedia. I recommend at least a temporary block, preferably an indef NOTHERE. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

And this is why I love ANI. h 13:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Before you come to talk Hemiauchenia I gave several references why these editors purposefully spread wrong information using Wikipedia. You can read it before you say something! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LPFCW (talk • contribs) 03:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@LPFCW: You've threatened to "be back to you with my IT team" and "hack this page" (whatever the hell that means), you clearly don't care about the opinions of other editors, so why should we care about yours? Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Ddum. I tried to type out a longer paragraph but it was removed due to edit conflicts. Basically, the talk page and edit history of the article show what is happening clearly enough and the problem editor has poor hearing. I already warned them on their talk page. Also, the edit conflicts I have run into while trying to comment hear are really something. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 03:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

SilverTiger12 Your behavior is also obviously warring! That was not a threat! That was a real fact I will be back with IT team and will hack this page unless you correct the title! You should learn you do not have the right to change the historical names! Hemiauchenia I do not really care what you think! You are actually wasting my time! The reason that I am alone now s because here was midnight! But today is another day! For your information I was block all yesterday! I do not care about Wikipedia and you guys at all! I know your behaviors! You think you have all the rights to do anything! By the way, I said the word! If you are referencing to that newsletter should change the scientific name only from saxicolor to tulliana. Why did you change the Persian leopard in the page title?!! Change the title to Persian leopard and leave the tulliana while you are referencing to that newsletter! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LPFCW (talk • contribs) 03:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Huh? Your block record is clean. As are all the other accounts and IPs that have been recently edit warring. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

LPFCW has now reverted 10 times in a 24 four period, blowing right past the 3RR. Silvertiger12 has also gone way over the 3RR, but I don't think that they were familiar with the concept of the 3RR, so I've let them know on their talkpage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Actually, Hemiachenia, I admit to knowing what 3RR is, but was busy irl and forgot to keep track of how many times I was reverting him- a few were manual reverts which made counting doubly difficult. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 03:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Don't edit war! There is no point continuing in a situation like that—do you think one more revert is going to change their mind? Johnuniq (talk) 04:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:∞RR. Actually, I suppose that could be a redirect to the 3RR exemptions. --Aquillion (talk) 05:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• I blocked LPFCW for a short period due to the extreme edit warring. I had issued a polite warning at User talk:LPFCW#Procedures but then noticed the battle was continuing. Please let me know (perhaps with a ping from talk) if problems persist. If needed, the next block will be indefinite. Johnuniq (talk) 04:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Johnuniq: Considering the talk of "hacking" and IT teams, I guess we shouldn't be surprised with block evasion [18] Nil Einne (talk) 04:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  Call me a wimp but I just semi-protected Panthera pardus tulliana so we don't have to waste more time in the next three days. An indef looks inevitable and if someone wants to do that now, fine by me. Johnuniq (talk) 05:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  When they are unblocked, they'll just go back to the same thing. I'd recommend indefing them now (but I'm not an admin :-) ). What a silly edit war. --Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 07:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  A candidate for WP:HALLOFLAME, perhaps? Narky Blert (talk) 10:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  Extreme edit-warring is right, that article is showing up in Hot Articles as having 91 revisions in the past three days. Also, I know that edit-warring is not right but thought that there were exceptions to 3RR for vandalism and such? And as I said, I was having a hard time keeping track of how many times I reverted him due to being busy IRL. Thanks for the semi-protection, I just hope it goes away and doesn't turn into a more persistent issue. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  Added to the WP:HALLOFLAME! :-) -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 22:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Shouldn't WP:NOHACKTHREAT be up there with WP:NLT as automatic block? I assume if nothing else it's intent to violate the Terms of Service. Slywriter (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Nah. NLT was originally written to prevent legal disputes from spilling onto the Wiki, and later expanded due to its chilling effect on editors. Threatening to "hack the page" is just nonsense, and basically just indicates the user is WP:NOTHERE. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Huasteca

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

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

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

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

I don't even know how to respond. It seems User is deeply disturbed by the EMA's announcement today finding a link between Astrazeneca and cerebral thrombosis and continued suspensions of Astrazeneca vaccinations. He has been aggressively pushing the view, not only that there is no link between Astrazeneca and cerebral thrombosis but that no one has even hypothesized this link. Hard to believe but true. This is his position - he literally refuses to acknowledge the content of reliable sources. [19]. He even refuses to accept that numerous countries have suspended AZ vaccinations - with arguments on the line of "they were just temporary pauses". Funny thing is that I haven't even really engaged in an edit war with this editor - I just took this entire scenario to the relevant noticeboard where he promptly requested I was topic-banned. Perhaps this is the second of the Five stages of grief now that his position is even more untenable than before? God knows. He knows I have disengaged from the topic so I assume it is the product of a mixture of vindictiveness and frustration. Should not be wasting people's time here, though, including mine! Huasteca (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

• Pure WP:BATTLEGROUND from Huasteca. They seem to be living out a fantasy in which they are a lone hero fighting against evil pharma shills. Unfortunately this means mischaracterizing what sources say (so: "There is no longer any doubt on the causal link between Astrazeneca and the clots"[20]) and concocting a bizarre story about what other editors are saying (so: "You guys can write AZ is magic and cures Aids and it won't have an impact on public perception"[21]). Probably some WP:ROPE is left to play out, but in a fraught medical topic subject to GS, these kinds of antics are the last thing the Project needs. Alexbrn (talk) 05:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

CambridgeBayWeather This is a personal attack, for example.[22] Saying that me raising concerns about the neutrality of an article is due to "malice or incompetence" is a completely uncalled for personal attack. I also consider you completely randomly questioning my ability to communicate effectively in English because I happen to speak other languages a personal attack. The Trump era is over. I'm not wasting more time on this, I'm sorry. Have a nice day. Huasteca (talk) 23:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support Topic Ban from COVID-19 vaccines: Given the following scummering of Gs/alerts:topic=covid as "sillyness" [23] and then obviously continuing to engage in battles per comments above. In mitigation per someone above has had a couple of points worthy of inclusion; and may have reduced problematic edits since soming to ANI.and may have been riled from some stuff albeit AGF initially unintentionally. In some ways I'd like to conside allowing talk page edit requests for Huasteca but on risk/benefit considerations and the difficultly of making acceptable edit requests its likely better all round that it also include talk pages. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC) I've struck my support for 2 reasons. The first inaction of admins seem to appear that the regard "general sanctions" to be meaningless. The second is that @Berchanhimez's "And this user" immediately after this post can be taken as a dig at myself .... unless one actually goes into the links to see that "This user" probably refers to Huasteca. An admin should probably therefore close this an no action. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

User:Citation bot "fixing" non-deprecated parameters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended content

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

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

Bot continues doing this[24], even though it shouldn't according to its own documentation: both "accessdate" and "access-date" are in the CS1 whitelist[25]; which should guide the bot. The Github list they use[26] also doesn't seem to make this change. So why does it do this? No idea. If the bot owner isn't available, shutting down the bot until this is corrected may be wanted. Something like this is a purely cosmetic edit (removing one empty parameter plus converting lots of accessdates), which no bot should make. Fram (talk) 13:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Citation bot is still making the replacement even though it isn't in the accepted list of replacements: [27]. Fram (talk) 13:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Yes, the issue is CitationBot, not any individual editor using it[28]. Citationbot needs to be changed or blocked. Fram (talk) 07:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Why is Citationbot still allowed to continue?[29] Fram (talk) 08:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

User Vilmeenkodi

Vilmeenkodi (talk · contribs) has over several years added content to specific pages related to the Malayalam language - unreferenced, original research material. The user also tries to present unreliable historical primary sources like Keralalpathi as reference sources. The user received multiple warnings and final warnings for creating this type of content (1, 2, 3) which don't seem to bother them at all. I personally don't believe the user is here to create encyclopedic content or that they really understand what an encyclopedia is and it has become tiresome to revert their edits.ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 04:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

The user is right now busy spamming talk pages related to Malayalam with original research content to discuss (?). Talk:Old Malayalam/Talk:Malayalam. 1, 2, 3, 4 ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 18:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree, this user is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE promoting weird OR and wacky nonsense (such as the claim that the Nepalese language was introduced in the southern state of Kerala in the 19th century). There's no other way to put it. –Austronesier (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Propose topic ban. h 13:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Shortscircuit at LowTierGod

Shortscircuit (talk · contribs)
LowTierGod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Shortsitcuit registered his account solely to request speedy deletion of an article created, vetted, and published through the WP:Articles for Creation process, then deleting major article content and turning the page into a WP:Battleground after failing. Given the subject's nature as a controversial figure, I've requested page protection. Further, given this user's particular history (seemingly using his IP to sockpuppet) and making one innocuous edit before diving into the battleground, this user is clearly personally invested in the article's deletion and may be the subject himself. A WP:Topic ban may be in order. --BananaYesterday (talk) 15:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

BananaYesterday, whether or not Shortscircuit has a COI or is socking here, those appear to be good edits. The article is supported by numerous sources considered unreliable by WP:VG/RS, like Event Hubs, Niche Gamer, Game Skinny, One Angry Gamer, etc. Much of the content was unsourced as well. Any content about living persons needs to be supported by high-quality reliable sources, and this isn't it. Woodroar (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

For me there is a big concern that this editor is calling good faith edits vandalism in his edit summaries. that isn't helping the matter along with his unwillingness to use the talk page to hash things like that out. --JohnnyFiveHole (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

JohnnyFiveHole, I agree that Shortscircuit needs to stop reverting and calling people vandals, and to use the Talk page. But you should consider not restoring WP:BLP violations as well. Woodroar (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

The subject of the page LowTierGod is a person with a large troll community. There have been trolls vandalising the page by adding false and malicious statements and claims about the subject. These statements added to the article by trolls have no valid references for backup. Some statements have "references" that actually do not contain what is claimed in the article. I removed these statements. The trolls are reverting the changes and claiming that it was "vandalism". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shortscircuit (talk • contribs) 15:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

This above statement (which is a copy/paste of the user's recent edit summaries) is what I imagine the above user is referring to (User:JohnnyFiveHole). Removing what you think isn't reliably sourced? Please, do so and talk about it at the talk page. Calling everything you remove an instance of vandalism and those who added it trolls? Absolute nonsense and WP:Bad faith. There have been demonstrable instances of vandalism on the page, which I and others have reverted myself, but tellingly none of them have been reverted by this new account who is deriding others' contributions. --BananaYesterday (talk) 15:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Shortscircuit, calling editors "trolls" or their edits "vandalism" are both considered personal attacks on Wikipedia, so please stop that. See WP:VANDAL if you have any questions. These appear to be good faith edits, though they do fall short of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Woodroar (talk) 15:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

we definitely need to rewrite certain parts of the article, especially the part about the cult following. i am working on that now. I do think shortsircuit now just violated 3rr and edit war policy. JohnnyFiveHole (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

User:JohnnyFiveHole, User:Woodroar I am willing to hash it out in the talk page of the article. The main thing about these contested edits is that references and sources are nowhere to be found. If you look at the references given for these statements, the references themselves actually do not contain the information that are being added to the article. In other words, there are no actual sources for these edits. I read through all of the provided "references" to check. Not to mention these sources are not very well known or reputable. If you consider the nature of these contested edits, it is quite possible that these edits are made in bad faith. This is also considering that the subject of this article has a large community of internet trolls. I also just want to point out that I was not the one who started using the word "vandalism" first. Shortscircuit (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

that's definitely not true for everything you've been deleting... i see new sources being added for subject name for example but you kind of keep getting lost in the big picture and reverting new edits that try to add content with reputable source... this is why the general tenor of you edit warring and violating 3rr with your new account is so problematic. i'm not trying to insult you or anything but talking about who said "vandalism" first is kind of childish and i only asked for page protection about vandalism in relation to ip edits calling him "chicken legs" and other things... JohnnyFiveHole (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, some of the edits made by other people (such as Greyjoy - 10:23, 9 April 2021 and also Arjayay - 12:24, 9 April 2021) are good edits. For example Greyjoy actually added a reference for the subject name. Unfortunately, User:BananaYesterday subsequently made his own edits/reverts, specifically, he made the contested edits. Just to be clear, I am not talking about good faith edits like 10:23, 9 April 2021. I am talking about bad faith edits that have no actual (accurate) references. For example, people were adding names like "aka Chicken Legs", fake birth dates, and even another name. These claims/statements had no actual referencing. Just from edits like these, you can see there are certain people trying to add unfounded and negative edits to the page. Shortscircuit (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Glad you've returned to this page. I never called you a vandal (while you demonstrably have attacked me as such, including on the article's talk page). I did say that I fear you have a WP:Conflict of interest given that you made this account and immediately turned the page into a WP:Battleground, which I was not alone in being startled by. --BananaYesterday (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

You did indeed call me a vandal. When you first reverted my edit of the page, in your edit summary you wrote "revert vandalism"... this was the first time either of us mentioned "vandalism" Shortscircuit (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

i would add that for me it makes it hard not to see shortsircuit's edits as coming from a conflict of interest given that he requested speedy deletion twice before calling you a vandal for making the page at all... JohnnyFiveHole (talk) 16:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

All the editors working on this article must familiarize themselves with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons because they are obligated to follow that policy. Do not accuse people of vandalism lightly. That's disruptive. Do not accuse someone of having a conflict of interest based on speculation and without providing solid evidence. It is not COI to support deleting an article and then to work to eliminate BLP violations if the article is kept. Good editors do that all the time. The source for every statement in that article should be checked for reliability and then whether the source actually supports the statement. Every statement that fails that test should be swiftly removed. Restoring contested unreferenced or poorly referenced content to a BLP is a policy violation. I checked one statement and found that the source does not back up the statement. Nowhere close. I noted that at Talk: LowTierGod along with a BLP policy warning. So, all of you interested in that article: please work together to clean it up and do it promptly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I have continued checking this BLP, and it is riddled with unreferenced or poorly referenced assertions, which I have tagged. What a mess. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree, the page is a mess of fan cruft and poor references, there's something to be salvaged, but it's a mess to clean. And am I the only one amused between a discussion with Shortscircuit and JohnnyFiveHole? RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I have made some deep cuts to the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much Cullen³²⁸ for responding to my Edit Request. Much of the article has been fixed. There are just a couple of other lingering issues about the article, which I have detailed in the article's Talk page (badly sourced assertion for birth name, long term protection for article). Shortscircuit (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I have had to block two editors for violating WP:DOX on the article talk page and have requested oversight. More administrator eyes on this article would be helpful. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• I won't pretend to try to evaluate the sources for this, as they seem to me, based on what we accept as reliable for most topics, to be completely unreliable but it appears that those who follow this topic area consider them to be reliable. I would remind Shortscircuit that the place to discuss deletion is WP:AFD, and would remind everyone that acceptance at WP:AFC does not protect an article against deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Repeated breaches of WP:5P4 by VersaceSpace

VersaceSpace joined the site on 1 December 2020 and has made nearly 1,700 edits. On 7 December, he was blocked indefinitely for vandalism after this edit. However, he apologised immediately and was reinstated. His talk page has attracted several other complaints and warnings that he nearly always deleted until he was warned about it recently.

On 3 April, the editor breached WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA with an unwarranted and disrespectful reference to Lugnuts. He was warned about this by Celestina007, to whom he was also rude and disrespectful – see here and here. He joined the ANI about Lugnuts on 8 April but his edit there was one of those suppressed. Only ten minutes later, he made this edit at AFD which casts a scurrilous aspersion on Lugnuts' motives as an editor. He was asked a few hours later to retract but did not respond. Instead, he later repeated the aspersion here (btw, it seems he pinged the wrong person there). His edit at the Shahid Ilyas‎ AFD has also been condemned by both AssociateAffiliate and myself but there has been no response to either of us.

Action needs to be taken against this editor for his disrespectful behaviour and I have brought the case to ANI for that reason, but there is also a strong suspicion of sockpuppetry. Could you please let me know if you want me to outline that case here or take it separately to SPI? Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I would comment that VersaceSpace appears very confident for such a new user, and very ready to correct others for someone who already has a block log. However, I can't see justification for another block at this moment. I would suggest that a watching brief is adequate. Deb (talk) 17:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

No Great Shaker thanks for the ping. I find this user very uncivil, though my condemnation of his comment wasn't exactly civil back!!! I do wonder though given an obvious vendetta against Lugnuts by VersaceSpace and Dlthewave an SPI might be warranted, just given the similairty in their behaviour and general uncivilness? StickyWicket (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@AssociateAffiliate: @No Great Shaker: @Deb: hi. Thanks for noticing my confidence, I guess. I don't believe the vandalism should've been brought up because I had not made any good contributions at that point? I want to respond to the sockpuppetry accusations first. Me and that editor have completely different interests. I enjoy editing things related to Doja Cat, and other female rappers and singers, among other topics. I don't know nor care what the other editor likes, but it's certainly not that. I have other things to do, so I'll address the other things later. versacespaceleave a message! 17:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Deb beat me to it, FWIW I have always been able to tell a new editor from a banned/blocked editor evading their block by virtue of their Tone and I too believe the editor to be too bold for a relatively new editor. I do not see the incivility issues to be too egregious as to warranting a block. But if there are suspicion of sock puppetry (which I believe may be at play here) then an WP:SPI should be launched at the appropriate venue. Celestina007 (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, it looks to me like an outright admission of sockpuppetry because I haven't said a word anywhere about my suspicions. Doja Cat, however, is certainly part of the evidence. I will go to SPI and thanks for that advice, Celestina. No Great Shaker (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for logging this NGS. The personal attack against me certainly raised a red-flag, and at best (for them), it's highlighted this to the community. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@No Great Shaker: what??? looking through the user's edits I see no edits to Doja Cat. I only said what I enjoy editing because that editor does not edit those topics, contrary to me. versacespaceleave a message! 18:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you go to SPI where you will see that User:Billiekhalidfan and User:Dojazervas are the suspect accounts. No Great Shaker (talk) 18:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Done. I've replied there. versacespaceleave a message! 18:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok. I'm gonna fully respond now, I planned to do it before but the SPI case distracted me. I want to formally apologize to @Lugnuts: for calling them/their edits wretched, and I'm also sorry for the non-apology that came after that remark. It was lousy. All of my !votes at deletion venues should be based on policy and mine was not. I also have no vendetta against the user, and I only am aware of him because of his constant stub creation, which I still object to.

No Great Shaker says that I received a lot of warnings which I "always almost removed". Until a while ago I would clear my talk page instead of archiving it. Rookie mistake. The only warning I've deleted since then is one by @Celestina007: who also deleted my messages from her talk page. I didn't want them to send messages on my talk page because it was the same vice versa. After they noticed that I deleted the warning, they came back to my talk page and basically tried to "gotcha!" me, saying that "removing warnings from your talk page, means you have acknowledged, and read the message. So the next time you refer to anyone as “wretched” or engage in any egregious personal attack, your next warning would commence from a level 2". I really had no intention to call someone wretched again, so I think this message was unnecessary. Also, I question how them calling my existence here "inconsequential" and calling me inexperienced (which is true, but they said it as an insult) is civil. I don't like how Celestina brought "tone" into this discussion when their tone in edit summaries deleting my messages were things like "get your inexperienced self off my talk page" and "be gone". Is that civil too? I'm not making an accusation, simply asking how that doesn't break the same rules they continue to bring up.

My "asperations on Lugnuts motives", and I quote myself, "I won't make any accusation but I think everyone can kind of see the reason why these exist, and it may not be because the author wants to constructively write about Azizkye". I do believe this and that's why I didn't strike through the !vote. I didn't respond to the request by User:No Great Shaker to strikethrough because FOARP had responded and I was in agreement with their response, so I saw no need to say anything.

Keep in mind, none of these users ever came to my talk page except for Celestina who for some reason assumed right off the bat that I would commence this behavior again. Besides that, nothing because, as User:No Great Shaker suggests, I do not reply. I had dropped the stick. versacespaceleave a message! 20:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@VersaceSpace, please do not drag me into your mess which you continually create. What i said was that I am not watching your page because your presence here was inconsequential to me (and still is I might add) but with the emphasis on to me and not in general as you are trying to imply so please quit with the lies. Right here is evidence to substantiate what I just stated. Please once again do not bring me into your mess, some of us are actually trying to focus on protecting the integrity of the collaborative project and abhor drama especially this sought of drama. Celestina007 (talk) 00:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007: I never gave context as to what you meant by what you said, because it's irrelevant, and it's still an insult, no matter how you angle it, and you said yourself that insults were a violation of WP:NPA (something i didn't concur with until you told me so). I'm not dragging you into any issues, you spoke here first (which is a good thing, just clearly not me dragging you into my problems). Be mindful that I didn't create this thread, and I'm left to defend myself, so I'm stuck in a position where I can't win at all if you simply label it as "drama". versacespaceleave a message! 01:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• As an aside, No Great Shaker just posted this comment on a cricket AfD, which is also a breach of WP:CIVIL. Not sure if an interaction ban will be necessary pending the sockpuppet review (CU came back unlikely.) SportingFlyer T·C 23:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I've answered this "aside" at the AFD page. Apparently, it is a breach of core policy to request that a sysop should investigate hounding and insults within that AFD. What a strange place Wikipedia is, if that should be so. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Who is VerspaceSpace? versacespaceleave a message! 00:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Please don't drag out this drama by questioning an obvious typo that you perfectly well know was meant to be your name. -- ferret (talk) 00:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

If finding a typo funny is perpetuating drama then..yikes. I never refuted that he was talking about me. versacespaceleave a message! 01:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@VersaceSpace, just like @Ferret said, please don’t escalate the drama, you knew all well & good that they were referring to you. I vividly remember telling tell you to “mature up”. Apparently you didn’t listen. Celestina007 (talk) 01:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007: wait? but you did this exact thing? take a look at the edit summaries here. word for word, bar for bar versacespaceleave a message! 01:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

in fact, i only said this because you did! if you can say this certainly i can too. or do the rules not apply to everyone? versacespaceleave a message! 01:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• I've struck my comment at the Shahid Ilyas AfD. It's clear this ANI is not going anywhere, and neither is the SPI filed against me (where CheckUser has concluded it's possible/unlikely that I'm connected to the account, I assume that means it's inconclusive). My apology to Lugnuts has not drawn any response from him or the other cricket editors, so at this point I just want to get over it. I shouldn't have to have this stuff lingering over my head if there's been little to no discussion on it for a while now. versacespaceleave a message! 14:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to close (issues resolved)

Dear all,

It appears that issues have been resolved or (in case of SPI belong in another place). Therefore, I suggest that the thread is closed as soon as possible because it is not a conducive editing environment having an open thread at ANI and versacespace should be allowed to go back to editing without worries of immediate sanctions.

Blessings,

Yaakov W. Yaakov Wa. (talk) 02:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support as proposer and someone who understands the situation versacespace is going through. Yaakov Wa. (talk) 02:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

please don't do this. it doesn't help me at all and it raises your chances of being blocked. the issues have not been resolved, there simply hasn't been a reply (maybe because there's nothing else to be said, but still). i suggest deleting this section and you have my permission to remove this comment if you do. versacespaceleave a message! 02:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear versacespace

As far as I am concerned, no reply for 3 days indicates there is nothing further to be said. If there is, they will be mentioning it very soon. As for your concern about me, I appreciate it, but that should not stop someone from doing the right thing.

Blessings,

Yaakov W.Yaakov Wa. (talk) 02:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear all

I noticed that all the accusers were active since these last posts If we penalize users for not responding to ANI, then certainly per WP:AGF, we must give them the benefit if their accusers do not respond.

Although well intentioned, and we need prosecutors (for obvious reasons). I believe the problem at ANI is not that there are prosecutors, but rather that there are too many individuals who are prosecutors at ANI and not enough defense attorneys.

Blessings,

Yaakov W. Yaakov Wa. (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

References

The ANI is not a courtroom. we definitly don't need Lawyers. Yaakov- bud- take a break please. Walk away for a bit and come back with a clear mind. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

FleurDeOdile

If you look at FleurDeOdile's talk page, it is cluttered with warnings, mostly about edit warring over images. Fleur has already been blocked three times, but refuses to listen to any warnings, blocks, or editors. There have been about ten discussions on WP:AN3RR about this. I think an indefinite or long (longer than 3 months) block is warranted. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Chicdat: I don't think WT:WPTC is the right venue for this. Perhaps you might like to try WP:ANI instead. Chlod (say hi!) 11:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Everyone is telling me not to go to "the drama boards", but all right. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones

🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

To elaborate: After each of the three blocks, FleurDeOdile has immediately reverted (in both ways) back to his/her original behavior, and many users are fed up with this. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 13:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Convenience link to user: FleurDeOdile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ~ i haven't yet looked at their contribs, but i find it easier to do so if there's a link here, so i assume others probably do, too; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 14:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Just to give background IG, I have been personally fed up with this user's behavior involving edit wars related to tropical cyclones. He has been warned numerous times about edit wars, breaking 3RR, etc and gives unconstructive, rude/snarky edit summaries to people (numerous of which were new and inexperienced to some of the policies on WikiProject Tropical Cyclones!) after reverting them which is violating WP:CIVIL. A few examples: 1, 2, 3, 4.

This behavior has also leaked onto Wikimedia Commons simply giving poor feedback and deleting images with reasoning that its "low quality", or that it doesn't look good, which is purely subjective off his opinion. An example would be him requesting deletion of someone's image they probably put effort into here because he simply did not like it. THeres many more examples of this too if you check his Commons and his main account here's contributions. He has shown no change after being blocked and has even gone on personal attacks towards me off-wiki, such as telling me to leave the WikiProject i'm in because I tried to reason with him over an image (not to say that is punishable on this platform). There's probably more others can add, certainly. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I have no real opinion on the edits themselves ~ they are entirely outside the realm of mine interests or experience. I will say, though, regarding the behaviour, that i have gone through the contributions back to 1 February, about sixty edits or so; of those, thirteen have been reverted, which is perhaps a little high, maybe an indication of edit-warring, but i don't see multiple reverts back and forth on the same article. I also see a couple of rude-ish edit summaries, though nothing i would block over (i mean, were i an admin; obviously, i'm not). I do not see anything like what Hurricaneboy23 mentions, suggesting that the latter leave the project. All in all, FleurDeOdile, i would suggest you tone down your summaries and ensure you're not even occasionally rude, and be sure not to edit war; i don't see any behaviour rising to the level of making an ANI report necessary; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 15:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@LindsayH: There is some back-and-forth editing at 2020–21 Australian region cyclone season. I would also like to add that @FleurDeOdile: should provide better edit summaries than simply saying an image is "low quality." If there is something wrong with an image, then there should be a comment about that specific problem. Simply continuing to revert without elaborating about what makes an image "low quality" isn't going to help. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

In the past 150 edits to 2020–21 Australian region cyclone season, FleurDeOdile has edited three times, each of which seems useful and doesn't seem to have been reverted; that's scarcely "back-and-forth". I agree with the need for better edit summaries ~ by all editors: In the same past 150, there are only 30 with a summary. Again, i'm not seeing anything requiring an ANI report; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 05:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The edit summary of this diff shows that Fleur wasn't even trying to discuss. "Original was better" seems to me like a sign of WP:NOTHERE. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

And in this case, if the user FleurDeOdile reverted was a new user, Fleur could have driven them out of Wikipedia. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Chicdat, TornadoLGS, and Hurricaneboy23: Just Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. As @LindsayH: has said there is nothing in @FleurDeOdile: recent contributions that mean that they should be blocked from editing wiki and you guys are just trying to cause a bit of drama when there isnt really any to be had! Jason Rees (talk) 13:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Jason here. It's kind of annoying that some WPTC members always have a knife pointed at some other member's throat. Perhaps we could... write some more articles? Anything more productive than this. Chlod (say hi!) 13:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Sudipto Surjo - template disruption, unilateral page moves and disregard for collaboration

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

---

Sudipto Surjo (talk · contribs) is an editor with a high edit rate, yet has been predominantly disruptive over the past several weeks. With a penchant for editing media franchise articles, Sudipto Surjo has moved hundreds of popular articles, without engaging in any prior (or post) discussion. That doesn't even address the out-of-scope addition of templates to incomprehensibly vague associations. I mean, who could forget John Wilkes Booth's stunning presence in National Treasure 2? Likewise, they have made irrational edits to templates, with the biography-oriented ones including acting credits and the media franchise ones including their creators/directors/stars in the headers - then, after they're reverted, he waits to change them back. This editor has been warned about their behavior to an egregious extent, with some cases of two or more final warnings listed by different editors in immediate sequence. However, Sudipto Surjo has opted to respond by deleting the warnings, acting coy - and even editing the warnings to make other editors appear unreasonable or foolish. I have linked up some specific incidents, but if you take a peek at their contributions, you will see literally several thousand of these uncollaborative edits, one after another, after another. Sudipto Surjo was previously blocked by Rosguill in October 2020 for this behavior, but appears to be regressing once more. There can only be so many dismissed final warnings before this needs to be firmly addressed. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 08:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

There's no question that this conduct merits at least a temporary block. Deb (talk) 08:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

While I wait for some insight from the subject, I instead see some interesting edits being made to Seth Brundle, Template:Jeff Goldblum and The Fly (film series), before my very eyes. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 08:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week. Multiple warnings either ignored or engaged disruptively (re-writing someone's comment with entirely new prose, even!). Likely competence issues that will need to be corrected. El_C 09:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I also 95% certain that Sudipto Surjo is yet another sockpuppet of User:Aledownload. See Interaction Analyzer with one of the latest socks. I need to get round to either filing an SPI or just blocking for the clear quacking. Canterbury Tail talk 12:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

In my view, Interaction Analyzer data has to be super-obvious to be in any way helpful. But otherwise, a 95 percent certainty would be enough for me to indeff over. El_C 14:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Their block expires on Sunday - should we keep this thread open, to see how they behave upon returning to the site? DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 09:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Since CT seems to be familiar with this, I'm inclined to let them take it from here. El_C 14:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I don't think we need to keep this open. Canterbury Tail talk 14:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks by User:Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion.

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

---

Last month Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked then unblocked after making personal attacks against a user and admin active on controversial gender-related topics. Their unblock seemed to rest on the assumption that they would focus on association football articles and refrain from personal attacks specifically. However, they recently made a very non-AGF comment toward the same user at Talk:Men Going Their Own Way. When I learned of the previous block, I notified the blocking admin on St. H. T. D. C. & A.'s talk page. St. H. T. D. C. & A. then started blanking talk page comments [30][31] and making a series of bizarre user talk page moves seemingly to try to cover their tracks (e.g.: [32]) Bringing this to ANI because St. H. T. D. C. & A. has since resumed their attacks against their origninal target. Note that they were notified of discretionary sanctions in this topic area already. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Seems like a candidate for indeffing as NOTHERE. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: Very disrespectful of you to make the assumption I did the page blanks to cover my tracks. I actually did the first one by mistake (meant to be a test edit) so I tried to redirect it back but I missed the last period at the end of my name so I fooled around with it a little. More evidence that I'm not trying to hid it is that I can provide you the conversation right now.

Potential violation of unblock conditions

@Floquenbeam: I see you unblocked this user on the condition that they refrain from attacking a specific user regarding gender issues. In their unblock request they stressed that they just wanted to edit football articles. Recently they made a very non-AGF comment toward the same user at Talk:Men Going Their Own Way. Would this justify re-blocking? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: Well I just wanted to talk about the sources, I wasn't calling anyone bad or anything. And if you see my contributions. Like literally 99.9% of my contributions are football articles. I'm fulfilling my promises and also, am planning on creating a new football article 2022 in association football so I think I'm doing fine. Mohammad (talk) 07:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: Hey! That was my thousandth edit! Awesome! Mohammad (talk) 07:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: Also didn't I do that del thing you taught me how to do? I don't get why this is still an issue. I followed your directions, and by my contributions, I am doing a lot of good work and help with a lot of articles! Mohammad (talk) 08:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't aware you had previously been blocked for making personal attacks, which puts your comments in a much different light. Being a productive editor overall doesn't give anyone a license to make snarky comments about other editors. You were already notified about discretionary sanctions in this topic area. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: Did you forget about what we were talking about before. That I was talking about the source and not the person? What happened to that? Mohammad (talk) 08:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: There is no way they will ban me over this. I haven't even done anything. 1. I said before that I am interesting in editing football articles in Wiki. And if you even bothered checking my edits, that's what I've been doing. 2. I refrain from attacking people regarding gender issues. I have never attacked anyone after the unblock. What you are sourcing is absolutely ridiculous and BAFFLES ME because we had a discussion like just an hour ago that I wasn't attacking the person, and that I was directing that at the source. 3. That is one of the only non-football related edit I've done and it was on the talk page not the article even. 4. I know it says "you" but as our discussion before we both know I was talking to the source. I would've edited it but it's against the rules. You told me to just put the delete (or slash) mark on it. Which I did. So I don't know why you are still bringing this up. 5. Previously (how I was blocked) I was seriously attacking someone (literally going on their talk page) and saying bad things. This is nowhere near that. 6. As you can see from my user page. I created a deleted article, an article, and looking to create another. I'm not here to hate and this is a mostly-sport Wiki account. That's the stuff I'm interested in. If I see an issue or a typo in a different article, I will bring it up or fix it. If I say I'm focused on football articles means I can't conversate with someone about a different article. 7. That was the only other non-sport article I have ever edited (from what I remember) since the unblock (unless it was a typo). There is absolutely no reason I should be blocked. I would've said more reasons but I forgot what I was going to say. Mohammad (talk) 08:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

You may want to review the First Rule of Holes. We'll see what the blocking admin has to say. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC) @Sangdeboeuf: Only reason I'm explaining like this is that I thought our previous conversation was resolved so I deleted it. I delete all resolved conversations on my talk page. It was resolved until a few hours later you out of nowhere tried to ban me. Mohammad (talk) 08:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Given everything said here, you should seriously consider striking your most recent comment. You should also apologize to GorillaWarfare immediately for the personal attack. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: For what? Saying "I know what you're doing here"? How is this a personal attack? In which planet? Mohammad (talk) 09:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC).

− − I will provide my reasoning below. Just had to get this out there.

@NorthBySouthBaranof: WHAT? Have you seen the articles I have created and the thousands of contributions have? Mohammad (talk) 10:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Your utterly bizarre and clearly-intentional page moves of your user talk pages make it clear that you are here to troll, not constructively contribute to the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion.:, please change your signature as it will cause confusion with User:Mohammad, per WP:CUSTOMSIG/P. Padgriffin (talk) 10:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: @Padgriffin: WAIT BEFORE YOU DO ANYTHING! CAN I NOT PROVIDE MY REASONING? AND DEFENSE? Mohammad (talk) 10:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: @Padgriffin:

MY REASONING

1. I did not personally attack anybody. The closest thing closest to a personal attack is "I know what you are doing" (not like stalker type)

2. My warning was to not personally attack anyone my warning was NOT to not edit the articles stated.

3. I am a legit contributor. I have Extended-Confirmation Rights. I have over 1,000 not-reverted legit edits. I create and edit mostly sport (association football) articles. I am not a troll account.

4. What really annoys me about @Sangdeboeuf: is that we had this discussion a few hours ago (about the "personal attack"). We had both clearly agreed that I was directing that the source had an issue with the movement NOT @GorillaWarfare:. I would've edited it but as @Sangdeboeuf: told me, I was to put it in a slash.

5. The extra pages was originally a test, then I tried to redirect it back but I forgot the "." at the end of my name. Since there were so many constant mistakes, I decided to poke fun with it. I admit I shouldn't have done that, but it was my talk page and really didn't affect anything (plus I put it back).

6. I am a legit editor and @Stevie fae Scotland: @Sakiv: and a lot of others can agree I am not a vandalize only or troll account and that I'm a legit editor.

7. My promise for this warning is that I will never edit or contribute to the MGTOW article ever again. I also promise to re-read what I'm typing before I click enter to make sure it's appropriate.

Thanks for reading and I hope we can come to an understanding. Mohammad (talk) 10:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Padgriffin: Signature is changed now. Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. (talk) 10:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Given your history with GorillaWarfare, It's clear that "That explains everything. I see what you're doing. I'm not stupid" was meant to accuse them of wrongdoing without evidence.

Your block was lifted on the specific condition that you would not "continue to attack another editor for the crime of being a woman who dares to disagree with you".

I was skeptical at the time that "it seems you have an issue with men wanting to go their own way" was about the "sources" and not the user you were replying to. I am even more skeptical since I learned you had been blocked for personal attacks against the very same editor. I certainly never "agreed" with your explanation.

The comment blanking I referred to was at the article talk page [33][34], not your user talk page. You already knew this was "against the rules", as you put it. Maybe you just panicked and wanted the issue to go away; regardless, blanking others' comments is disruptive.

Alerting other users to come to your defense is disruptive WP:CANVASSING and is unlikely to change the outcome in your favor. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Also this comment removal fits into the pattern of harassment against a specific editor. Intentional or not, such a pattern should not be allowed to continue. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Proposing a TBAN of the user on articles concerning MGTOW and other Feminism/menosphere-related topics. As the user has repeatedly attacked both editors and authors of sources in addition to expressing misogynistic and anti-feminism views, a TBAN may be in order. Padgriffin (talk) 11:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @Padgriffin: So does that mean I'm banned or banned to just feminist articles? Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. (talk) 11:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    • @Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion.: You would be banned from editing those articles. Padgriffin (talk) 11:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support TBAN. I can see no productive edits to that page and plenty of disruption. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Frankly I'm stunned that the block was lifted at all following this all-caps homophobic slur. I would support another indef block on top of the TBAN. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support as nom. Padgriffin (talk) 11:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Was just going to voice support for a topic-ban as they seem genuinely interested in football, but what does it say to our female editors if we just shunt users like this to a topic area where they feel comfortable? Shouldn't Ms. GorillaWarfare and others be comfortable when editing and not have to coexist with a user like this? This isn't about "safe spaces" or any of that silliness. Disagreements will always exist, arguments will exist, as will occasional incivility. But the edit diffs presented above are abuse. 100% abuse. Absent a sincere, genuine acknowledgement that they were and continue to be in the wrong to call out someone for their gender or sexuality when discussing a topic, and consensus from all that that is acceptable, I would therefore support an indefinite block. Zaathras (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• While I initially supported a TBAN due to the user not having exactly violated the terms of his unblocking, I've combed through his comments and would also Support an indefinite block- people like this shouldn't be in this community, even if some of their edits were constructive. Padgriffin (talk) 13:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Floquenbeam was incredibly generous to unblock the editor after the original attack on GW, they promised not to repeat the behaviour and they haven't been able to leave it alone. No second chances, sorry. Support indef. Black Kite (talk) 13:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I've indefinitely Tbanned Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. from the topic area of gender and sexuality, broadly construed, as an AE discretionary sanction. I saw that as the bare minimum needed to prevent disruption in the topic area; I don't intend that to prejudice this discussion, and if there is consensus for a site ban or indef block that should also be imposed. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• I've indeffed Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion for harassment as a normal admin action. A discussion aimed at escalating this to a site ban can continue, of course. Ditto for an unblock, I guess. El_C 14:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

  Stupid question, El C, but their talk page history is extremely short for the content that's on it. Have there been some page move shenanigans? Sdrqaz (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

  Yes — El_C 17:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

  That's bizarre: they also messed around with Ponyo's archives too. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• What Black Kite said; support indef. I was astounded they were let off of their indef the first time around--as I noted at the time, making an apologetic unblock request a mere 10 minutes after this edit did not fill me with confidence that an unblock would be possible without future disruption. Here we are again, and if the sheer volume of page-move nonsense I had to sift through to actually find those diffs is any indication, it's only getting worse. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support indef block/community ban. The condescending/intimidating behaviour towards female editors is completely unacceptable, and the fact they refused to adhere to the terms of their unblock conditions is all the more reason to get him out of here. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 00:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• I'm disappointed it's come to this. The site block is appropriate given the editor's actions. Without excusing his behaviour, should the community have cause to look at it again, I'd like to mention two things. First, he's young. Having recently seen a note from an oversighter to another young editor about why they'd removed the age from the editor's page, I emailed oversight to ask them to do the same for Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. Second, regarding his use of the word 'queer' in referring to GorillaWarfare (I'm assuming that's what Sangdeboeuf referred to as an 'all-caps homophobic slur'), it's likely that SHTDCAA looked at GorillaWarfare's user page, which has User:UBX/queer. Maybe in a year or two he'll be ready to come back and edit within policies and guidelines. I tried to help him, but there's only so much one can do. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 00:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

  The "all-caps homophobic slur" was this: the user clearly expressing rage that we would dare allow a queer woman to exist here. No, there's no excuse. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) It makes sense that St. H.T.D.C. & A. would be young. On the bright side, that gives them more time to mature, maybe returning when they can contribute without disruption. Yes, I was referring to the use of "queer" – even though some folks apply it to themselves, it can still be a slur, especially when used as a noun in all caps. I was considering the impact on an unfamiliar reader coming across that remark and seeing that the user who made it was allowed to remain on Wikipedia. I think that would only harm the project. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

  Good point about the chance of an unfamiliar reader encountering that. Perhaps I'm being too soft on him because of his age. I don't think his behaviour's in any way acceptable. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 05:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

  The very fact that they all-capped queer and feminist as if they were a bad thing a bit like how back in the 80s school kids would say "that is so gay" about things being crappy is more than enough to raise eyebrows with regards to their leanings. Zaathras said it best. WP should not be saying to editors "you only get to do this once." --Blackmane (talk) 02:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Nothing less than siteban - don't let the door hit your homophobic, misogynistic ass on the way out. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support site ban - does not appear to have the collaborative qualities needed to edit here. — Ched (talk) 02:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support Site ban This where the old adage of "talk about the edits, not the editor" comes into play. This user has not understood that. I get that it can be hard to get everyone to agree on some of the Western values that are enshrined here, and I a wholly an advocate for building a global encyclopedia with a global community, but to go after someone for being merely a feminist (women right's = men's rights, oh how terrifying!) and being "a queer" (the use of that word as a noun and not as an adjective is telling) is absoltuely unacceptable. Attempts to guide this user away from this type of combativeness have failed. We should not waste any more of our time. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support Site Ban per Indy beetle.--Jorm (talk) 05:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support site ban Harassment is not acceptable. Johnuniq (talk) 07:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support Site Ban The more I dig through their comments, the more disgusted I get. The user has STILL not apologized for their actions on those talk pages, which shows me that they should not be allowed to participate in this community. Padgriffin (talk) 11:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support site ban they have clear issues with misogyny, and none of their interactions with women have been in any way appropriate for this inclusive encyclopedia. Maybe in a few years if they grow up then they could appeal this unblock, but right now this is not the sort of editor we want on this inclusive encyclopedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• To be clear, even if they are deeply remorseful for their actions, that doesn't demonstrate that they won't do it again. It took them about 2 weeks from getting unblocked to getting blocked again, and there's nothing that suggests to me that that wouldn't just happen again if unblocked anytime soon. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support Suspended Siteban I propose an alternate remedy: A suspended community/site ban , which any administrator could impose if behavioral problems persisted after an unblock , in order to give the user one last chance without requiring another ANI thread. The user could appeal to have it vacated in its entirety 12 months from the date of its enactment. Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• They were already unblocked and promptly violated their unblock restrictions, which is why we're back here. We're under no obligation to continue extending clemency to someone who has proven they will not adhere to its requirements. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 03:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support siteban per the WP:No Nazis doctrine. We banned an MGTOW-affiliated user not long ago. @Padgriffin: It's actually spelled manosphere. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

can't say I'm a real big fan of that ... ok, I guess we call it an essay. I'm not really sure it accomplishes what it was intended to. — Ched (talk) 23:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support siteban - Only way to be sure. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

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

User ‎Sam Jamadar2020

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

---

User:‎Sam Jamadar2020 has been editing several articles stating 'denigrating Hindu Beliefs'. I have issued warnings and advising if they wish to make these changes they need to be sourced but they have been ignored and the edits have continued. Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 13:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Indeffed. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Unsourced edits and personal attacks by User:JND AMD

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

---

This user is repeatedly making unsourced edits to several Indian Railways related articles or they are sourcing blogs like irfca.org. There are sufficient warnings, but they are not listening to them. Instead, they are resorting to personal attacks using foul language in Hindi. The first personal attack was on their own talk page here for which they were warned here. Despite the warning on PA, they have again done the same on my talk page here. I request admins to take a look into this user's edits and their behaviour and rev dev the both the PA linked above. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 14:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by SPA at People of the Book

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

---

• Medeni-56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The above editor seems interested solely in adding one contentious paragraph to the article in question; despite objections on the talk page and despite conflicting sources being presented there. This is now a slow pace but enduring edit war, and has also extended to other articles. I'm not sure if more formal sanctions are required, but I'd suggest the editor in question refrain from this topic and try something less contentious first. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I endorse this report William M. Connolley (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. Talk about bludgeoning and refusing to get the point. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

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

China requested move

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

---

Another requested move that could use some uninvolved admins keeping an eye on it given the past problematic editor behaviour in the topic. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

This looks headed for a SNOW closure. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I've obliged, there's no reason to attract disruption when the SNOW close can be done by anybody. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Elli and Timrollpickering: That escalated quickly :) (not that there's anything to worry about, me thinks). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: oh god Elli (talk | contribs) 12:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

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

IP user 136.49.166.71 persistently editing against talkpage consensus

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

---

IP user 136.49.166.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues disruptively editing the Cris Cyborg article, after an attempt to resolve the issue was made on the article's talkpage and a consesus was reached. Said user is now editing the page against the talkpage consensus and reverting other editors that try to correct his edits. He was warned on his talkpage multiple times.

The discussion on the article talk page, in which consensus was reached - here

Disruptive edits and reverts by 136.49.166.71 after consesus was reached - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Further unsuccessful attempts at resolution - 1, 2 3, 4, 5 6

Personal attacks by 136.49.166.71 (in edit summaries & on his discussion page) - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Diana056 (talk) 09:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Diana also refuses to admit, that with sources, information and more, that She reverted my page, because She didn't like what was posted. She also neglected to mention, that when we were both informed of being "blocked" that only I was the one blocked for 3 days, which She remained editing, when She was the one reverting and undoing edits more than I was. Which I informed them showed Bias, because they both agreed on the matter, not truly giving the post the chance it had at a true resolution. Also the agreement was that both pages would be changed to "one of the" greatest, not THE greatest. I agreed to leave the Amanda Nunes page alone, and have not touched it since reaching the consensus, that I did not agree with, however I abided by the rules and did not tough the Nunes page. I did however go back to the Cyborg page since what was stated was incorrect. I was informed that both pages would be changed to "one of the greatest" not only one. Since it stated that Nunes was "arguably" the Greatest, and that Cyborg was "arguably" the greatest. the main argument was that for Nunes (to diana) that "arguably" doesn't count because She likes Nunes more and wants her listed as the GOAT (wasn't what was said), what was actually stated was that She has been called that quite a bit lately. My argument for Cyborg was that for over a decade She had been called the Women's MMA GOAT, and Her losing ONE fight does not take away her legacy. She went undefeated for over 13 years, and had done quite a bit, things that no other female mma fighter has even touched. And also won championships in 4 different Major MMA organizations.

This was the deal. "@Cassiopeia:, hmmm, That's one of the most well-put... logical responses I've seen in quite some time.. Especially regarding this. I digress about the Jones situation, since it was proven he did not intentionally cheat, and He proved his innocence with each time. As far as this goes. You did state "Since there are recent sources indicate Nunes is the current female GOAT and there are still sources stating Cyborg is..." I think the fairest way to go about this, would be to change both pages to "one of the greatest female mixed martial artists." Since as you stated, there's articles that state both are the Female GOAT. Recency bias or not, I believe that would be fair with this topic, personally. Since as you stated, there's no Unanimous GOAT as of right now.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.49.166.71 (talk) 14:43, February 28, 2021 (UTC) @2A02:AB04:2F43:5000:CA3D:DCFF:FE71:E371 and 136.49.166.71: Thank you for understanding and participation on the discussion. And all of us have agreed to state Cyborg as "one of the female GOAT" instead of "the female GOAT". The normal process for discussion to be closed without further discussion is 7 days; however, since we have reached a unanimous agreeable decision, "one of the female GOAT" statement would be change but let keep this discussion open for next 24 hours for user 2A02:AB04:2F43:5000:CA3D:DCFF:FE71:E371 is in different time zone than user 136.49.166.71, and might not be online to check this message. Once again thank you all involved parties participate in this discussion. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia(talk) 03:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)"

Since the deal is now null and void, the GOAT conversation opened back up, but on the Nunes side of things, Diana made the exact same argument, I provided sources (which she attempted to discredit, then She would provide sources from those same SITES she discredited....) Now I added information to the Cyborg page, I opened a new tab in her page called "Other MMA Achievements" And placed that Cyborg had the longest win streak in Women's mma history (Which was now passed by Zhang Weili), I also placed that Cyborg was undefeated for over 13 years. I also provided sources for all that. I also edited the main page and placed that "Cyborg is also referred to as the scariest and most feared female mma fighter of all time" I provided my sources for that as well. I then also placed "Cyborg was undefeated for over 13 years and 20 straight fights before her shocking KO loss to Nunes" I also provided sources to that, with the betting odds, and the MMA sites "upset of the year" Which Diana and Cass both continued to undo my posts on all of these, from the Achievements, to the Accomplishments, To the most feared woman, to the win streak, to the betting odds, etc... My posts were constructive, and without bias. However those 2 are biased and I wasn't going to play their game anymore. So I gave up on editing. Diana follows pages and just undoes and changes what SHE doesn't like, regardless of what is presented, if there's evidence to show something, She is going to remove that evidence, so She can change the entire post. She did it with Cyborgs page before, She did it with the Nunes page, when I showed her She is not known by everyone as the Female GOAT. It's been back and forth with her, but She follows whatever I post, clicks on it and attempts to find a way to undo my post, failing horribly, then getting upset that I won't just allow her to change what She chooses. It's honestly a waste of time and it's annoying. Also look into her "persistency in editing, if I somehow get blocked or anything, She should most definitely be reprimanded. but at least I provide sources, and site my sources, She goes based off personal opinion. 136.49.166.71 (talk) 10:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@136.49.166.71: I don't want to detract from this discussion by bringing up the Nunes article, because the subject of this dispute is Cyborg's article, but just to quickly explain why on Nunes' article it can state 'widely regarded as the greatest' and on Cyborg's it can't: For Nunes, there are multiple sources which call her 'the GOAT' in her article; for Cyborg, there are only sources which call her 'one of the GOATs' and none that call her 'the GOAT' (and to this day, none such sources have been provided). Hence, the wording 'one of the greatest' is more appropriate in in Cyborg's case according to the sources, as was agreed upon in the discussion. The issue about being called 'the goat' was also discussed on Amanda's page, and it was agreed that in her article it can state that because it's supported by sources, unlike in the Cyborg article. You were part of both of the discussions and this was explained to you multiple times. Also note that 'widely regarded' doesn't mean the same thing as 'unanimously regarded', this was also discussed. Regardless, however, even if you still disagree you have to respect the consesus which was reached. The edits you engaged in was unconstructive, against talkpage consensus and persistent. Diana056 (talk) 10:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Diana you don't need to detract, you're stating "multiple sources call her goat." When I have multiple sources that call Cyborg the goat, you just overlook it, because of your bias. You're telling me you haven't found an article that calls Cyborg arguably the goat? And Arguably is not "one of" in your definition, because you completely stated it in my sources that it's ok for it to state 'arguably' so here, since you won't look (and that's pretty much it, you just won't look) And you wanted it to be recent. https://www.dazn.com/en-US/news/mma/julia-budd-vs-cris-cyborg-live-results-updates-highlights-from-bellator-238/153q7ittgaa21sb19thbp4v64 https://mymmanews.com/bellator-249-main-event-breakdown-cris-cyborg-vs-arlene-blencowe/ https://cagesidepress.com/2020/01/25/bellator-238-can-budd-spoil-the-beginning-of-cyborgs-next-chapter/ https://www.sportskeeda.com/mma/mma-news-bellator-president-claims-cris-cyborg-is-the-greatest-female-fighter-of-all-time https://thebodylockmma.com/ufc/cris-cyborg-is-the-body-locks-2020-female-fighter-of-the-year/ All of that. is within the last 6 months, with 3 being within the last MONTH,. She is either called "arguably" the greatest, or "The greatest." You just didn't want to look. So no it isn't. And I provided those sources several times, as I stated before, you chose to overlook them. Now you're going to say "Well because they say arguably...." But however if I state the same thing for Nunes, you're going to say it's ok for Nunes. And no the deal was both pages would be changed. Since that deal was not kept. I added more sources to Cyborg's page and changed it. Simple as that. As long as sources are provided, that is all that matters, and I did that. Your bias is the only issue with communication with you. Honestly it's aggravating. Plus on the Cyborg page, we reached the consensus without you, because you added nothing of substance to the conversation except bickering and crying.

These were legit her words to me "Yes, in the discussion above we already went over the fact that I provided 6 recent sources that call Nunes the greatest female MMA fighter. The reaction of 136.49.166.71 to that was that they also provided number of recent sources that call Nunes "arguably" the greatest, which doesn't necessarily dispute the original wording of that sentence ("the" greatest), but according to them, it should be changed to arguably the greatest because in a similiar dispute about the same statement in Cris Cyborg's article it was agreed upon that it should be changed to one of/arguably the greatest." But however when I placed it with Cyborg She responds with "There's no reason there whatsoever to reformulate the sentence in the article which calls her the greatest. In Cyborg's case, all of the recent sources call her "one of the greatest" or "arguably the greatest", hence why calling her the greatest in her article is not appropriate nor accurate"

She believes that with Nunes it should be overlooked (bias) but with Cyborg it should be used (unfair). She is never consistent. She wants what she wants. She doesn't have neutral editing. She is only editing based off what she personally feels. Not sources (which she erased as per the writing I just quoted from her) And several times she would undo my edits. And this is why I did not like to communicate with her. Her bias is just completely there. She claimed she couldn't find articles to support my claim, so when I tagged them, She would say that the articles were biased (I'm so serious, she really did, look at the Nunes edits, She claimed MMAjunkie, MMAFighting, Bjpenn, etc... were biased) So when she removed my sources, She then USED THE SAME SITES to Site her claim, but it's not bias, as long as it agrees with her narrative. THAT is my problem, is her biased nature, and it is completely against Wiki policy, and her edits SHOW she is biased with editing. 136.49.166.71 (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• I haven't read any of this for obvious reasons, but is there any particular reason why this obvious content dispute is cluttering up the admin noticeboard? Black Kite (talk) 15:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Although, actually yeah - that's not acceptable. IP blocked for a week. Black Kite (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• • @Black Kite: The reason is that I reported persistent disruptive edits against talkpage consensus, which as far as I know should be reported here. As I explained above in my report, and supported with diffs of said behavior. The personal attacks were added only as for more complete documentation of editor's behavior, but were not what I was reporting. Why the other editor is responding with lengthy posts arguing about content I obviously have no way of knowing, but I would really appreciate it if you could read my original report (it's not long). Diana056 (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Legal threat by Chatarpatar2020 against Kashmorwiki

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

---

• Chatarpatar2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Kashmorwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Legal threat stated more than once in this thread. Gonna call the cops to settle an editing dispute. I NLT blocked. Alerted to DS/IPA. Posting here in case more is needed. Looks WP:NOTHERE. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• The user is still threatening me legally even after they have been blocked. See [35]. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 10:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• Following the breadcrumb trail says this is fairly obviously a paid editor, and almost certainly a returning editor (thus a sock) and might be worth an SPI. I've moved one of their articles to draftspace as it fails NFILM but they have a lot of creations. Black Kite (talk) 10:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

  Now they have started threatening Deepfriedokra. See [36]. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 10:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Reblocked with TPA and email turned off. Black Kite (talk) 10:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• I have moved some of their creations, which have been not reviewed so far into draftspace. Only some seems problematic. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 10:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Content removal at Raja Prithu and Kamarupa

Two IP addresses 2409:4063:4d8d:e41e:5c81:cab9:afe:7ccd (talk · contribs) and 103.92.41.152 (talk · contribs) (probably socks) are removing content in Raja Prithu ([37], [38], [39], [40]) and Kamarupa ([41], [42]). The users repeat similar claims in subject headings. Chaipau (talk) 10:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• It's undoubtedly the same person, but there are also reasons why someone might end up editing from multiple IP addresses, possibly without even knowing what an IP address is. I've put the old protection back in place for a month. Uncle G (talk) 16:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• @Uncle G: Thank you Chaipau (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

User:107.10.140.224

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

---

User:107.10.140.224 has been blocked several times for removing content from Stand and Deliver. The most recent block has just expired and he has returned to make the same edits again. Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 13:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one month. El_C 13:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks El_C, doubt he will learn so I'll see you back here in a month!!!!! Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 13:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Conduct issues at Talk:List of highest-grossing R-rated films

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

Ichika Kasuga has been displaying what I consider to be WP:CONDUCT issues primarily relating to WP:OWN, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF at Talk:List of highest-grossing R-rated films#Demon Slayer The Movie Mugen Train. I am fairly certain that they have also committed a WP:LOGOUT violation (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ichika Kasuga for evidence thereof), which is to say that I think the conduct of the IP in question should also be taken into account. There are also WP:CANVASS concerns regarding an edit where they asked that another editor join the discussion specifically to help them.

Examples (though really, reading the entire discussion gives a much better impression of the overall conduct – it's mostly about a consistent pattern of behaviour):

• Ichika Kasuga:
  • Again, I am telling you to use your sandbox for practising your edits.[43] – WP:OWN
  • Conclusion
    Unless and until Box Office Mojo or The Numbers corrected and add the missing grosses of various territories till then we will use this method of sourcing grosses[44] – WP:OWN
  • Conclusion- Let Box Office Mojo and The Number update the gross for missing territories then I switched the reference. till then I would continue with this method of sourcing[45] – WP:OWN, note conspicuous use of first-person singular pronoun
  • You are such an insane person[46] – blatant WP:NPA violation
  • If you keep inducing me that my edits are Original Research, then I would feel that you are either not happy about the success of the film or just trolling me.[47] – WP:AGF
  • Consensus
    Until Box Office Mojo and The Number update the gross of the film and added the missing territories then I will switch the reference. Till then, we all be use fxtop.com as source[48] – WP:OWN, note conspicuous use of first-person singular pronoun
• IP:
  • the way you are behaving looks no way different from monkey. Never mind my language but that is the only truth about you.[49] – blatant WP:NPA violation

Since there are conduct issues that may be actionable independent of any WP:SOCK behaviour, I'm posting here and to WP:SPI separately. TompaDompa (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

How can asking someone's help be wrong? I do not know what is wrong here. If a random user called him monkey then how can I get related? いちか かすが (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Ichika has been given a week off for bad-faith logged-out editing. I have no objection to someone extending that to an indef if deemed appropriate. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Impersonation accounts

Cards84666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), along with a few other accounts as admitted here. Cards84664 15:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged, thanks. GiantSnowman 15:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Also block Davidng914 as well, thanks. pandakekok9 (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

User :120.29.71.93

• 120.29.71.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Request IP block of edit privileges (WP:NOTHERE). A myriad of unsourced/unsubstantiated edits done to musician BLPs blindly adding/claiming sales without including any reference. See list of edits. Itssheenabautista (talk) 15:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

IP number change vandalism

96.231.48.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Appears to be a static IP: user's contributions since last August consist entirely of unsourced changes to musical artists' sales figures, other than a handful of verifiably incorrect edits at 2020 Calabasas helicopter crash. I've reverted a few and warned (their talk page is full of warnings but mine is the first for this month), but I haven't time today to review all of their edits to restore the correct information, hence posting here for community attention. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 15:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 2 months. I see that my Chipmunk Army has some competition (Nuts!). El_C 20:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Freespirit571

• Freespirit571 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Vandalism-only account targeting political biographies. Please do the needful. Thanks. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocked by Uncle G Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@JzG: Given the unambiguous vandalism of this user, AIV may have been more appropriate. Tol | Talk | Contribs (formerly Twassman) 18:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Tol, but this gets quicker attention. I'm not exactly unfamiliar with how this works... Guy (help! - typo?) 20:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@JzG: Ah, no problem! I don't have too much activity here at ANI; as it's often for more long-term issues I would have thought AIV would be quicker. Tol | Talk | Contribs (formerly Twassman) 20:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Just a quick note in case of an unblock request, while most of the vandalism is just obvious nonsense, this [50] was a serious BLP vio. Nil Einne (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Revdeleted. El_C 20:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Notes

Rapid escalation

• Frank6292010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi! I had reason to have a word with User:Frank6292010, who is using automated tools [51] [52] to undo non-vandal edits and leaving misleading edit summaries. His response has been to continue [53] [54] and leave me a {{uw-unsourced3}} warning [55] threatening to have me blocked. It's all a bit odd. Can anybody tap him with a clue-stick? ◦ Trey Maturin 15:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I should note that these edits were not made with RedWarn (notice the absence of the "RedWarn" tag). Judging by their user page there have been a several issues with other edits since February. ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 16:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I had a helper before Mvcg66b3r, who help me edit when I joined and use RedWarn on TV station's and networks. Frank6292010 ((talk)) 16:07, April 12 2021 (UTC)

Frank6292010, are you referring to yourself or Mvcg66b3r (talk · contribs) using RedWarn? If you are referring to yourself, as far as I can tell, this isn't true. You have not used RedWarn ever on this account. ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 18:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Frank6292010: Do you consider Placeholder for future article (RW 16.1) as a helpful edit summary (especially when reverting someone's edit)? M.Bitton (talk) 16:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

What on earth is this user doing? They added another discussion to this thread. Padgriffin (talk) 16:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

This would be Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1063#User:Frank6292010 reported by User:Mvcg66b3r, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1062#User:Frank6292010, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1056#Ownership problem at articles about TV stations again. The threat to call the police in the last ANI discussion has taken this beyond mere disruption. Uncle G (talk) 17:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not sure whether they're trolling us or if this is a textbook WP:COMPETENCE issue. ◦ Trey Maturin 17:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• I've just looked through Special:Contributions/Frank6292010. The article-space edits are the usual unsupported changing of facts and figures that weren't supported before, that one sees all too regularly in certain classes of articles from lots of people. But any project or user talk page edits go rapidly off the rails, as they just did to this very page. Uncle G (talk) 17:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • This user was here a week or to ago in a spat with the indeffed Theshavia29912 (talk · contribs) who has a couple of globally-blocked sockpuppets. While I don't think they're part of the sock farm, they're two sides of the same coin, and almost got indeffed at their previous ANI appearance. Acroterion (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1063#Edit warring at As Told by Ginger appears to be two other people. Have you got two incidents confused, by any chance? Uncle G (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Yes, I did, they were in a spat with Mvcg66b3r (talk · contribs) - similar subject areas, and the same sort of behavior. Unfortunately, they all tend to look the same after a while. Acroterion (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• I have some sympathy with Neutralhomer in the January discussion, but it's difficult to see what can actually be done when all attempts to converse meander off into an incomprehensible series of actions. Uncle G (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

And it continues: another revert saying it was made with RedWarn when it wasn't, another nonsensical edit summary. ◦ Trey Maturin 17:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and they 'thanked' me for the edit that they then reverted. Are they just pressing all the random buttons all the time? ◦ Trey Maturin 17:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Disruption at Talk:Nazi Germany

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

---

A while back there was a discussion on Talk:Nazi Germany about what should be put in the "Predecessor" and "Successor" fields in the article's infobox, especially concerning Poland. This eventually lead to an RfC, which lead to a consensus as to what to include in those fields.

Now comes a brand new editor, User:Txbiassss, whose account was created two days ago, and has 15 edits, all of them to Talk:Nazi Germany, and all arguing about the "Predecessor" and "Successor" fields. The editor has been pointed to the RfC, and has been told that there is currently a consensus, and that the way to overturn that consensus is to star another RfC, as unnecessary as that would be, but the editor simply want to argue. In the middle of that discussion, a even newer editor, Talk:Hoksalik, dropped by to post a comment -- their one and only edit to Wikipedia -- supporting Txbiassss. [56]

Several of the editors who frequent Talk:Nazi Germany are of the opinion that Txbiassss (and their apparent sock Hoksalik) are not legitimate editors, but are disrupting the page with what appears to be trolling. Such disruption could be controlled by topic banning these editors from Nazi Germany, broadly construed, but they don't seem to be here to contribute to building the encyclopedia, and should probably be indeffed as WP:NOTHERE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Other regular contributors at Talk:Nazi Germany may wish to comment on this: @Diannaa, Slatersteven, RandomCanadian, Levivich, Kierzek, K.e.coffman, Snowfire, and R-41: Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Fixing @SnowFire:. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Whether it's Kengir evading their block or somebody else (I have not taken the time to investigate whether this is worthy of taking to SPI); the RfC is clear enough evidence that there was consensus for the present version; and a new one would be patently disruptive. WP:IDHT comes to mind; and the "two" "new" editors should be politely pointed towards it. That or they're NOTHERE socks and then we just quietly apply RBI to this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Considering that KIENGIR recently posted a comment on hu.wiki which appeared to be a solicitation for another editor proxying for them (which was not accepted by the other editor),(this exchange. (machine translation link) it seems as if KIENGIR socking is a possibility. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Somewhat unrelated question. When I click on Hoksalik's profile, I can't see "user contributions" on the left as normal. Anyone know why? I figured it out. Beyond My Ken just to let you know you dropped the ANI notice onto a non-existent article talk page rather than a user talk page. I've fixed that for you now — Czello 17:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up my mess. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea if they are shocking, block evading, or trolling (I suspect it's POV pushing, some nationalist agenda or other). What I do know is they are clearly (and adamantly) refusing to accept consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I've taken the time to look at this. Neither of the two accounts seems to have a total mastery of English (further details not provided per BEANS) so that would fit, if marginally, with our prime suspect. The arguments bear some similarity. The more suspicious element is of course already highlighted above. I'll take it to SPI; it's likely that if the two accounts are not our suspect that they are at least related to each other. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

The SPI is now at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stubes99— Diannaa (talk) 19:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

So 3 accounts related to each other but I presume neither Kiengir nor the older master... NOTHERE would be in order in any case. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I was pinged, so I came over here. I have stayed out of the recent postings on the talk page for the GA rated article Nazi Germany as I did not believe it was necessary to take part; consensus on the matter was reached and frankly, I did not want to feed the apparent troll. BMK's posting above is a fair chronology of the talk page events discussed. Kierzek (talk) 21:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

So apparently unrelated to either suspected master but confirmed to each other per the SPI (according to Oshwah's inquiry). That still leaves space for a NOTHERE block (both on grounds of general behaviour [trolling] and of socking). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

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

User:0utspoken exp0sd

• 0utspoken exp0sd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vegaphobia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

New user replacing sourced content @Vegaphobia with unsourced content and attempted to blank the lead several times, see filter log. Multiple template warnings sent, and a personal warning by me:[57] about possibly getting blocked. The user then threaten to make another account if blocked:[58]. Jerm (talk) 17:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

User made a personal attack against me:[59]. Jerm (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Jerm, all cleared up, I think. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit Thank you. Jerm (talk) 18:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

About user Jingiby

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

---

There is a person by the name of Jingiby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that all he does is edit Macedonian pages and makes them Pro Bulgarian. How can a publication allow this if it wants to be creditable. Then he reports you when you change it to real facts because it's true and then block us ?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.169.134 (talk • contribs)

See WP:TRUTH. Also, please notify the other editor. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I've sent an ANI notice to Jingiby. Jerm (talk) 18:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotse_Delchev

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yane_Sandanski

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krste_Misirkov

and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yordan_Piperkata&diff=902709275&oldid=902708954 These edits from this user are one sided

On the other hand the Macedonian Wikipedia does not agree with this user edits for his disrupting editing. https://mk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%BE%D1%86%D0%B5_%D0%94%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%B2

https://mk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%88%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B5_%D0%A1%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8

https://mk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D1%80%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5_%D0%9F%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2_%D0%9C%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2

I think that all articles that this user wrote on the English Wikipedia should have https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.169.134 (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

The Macedonian wikipedia does not mention about BG

I accuse Jigby of

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Here_to_build_an_encyclopedia ] We can also see that Jigby was also given blocks on the Macedonian Wikipedia https://mk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%98%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BD%D0%B0:%D0%94%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA?type=block&user=&page=Jingiby&wpdate=&tagfilter=&subtype=

Hi everybody. Exept this IP has called me a troll I suppose it is using multiple accounts, as this one: User:77.29.107.157. Quite a few accusations of a single-edit editor. Suffice it to say that the mentioned topics are systematically attacked by a set of various accounts located in North Macedonia and Australia, where the largest Macedonian diaspora resides. Such edits are usually oppenly destructive and there are no attempts to have a meaningful discussion on talk, or to provide credible academic sources in support of their view. I suppose this account is in contact with the group, which declared me its enemy last year. And another time I have drew the attention of the administrators here for such accusation, periodically trying to discredit me and related probably to this group called WIKIPEDIA WARRIORS: THE NEW FRONT LINES IN THE BATTLE FOR MACEDONIA. As for the Macedonian Wikipedia, there even the page about North Macedonia bears the old name of the country, and its constitutional current name has been declared a mockery. The page is fully protected to avoid actualization. So much for its objectivity. Jingiby (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Jingby there is no objectivity in your wikipedia edits also you have been blocked on the Macedonian Wikipedia once and unblocked because you called other editors with bad name and pushing your Bulgarian propaganda there Ithink this user's writing articles it is a propagandist he is just pushing Bulgarian Propaganda on Wikipedia and ask that you sanction him. On that video also there is a photo of him answering to someone that on BG wikipedia transfers content to English Wikipedia and that transfering content to the MK Wikipedia is not going well that at that time he is blocked and his edits reverted i think that is clearly a signal that he is pushing an agenda here on Wikipedia and that he should be sanctioned. It is not true that I am using mutiple accounts he is lying about that this is a personal attack what he accusess me of also he wrongfully blocked users that tried to report him to the admins of Wikipedia for his disruptive editing and reverting back his view of a certain Articles on North Macedonia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dikaiosyni

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dank_macedonian_lord

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:79.125.168.200

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Macedonia1913&diff=prev&oldid=965791960

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:109.245.33.152

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:178.221.16.240

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:70.50.7.170 Also it is not his function to say whether a country name change is good or bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.169.134 (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment: I am afraid I have to disagree completely with the IP in that Jingiby's wikipedia edits have "no objectivity". Jingiby does not need any special introductions here; a well-respected editor in the difficult Balkan topic area, whose Contributions log speaks for itself in that he worked tirelessly in maintaining WP:NPOV in the contentious topic area which is famed for being target of IPs and nationalist editors whose goal is to promote all kinds of political propaganda. In my opinion, this filling lacks credibility and one can easily tell that from the way the IP has written it and responded to Jingiby's comment. The ANI should either ignore these IPs fillings and/or use scrutiny against them for what it appears they are filling reports just to harass and discourage editors such as Jingiby, whose views do not consort to theirs, from "getting in the way" of their disruptive effort in promoting certain Macedonian nationalism political propaganda which have no place in Wikipedia. Good day.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 04:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

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

• • Scrutiny of the IPs editing may well be in order here. As for Jingiby having been blocked elsewere in the past, that is none of our concern here. Mjroots (talk) 05:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

    We have crossed while I was closing, but I will keep it for a while like this.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Just for the record, I fully agree with SilentResident, Mjroots and Ymblanter; someone's been trying to waste our time here. Apcbg (talk) 06:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE, anti-Iranian and anti-Semitism behaviour by AlHathal99

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

---

AlHathal99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Edits my userpage with the edit summary Loser who steals other people’s history

Know that stealing someone's history is not an easy task. Also, know that the Arabian peninsula's coastline is larger than Persia's, so it is the Arabian gulf/coast. Alexander simply didn't see the other side.

I'm assuming this is meant as some kind of racist insult towards Jews, Shias and Persians; Shias/Persians = Jews of Europe

WP:OR personal theories which makes him think his edits are justified, with the classic message of 'Don’t change history please' [60]

Changed Persian Gulf to Arabian Gulf at Arab states of the Persian Gulf twice [61] [62]

Decreased the Shia presence in several areas, and changed 'Persian Gulf' to 'Arabian Gulf' [63]

Changed Persian Gulf to Arabian Gulf at Kabsa [64]

Disruptively removes an entire infobox [65]

EDIT: Attempted to remove this thread twice; [66] [67]

I could go on, but this is basically what type of edits he does, clearly WP:NOTHERE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Its bad, I some of his edits and he should not be allowed on here. DXLB Muzikant (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Nice grammer me, i mean to say that i reverted some of his edits DXLB Muzikant (talk) 19:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

He just edited my userpage once more, lol [68] --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked for 31 hours in response to the disruption to this page and HistoryofIran's user page, but have no objection to further discussion and action related to the original disruptive editing allegations. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Recommend permablock This is the sort of NOTHEREness HoI gets a lot of. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Deepfriedokra: This is indeed quite NOTHERE. You are free, welcome and recommended to adjust the length of the block already set by Rosguill... :) Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• I've actually set the block duration not to expire. I think the nature of the fabrications and provocations call for some serious assurances before editing should resume by this account. El_C 21:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Special:Contributions/74.51.144.75 and WP:VERIFY

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

User is back making changes without appropriate sources. [69][70][71]. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 20:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one month. Déjà vu! El_C 21:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

User 174.89.129.51 repeated made false accusations against me and other users

The user 174.89.129.51 repeatedly made false accusations against me and other Wikipedia users in the past based on their contribution history.

My encounter with this user started when I reverted an edit on FreshCo because they made an edit which was unconstructive and their edit summary was misleading, so I left a warning message on their talk page. After that, they accused me of edit warring/disruptive editing on my talk page and the FreshCo talk page when I did not do any of that. They left rude comments on what I should do and threatened to report me, despite doing nothing wrong. I warned them of harassment and offered kind suggestions on Wikipedia policies that they should read because they appear to have little understanding of the policies, and now they are accusing me of harassment, which makes no sense.

This user has previously harassed another user on April 2, 2021 and left rude comments on their talk page too. Edipio ^💬 21:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week. Something has to give. El_C 21:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Flagrant personal attack from dynamic IP editor

Yesterday, I reverted this puzzling edit because piping links in a "See also" section to something other than the actual title is unproductive. Today, the editor who made that edit returned from a different IP and reverted it with an edit summary characterizing my revert as a "jihad." This is quite possibly the most incendiary thing I have ever been on the receiving end of on Wikipedia and at minimum the edit summary should be revdel'd. --Sable232 (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week. Revdel'd. El_C 21:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. --Sable232 (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Bruno Rene Vargas draftwarring

• Bruno Rene Vargas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've had previous issues with the editor, issues I felt we had put behind us. But today, I saw a draft I had made, Draft:TAR (film) was randomly moved to userspace by the editor and took the space for themselves. They cited "It seems unfair to me that someone like you who months ago reproached my way of creating drafts now does the same and does not suffer what I suffered at the time with Draft: Cocaine Bear. I proceed to send your draft to your personal workshop because I consider that my draft was created with a better format and information, just as you did with User:Bruno Rene Vargas/Cocaine Bear (film)". So this initially made me think I accidentally created a duplicate draft of one they had made, but this isn't the case. Bruno is essentially upset with me I had created content in that namespace before them. So I reverted this action, restoring my edits to the draftspace and telling them that they had not previously made a version of the page so their actions were unjust and taking credit away from myself for my edits. However, Bruno again moved my work to a new userspace location. They are at this point blatantly trying to discredit my work based off old beef I thought we had squashed. Rusted AutoParts 21:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts: Again, being honest with you is not the first time that it happens to me that I am creating an article and then when I go to publish it I find things like this, this or this. I would not care if it were not the fact that it was you who did it, but taking into account the fact that you reproach my actions but you continue to do the same thing that you criticize so much. In all the examples, including the two that you created today, the same thing happened to me, because after your claim I decided to create drafts that at least had a reference and specified that they are movies. The problem is that when I want to create them I find that you already created it in a lazy way and without even a reference, sometimes you even go to the extreme of creating redirects instead of drafts as such. Speaking of this particular article even though I hadn't created it before you, I was working on it and when I wanted to publish it I couldn't because you had created it again without any reference. This article was only the straw that broke the camel's back since for several weeks I have been putting up with your lazy way of creating drafts and that is why I proceeded to move your draft and make space for mine. It should be clarified that when you moved my draft it did not matter to you that I was the first to create the draft, you only gave importance to who created it with more information. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 21:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't give you invitation to just shove my work out of the way. You just never understood my umbridge with you from the get go (being the time between making the page and then adding content), thus conflating our editing practices and now you've been chomping at the bit to get one back at me. This ain't it, and a total affront to cooperative editing. Rusted AutoParts 22:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

As for Cocaine Bear, it was because @Anthony Appleyard: had already explained why your requests to merge the two drafts couldn't be done. THe issue should've stopped there, but you were really desperate to be the one to make the page so you kept trying greasy tactics to seize it back. I moved yours to Userspace to put an end to it. That is not comparable to this scenario, where you're literally discrediting my work and hijacking the draftspace because I beat you to the punch. You did not have a duplicate TAR draft to make a case for yourself. That is not a valid excuse to make so many needless userspace articles just so you can be awarded credit. When you see the draft was already made, you edit and add to it, not shove it around. Rusted AutoParts 22:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

And why didn't you say that when Vistadan made this page movement instead of just adding it to my draft created many hours before? So if another user does it there is no problem but if I do it you consider it a "greasy practice". The only thing that can be seen is that there is quite a bit of hypocrisy on your part. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 22:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Because I saw an admin make a definitive decision about the situation. Whether I’m acting hypocritical or not is not relevant to the fact you stole a draftspace I created content in just off the basis you didn’t like I created it prior to you finishing your edit. There is no excuses for that conduct, and your persistence to do it after I reverted you shows it was just a means to spite me. Rusted AutoParts 22:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Honestly Bruno Rene Vargas, was it so difficult to just add what you did to the already-existent draft? Isn't it easier to do that rather than start fighting over something as petty as who first created a draft that's currently 3,074 bytes long? —El Millo (talk) 22:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Facu-el Millo: Of course it is, in fact very often I do it, the problem is when a user like Rusted AutoParts creates drafts following the same method as the critic. Hopefully all this will serve as a lesson and that the next time he creates he will do it with at least one reference and not only with empty templates or redirects.

It doesn't seem to be because of the scarcity of information on the subject rather than "laziness" on RAP's part. Citing diffs such as these three ([72], [73]. [74]) is also disingenuous, given that RAP almost immediately filled them to this, this, and this, in the span of no more than 10 minutes or so from that first edit. Granted, those are still quite bare-bone, but they're not as rudimentary as you tried to make it appear. —El Millo (talk) 23:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Plus, editing practices and past problems with one another aside, how is it justifiable for an editor to just cast away a draft to take the location? Bruno tends to take a situation and twist it to be about something else to avoid the topic at hand. Rusted AutoParts 23:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

That same question I asked myself when Vistadan did the same with my draft and whether you want to accept it or not, you were part of it without anyone ever calling you. Obviously, creation practices must be taken into account since they are the cause of all this conflict. If you had not created those articles without any reference, this conflict would not have arisen, so it is quite silly of you to say that I tend to twist the debates when I only bring up the causes of said action. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

You're literally doing that right now. The complaint is: you hijacked an already existing draftspace to prove a misguided point. You're now talking about "but Cocaine Bear". One doesn't need an invitation to provide input or intervene in a conflict. I found myself starting to check your edit history to double check if you'd already made an article or not so that I wouldn't create duplicates. I saw the dispute. That's it. Vistadan may or may not have edited inappropriately, but once the admin explained the scenario it should've stopped there. This should answer the quetions about that irrelevant situation, other than a poor comparison you're trying to make where my moving your draft due to a dispute is comparable to you moving my draft to make room for your draft that didn't exist yet. Please stick to the point. You were out of line shoving my edits out twice. Rusted AutoParts 23:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I wish to point out this is the exact behaviour I had warned of in their request for Page Mover status. Rusted AutoParts 11:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

This unnecessary intervention of yours adds to the long list of occasions in which you, without being even remotely involved, have appeared to give your opinion and even intervene with the sole purpose of harassing me. You reached a point where any conflict that I had with another user appeared and you took the opportunity to criticize me, that's why I had to warn you that if you did it one more time I would report you according to WP: IBAN, something in which that you are very familiar with. That is why a few minutes later when you realized that I had a better chance of winning that dispute and you were sanctioned again, you decided to give a truce, so that everything is on good terms. And so it was until again you started creating articles from redirects and things like that, being you who criticized my lazy way of creating articles, now you do it and worse because I at least put a reference when creating my drafts, you on many occasions directly only create redirects. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 13:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

You are being incredibly disingenuous about multiple things. I wanted the truce because I had clearly inflamed things to a needlessly hostile point. It wasn’t some opportunistic motion, it was “this doesn’t need to be such a bitter thing so I should cool it down”. And you’re still obsessing over the edit practice thing. Like Facu-el pointed out the drafts I made were fleshed out within minutes of its creation. I keep telling you what my issue with your practice was but at this point I think you’re just refusing to get my point. Either way, this still. does not. Address the core reason we are at ANI right now: you objectively moved my draft out of the way because you were upset I made it first. It is a very scummy move. Rusted AutoParts 14:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

More dirty is your move, request that I create the articles with more information (which I currently do) so that you have time to create it in a lazy way through a redirect or an empty template. And you always excuse yourself that you keep expanding it after a few minutes, which doesn't justify the lazy way you create them. I challenge you to find a single draft that I have created in the last two months that at least doesn't have a reference and I specified that it is a movie at the time of creation. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 14:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

”More dirty is your move, request that I create the articles with more information (which I currently do)” holy god I can’t even count how many times I’ve told you the issue was the time between creation and expansion on your end. I told you this on your damn talk page yesterday! I don’t know if the goal is to just frustrate and WP:FILIBUSTER a different point than the issue raised, but I’m going to keep reiterating it so it’s not forgotten through your constant whataboutism on incorrect points: you shoved someone else’s work out of the location so you could have it. It’s improper and considering you did it twice, disgustingly uncivil. I said prior it’s frustrating to run into edit conflicts trying to create pages before but I would never shove the editors work out of the way to be pointed. I’m disappointed you couldn’t offer me that same courtesy. Rusted AutoParts 15:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Your problem is that you take it very personal, that I know at no time have I overstepped you and you are already about to fall into insults by leaving comments like the previous one. In this link you confess that you intend to create a "rival article" every time you find a draft created by me, as if it were a competition. Again this reinforces my speech that you only came to harass me by bringing up problems that I had in another Wikipedia. Minutes later your next edit is this, where it clearly shows how you can't control your emotions and you go out and write unnecessary insults like this. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Holy god, more whataboutism. I literally told you shortly after that exchange that it was from frustration, and not a genuine retaliatory measure I would take. The Captain Marvel edit summary, which literally had no point here, was in regards to a frustratingly persistent edit vandal. The third one I was literally punished and blocked for. It’s ancient history that you’re using as an excuse to not address the point. You allege I take it personal when in the first exchange we had you immediately got intensely confrontational, pulling this same whataboutism tactic. Stop it and stick to the issue. Rusted AutoParts 15:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Both of you stop. This sniping back and forth is not helpful. Wait on other people to look into this and offer advice, remember WP:NPA is a rule. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

It’s hard to see what all this is about, or why anyone should care. As El Millo asked earlier “just add what you did to the already-existent draft..Isn't it easier to do that rather than start fighting over something as petty as who first created a draft”. I couldn’t see an answer to that. Why does it matter who created the draft page? “An article created in draftspace does not belong to the editor who created it, and any other user may edit, publish, redirect, merge or seek deletion of any draft”. DeCausa (talk) 21:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The issue is Bruno taking the already existing draft and moving it elsewhere so they could be attributed credit. It wouldn’t be so problematic to me if this wasn’t so clear the motive behind it. He did not create another version at an earlier time, it’s not filming, it’s not in violation of any draftspace rules. Bruno simply did it because they perceive me as hypocritical and wanted to make a swipe. If anything this shows the editor should not have page move privileges as they’re misusing them. Rusted AutoParts 21:15, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

So, @Bruno Rene Vargas:, without getting into why you did that, what’s stopping you saying you won’t do that again? DeCausa (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, you're right @DeCausa:, I promise not to do it anymore but please @Rusted AutoParts: stop creating drafts without any reference or redirecting them. And please also stop tracking my contributions because this is clearly a sign that you constantly look at my edit history or how do you explain the fact of editing minutes after me a draft that was more than 6 months abandoned? Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Because I fail to understand why you wouldn’t just add content to the draft that already exists. Why do you need Parasite deleted when if you wish to contribute stuff you could just do exactly that? If you’re making requests, then I’m making it a deal, if I stop making my drafts like that, you will return my version of TAR back to where it was as there was legitimately no reason for it to be relocated. Rusted AutoParts 21:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

At least now you are acknowledging that the way you create them is not correct. But I am not going to give up a draft that I have worked on and expanded substantially. I have already lost a draft thanks to your intervention months ago so I will not allow him to do it again. For my part, I have already said that I will not do that type of movement again, and if you do not want to stop creating them the way you currently do, that is your problem, I do not come here to negotiate anything just to ask you to put in a little more effort when starting a draft. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 21:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

So my work should be lost just because you made retroactive edits to your version when it pointed out how small it was? I shouldn’t have to lose my version just because you feel wronged in a previous disagreement I have countless times explained to you why that was done. You can’t just them engage in tit for tat warfare, make demands then not meet middle ground. So then I have 0 incentive to do what you wish because you’re unwilling to revert your wrongdoing. I guess there’s no deal then. Rusted AutoParts 21:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, the only one who keeps talking about "deals" is you, I never negotiated anything with anyone, I simply said that I will not do this type of movement again. You prefer to continue creating drafts in a lazy way with the excuse that you do not want to lose this draft, it is paradoxical that you have repeated ad nauseam the fact that I am a person who always wants to be the first author and it is you who continues to prolong this thread where you can only see "a war of invalids" and whether you want to recognize it or not, both parties have been arguing over nonsense instead of investing that time in continuing to expand this great project. And let it be clear that unlike you if I wanted to collaborate with you many times leaving links to Variety Insight of drafts that you created but I suppose that none of that mattered to you. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 22:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I proposed a deal because you're asking me to do something I feel should be met with a compromise. And I absolutely made attempts at collaboration with you, I made additions toward the Draft:Untitled Steven Spielberg film. I didn't kick up a fuss about not getting to create it first, I helped flesh it out. You fundamentally wronged me here. It's not an argument over who is first, it's an argument over you literally throwing my already existing version out of the way for no reason outside of pure spite. I have spoken "ad nauseum" about this because you just refuse to get the point. THis was not about either of our edit practices, nor was it about Cocaine Bear, or an immature edit I made *9* years ago. You used page moving in a malicious way and expect me to agree to your request while not respecting mine. I want to put this to bed but you won't allow it because the only way I'm to be satisfied this is a dead issue for us is if your wrongdoing to me is undone. Rusted AutoParts 22:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I suggest the two of you put the past behind you and agree a compromise approach going forward. If you don’t, I’m guessing, there will be a loss patience with this bickering and imposition of some sort of editing restrictions/interaction ban that neither of you will like. DeCausa (talk) 22:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The funny thing is, like I put up above I was under the impression this issue was put to rest. Rusted AutoParts 22:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

This is preposterous. Bruno Rene Vargas reverted relevant, reliable sourced information to the Draft:Parasite (TV series) because, apparently to him, Rusted AutoParts is coming to add content just in order to bother [him] again. This goes along with the clearly disingenuous way in which this user has been using diffs against RAP, like the aforementioned Captain Marvel diff against a relentless and self-admitted vandal, and the one from 2012, which was nine years ago and for which RAP already paid the price. —El Millo (talk) 22:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, seeing as @Rusted AutoParts: no has intention of changing, I have no choice but to support the block proposal that @DeCausa: mentioned above, for my part I think that would be the best for both of us, an editorial block regarding the creation of drafts and that has a minimum duration of 6 months. I prefer that only two of us are harmed instead of continuing to waste time and patience with other users. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

You are being so disingenuous. You are claiming I have no intention of changing when I am literally trying to reach a compromise with you. Would you abide from a request made by someone who is actively wronging you and not willing to meet middle ground to resolve the problem? If anything the course of action is interaction ban if you're that dedicated to not reaching a compromise. Rusted AutoParts 22:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

How about addressing the comment? You reverted a good edit saying that it was made to spite you. —El Millo (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Facu-el Millo:, the truth is that your interventions here are quite unnecessary, or did Rusted AutoParts ask you to come and help him here, or are you his lawyer and I'm not aware of it? It seems quite unfair to me that a reversion of me seems absurd and you are not able to recognize that it is very obvious that Rusted AutoParts is continuously looking at my edit history. The problem is not that he add information, the problem is that he do it only 20 minutes after my edit when he had more than 6 months to extend the draft if that had been his intention. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

And here comes the WP:BADFAITH. I did not summon Facu, they responded on their own volition. This is ANI, this issue was brought here specifically for 3rd party input as just edit warring over the space is just pathetic and not something I wish or want to do. Is it not more likely I am seeing when you make responses here so I can respond? I saw you putting a perfectly alright draft up for deletion off the basis that a sock made it when I felt the draft could have just been given the updates you seem willing to submit. I am fairly certain you were told before not all of Starzoner's drafts need to be rubbished. Rusted AutoParts 22:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, if you remember it, it is due to the fact that again on that occasion you entered without anyone having called you, just one more sample of your constant vigilance towards my contributions and my talk page. Precisely because I saw that Starzoner was practically the only main author, I proposed its deletion and that is allowed, what is not allowed is to delete a draft in which several users have added enough information, which is what you did in order to avoid deletion and so annoy me. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

People do not need invitation or direct invovlement to get involved in an issuer or discussion. Also, My purpose in life is to not come in and give you hassle, so knock it off with the blatant incivility and paranoia. We're clearly not going to say anything to one another that breaks this cycle of bickering, so let's agree o

I'm admittedly surprised to see this kind of quarrel arise between two editors I respect. I know it is frustrating to work on establishing a draft, only for what could be perceived as a "low effort" alternative swoop in and take up its space first. However, we do not own any of the pages here and concerning ourselves over being the original creator can be disruptive - as it has become here. I suggest you both simply consider what is best for Wikipedia and abandon all precious thought over who creates what. Any shoddy draft can be edited and built upon, as I have looked to do, ironically with the latest example being Draft:Rothko (film), created by Bruno Rene Vargas. You guys know better. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 07:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Bruno Rene Vargas, Rusted AutoParts I'll start by saying that I don't have the energy or motivation to read through the entire discussion above, or through all the many links that have been given. I think that the original complaint was that BRV moved a draft that RAP had written into RAP's userspace, so that they could create a draft at the same title; BRV's rationale is that it was a bare-bones draft, and their intention was to create a better one. Then you both got into something of a tit-for-tat about problems you've had in the past about working on drafts. If that's a fair assessment, here's my advice:

• Bruno Rene Vargas: moving a draft into someone else's userspace, so that you can create your own draft, and with an edit summary like the one you used, does seem quite WP:POINTY. There may sometimes be a justification for it, but I'd suggest that the first thing to do would be to talk to the other editor and see whether you can work on the draft together.
• Both of you: you both seem to be interested in working on upcoming films, where creation of a draft prior to the release of the film seems like a sensible approach. I would suggest that the first thing you do when you sit down to start a new draft should be to spend a bit of time looking to see whether someone has already started one. You can set the search tool to look only in draft space and user space, so it should be quite a straightforward task of putting in a couple of appropriate search terms to see whether any such draft exists. If you find that there's already one there, rather than create your own parallel draft, work on the existing one. If it is in userspace, you'd need to speak to the user first, but this is supposed to be a collaborative project - that shouldn't be an issue. Having two drafts on the go in parallel is a really bad idea - the work involved in performing a history merge is non-trivial, and should be avoided if at all possible.

Do you think there's any chance you would both be able to put this behind you, and try to do a better job of working collaboratively on a topic area that you both seem interested in? GirthSummit _(blether) 11:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I’ll make a slight correction that Bruno’s intention was more retribution for a previous interaction as opposed to wanting to make the page better but at this point I find this inane back and forth draining. It’s apparent I’m not getting my version back so I’ll let this one go. I do want to work collaboratively, this is why I sought to nip this in the bud last month when I saw how inflamed the situation had gotten.

Bruno, all I ask this time is, again, never use your page moving abilities like that again. If you have problems with the drafts quality, have at it, flesh it out, make it better. Don’t make new userspace pages (I’ll get out ahead of potential “you did it first” by reiterating it was to end a conflict an admin already made a decision about). And I don’t see us needing an interaction ban if we agree here and now to stop going to one another’s talk pages to squabble about editing practices. I’ll make sure at the least when I start a draft there is a source in place before saving. Can we please finally bury this? Rusted AutoParts 12:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, as I had said before, I will no longer do that type of movement and I agree with your proposal @Rusted AutoParts:. Bruno Vargas _{Eñe'ẽ avec moi} 12:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to close (Better collaboration skills needed)

Dear all,

In regards to this situation, it appears that both Bruno and Rusted (Put names alphabetically) recognize the need for better collaboration. This is part of the human condition where sometimes we misunderstand each other and get upset. It happens, yet the best method (and sometimes there will be times where it is not upheld due to the fact of the human condition), is to think 30 seconds before publishing and edit when in a calm state of mind.

In addition to the suggestions noted by Girthsummit, a practical suggestion for not losing your work is using a personal sandbox and then transfer information from personal sandbox to the draft. This may help prevent edit conflicts like this.

Blessings,

Yaakov W. Yaakov Wa. (talk) 03:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:GAMING by recently created account

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

---

• Jserranoq87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Doesn't seem to be here to build an encyclopedia. Cynicism (or flair, call it how you want) naturally leads me to believe they might be a block evading sock trying to game a semi-protection or eventually an ECP. See also the boatload of accounts (most without an edit) beginning with "Jserrano" + number or "Jserranoq" + number... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. El_C 02:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Thanks! Wasn't AIV for obvious vandalism and ANI for NOTHERE or at least slightly more complex stuff? Anyway, bureaucracy aside, Special:Contributions/74.104.130.117 certainly needs a block ASAP so if you could oblige... Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)  Already done. Right, I overlooked the iterations, which is why I retracted that (AIV) one minute later. Of course, a vandalism-only account will find it difficult to get autoconfirmed! But maybe that's what the iterations are for...? Who knows. Or cares. El_C 02:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Teahouse#Assistance_requested - Well... Clearly I was naive. sigh... - jc37 02:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

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

POV pushing on articles related to India

I previously reported this at WP:AIV and was told to bring it here. Peter ParkerJSR108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been engaging in POV pushing on multiple articles related to India. The first few were to add religious bias to Ganges ([75] [76] [77]). The user was warned about disruptive editing, sourcing, and NPOV. The user then went on to edit war or make edits against consensus on Narendra Modi (possibly a WP:ARBIPA issue), including removing cited material reflecting negatively on Modi ([78] [79] [80] [81]). The user has also refused to engage in discussion, saying the multiple warnings on the talk page "irritate" and "vandalise", and made snide, curt replies to a welcome notice of all things ([82]) and to talk page warnings ([83], [84]). So in summary we have a borderline edit warring violation, a potential WP:ARBIPA problem, failure to adhere to WP:NPOV, and a user who is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 04:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm new to this place,I have stopped engaging in editing over here cause I know maximum editors are biased towards the left. They are removing content which is sourced but no action is taken against them on Narendra Modi page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter ParkerJSR108 (talk • contribs)

Warned. Peter, as I note on your talk page, if you do decide to stay, you'll need to slow down considerably, in a number of ways. Again, good luck. El_C 11:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Well, El C has already given sage advice on the user's talk. The most problematic conduct in this report is the edit warring and removal of content. Intent matters though, and a good-faith rationale for removing this content (which is where the crux of the issue seems to lie) can be made. For non-public figures the content would be questionable per WP:BLPCRIME and so the argument of 'unproven allegations' is plausible on the surface, but Modi is a public figure, and so the content is fine. As the editor is a newer participant to the project, reasonably they're not expected to be familiar with these editing norms and nuances. Luckily, the editor's rationale does not appear to be that the sources are biased (a difficult argument to make against, say, Reuters), which would be far more indicative of non-neutral editing. However, to Peter, I might suggest that controversial topic areas that one feels strongly about isn't a good place to learn to edit in. If I were you, I'd probably edit in an area I feel less strongly about; Wikipedia has a lot of articles on less controversial India-related topics, and you may enjoy editing about those, or a different topic entirely. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

User not making constructive edits and has already been warned

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

---

This user: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2600:1702:760:1680:FC8C:3771:9114:55B7 has been making some unconstructive edits to pages about animated tv series and has already been warned multiple times. Not sure if all their edits were unconstructive but I came here just to let you guys know and you guys can make the final decision. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 13:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 2 months. Third recent block for this range. El_C 15:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! I just saw them while looking at recent changes and they said something about Lin-Manuel Miranda creating the theme song for The Magic School Bus while providing no sources. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 15:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Incivil comments made by User:Memz.exe on my talk page

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

---

In this message by the user, the user blatantly made a personal attack. Ahmetlii (talk) 13:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Final warned, was very close to a NOTHere block based on their overall shenanigans and would not object if someone else goes there directly. StarM 13:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Based on their talk page, which includes them putting in their own block and unblock messages, plus the fact that they've been here 3 weeks and haven't even attempted to make any kind of a proper edit, they're just here to play and mess around. I say we just show them the door and lock it behind them. Canterbury Tail talk 13:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest anyone making a comment such as the one Ahmetlii received should be blocked automatically. Jeppiz (talk) 14:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for WP:NOTHERE. Yup. Not going to waste time with this user. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Inaccurate decision on drafts!

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

---

Moved from WP:AN

 – Black Kite (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I've been editing Wikipedia for more than 2 years. My articles are never promotional in any way, few days back all my work was targeted to be marked as advertisement by User:QueerEcofeminist. I have no issue with that, it is that administrator User:OhNoitsJamie deleted all my work with no proper checking and when I requested him to restore my work (which for sure was not promotional eg. - Draft:Youth Against Rape), he denied by saying I've wasted lot of his time? It is not the purpose of Wikipedia administrators to rule every user. I don't have any kind of fight with User:OhNoitsJamie. I just believe this mistake should be corrected and the warning given to me should also be removed. Thanks and regards -- Pratyush.shrivastava (talk) 08:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

You are free to remove the warning yourself. 331dot (talk) 08:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Although, of course, be aware that removing the warning does not invalidate its contents and that you still ought to take it under consideration.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Well... Youth Against Rape was originally deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youth Against Rape. You then created a one-line stub about it (a fund-raising cycle ride for an organization that doesn't have an article either). If it wasn't promotional, it was certainly non-notable. However, I am far more interested in your creation of Draft:Vaibhav Palhade, a draft about an obviously non-notable person. This article was originally created in mainspace by now globally-locked user User:Viralvilla and then tiresomely re-created (after being deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vaibhav Palhade) no less than four times by also-now-locked accounts which turned out to be his sockpuppets. Why did you decide to write that, I wonder? Black Kite (talk) 13:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• Courtesy ping for @Pratyush.shrivastava, OhNoitsJamie, and QueerEcofeminist: that I have moved this from AN. Black Kite (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd made similar observations as User:Black Kite. In my experience, resurrecting articles about clearly non-notable people and subjects created by blocked editors is often an indication of WP:PAID editing. The articles in question stubs that were hardly worth restoring, hence my comment about time-wasting; not just my time, but the time of everyone involved with rejecting the numerous articles deemed to be non-notable that were created by this editor. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. I would have blocked this editor straight away if they had been new, but they have been editing for 3 years, hence bringing it here. Black Kite (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Not really though, between registering their account in late 2018 and August of last year they made all of 25 edits. And as far as I can see they never did directly address the fact that they were CU blocked for some really lame socking. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• I thought the username was familiar. For context: this user has been blocked for socking recently. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Meh, I hadn't noticed that. I think therefore given the obvious evidence as regarding Vaibhav Palhade, an SPI would be a waste of time and an indef is the next point. Done. Black Kite (talk) 18:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

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

I would like to officially complain about the editor Guy Macon.

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

---

• Talk:Motorola 68000
• User_talk:Guy_Macon#Hostile_admin_warning.
• User_talk:Vapourmile#Enough.
• User_talk:Vapourmile#WP:BRD

I would like to make a formal complaint about editor Guy Macon whose hostile actions I regard as /argumentum ad baculum/.

I had removed a large section of the talk page on the 68000 entry at a time when I was not aware it is contrary to Wikipedia guidelines. My reasons were that the section was long and unproductive.

After the full comments section was subsequently archived, Guy was the first to remark on the talk page, immediately rekindling the same unproductive argument.

After a short exchange, including making technical corrections some of Guy’s comments, he directed this threat at me:

"Vapourmile, I am close to my limit putting up with your behaviour. Knock it off and start treating other editors with respect and civility or there will be consequences. --Guy Macon"

I accept some of my response was cynical. This is explained by the fact I had been previously threatened with account restrictions for removing a section of the previous talk page only to find the entire page had been archived and replaced with only Guy’s comments on that same topic. That aside, the accusation of not treating others with civility appears to refer merely to the fact I returned to add technical annotations to his edit.

That same argument has since become the mainstay of the same talk page and have I simply stepped out of it days ago, or so I thought until this morning when new threats from Guy appeared on my talk page where after days of silence suddenly this new threat from Guy appeared:

"Given edits such as this:[5] (reverted here[6]) I would suggest a topic ban from computer architecture, broadly construed. I do not believe that Vapourmile is capable of editing collaboratively in this area, and that they should spend their time on topics where they do not have such strong emotions"

I contest that it definitely not I who is having difficulty keeping my emotions in check, as this new assault arrived some days after my most recent change to that page, and a new response has since appeared after my last change which I have simply ignored and allowed to carry on in my absence.

The comment I had made on which Guy has decided to offer an opinion this morning is seven months old, and on a different Wikipedia talk page to the one where the dispute arose, so I can only assume either Guy came to Wikipedia after days had passed simply to look through my edit history to pick out actions to complain about to try to get my account restricted, or Guy, as I expect, patrols Wikipedia pages for reasons of contest rather than information. I have been asked not to assume bad faith but it is a little bit difficult to see it any other way when somebody actively corrals attention and works to try to have my account suspended for simply correcting them on what is an encyclopaedia talk page.

With this in mind, from my point of view, it certainly does not appear to me that I am the one having difficulty controlling my feelings, it seems today he has taken it upon himself to literally try to hunt me down. I would ask Guy to try to approach disagreements wearing a cooler head and especially ask him to tread far more carefully on those technological entities in which his personal pride is clearly invested. Please ask Guy Macon to desist in his persistent uninvited unnecessary hostility. Vapourmile (talk) 16:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Please follow protocol.

This is a lot of text without a discernable point. Can you please summarize what exactly the issue is and provide diffs? TAXIDICAE💰 16:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Sigh. boomerang (verb); (of a plan or action) recoil on the originator. i.e. "misleading consumers about quality will eventually boomerang on a car-maker" Black Kite (talk) 16:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Given I woke up this morning to yet another personal threat from Guy, it is a little bit of a stretch of the imagination to think this comment appears to be directed at me. He has been the libel engine so far, and is not until now that I have replied to it. Vapourmile (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

But thanks for using the phrase "Argumentum ad baculum," which looks so much more polite and eloquent than the Anglo-Saxon alternatives. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

"Argumentum ad baculum" is the correct choice of term for what is occurring. I am being threatened for not accepting other editors' inaccurate comments ipse dixit. Vapourmile (talk)

• And this [85]. Bishonen is not a troll, she is the alter ego of a kaiju. Please keep this straight. Acroterion (talk) 16:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I did not call them a troll. I referred to the comment they made, not the person, the churlish accusation I was confusing a Wikipedia editor for the French president. The distinction is important: My response was directed at the comment made and not the person who made it. Vapourmile (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The comment was, I believe, made because you kept referring to Guy Macon as Guy Macron. So wasn't a trolling comment, but a rather polite hint that you're getting another editor's name wrong. Canterbury Tail talk 17:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I accept that was what they meant, my point is, they could have simply said that. I have since altered the spelling to ensure it is correct. Vapourmile (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps a less grumpy approach is needed, so you don't have to resort to such rhetorical hair-splitting? Acroterion (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• • Yet you're happy to call her "churlish." Please respect the law of holes. Acroterion (talk) 17:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I did not call *her* churlish. I referred to the comment, not the person. The comment I am confusing a Wikipedia editor with the French president IS churlish.

I would like to complain about Guy too. He isn't strong enough on telling it straight, he is far too polite, and he knows far too well how wikipedia works. Please do something, Admins. Thanks. -Roxy the sycamore. wooF 17:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

For what exactly? For defending myself? Vapourmile (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Are you addressing me? I was complaining abou Guy. -Roxy the sycamore. wooF 17:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Point of order - Vapourmile, you are required to alert Guy Macon about this report using {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~, as the instructions say on this page when you edit it. Please do so now. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I am happy to do that but did not do so immediately so as to honour Guy's request he made, adding to my talk page this morning a request not to add to his talk page. The requests are in contradiction so can't possibly do both. I hope that is understood. I will however make the addition to his page at your request and in accordance with guidelines. Vapourmile (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Since somebody else has notified Guy Macon, I have elected to honour his request not to add to his talk page and assume it will be sufficient for somebody else to have done the job. Vapourmile (talk) 17:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I thank whomever it was who added the illustrative links above. Since many of them lead to various threats which appear detached from any details of why I was their recipient I hereby ask for clarity on what rules I am alleged to have broken, accompanied by links or verbatim quotes, to the exact offending behaviour, thank you. Vapourmile (talk) 17:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Vapourmile Few things. First, you cannot demand people do all the leg work for you, when you yourself haven't bothered to provide a single diff of the behavior you object to. Second, please indent when responding and sign your comments. Last, please, for the love of all our sanity be more concise in responding to people. Pasting walls of text will only cause people to ignore you and quite frankly, it will just piss other editors off. TAXIDICAE💰 17:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I have not demanded anything. I have asked for something: There seems to be some eagerness in supplying links to the various threats made, as if with the tacit assumption that if I am to have received threats of bans, account restrictions, or otherwise, then I *must* deserve it. All I have done is request what anybody who is being held to accuont is entitled to, which is evidence. It is my contention that the various threats are unwarranted. Meanwhile I have indented and signed most of my comments. The editor who added teh links appears not to have signed those, why didn't you say something to them? My contention of most of this incoming flak is unwarranted. I am simply asking for an explanation. Since I have been threatened with account restrictions, I think that is reasonable, don't you? You and I may see this differently. I have merely corrected technical errors, and not even mostly on the pages themselves but merely in the talk sections, to which hostility quickly arose. I don't think the threats have anything behind them except vendetta. I haven't seen much reason to believe I have done anything to warrant these sorts of threats. I am simply asking for whatever I have allegedly done to be made visible where it can be examined. I see nothing unreasonable about that request as my complaint is that the attacks and threats they constitute are unwarranted. Vapourmile (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

You're asking editors to provide "verbatim" quotes from you but you yourself have not provided a single diff or a concise summary of what your complaint is. And to top it all off, you've now responded yet again with a wall of text and nothing of substance. I'd suggest you withdraw this because right now it's a massive time sink and it's disruptive. TAXIDICAE💰 18:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

You say that like it's labour intensive. I have been the one in receipt of the incoming threats which is why I am here, and so far nobody seems able to explain why, which is what I came here to ask for. A "verbatim" is nothing more than a ctrl+c / ctrl + v away. I'm just challenging the assumption that those threats I have received are attached to any wrongdoing I have done. I am not the one threatening people with account restrictions for editing Wikipedia pages without explanation. You claim my comments aren't helpful and yet all I can find in yours is "Nobody has to provide a reason for account restrictions. If somebody says you've broken rules then you have. Just take our word for it". YOU have been specific in this exchange and I thank you for it, but nobody has in any of the exchanges which brought me to this, and the explanation is what I came here to ask for. Vapourmile (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Vapourmile, Yes, finding diffs actually is somewhat labor intensive. So: follow WP:DIFF and please provide some links to the alleged problem edits. If you are unwilling to do so, I will be forced to close this thread for lack of evidence. The onus is on the reporter of an issue to show there is an issue, which must be supported with clearly linked evidence. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, the place I started contains two verbatim quotes, which I'd say was evidence, and a description of the turn of events. Some of which can be verified by the links supplied above, so I am somewhat suspicious of the accusation of "no evidence" given that it's actually there, especially given that there is also "no evidence" of my alleged previous wrongdoing and nobody seems to want to start placing burdens of proof on the people sending me account restriction threats demanding those threats are warranted, you yourself are excusing the people who have sent those threats, accusing me of being demanding, but then demanding /I/ provide evidence of the counter case. You have the evidence of the restrictions-threats made against me which I am saying are not warranted by wrongdoing on my part. I shall have a look later, but there already are quotes and links in this post so as yet you may also like to countenance your request for evidence from me with the fact nobody making threats against me has been able to state what the wrongdoing is. I obviously can't prove I *didn't* do something I've been accused of so it sounds like burden of proof shifting to me. Vapourmile (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

It appears that Vapourmile objects to this, this, viewing it as a threat. Vapourmile, to be clear, Guy Macon is merely suggesting a topic ban from that specific narrow topic, not an account ban. And generally speaking editors are allowed to make such suggestions (though if they're completely meritless they risk a WP:BOOMERANG); it's not automatically considered a threat. Given Vapourmile's pretty aggressive comments it appears to be at least a defensible suggestion ([86][87][88], basically similar to the ones in this thread.) Compounding the issue is that it appears that Vapourmile believes, or believed that, Guy Macon and @Guy Harris: are the same person; at a glance it looks like they reacted much more harshly to Guy Macon's initial comments than they would have otherwise because of that. --Aquillion (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Aquillion for a concise and DIFF filled summary of the matter. Vapourmile, this is the standard sort of summary at ANI. Short, well linked, and to the point.

On the merits, this is a nothing-burger. Who knew computer processors could inspire such passion. Vapourmile, you were fairly abrasive, and Guy (who is not an admin) suggested that if you kept up your attitude you might find yourself topic banned from computers. Not from all of Wikipedia. Just a very small portion of its 6 million articles. If you cannot edit without inflamed passion about a topic, you are probably best off not editing in that area. So: I suggest you re-evaluate your approach to the topic. I suggest you use formal dispute resolution or hold an WP:RFC to resolve the content issue if it is truly at an impasse. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• I knew. — I mentioned this the last time this was on this noticeboard. People have been arguing about the "bitness" of these processors for 40 years. Uncle G (talk) 23:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• I do wonder how someone can have 29 edits to ANI, and only 40 edits to mainspace. That's a remarkably low productivity ratio (even lower than most arbs). I would recommend focussing more on creating an encyclopedia, and less on creating drama. – bradv🍁 18:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

And after having been here for 13 years. Canterbury Tail talk 18:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

You think it's odd? Well from my very first response on the 68000 talk page I said myself just how odd it is that after 13 years of Wikipedia use and some page edits, suddenly I am receiving threats of account bans. How strange it is. Yet it seems like I still will not find an explanation here, even have asked for it directly through what I thought was the grievance process. You are not alone in finding it strange, I assure you. Vapourmile (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

You're right- with the way you have conducted yourself on this thread- I'm surprised it took 13 years for threats of account bans to be applied to you. I'm surprised it wasn't much much earlier. Seriously- listen to what you are being advised- either withdraw this, or make a concise, DIFF heavy list of what, exactly, Guy has done wrong. Cause right now-there is a boomerang heading straight for you kangaroo. Nightenbelle (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Funny how Vapourmile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is suddenly able to spell my name...

Vapourmile appears to have a problem with the Commodore Amiga computer and the microprocessor (the Motorola 68000 series) it uses. Like many people who engage in wars over such things as Mac vs. PC, Windows VS Linux, Vim vs Emacs, Ford vs. Chevy, etc. Vapourmile's behavior is belligerant, insulting, and displays a WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality. some examples:

Extended content

Edit warring, deleting other editor's comments: [89][90][91][92][93][94] "I AM *NOT* THE ONE DOING THIS FOR PERSONAL REASONS. I AM THE ONE DOING THIS TO GET THE TRUTH OUT. You really need to look at yourself and YOUR motives... YOU don't give a damn what the truth is. YOU just want people believe whatever you want them to. YOU are dong this for competitive reasons. Inventing whatever rules you want so you can win. I am doing this *to protect the truth*. Something which clearly you will to anything to prevent from prevailing.... including causing far more damage to the 68000 page than I did. What is the point when an encyclopaedia has got obviously corrupt editors?"[95] "it's nt only obvious most of the defenders of the 68000 don't care about the accuracy of public knowledge"[96] "I am the single person attempting to bring facts back to some of the Wikipedia pages which are obviously being patrolled by evangelists such as yourself whose actions are no more than going in to bat for your home team. It was not I but you who kickstarted the argument on the 68000 page after the page wage archived. I have resisted returning to the talk page despite the addition of yet more counterfactual amateur opinion racketeering. Your own personal biases are making a mockery of Wikipedia. YOU are the one who should have your account restricted as this is clearly nothing more than a hostile attack on somebody you regard as an enemy. Emotion? Keep your own in check. It's people like you are the problem. The 6800 and Amiga Wikipedia pages are littered with evangelical fan-fiction which should be redacted for the sake of restoring accuracy and impartiality."[97] "It is a delusion to convince yourself you can simply pick and choose as you feel and come away with whatever outcome you like the sound of. If you want to have the final world then stop writing things which are not true. This is an encyclopaedia, aiming for credibility, not your teenage bedroom. "[98] (Accusing another editor of sockpuppetry) "The copy immediately above is just straw-clutching nonsense. Guy Harris pretending not to be?"[99] (Accusing another editor of sockpuppetry)" if I was a gambling man I'd bet this was Guy Harris, piping up with the save drivel again, not signing so as to conceal his identity."[100] (replying to IP 194.187.155.245) "It's you again Guy, isn't it? Because once again the topic in the 68000 and once again you want to talk almost exclusively about Duesenbergs and other irrelevances. You *want* the 68000 to be 32bit but it isn't. Grow up and accept it."[101] (Replying to Zac67 saying "Vapourmile, the accusation of sockpuppeteering is a serious allegation. I'd urge you to reconsider your statements.") " 'the accusation of sockpuppeteering is a serious allegation'. Show me the Wikipedia guideline which says this. Meanwhile, here are just a few reminders of the Wikipedia policies on sock-puppetry and meat-puppetry. This is not an accusation. Just useful information on what the policy guides actually do say. WP:SOCK WP:EWLO WP:CRONY WP:NEUTRAL WP:BOOMERANG"[102] "You want to talk about things that are irrelevant or wrong or both, that's Guy's MO."[103] "Whatever, the main problem on that page is Guy Harris. The trouble with this subject is it is being contested by people who fundamentally don't know what they're talking about. Also: I didn't kickstart the argument again on the 68000 page, as can clearly be seen. Since then somebody fitting the behavioural description of Guy Harris has also appeared there talking about old minicomputers again which have absolutely no relevance to the topic and are just fogging the subject, again. Why don't you go off and add some snarky remarks to those peeople's talk pages? Better than that, instruct them *not* to continue adding more unhelpful text to talk pages when they clearly don't understand the subject, it achieves nothing but fogging the site with irrelevant banter making those talk pages unhelpful, unreadable and useless "[104] (Replying to me saying "Vapourmile, I am close to my limit putting up with your behavior. Knock it off and start treating other editors with respect and civility or there will be consequences.") "Consequences? What are you going to do? Stop me adding corrections so that the only people allowed to comment are those who so fundamentally don't understand the subject that they don't even understand when their comments are not even about the subject?"[105] "Excuse me but there would be far less to say if the discussion wasn't being dogged by falsehood... If people were not littering Wikipedia pages with falsehood there would be nothing to reply to."[106] "The sort of writing above is typical of Amiga enthusiasts who graffiti Wikipedia with eulogies of their favourite platform. Amiga enthusiasts are frankly a plague on graphics articles on Wikipedia."[107] "This page has been created as a historical myth-buster to combat the perception of desktop graphics systems leading up to and surrounding the launch of the Commodore Amiga desktop computer. As an computer graphics enthusiast I am fed up with reading misleading or factually incorrect articles written by competitive Commodore Amiga enthusiasts claiming..." [108] "Given that the 'Other' column gives up so much to Amiga related OSs, I think it would be better to make a separate column for Amiga things. Personally though I would prefer it if they were simply removed and put on their own page where they can be ignored by everybody except those in the Amiga-enthusiast audience who are likely to be the only people interested in reading about it. Amiga spam is a galling feature of the Wikipedia computing pages."[109] "People viewing Wikipedia pages have to be careful about fan and evangelist edits, especially in regards to entries regarding the Commodore Amiga whose fans have a beef with the rest of the computer industry about the failure of the platform which has endured in online flame wars for decades. I recommend apparent fan and enthusiast edits, such as those found in this computing page and others, are removed."[110] (In the edit summary) "Another example of the Amiga/68000 evangelising which pollutes Wikipedia."[111] "The arguments made favouring the 32bit moniker have, since its inception found in Motorola's own marketing material, constituted nothing but an ad-hoc redefinition of how to classify CPUs purely to suit the specific architectural design of the 68000 alone. People should not feel free to redefine the scoring system of the game to be about some arbitrary specifics of their home team performance just so their home team wins."[112] "I am quite happy you've decided not to "engage". In fact, I hesitate to say this, but I think most of the discussion I've had with you should simply be deleted because nothing productive has come out of it and you don't seem to have the right knowledge to answer the question, or even the right idea how to."[113] "Sadly in regards to the 68000 and Amiga platforms both are Wikipedia poison for attracting inaccurate evangelising. Wikipedia is shot-through with people who apparently still want to work in 68000/Amiga sales. I would in fact like there to be a more pointed effort from independent editors to correct or remove cheerleading, inaccuracy, and misleading product comparisons introduced far too often by their respective fan-base. The propensity for technical inaccuracy, dishonesty and irrelevance makes them the least desirable fan base of any platform."[114] "You additions to the talk section are boring, superfluous and irrelevant. "[115] "Those arguments are all posited by people who fall into at least one of two camps: 1. Marketing people, and other 68000 fans and evangelists. 2. People who just don't really understand how micro architectures are definitively rated"[116]

NOTE: I have never used an Amiga or any other 68000-based computer. My personal computers have been COSMAC ELF (1802) -> C128 (8502/Z80) -> Pentium -> ARM.

My recommendation: a topic ban from the Amiga computer and the 68000 series of microprocessors, a one-way interaction ban with Guy Harris, and a warning that further personal attacks and incivility will result in an indefinite block with the usual option of appealing after six months. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

So tell Vapourmile, still a newbie after 13 years that they are making newbie errors, including types noted above. Suggest a bunch of mellow editing in other articles to get started. Guy seemed a bit pointy for that situation, including that yes, that was a bit of a threat. Suggest mellowing out a bit.  :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect, when reviewing this editor's contribution, this rings quite hollow to me. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I do not consider removing other editors's comments, false accusations of sockpuppetry, filing bogus ANI reports, and writing "I AM *NOT* THE ONE DOING THIS FOR PERSONAL REASONS. I AM THE ONE DOING THIS TO GET THE TRUTH OUT." or "You[sic] additions to the talk section are boring, superfluous and irrelevant." to be newbie mistakes. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• SupportThose behaviors are common / accepted in most on-line venues and terrible unusual behavior in Wikipedia. So, they are newbie errors. Explain that this smack is a part of their Wikipedia training process.North8000 (talk) 11:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support (at a minimum) Guy Macon's recommendation. Likely just kicking the can down the road a bit - but wp:rope and all that. — Ched (talk) 21:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support TBan at a minimum per Guy Macon Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 21:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• begrudgingly support the tban, but would prefer an outright indef block as they don't really appear to be here to do much in the way of actual editing considering more than half of their total edits are to drama boards. TAXIDICAE💰 21:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• @Guy Macon: For the sake of clarity, how old is your bedroom? I'm not a fan of newbuilds myself. nagualdesign 22:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The above refers to Vapourmile's comment "This is an encyclopaedia, aiming for credibility, not your teenage bedroom." My bedroom was constructed in 1960, so it is 61 years old. My first computer (as in "I wrote programs that ran on it", not as in "I owned it") was a NCR Century 100. The first computer I designed part of the hardware for was the Perkin Elmer 8/32. The first computer I owned was a COSMAC ELF, which I upgraded to a COSMAC VIP. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Good to know. In that case I think we should forego the boomerang in favour of the waddy. nagualdesign 19:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support the three parts of Guy Macon's recommendation, per what Ched said. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

  Per Cullen just below me, I agree that the scope of the TBAN should be broad, computers and computing, rather than just some specific types. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban from computers and computing, broadly construed. I pity any poor editor named "Guy" unfortunate enough to run across Vapourmile. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support broad TB per Cullen above, or Amiga TB if that's what there is a consensus for. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support TB per nom. Padgriffin (talk) 05:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support TB per Cullen Bludgeoning, refusal to drop the stick, and what appears to be a false statement in the opening justification in this request for action against Guy Macon. After the full comments section was subsequently archived, Guy was the first to remark on the talk page, immediately rekindling the same unproductive argument. is false. Guy posted to the page at 16:32 [117] and at 16:49 [118], the page was archived at 19:00 by user:HandThatFeeds [119], and the next content edits were two days later, by Vapourmile [120]. Note that Vapourmile appeared to be aware that he was starting the discussion up again rather than replying to subsequent comment as Vapourmile started off with "Oh look, somehow the entire talk section has mysteriously disappeared and all that's left of it is this argument" Meters (talk) 20:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Call for snow close

I believe that WP:SNOW applies and that there is zero chance of further discussion changing the result. Could someone uninvolved please evaluate the consensus and close this? I really would like to unsubscribe again. Seeing a steady string of ANI cases on my watchlist tempts me to comment on them. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Possible WP:NOTHERE

User:Bog oinb hasn't made many constructive edits (only seemingly constructive edit is a draft). I think they might qualify for a block under WP:NOTHERE but I might be wrong. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

That draft was an attack page as well reading it over. Likely just a bored school kid, blocked however as WP:NOTHERE for that very reason. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Sarah.Xenos - WP:CIR issues

• Sarah.Xenos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sarah.Xenos has been editing Wikipedia since early September 2020 (7 months) and is still making basic errors despite multiple requests on her talk page. She does make some very valid contributions but, after 7 months here, competency is still a big issue. For example, just today she made edits to Tanilba Bay, New South Wales that introduced more errors on top of previous errors made by her that I have subsequently fixed.[121] By far her biggest issue seems to be complying with WP:REFPUNCT. There have been 5 warnings on her talk page regarding this. I have been trying to keep up with the errors but lifestyle changes in recent months, and especially now that I have been diagnosed with metastatic melanoma, mean that I'll have less and less time to do so. This editor requires either mentorship or some sterner action from admins as she doesn't seem to be responding to gentle warnings on her talk page. I invite editors to review Shay Dockling, an article that she has written only a few minutes ago, which demonstrates the WP:REFPUNCT problem as well as others. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree that there is a glaring competency issue with regards to the user's written English skills and adherence to our WP:MOS. The Shay Dockling is chock-full of sentence fragments, punctuation mistakes and oddities. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Although Shay Dockling definitely needs copyediting and it is obvious that the editor in question is not a native English speaker, I had no problem understanding the prose despite the problems. Isn't this type of article the very reason why we have enthusiastic copyeditors? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't see that it's obvious that she's not a native English speaker. Australia is an English speaking country, she lives only 10 km (6.2 mi) from me, volunteers at Newcastle University (17.5 km (10.9 mi) away!) and her edits are all about the local area and Australians. It seems to me that she's just a person with exceptionally poor writing skills. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Very sorry to hear about your health issues, AussieLegend. I suspect User:Sarah.Xenos may not know she has a user talkpage. That is often the case when a user completely ignores warnings and advice. I have blocked her for two weeks (the length calculated so that she doesn't miss it, since there are substantial gaps in her editing), gently explaining that the purpose of the block is to help her find her talkpage. All admins are invited to unblock once she posts on it (in a reasonable manner). Bishonen | tålk 13:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC).

In addition to the problems above, there are also some issues with copyright infringement because two of her edits have been revdeleted. When somebody makes that many copyright violations, it is likely that there may be more. Could she be a younger editor? I think Bishonen's block was a good way to get her attention. Scorpions13256 (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive POINTy AfD !votes and racist comparisons by Johnpacklambert

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Navigational break

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In which JPL is banned from more than one AFD nomination

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

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

Block for edit-warring BLP violations

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

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

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

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

JPL and communication

• [122]

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

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

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

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

So here's my suggestion for moving forward -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Celestina,

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

Blessings,

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

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

Proposal for lighter and more focused restriction

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

That said, there is one issue that a number of people have mentioned, and it's quite simple: JPL contributes to a very large number of deletion discussions, he does so at a rate (sometimes as little as 22 seconds between !votes) where it would be physically impossible to have done appropriate research, he is open about doing this for WP:BATTLEGROUND reasons, he is often confrontational with other editors, and he often fails to adequately consider the impact of what he says. For example, according to his AfD stats, he made eighty votes on April 5 and seventy-three on April 6. This is an issue (and him being an autist is not). I think that the issues with WP:BATTLEGROUND are almost all directly downstream of him participating in so many AfDs (per the stats, of the last 500 AfDs he's !voted in, one hundred and forty of them are currently open). Wouldn't you feel like it was a battle if there were 140 open discussions for people to argue with you in at any given time?

In light of this, my suggestion would be rather simple: that JPL be limited (or, hell, limit himself) to ten AfD !votes per day. This seems quite a bit easier on him than to be banned from the process entirely -- and if there continued to be problems, the restriction could always be extended (in the same manner as his topic ban from nominating more than one article per day). I have no reason to believe that he is just a garbage editor, or incapable of contributing positively: certainly there are circumstances under which a site ban would be warranted, but I don't want him to get sitebanned. It is clear that he is making a decent and good-faith effort to change his behavior (i.e. by striking his recent short AfD !votes and replacing them with better-thought-out ones), despite being ganked in this thread by about a dozen people at the same time. I think that ought to count for something. jp×g 18:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• Comment I'm not sure if this is canvassing, but he is going to the talk pages of multiple users to complain about this proposed restriction: [123][124][125] 2601:249:8B80:4050:6D3B:D5BA:1BFB:F4C9 (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • This whole process involves denying me of any right to defend myself and punishing me for even trying. I aplogize. I strike my comments. It is not good enough. People are demianding I be silenced forever. I am going to strive to keep my voice alive as long as I can. It is all I have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• As this goes on people make more and more puntative proposals. They seek to silence me and restrict me and exclude me. This whole process is unfair. Even more unfair is the kitchen sink, punish someone for a behavior not at all related to what was brought up. The issue was not that I was making too many contributions, the issue was that I made them in a harsh and uncivil way. I have apologized for them and stuck them. If Wikiepdia was at all fair and just that would have caused this to close and no one would try to punish me. I have corrected the problem at hand. This is truly an unfair and unjust tribunal that seeks to silince and punish people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - is there actually a rule or guideline that is broken when someone votes in a lot of AfDs in a short space of time? I can't see why this is a massive issue. The decision as to whether the article is deleted or not ultimately comes from the closing admin, who will weigh up the strength of the arguments presented. If it were simply just a vote count then, maybe, I could see an issue but it isn't a vote count. Users have every right to post '*Delete - a non-notable xxxx' or '*Keep - meets WP:GNG' and not expand on that if they wish. That is their right as an editor to make that comment and a closing admin has every right to ignore that comment if they wish to do so. Again, I'm struggling to see why this would warrant a sanction. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

  • Lie. You want to punish me because I believe that marriage should be limited to being a man woman relationship. So I see no reason to trust anything else you say. You have proposed topic banning me. This proposal is not reasonable. It kills my ability to effectively participate in discussions at AfD. What I would like to see is editors acknowledge that Wikipedia:Verifiability is a key principal and means that we should have absolutely no unsourced articles, let along over 50 that have lasted over 14 years. I have apologized for attacking other people. The fact that the above editor has expressed a desire to topic ban me is a clear indication of animus. He has clearly declared he is unwilling to engage in a constructive discussion, and instead has shown he wishes to force other people to accept a certain position on various public policy issues and is willing to use Wikipedia as a platform to punish and silence those who hold other views.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

User:ElKevbo

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

---

ElKevbo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Has harassed me and threatened me. He's been warned on four occasions and continually deletes my edits without cause or evidence with an honest reason. Is trolling me and claims he is "collaborating" but is simply deleting my any content I create, even when it is sourced from a third-party. FirstPrezzzz1776 (talk) 08:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• The very first diff that I read when looking for what "threatened me with harm" could be, as that is quite concerning, is Special:Diff/1017720335. Then Special:Diff/1017717230. And conversely Special:Diff/1017384904 and Special:Diff/1014859520. Uncle G (talk) 08:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@FirstPrezzzz1776: you've posted this here, to the dispute resolution noticeboard, and to AIV. Please don't do that. Can you present some problematic diffs, perhaps? Elli (talk | contribs) 08:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

And now an IP is reverting User:ELKevbo's changes here. FirstPrezzzz1776 - do you know anything about this?Nigel Ish (talk) 08:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted the IP (It's fairly clear that "a total refurbishment and seismic upgrade to the iconic 28-story Tower" is not only promotional but a Google search suggests that it's almost certainly a copyvio as well) and I will protect it if it is reverted again. User:FirstPrezzzz1776, I have reverted your spamming of other noticeboards and if you continue adding promotional language to articles or abusing other editors I will simply block you indefinitely. I hope this is clear. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 09:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• As Uncle G notes (citing this diff) but does not make explicit (so I will), it's a little unbelievable that the OP would come here after making a personal attack as egregious on the user of whom they are reporting. You’re pathetic, small and a worthless editor. Go climb into a hole so the world can be a better place — is block-worthy, in my view. El_C 11:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• El C, I agree with you. The comment before they modified it is even worse. The only reason I haven't just indeffed already is that I couldn't see that anyone had given them a warning for PAs, or a link to the relevant policy. (Not that I think that anyone should really needs to be told that What a complete A-hole you are is unacceptable...) GirthSummit _(blether) 11:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment as El C has rightly said I think it is OP with the problem here, just a quick look through edit history/TP it is clear that they will fight and abuse any editor who disagrees with them. I would support a block for OP on this basis. Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 11:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• My analysis of this situation is this: FirstPrezzzz1776 starts off by edit warring on this article, which is then reverted by ElKevbo. FirstPrezzzz1776 then violates WP:NPA by posting this onto ElKevbos talk page., and then subsequently files this report against ElKevbo. This revision might have been FirstPrezzzz1776 reverting while logged out, but I am not entirely sure. In regards, I feel as if a block is in order. Sincerely, Deauthorized. (talk) 12:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• FirstPrezzzz1776 was blocked on Commons for copyvios (02:09, 24 March 2021), and then proceeded to create a sock (06:00, 24 March 2021), FcktheWikiGods, to recreate the deleted images. While this occurred on the Commons, the person at the keyboard does not change with project space. Indeed, this is further demonstration of the issues noted above: recreating problematic content out-of-process (effectively edit warring); incivility (FcktheWikiGods = Fuck the Wiki Gods, presumably admins enforcing policy); the propensity to "fight and abuse any editor who disagrees with them"; etc. Related to consideration of character and ability to edit productively, it seems worth noting that FirstPrezzzz1776 claimed "I work for the university and attended as a student" when they thought that would assist restoration of deleted images, but claimed "I am not affiliated/work for the University" (and multiple times: [126], [127], etc.) when questioned about conflict of interest. It seems FirstPrezzzz1776 will say or do whatever suits them in the moment. Эlcobbola _talk 13:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• In light of this, I have indeffed, noting also that this is a m:Global lock candidate. El_C 13:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• I may be a bit late to the party here at ANI, but I have been attempting to help and educate FirstPrezzzz1776 since they first showed up at the helpdesk in March after being blocked on Commons. They seem resistant to guidance and exhibit an ownership attitude towards that article. In light of today's actions, I agree with blocking them.~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

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

User:BANNERSINGH & gross BLP violations

BANNERSINGH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), I don't think there is much to state here. Take a look at this contributions, some of which they reverted themselves but will require revdel. Clearly WP:NOTHERE, see the following diffs (nsfw btw), Special:Diff/1017749021, Special:Diff/1017723582, Special:Diff/1017735126. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 11:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocked, and I've tagged the picture for deletion on commons. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Uploader seems to be another account, the image that they placed on the page of Bin Laden also seems to be some non-notable individual's selfie which I find especially concerning. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 11:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Tayi Arajakate, hopefully the admins on commons will consider those other uploads there. In fact, I see that Elcobbola, active in the thread above this, is a commons admin. Any chance you could take a look? The account on commons is 'Randistan'. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC) (Groan - botched template, fixed ​ GirthSummit _(blether) 13:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I've deleted the image and blocked the account. In case it will be useful for reference in the future, in addition to BANNERSINGH's addition of the referenced Randistan image, behaviour includes:

• 07:47, 14 April 2021 - Randistan uploads c:File:Dhruvrathee.jpg;
• 09:51, 14 April 2021 - BANNERSINGH adds it to Dhruv Rathee;
• 11:35, 14 April 2021 - Randistan uploads c:File:Sushantrandi.png ;
• 11:38, 14 April 2021 - BANNERSINGH adds it to Mahesh Bhatt;

That these accounts are related quacks. (Note that, for the moment, BANNERSINGH has not attached to the Commons, so I can't run a check; Randistan has not attached to en.wiki, so a check cannot be run here. Overlapping attachments on login.wiki and meta.wiki are stale for BANNERSINGH, so a meta/Steward level check would not be helpful.) Эlcobbola _talk 14:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Elcobbola, thanks - I won't trouble the stewards then. Looks like it's all wrapped up for now, thanks. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Vandal IP

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

---

86.174.27.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is adding vandalism as well as arguably actual libel in their edits to a new article that was recently moved out of userspace: Vaush. The IP seems to be WP:NOTHERE, and seems to be there solely to attack the subject of the article. I've requested page protection for the article because they're not the only ones doing this as the topic apparently has attracted some kind of concentrated attention. Eik Corell (talk) 12:58, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I've already semi'd the page independently of this report (by way of WP:RFPP). Will check for revdel candidates more closely right now. El_C 13:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Yup, revdel'd everything. El_C 13:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Found a few more, but GN beat me to it. I think this is wrapped up, for now. El_C 13:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

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

WP:NOTHERE IP user keeps changing part of an article to a non-neutral point of view

This user User:2405:204:a499:633c::14ef:80ac keeps changing part of an article to something that is not a neutral point of view. looking at the history shows this user is clearly not here to build an encylopedia as they keep doing the same edit multiple times. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Blaze The Wolf, blocked. Consider using AIV for that sort of thing. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 14:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I have no clue what that is. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 15:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Blaze The Wolf, WP:AIV is the shortcut for Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Ah ok. THank you! Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 16:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Blaze The Wolf, I see that you have Twinkle enabled - an AIV report can be made using that tool, chose 'ARV' from Twinkle's drop-down menu when you're on the user's talk page, choose 'AIV' and fill in the form. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh that's really helpful! THanks for telling me that's a feature! Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Found a user with a Username violation

Block (censored username) for violating Wikipedia's Username policy. LooneyTraceYT (Where it never goes out of style • contribs) 17:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Fatass blocked. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

LooneyTraceYT You may report inappropriate usernames at WP:UAA. 331dot (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I have to say this has aroused my curiosity, as I am stunned that it would've taken over 20 years for someone to think of choosing this as their username, and for some reason I don't see a log entry for this account being created. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

It didn't take 20 years to choose this as their username, it just took (nearly) that long to be noticed. They predate the user creation log; their user_id (201296) suggests they registered sometime in early 2005. —Cryptic 05:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Phew, my faith in humanity is restored. --JBL (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I do have to ask. How did you even find this? Canterbury Tail talk 16:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

DevilInTheRadio

DevilInTheRadio violated clearly expressed WP:CONSENSUS at Talk:Julius Evola#Evola as "antisemitic conspiracy theorist": original research, conflicting sources and quote without reference and it seems like a violation of WP:NONAZIS. Diff: [128]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not contentious to say that he was an anti-Semite, unless one happens to secretly approves of his anti-Semitism (as a few Evola apologists clearly do). It's not contentious to say that the Protocols are an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory; anyone arguing otherwise needs a WP:NONAZIS block. There are already plenty of other sources in the article about his anti-Semitism, there are sources about his endorsement of the Protocols, and the lede is just accurately summarizing all this info in the most succinct and relevant way. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I (DevilInTheRadio) did not. I do not have an issue with the label anti-semitic conspiracy theorist mentioned in the article since Evola did write on the subject, but to place it in the first line among his occupations is intellectually dishonest. It was not his occupation, and he only wrote on the topic sparingly (and disagreed with many of his contemporaries - See "Tre Aspetti"). I will not have Tgeorgescu insinuate I am an anti-Semite just because I dispute his political motivations in placing the label there so prominently when it shouldn't be. Again, my issue is not with the label, but with the placement among his occupations. It should be discussed where it is actually appropriate, such as regarding his links to Nazi Germany or his research topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DevilInTheRadio (talk • contribs) 18:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

You have watered down those clear statements about him being an antisemitic conspiracy theory peddler. So that alone is a violation of WP:NONAZIS. Also, you are clearly acting against WP:CONSENSUS.

I have also reported a WP:3RR violation by DevilInTheRadio. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

The clear statement is still there, just in a more appropriate context. I have explained my case multiple times now. Leave your political motivations out of this and stop reverting my edits regarding his recently published work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DevilInTheRadio (talk • contribs) 18:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Do you realize you have violated 3 (three) different rules? The real question is if you have any business at all editing Wikipedia or you should be site banned.

They have a history of violating WP:NONAZIS, see e.g. [129].

Their own intention is very clear at [130]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• For clarification, WP:NONAZIS is not an official policy, just an essay (although I'm of the opinion that it SHOULD be a policy). That said, it seems like DevilInTheRadio's problem isn't with labeling Evola an "anti-semitic conspiracy theorist," but with putting it in the first sentence. They might just not be familiar with how we typically organize those labels. It's not uncommon to put such labels in the first sentence when people are heavily associated with them (see Alex Jones, Richard B. Spencer, and Renaud Camus, among others). In Evola's case, the label should be in the first sentence, or at least the first paragraph. DevilInTheRadio, a good rule of thumb is if somebody is prominently known for something, it should be said in the first couple of sentences. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 19:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  It's also worth noting here that the lede already describes him as both a "fascist intellectual" and "the leading philosopher of Europe's neofascist movement," so there's clearly a precedent for him being described in such terms. As to DevilInTheRadio's point that he wasn't "prominently known for his antisemitism," I'd point out that A) Fascism and antisemitism go hand-in-hand, and B) a Google search for "Julius Evola" turns up several articles describing him primarly as antisemitic [1], [2]. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 19:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@ThadeusOfNazereth: Thanks for the clarification, you are right about my intentions. I disagree with your last statement though, he wasn't prominently known for it, since it was a minor aspect of his writings. He was prominently known for being a (fascist-adjacent) philosopher, esotericist and occultist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DevilInTheRadio (talk • contribs)

Wow, wait a bit: your intentions should have been tempered after I asked you politely to read WP:NONAZIS, explained to you that you violate WP:CONSENSUS, and gave you a formal WP:3RR warning for edit warring. You may no longer pretend you were ignorant of those requests, but you have still chosen to pursue your edit war despite all my advice and all my warnings. You simply wasted too many occasions of repenting of breaking our WP:RULES. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

The edit warring is clear and actionable should it continue, but it is rather inappropriate with as few data points in Devil's history to rush call the edits they did on that article and the other example you gave (the only examples I can see in their history) to call them out as "whitewashing" and a ban needed under NONAZIS. Bringing articles to what one feel is conformance to NPOV though a BOLD edit (of which removing or moving a label they don't believe is well sourced would fall under), assuming they were reasonably unaware of prior talk page history that established consensus for the language, is definitely not whitewashing, and there's no pattern to show this being their editing approach. Obviously, their continued changes were inappropriate but simply from an edit warring angle, nothing else; we have nowhere near sufficient evidence to bring a NONAZIS claim here (this is the general danger with that essay, it can lead down the road of MacCarthyism if we're not careful in its application). Hopefully, judging by edits since, Devil's stopped edit warring (only change to the article was to readd a new general book, non-contentious) but they should be aware to be careful with bold edits in the future. --Masem (t) 00:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Masem: They are actually past 3RR, see [131]. If I did not explain them the reasons at every step, then yes, I could be blamed for rushing to WP:ANI. But I offered them enough chances to better their ways, and they refused those chances. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that 3RR is actionable, as I've stated. However, no further edits have been done to the article since, so its hard to say if disruption will continue or not, so whether action on 3RR is needed or not is not clear. But there is no question the line was passed. --Masem (t) 00:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Site ban

• Support as proposer. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Remitbuber

I'm growing concerned that whilst this user has made a lot of constructive and positive contributions to our encyclopaedia, they seem to find it difficult to respect consensus. See the multiple times that he has edit warred over the speedy deletion tag at Adrián Macías, as just one example. They have received a number of messages regarding paid editing/COI, which they have chosen to ignore. They also vandalised an AfD discussion, which caused a considerable amount of confusion for a number of other editors. Admittedly, that discussion was started by a sock so it didn't exactly get off to a great start. This is an editor with a lot of potential but I feel that they are starting to become a net negative due to some uncooperative and tricky behaviour. They were warned that I would start a discussion here if they continued to behave in this way. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:01, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• It seems like the best thing for Remitbuber to do here would be to take a step back and add those sources to the article on Adrián Macías, rather than vandalize and disrupt the AFD process. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 21:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• They have been almost single-mindedly promoting Nicolás Atanes and Virus Matemático, adding it where they can (cf. Mathematics, Math crisis, Adrián Macías, and Blas Méndez) while completely ignoring what other editors have said. They have also uploaded dozens of blatant copyvios to Commons. Remitbuber is pretty clearly WP:NOTHERE. — MarkH₂₁^talk
• If Remitbuber does not come clean about their COI, and does not respond to fellow editors before they go back to editing about/promoting their favorite topics, they will be blocked. User:MarkH21, did you report those things on Commons, and what happened? Drmies (talk) 01:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: I just tagged the individual files with copyvio notices and their sources. Almost all of them have been deleted but a few are still tagged and awaiting admin review, you can see most of them in the last few sections of their Commons talk page. — MarkH₂₁^talk 11:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - please see this edit where User:Remitbuber has vandalised this discussion to make it look like I've said something completely different (now reverted). Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Yep, Remitbuber is clearly seeing these discussions and warnings. Rather than engage with them, the user is just directly modifying other editors' comments and recreating deleted articles. A block is warranted. — MarkH₂₁^talk 11:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC); revised 12:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• I came across this earlier as I have been cruising the new pages feed. Virus Matemático is one of their creations. Until I fixed it, it had the novelty approach of using the template "infobox conflict" and its parameters "leadfigures2=Adrián Macías| causes=Low social interest in mathematics| goals=Raise awareness about the importance of mathematics". I thought that was pretty creative, but not the correct use of the template. I was wondering if they had been warned about their math zeal yet, and visiting their talk page I see they have had 11 warnings so far. It seems like a block would be a good idea, given the refusal to stop promoting and also to discuss the issue.--- Possibly (talk) 09:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• IPs have now joined the fray: 176.12.82.159 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) directly modifying the text of a PROD nomination by CommanderWaterford and promoting Nicolás Atanes. I think there was also an IP that was removing the A7 tag at the first now-deleted iteration of Adrián Macías. — MarkH₂₁^talk 12:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Also now fairly obvious socking from Alicia220978 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --JBL (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • OK. That account is a match with User:Remitbuber, so that's simple: indef CU blocks for both. In addition, Remitbuber is blocked for disruptive editing, an undeclared COI, a refusal to communicate, and et cetera. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

User with the sole goal of doing what need not be done

On User talk:Gexajutyr you can see messages from seven editors asking Gexajutyr to stop adding pointless pipes. The user has been directed to WP:NOPIPE, MOS:NOPIPE, and WP:NOTBROKEN countless times on their talk page and in edit summaries. Yet the user continues. The closest they ever got to engaging in a discussion about their disruptive behaviour is stating they are "fed up with that NOTBROKEN nonsense". Bizarrely, adding pointless pipes is all this user does. You are welcome to try your luck reasoning with Gexajutyr. Surtsicna (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, adding pointless pipes isn't all this user does; they also remove useful pipes.[132] Certes (talk) 22:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I've partial blocked them so they can no longer edit articles until they discuss the matter here. We are all expected to respect consensus even when we do not agree with it, and it's clear a number of users have tried in good faith to explain the situation to this person and they simply don't want to hear it. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Guillermo Alonso Martínez Espinoza editing without summaries, sometimes adding incorrect business info, but possibly ref spamming as well

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

---

Rosguill suggested I reach out here as a last resort. Guillermo Alonso Martínez Espinoza has been adding a lot of sourced and unsourced financial information and other info to business articles, without edit summaries. The info is sometimes incorrect. He has been asked by me and others on his talk page to add summaries and was blocked before, but persists. With this recent edit [[133]], he incorrectly added former historical components of a new company as its subsidiaries. I'm also seeing him often using macrotrends.com as a source for financial data. It's a paid research site with no identifiable contact info, and so I wonder if this is a strategy to drive traffic to that site. Here are some recent related edits. [[134]], [[135]], [[136]]. Not all the info is wrong, and not all is unsourced (if you don't mind the excessive linking to macrotrends.com that borders on ref spamming), but his activity and inconsistent accuracy on highly visible business articles is disruptive. The few times he has responded on his talk page make it appear that he isn't a native English speaker, and that he doesn't understand the criticism he is facing. [[137]]. The clincher for me is that he was just updated to an extended confirmed user, yet doesn't show he deserves it. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• Who has time for this. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Soumya Sekhar Biswas

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

---

Soumya Sekhar Biswas has had a history of deceptive edit summaries [138] [139]. They then did it again at Pahela Baishakh. [140]. --Firestar464 (talk) 04:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I respectfully suggest that this is an over-escalation. I too have noticed this user's misleading edit summaries and was going to their talk page to discuss it when I saw this. I have provided more detail to the user to clarify concerns and let's see how they respond? Agreed it cannot continue. Mark83 (talk) 05:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Edits by HM2021

• HM2021 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Good morning. I am requesting assistance/advice on how to deal with HM2021. User has a history of multiple plagiarisms and questionable editing (mostly related to either unsourced content and films announcements that don't line up with WP:CRYSTALBALL), that has been annotated on user's talk page, but I am afraid it is a WP:IDHT case where the user does not respond to the community inputs and continue contributing the same way. I was planning to let it go for some time, but then I checked user's other contribution and there is the same pattern. Please advise on how we can encourage the user to listen and change his behavior. Thank you! Kolma8 (talk) 06:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• The biggest problem here is communication. They have over 4,000 edits, have never used an article talk page, and have a total (if you disregard removing warnings from their talk page) of four usertalk edits. They also still don't seem to understand copyright policy despite receiving numerous warnings and aving many files deleted and edits reverted. And (I don't particularly care, but I know it annoys many people) they mark all of their edits as minor. Black Kite (talk) 10:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  ARe their edits done on the mobile app? If so then the problem might be WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 18:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  No.— Diannaa (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Incidentally, you didn't notiy them of this discussion - I have done so. Black Kite (talk) 10:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by user:Queen NawalM5

User Queen NawalM5 has repeatedly removed referenced information from the page Majid bin Mohammed Al Maktoum and replaced it with conflicting unreferenced information and personal commentary. Please could someone protect the page from these edits. Regards Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Just passing by, but for convenience: Queen NawalM5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Seems like a pretty clear case of NOTHERE; added material consists of ramblings about fake news, and editors who disagree with this user are branded "enemies of the Royal Family". Lennart97 (talk) 14:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Partial block. As mentioned on their talk page, being new notwithstanding, a dispassionate discussion that is grounded in policy is expected on the article talk page, or access to that page, too, will be revoked. El_C 15:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive edits to name fields on infoboxes

50.224.168.146 has been adding incorrect names to infoboxes. Most of the edits look like the work of a confused new editor, but there have been a number of BLP errors (i.e. assigning unknown ?invented? nicknames for celebrities), blatantly incorrect edits (i.e. Assigning Nintendo as the creator of a PC-only game), and blatant vandalism/edit tests (e.g. "spunky anal destroyer") that make me wonder if this is just a troll. I left a note on the talk page but there was no response except further identical edits. It looks like EdwardUK and K6ka have tried to correct these errors but there was no resolution. Should I be directing this editor to the Teahouse? Could someone look into the matter? -Thibbs (talk) 17:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

you didn't notiy them of this discussion - I have done so— Diannaa (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)