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

It seems the disagreement started from this - [1] [2]. The interaction timeline is indeed shows a large overlap with many edits being within hours or days of each other. A common pattern is Onel prodding an article and Nemesis removing the prod. Or Onel redirecting an article and Nemesis reverting it. However in Koonendah railway station, Onel redirected the article in 18 August and reverted by Nemesis 12 minutes later. Nemesis had edited the article before in June 30 [3]. Similarly Onel's redirection of Changde railway station in 14 August was reverted by Nemesis an hour later later, with that being their first edit to the article [4]. But Nemesis had edited the talk page in 26 June [5]. At least in these 2 cases it reasonable to believe Nemesis had watchlisted the articles. There are also several cases where Nemesis was the first to edit an article by reverting others' redirects and Onel tagging it for notability in the next edit - [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. This can be explained as Nemesis patrolling prods and new redirects, and Onel tagging for notability and redirecting while doing New page patrol. So I am wondering whether this overlap is simply because the two editors have opposite editing patterns? ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 06:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clarifying that I Oppose an interaction ban at this point. Nobody needs to get sanctioned here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry, GiantSnowman, but you're quite wrong on this point. For the GNG, "significant" is generally synonymous with "non-trivial", not "non-routine". Otherwise most of the many, many biographies of athletes you've created should be deleted, because they're sourced/sourceable only to routine statistical reports, transaction notices, etc. The "non-routine" standard pretty much applies to only two types of articles: under WP:CORP, a variety of routine business-related announcements/reports don't count toward notability; and for some events, like sporting events, coverage of individual competitions doesn't establish individual notability. For the latter, a simple example is that individual NFL games are very, very rarely individually notable, despite widespread detailed coverage. Most notable people live unexceptional personal lives and we base our bios on routine coverage. For most US state judges, for example, our bios are based on routine coverage of their selection and the occasionally newsworthy case they preside over. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 06:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zefr edited improperly and violated Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines when three times he edited to deleted parts of a discussion and an entire section from an article’s talk page: [12], [13], and [14]. I attempted to restore at least part of the missing content to the talk page, but that was deleted. The talk page as it stands now (Talk:An apple a day keeps the doctor away) has been edited by Zefr to delete comments of another editor (me) and to retain his own comments. This misrepresents the discussion. - Bitwixen (talk) 04:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Ldavid1985 has added a massive number of military infoboxes to bios. About 99% of those bios have little or no commentary about military service, and usually without citations when they do. The editor has unilaterally with no support created additional careers for people when they had no such career. This military infobox saturation campaign happened a few years ago (see RfC,) and there was a consensus to remove them all, which had been done. Now they're back. I would consider all those a form of vandalism.

A few examples:

• Gig Young, "Young took a hiatus from his movie career and enlisted in the United States Coast Guard in 1941 where he served as a pharmacist's mate...", shown with a Career infobox;
• Oliver Stone, served for 1 year after enlisting, shown as Career.
• Sidney Lumet, "World War II interrupted his early acting career and he spent four years in the U.S. Army," shown as Career;
• Others: Eli Wallach, Clark Gable and Haskell Wexler. --Light show (talk) 07:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Light show is topic banned from "any edits relating to biographies of any kind, broadly construed". This looks suspiciously like an edit about a biography. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true, but whatever the community does about potentially breaching a topic ban (although note that Light show has not edited the articles in question), User:Light show does seem to have a point here. The examples presented do seem undue although I probably wouldn't cause them vandalism.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a point here, just a tban violation. It's definitely not vandalism; the RfC only dealt with one article; some of the examples seem clearly due (e.g. Oliver Stone received a bronze star, Clark Gable was a major); this is for sure a content dispute. Levivich 13:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are topic bans really so broadly construed that raising a concern that you believe requires administrator attention can be considered a breach, if the subject is covered by your topic ban? Isn't this exactly what we want a topic-banned editor to do, rather than editing the articles in question (or even the talk pages)? St★lwart¹¹¹ 15:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to the first question, no the second. A person topic banned from X should not be raising ANI threads about how other editors edit X. Levivich 17:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Levivich. "Broadly construed" means exactly what it says. I would add one gloss: if an editor under a TBAN sees a problem in their forbidden area, they should be allowed privately, impartially, and only once to communicate their concern to the banning admin, without expecting a reply. Narky Blert (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, seems a bit bloody-minded, but it makes sense. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:59, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since you brought up that vague term, "broadly construed", would you mind defining it more precisely? While most of the articles I've worked on before the ban were biographies, some were offshoots. For the future, I would like some clarification about where you draw the line. For instance, would an article about a legal case against a person be allowed, such New York v. Strauss-Kahn, as there is a bio of him? Then there are bio-relevant articles such as Concert for Linda, who also has her own biography. Or the list of Celebrities who have received the COVID-19 vaccine. As it is, the term "broadly construed" seems to be vague and leaves it open to personal discretion as to how an edit is "construed." I would appreciate any feedback on this. If you say that the ban refers only to biographies, for example, that would help. Thanks. --Light show (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was not the first to mention "broadly construed" in this thread. That was NRP, quoting a community decision.

As for its meaning, it is a straightforward example of purposive construction. In my book, attempts to test its boundaries verge on WP:WIKILAWYERING.

((a) Piping usernames in discussion threads makes them difficult to find. (b) There is no need to {{ping}} an editor who has recently participated in a discussion; they can be assumed to be watching the page.) Narky Blert (talk) 16:37, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion, but I already did that a few month ago, and actually got a reply. --Light show (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, since I'm here, now A Yankee in King Arthur's Court (defiantly holding an umbrella,) and as yet after 4 years no one has attempted to explain why I was ever banned, can I request finally having the ban lifted? I posted on AN the assumed rationale for the ban here. All of the ban-related issues since that time were related to somehow violating the ban, ie. via Banex. --Light show (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're seriously claiming no one ever said why you were topic banned? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. It was always done through innuendo or implication, as the link makes pretty clear. Example: simply suggesting that even an American citizen whose career notability was primarily achieved in the U.S., should be included in the lead paragraph, is considered disruptive. Or posting an RfC relevant to leads is also disruptive, as it was with Chaplin. In fact, some yankee even mentioning the word "American" for notable British-born movie makers or actors whose notability was made in America, is met with this. That's not to imply you consider all yanks equally disruptive, however.. --Light show (talk) 18:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so with that out of the way, I have to assume you're pulling our collective leg. Because you were topic-banned for refusing to listen & accept you were wrong. And now you're doing it again, in this very discussion. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not leg pulling. I'm simply one of those who don't believe that might makes right. Just tell me what I did "wrong." Fair enough?--Light show (talk) 19:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was explained to you perfectly clearly when you were banned from this area what you did wrong, and it had nothing to do with might meaning right. Since you are so cloth-eared as to not be able to understand that then I think that the ban should be extended to all editing of Wikipedia. Then if there is any issue raised with User:Ldavid1985's editing by a more competent person it can be addressed without these distractions. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was never explained. In fact I had to interpret the ban myself, with my own explanation, which has never been disputed. In fact I've mentioned those rationales on my talk page a number of times, and on AN. As now, never a reply.--Light show (talk) 20:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain it to you, since I just read the history linked above: after being topic banned from multiple individual biography subjects for disruptive editing, including introducing false information and then tendentiously arguing for its inclusion requiring multiple pointless RFCs (such as disputing that Charlie Chaplin should be described as American because he wasn't born in America even though he was a naturalized citizen who lived there for 40 years), the community decided to tban you from all biographies to save editors time. Levivich 20:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't like digressing, considering this entire thread was supposed to be about someone adding about 500 military career infoboxes to actors, that link to Chaplin you mentioned was no longer good. So FWIW this is it. BTW, it was a talk page topic, related to MOS guidelines. Even Loeba had to admit, "The line you quoted from the MOS is dumb and should be removed." The reason I got banned from it was because someone else claimed it was simply a repeat of a previous RfC, which you can see it was not. But they banned me nonetheless for being "disruptive." Having successfully removed the disruptor, the Chaplin article, now with over 15,000 words, has kept out any mention of him being an American actor, producer, filmmaker, composer, or director. If we want to get back to the infobox issue, that would be nice.--Light show (talk) 23:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Telling me why you got banned demonstrates that you understand why you got banned. Levivich 00:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to unban Light show

• Support: In my neutral and unbiased opinion, I'm willing to give the umbrella man another chance. --Light show (talk) 18:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  (Non-administrator comment) At the risk of unnecessary feeding here, on what grounds? Even the very act of opening this ANI header shows you haven't been able to abide by the terms of the topic ban, and ignoring a tban doesn't just make it go away. If you earnestly want to turn this around, constructive editing in other fields and a continued ability to work with and not against consensus is necessary, go prove you can thrive with other subjects and revisit the issue. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 19:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, but I also don't think this raises to the level of doing anything else (e.g. indef) to Light show. I don't see sufficient reason to undo the TBAN, but I also don't see an editor violating their TBAN. If I were a TBAN'd user who could not edit lollipops, I'd probably think if I saw a huge disruption of lollipop articles (subjective) that I should bring it up at ANI. I wasn't aware ANI threads were covered in the TBAN policy. If that is the case, then I'd hope we'd feel it appropriate to give this user a warning and a slap on the wrist and close this thread as unactionable. As an aside, this user had an unban request similarly fail in March of 2018. Particularly this and this. The user is also topic banned from image-related uploads. Any editors commenting here should probably give those threads a read before voting on this. The more I read, the less inclined I am to unblock. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removing infobox military modules

In keeping with the determination at Talk:Mel_Brooks/Archive_1#RfC:_Is_a_military_infobox_appropriate?, Ldavid1985 should start removing all the infobox modules that were added, unless the person gained notability from their military career. Binksternet (talk) 00:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HistoryofIran (talk · contribs) is doing vandalism and reverts edits of mine in Zangana (tribe). --Namaka (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOOMERANG: Namaka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is using a book from 1856 in a bizarre attempt to push a Romani origin on a Kurdish tribe, completely ignoring WP:AGE MATTERS as well as WP:UNDUE. Looking at his other edits makes it even more clear that he is pov-pushing, attempting to add anything about the Romanis anywhere, whether it makes any sense or not, using random websites as well; [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]. At last but not least, he hasn't reached any form of WP:CONSENSUS, let alone take his concerns to the talk page. The only form of 'conversation' he has had with me, is randomly accusing me of 'vandalism' [28] [29] [30] --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Namaka's contribution history is extremely problematic; some form of BOOMERANG block or warning is necessary. A topic area expert also needs to assess all their page creations to determine if they are Content Forks of existing articles. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:HistoryofIran is not engaging in vandalism. I agree with their reverts of your contributions; a source from 1900 isn't sufficient to support that material you're attempting to add. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:16, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Namaka when you get reverted, it's probably best to take your concerns to the talk page and achieve consensus for your changes, especially when your changes seem to be disruptive. Instead, you choose to edit-war, which creates an unconstructive environment for everyone. On top of that, you made this baseless report on HistoryofIran, citing “vandalism”. Please see what vandalism is not. Given all the above, I agree that some sort of block or warning is necessary as a preventative measure. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• In my experience, new users jumping in to create ethnicity and descent categories and edit related content rarely ends well.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not new user but I didn't have any activities for a long time. I didn't know, there is date limitation for sources.HistoryofIran (talk · contribs) only reverted my sources, instead he could say I must reach consensus before adding new materials.Regards--Namaka (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're new in that you have just over 100 edits to the project over a span of 6 years, not nearly enough to understand all of the specific policies and guidelines concerning the topic area you are editing, and obviously not enough to avoid mischaracterize another editor's concerns regarding your edits as "vandalism".-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

力 (talk · contribs) What do u mean by problematic contribution? I added enough sources for Gudar people, is it problematic?I as a user must have enough time to find valid sources.Thanks--Namaka (talk) 18:32, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think there must not be date limitation for disputed ethnic groups articles, this rule will be misused.I hope dear admins modify this one.Thanks--Namaka (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this comment says more than enough. There are clear WP:COMPETENCE issues at play here. Not to mention I did in fact tell him about WP:AGE MATTERS ([31]), yet now he claims that he didn't know? Also, user has now resorted to spamming the Zangana talk page using more bizarre sources [32] --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus? --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:59, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Black Kite's 3rd law - anyone who reports User:HistoryofIran at a dramaboard is 99% likely to be a net negative. Black Kite (talk) 15:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday, Supermann posted this message describing somebody's block as "Justice!". I reverted then warned them for gravedancing and civility issues, and their response was to claim that their actions were fine. Additionally, they have tried to argue that clearly promotional edits are not promotional, again wikilawyering, and seemingly do not understand what consensus means. Since their warning on 16 August and final warning on 21 August, their wikilawyering, personal attacks and repeated insistence that they are right has continued, and I am of the opinion that they are incompatible with a collaborative project like Wikipedia CiphriusKane (talk) 02:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given he had publicly thanked me for Kenji Goto: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia subsequent to filing this, I don't want to cite Wikipedia:Harassment. I am a big man with a big heart^{[dubious – discuss]} and can handle the distress he and others caused. All I ask of him/them is to be more collaborative and make the guidelines less erratic/double-standard instead of adopting a battleground mindset and being condescending as evidenced here Talk:Nikita (TV series) - Wikipedia. Supermann (talk) 05:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The thanks was because I thought the edit and referencing was good and improved the article (given the negative nature of the edit, I thought it best to have strong sourcing for the group, which was provided), because even though yer communication skills seem to be to attack and relentlessly push a point until ye win, some of yer edits are actually decent (even if the edit summaries are rather biased. As for the Nikita business, I was trying to engage you in conversation with the aim of improving the article(s). The only way that I've possibly been condescending was asking that ye stop referencing China's population, because that's just one of a series of fallacies ye've used to support yer arguments, along with hyperbole as seen here and here, hyperfixation on specific wording of policy and essay such as here, here and here (which is Wikilaywering), and claims of victimhood as seen here. I have tried to explain why yer editing is flawed and engage in sorting it. As for the allegations of battleground mindsets and being condescending, take a look in the mirror. Ye allege that I'm nae being collaborative and have a battleground mindset, but it seems every time somebody has an issue with yer editing it seems to be yerself attacking others with the aim of winning. Explaining why somebody has issues with an edit is not an attempt to win a battle; declaring "Justice!" over somebody ye had a disagreement with being blocked, then declaring that it's "fairness" is CiphriusKane (talk) 06:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CiphriusKane, I actually don't believe that it was particularly problematic gravedancing. If they had gone over to the blocked user's talk page and put a similar message, that would be a lot more serious; in this case, a sock placed a user warning template on their page, and Supermann noted that they had been blocked as a sock underneath it. The 'justice' comment wasn't very stylish - a neutrally-worded notice to the effect that the account had been blocked would have looked a lot more mature - but it's not the kind of thing I would have bothered reverting and/or warning them about. I've had long discussions with Supermann in the past, and I generally agree that they have a lot to learn about the editing environment here, but I'm not ready to block as being incompatible with the project.

As an aside by the way - I'm (also?) Scottish, but I have to tell you that I find all the 'ye's, 'yer's and 'nae's rather distracting. I read Oor Wullie as a child, so I can cope with such language variations, but it might make it more difficult for non-Scottish contributors to understand the point you're trying to get across. Just a thought. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: I'm agreeing that they have a lot to learn, but my concern is at what point is enough enough? It seems that nearly every interaction with Supermann leads to some form of offensive and failure to understand issues with edits. They're hardly a newbie; their edit history shows they've been here since 2006 with over 2000 edits. And I've had discussions with them in the past. I've tried to explain to them why certain edits and comments are inappropriate, but seeing bad faith accusations being flung about (see above, accusing me of being condescending and adopting battleground mindsets just for explaining why I have issues with their edits) and attaching ill intent to others' actions (again see above, calling thanking them for providing a decent source as "harassment") gets frustrating. (As for why our paths crossed there, I was watching to see their reply, saw an opportunity to improve a decent edit they'd made, then saw their further improvement, that was all.) The reason why I filed the report was because of their reaction to the warning, which is indicative of a pattern of behaviour that has been occurring for at least 4 years. (They've also called me a deletionist for removing potentially deceptive and potentially low quality content. Given my recent efforts to save BLPPROD articles, I resent the labelling, but hardly in the mood to be told "We agree to disagree")

As for the Scots, force of habit and bad code switching. It's nae ower easy tae be unlairnin habits CiphriusKane (talk) 16:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CiphriusKane, I'll leave this open for other admins to comment on - I'm certainly not claiming to hold authority over the community's patience. All I'm saying is that on balance, I'm not seeing the levels of serious disruption that would make me reach for the indef button - they may still be able to improve given the right guidance.

Ah'm fae Glaesga. Whin ah try tae write the way ah might talk if ah wiz a' hame wi' ma pals fae school, it jist comes oot lookin' weird. Tae be honest but, ah dinnae really talk like tha' any mair, since I went doon tae England and hid to speak to folk who didnae unnerston me talkin Glaswegian. An' ah hid tae teach English children how tae talk the way their folk did an' aw. So, aye - proabably best tae stick tae the auld RP when ye're aboot here, if ye know whit ah mean. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For further information on the above, see https://sco.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Elemimele (talk) 21:37, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise, think the stress of dealing with shite over the past few months (including offwiki stuff) is getting to me. Probably little point in keeping this open as any action will probably be excessive at this time CiphriusKane (talk) 21:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Diffs:

• [33]
• [34]
• [35]
• [36]
• [37]
• [38]

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

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

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

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

FOP2021 (talk · contribs), with a particular interest in Phil Valentine. Lengthy discussions that amount to WP:BLUDGEON, multiple reversions and prolonged explanations at Talk:Phil Valentine and User talk:FOP2021. The tone was set early, with WP:OR edits at Tullahoma, Tennessee, and this response [48]. Since then, MarydaleEd and Llll5032 have spent a lot of time riding herd on them. Little indication that FOP (possibly referring to 'Friend of Phil" [49]) understands that I am a reliable source. Everything I wrote is accurate. How can I edit and add things I know to be true if I can't find someone who wrote an article? Note, the newspaper is right about 50% of the time about anything, doesn't work here. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to contribute here. I am exhausted from having to edit the contributions by FOP2021 to the Phil Valentine article. This person, by their contributions and even their very username (FOP2021 = "Friend of Phil 2021"), has proven that they have some vested interest in this article. On the article's Talk page, the editor accused Cullen328, who properly reverted FOP2021's content to accurately reflect the source, of calling people "Nazis." FOP2021 has been argumentative on the article's Talk page and I had to warn them when they posted a comment that was rude to editor Llll5032. Materialscientist received a lashing when they properly edited FOP2021's content on Tullahoma, Tennessee, and FOP2021 stated that they should, personally, be an acceptable source because they lived in Tullahoma. FOP2021 was provided resources to learn how to edit on Wikipedia by myself and Llll5032, but FOP2021 shows no interest in learning proper Wikipedia editing and behavior. I believe editor FOP2021 should be blocked until they can prove an understanding of how Wikipedia works, how to properly edit and how to treat other editors. God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 00:44, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't find support for all of MarydaleEd's statements, but I do believe that FOP2021 has done nothing but disruptively edit in their brief time here, so I have blocked them indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it's worth, I do not think that the indeffed editor was accusing me personally of calling people Nazis. I think they were speaking about their imagined cabal of liberal Wikipedia editors. That said, I support the block because this is a POV pushing editor who seems incapable of even feigning neutrality. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:35, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest a time limit to this block, if FOP2021 agrees to avoid WP:TEND, abide by WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:PSTS, learn the rules of Wikipedia, and respect the advice of experienced editors. Llll5032 (talk) 17:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Cullen328 and Bbb23. Llll5032, I'm only being slightly arch when I say that there's little incentive for the user to return with all those provisos in place. They're here to post their POV. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NO ACTION REQUIRED

Peter Williams 2001 began to discuss the issues on their talk page - many thanks all for a resolution which didn't require any blocks ~TNT (she/they • talk) 18:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

added 'Kurdish'

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

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

added the Kurdish language

added the Kurdish language

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

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

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

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

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

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

Following circumstances and thoughts following recent RFA question that was perhaps unwise but essentially accepted I have had reflection and felt need to clean sweep to another matter. This relates to an overwrite circa late 27 August 2021 early 28 August 2021 UTC as discussion discussed a Commons:Deletion requests/File:Luaswelcom.jpg where it was challenged the copyvio clear via image non-transparent overlay. Handled by admin there speedy there (I'd offered G7 on an XOR basis but F3 taken on a both - outcome of derivations of [Commons:Deletion requests/File:Spencer Dock Luas stop.jpg] might be a precedent to challenge the F3, but that might go to pot on the basis of the grass), and at 09:33, 29 August 2021‎ UTC removed by finkerbot here. These matters might be adjudged a block evasion from some angles. While I more associate this with the craic, the rocky road to Dublin, the Royal, now from Spencer Dock rather than Newcomen, to Mullingar, which I should be trying to get back onto the RPSI, (Indeed alluded to in the RPSI newsletter I just got emailed!). Possibly more seriously I've been having a dalliance with certain Luas matters, that subset of which are certainly a COI .. maybe into Paid, but that is perhaps pretentious. Appreciate any enforcement now, needless wont do again that overwrite again, not even 1 April 2022. As for Overwriting (prose), well I wrote the article and was preping to write the book if it got transwiki'd off the AfD. Thankyou. (via Djm-mobile for Djm-leighpark on enforced editing WikiBreak: Djm-mobile/Bigdelboy covering discussions and desperate vandalism on an urgentish basis). Djm-mobile (talk) 07:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is this even in English? I can't understand a single sentence. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the clue is go to pot on the basis of the grass. Thincat (talk) 11:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probably something to do with this and the filer's indef block from RSPI. They may be thinking their involvement on Commons constitutes a block evasion on here CiphriusKane (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

imo the word salad is a medication issue, not a self-medication issue. I think the gist of the message is that he edited a deletion request [50] while blocked [51], then yesterday drew attention to himself with a question at the current RfA [52] which was removed as canvassing [53] for an active AfD discussion [54]). Worried that will draw attention to his accounts, he now wants to make a clean breast of it lest he lose his editing privileges permanently. Yappy2bhere (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain (out-of-band) why the deletion request revisions aren't in Global Contributions [55], and how to wiki-link that deletion discussion? Yappy2bhere (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Yappy2bhere You are right I am trying to make a clean breast of it. The key matter relates to the matter of the overwrite in the discussion at c:Deletion requests/File:Luaswelcom.jpg. As I have developed a COI on a matter I am trying not to bring the content relating to of that to high visibility. The GUP tool only shows the last 20 edits in each Wiki ... obviously I have been active in commons. This URL gives a relatively manageable list of my deletion activity on Commons: the O'Dea collection matters is contentious but not relevant here. The discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland#Photos of posters in Ireland has some background context as to how some deletion discussions arose. Yappy2bhere & myself have had interactions in the past: notably at Stop Funding Fake News including image related. It is likely I will choose to re-intervene in PROIV related matters at some future point. It may therefore be people need to bring these matter here but I see the overwrite as the particularly key matter. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if this isn't the right place to put this, but I don't know where to report.

The article's scope was originally the advance of the Islamic Courts Union in Somalia occurred between May and December 2006. However, as of September 2020, several strange and confusing editions disfigured the text and the scope was changed to an offensive that took place between May and July 2006 against the Union of Islamic Courts by an alliance of warlords.

On 19 December 2020 the title was also changed (without consensus) to "The rise of the Islamic Courts Union", a title totally absurd and incompatible with our policies and practices.

Due to unfamiliarity with the editions, in June 2021, there was a requested move and the title was changed to "2006 Somali warlord offensive".

There was no debate regarding this scope change on the talk page. This was done without consensus. It is obvious that the previous version of the article had several parts without sources, but nothing justifies the mass removal of sourced content for confusing reasons to change the scope.

Please request the restoration of the original article.--Fontaine347 (talk) 12:04, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any meaningful change in scope between the actual original version and the current 2006 Somali warlord offensive. Both the original version and the version you mentioned had a great deal of unsourced commentary that needed to get pruned or cited—and it got pruned. The article is still about the Islamic Courts Union's advance through Somalia, only that it's now sourced through June 2006. If you think the article should extend to December 2006, the onus is on you to find sources and expand the article. Woodroar (talk) 14:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not only were the excerpts without sources removed, but also excerpts with sources with confusing justifications (how were the guidelines violated?). The scope was about the advance of the Islamic Courts Union in Somalia, now it's about a offensive against the Union of Islamic Courts.--Fontaine347 (talk) 14:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The editor in question did the same type of editing on Battle of Jilib, a good article. These edits have been reversed.Fontaine347 (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The lead says an offensive took place against the Islamic Courts Union by an alliance of warlords because that's how reliable sources tend to characterize the events, at least according to the comments at the move request. That's based on our Neutral Point of View policy. The bulk of the article does detail the ICU advancing through Somalia, and it's cited to reliable sources like Reuters, the AP, the BBC, the NYT, etc. That's based on our Verifiability policy. The previous version contained large sections based on original research and analysis of sources, which needed to be removed. That's based on our No Original Research policy.

Yes, the article is incomplete now because there aren't many details and it doesn't include events past June 2006. But it was incomplete before because it violated our three core content policies. As I see it, the path forward is to expand the article based on reliable sources and to accurately summarize what those sources say.

Maybe I'm wrong. But look, we don't decide content issues here at ANI and we don't censure editors unless they've violated our policies/guidelines or some previous consensus. You haven't tried starting a discussion at Talk:2006 Somali warlord offensive. You also haven't tried discussing this with the "editor in question" or pointed to any policies/guidelines they've violated. (You also haven't notified the editor about this discussion as the big red box at the top of this page requires.) There's nothing we can do here until one or all of those things happen. Woodroar (talk) 15:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

D.P Talukdar has been constantly creating then recreating articles that get tagged for CSD A7 and G11. I don't think they have made any articles that still exist, or at least aren't marked for deletion, most of them are just unreferenced promotional stubs that are subject to speedy deletion then tagged for salting. They also have not engaged in any discussion regarding them (that I know of) and have ignored all of their talk page messages. It's just disruptive at this point and is abusive of their editing privileges. Waddles 🗩 🖉 16:18, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They sure have a habit of adding redlinks to lists of people, contrary to WP:LISTBIO and WP:LISTPEOPLE; see e.g. the edit history of List of Kathak exponents. Whatever else, this needs to stop. Narky Blert (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, WaddlesJP13. But, although the user has received lots of notifications about their articles being prodded or nominated for speedy, they have never yet been warned about their general practice of creating and recreating articles on non-notable subjects straight into article space. I have warned them now, and told them to go via Articles for creation in the future, or they will soon be blocked for wasting the time of other volunteers. (I didn't notice the redlink issue, Narky Blert; feel free to warn them separately about that, if you like.) Bishonen | tålk 17:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

 Done, see User talk:D.P Talukdar#Links to people who have no articles. Narky Blert (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: Thank you for warning them, though unfortunately they'll likely persist as they have not noted any of their previous notices (won't make any accusations, just general assumptions based on their past talk page messages). If they do persist after your warning, that might be the best time to actions such as a block since this is the first time they've actually been warned. I have their talk page in my watchlist as it was added when I marked on of their articles for deletion using Twinkle and it has remained in there since, so I guess I'll keep on the lookout for the time being to see if they either continue with their article creations, acknowledge the messages and refrain from making more, or start making articles that actually adhere to the guidelines. Waddles 🗩 🖉 17:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too optimistic about the effect of my warning either, WaddlesJP13, and I fully intend to (try to) keep an eye on the user, and block if they persist in their timewasting ways. But it's not right to block out of a clear blue sky, and so I warned. Please feel free to let me know if you should notice further creation/recreation of weak articles. Bishonen | tålk 17:35, 5 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

1. We have a Wikipedia:Bot policy. It has a few purposes, one of which is to ensure the appropriate level of consensus exists for mass editing tasks so they don't cause widespread disruption and frustration.
2. There exists one widespread RfC for the use of {{Authority control}} and that was Wikipedia:Authority control integration proposal in 2012; it authorised mass-addition only to biographical articles. This was carried out using bot accounts (eg User:VIAFbot), and one of which was Tom's Tom.Bot, showing that he's aware of the approval process and its necessity for this kind of editing.
3. Since 2018, Tom.Reding has added {{Authority control}} through his account to at least ~400,000 articles at a rate of several per minute. These are mostly outside the scope of the above approval. His current unapproved task purports to add this template to every single English Wikipedia article. The previous ANI involved redirects, and there have been disputes over other types of articles as well. There exists no community consensus for this MEATBOT. There is no WP:BAG approval.
4. At the previous ANI, editors raised concerns and detailed the breadth of the issue, and SoWhy added comments on the user's talk[56][57]. Though Tom.Reding's initial comments left a lot to be desired, he did commit to stopping, and did so for several weeks after the ANI was archived.[58]. After the scrutiny died down he resumed, and now seems to refuse to acknowledge the issue at all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Not related to AC, but if you see here, Tom.Reding has edited at a speed of over 20 edits per minute. I have no opinion over the edits themselves, but it is better to do such edits with a bot flagged account to avoid flooding the recent changes. Routing these edits through a bot account will make WP:RCP easier. BAG usually speedy approves small scale tasks like this (example). ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 05:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Restoring my comment which was mysteriously reverted: * Just wanted to add that I did ask Tom to add AC templates to Vital Articles, a project I’ve worked on for some time, as it makes sense that VAs would have ACs. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ரும்பெபாண்டியன்2 has carried out disruptive editing of Wikipedia articles largely relating to Sri Lanka and LTTE for considerable time.

• Removing references and changing the casualty count from First Battle of Elephant Pass he would later come back and again try to make uncited changes to casualties
• Editing Chelvy Thiyagarajah page in a way close to vandalism by removing references and then editing it without sources blaming a different organization.
• Unsourced changing of casualty count of [Battle of Mullativu|https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Mullaitivu_(1996)&diff=prev&oldid=984871531]
• Randomly removing the expulsion of muslims and reff from Jaffna page with no edit summary
• Uncited change of casualties of Operation Jayasikurui
• Unexplained removal of Massacre of policemen
• Taking out zeroes to make the number smaller without explanation.
• Goes on uncited editing spree on Battle of Weli Oya which when reverted by Cossde the user instead of taking the burden for defending the content goes on offensive on ethnicity of the editors
• He has also gone on to rant about his views and insult ethnic Sinhalese editors
• When warned on this behaviour his response was to accuse my ethnicity and then go further by accusing me of being a propagandist and edited it further calling the ethnicity as "your people"

I believe he is WP:NOTHERE due to the continuous disruptive editing and not talking about the content edits but rather going on to attack the ethnicity of other editors when other editors have remained civil. Thank you.

- UmdP 03:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely. Since I'm already here, might as well expedite this obvious case. El_C 04:24, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see there was also some ethno-national attacks. Oh well. I'm tired. El_C 04:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El_C ரும்பெபாண்டியன்2 was not sufficiently warned and has been good editing for over an year and has received only one warning just now which was disputed by another editor.Hence I humbly request to reduce the block to say 48 hours or so.2405:201:E012:5A93:90CD:21B9:F926:C51D (talk) 06:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are the same account in a IP address due to the sudden appearance and similarity of making a "humble request". If it is you then avoid using IP addresses to come around blocks and try appealing the block. The account has been advised before to avoid making such edits but continued carrying out such edits for over a year. The reaction to being warned itself is "I don't need your warning and you look at your faking behaviour. As you are Sinhalese, you are supporting the government propaganda and using Wikipedia pages for your propaganda works. I don't your warning." Attacking users based on ethnicity itself is WP:NOPA and the same goes for calling editors "propagandists". The account pretty much claimed it will not accept any warnings entirely on ethnic grounds so further warnings are pointless. - UmdP 08:07, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Johnpacklambert unblock conditions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Absolutely no.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose as proposed. What will he be allowed to do and not allowed to do? For how long? Everyone needs clarity here, especially John. (Go to his talk page, he doesn’t know how he is supposed to use it at this time.) If John is to be successful, such arbitrary phrasing is likely to lead to trouble. He had talked about being on the autism spectrum before; however, all users deserve more specificity than this. Beyond the as-proposed issue: Socking to double-vote and perhaps to get around a likely block reveals an addiction to using this site. This is not some unbecoming behavior that can be chalked up entirely to frustration and is quickly forgivable when one is contrite (accusing someone of something one has a history of experiencing in the heat of a moment is; I can overlook that in light of the apology). But the socking is unethical, problematic, a red flag, of utmost concern. Outside of this website, this kind of deceit is the sort of thing one could lose credibility, licensure, and career over. It doesn’t matter how long the accounts existed. Are there other accounts? Will there be accounts in the future? John desperately wants to stay. His actions suggest he should move on. I would love to see him enjoy anything in the real world, or even something more creative online. His comments about his life being a failure, etc. are alarming. Anyway… I asked John on his talk page about his involvement in deletion point-blank; his reply suggests he is uncomfortable answering questions there and here because he is concerned about repercussions. Reading between the lines of what he said, he may be agreeable to this. He could keep going on with category work and perhaps more minor edits to articles and I’d be fine with that (though “minor” perhaps should be defined; I know there have been run-ins). A permanent ban from all AfD processes is a more than fair compromise. He is stuck on it enough to sock. 99.9% of what he does in AfD is prodding or nominating; anyone can do that. We aren't losing one of our better HEY researchers by taking him out of that space. (NOTE: John and I have probably been on the same page in AfD as often as we are opposed, and when we’re opposed, I generally can make an article pass muster, so I’m really more disappointed at the thought of losing his votes in the religious corporation space than I am threatened by the thought of his continuing here.) Socking must be met with a permanent consequence of some kind… or some of us will lose faith in Wikipedia. Can’t we iron out some specific terms? FYI, I would support his return if a full and permanent ban from deletion is in the terms. Per Morbidthoughts, Only in death does duty end, and others. Sorry this is so long! DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban from religion and article deletion (previously "oppose but might support with more appropriate specific conditions"). Indefinite topic bans from religion (all religions) and from all article deletion processes (including CSD and PROD, and project-side discussions about deletion) ought to be minimum, owing to the fact that JPL has on two separate occasions within the past six months created socks to avoid scrutiny and in the more recent case to evade a block to edit those topics. While some others in these various discussions have applauded JPL's devotion to Wikipedia, I see a level of fanaticism that is disruptive to the project: after being blocked, in two spurts totalling five hours of editing JPL made more than 80 comments on his talk page which were some variation of this begging apology, including "my life is unlivable", "I am sinking into despair", "I am not going to kill myself", "I always fail at everything", "I have spilled out my life in trying to make Wikipedia better", and including a handful that required suppression. But in amongst this flailing against a block he considered "like a death sentence" he nevertheless continued to ping editors to his talk page to start new discussions about LDS content that he disagreed with ([59] [60]). That is not dedication, it's obsession: John is demonstrably unable to disengage from this topic. If he really only wants to edit articles about people born in 1921 and 1922 then fine, these restrictions shouldn't hinder him much but ought to keep him out of the areas he frankly can't handle. That being said, the unblocking admin's wrist-slap unblock, and their flippant and dismissive comments in this thread, shouldn't be held against JPL. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Support topic ban from religion Levivich is correct above that it is a waste of time to express support for or opposition to unblocking. Johnpacklambert is unblocked. Everyone whose has paid attention knows that the recent disruption has to do largely with topics pertaining to the Salt Lake City church he belongs to. Right now on his talk page, he is going on and on about expatriate categorization for Gerrit W. Gong, a senior figure in the leadership of that church who was born in 1953 not 1921 or 1922. I think a clearly defined topic ban is necessary if there is to be any hope of this editor continuing to contribute to this encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:34, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose current unblock restrictions, support topic ban from religion - Category:1922 births and Category:1921 births would include centenarians and thus be covered under the longevity DS (which, for reasons I don't understand, is also listed at WP:GS, so I guess it's both a GS and a DS). When an editor has been disruptive in one area, restricting them to a DS area is a bad idea. Additionally, those categories include dozens of Latter Day Saints [61] [62], which is the topic that started this round of ANI. The unblock conditions should address the issues raised in the ANI thread that led to the block, such as a TBAN from religion. Levivich 16:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Levivich, thanks for that analysis. It is interesting that Walter Gong was born in 1922 and is the father of Gerrit W. Gong, who Johnpacklambert is discussing on his talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose current unblock conditions, support topic ban from religion A topic ban from religion is an absolute must. The socking has not been adequately addressed either.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• TBAN from religion indefinitely, formally log the voluntary 1922 restriction and call for a quick close. I appreciate Floquenbeam keeping their word and soliciting community review of the unblock conditions. The most recent flurry of inappropriate conduct was centered on the question of religion, and the archived discussion included evidence that this wasn't the first time. It's sensible for the community to protect itself from the further abuse that is likely if JPL continues to edit in the topic area. Some editors/admins note the drain that continued discussion is having on both JPL and others. JPL is communicating that the 1922 voluntary restriction will be helpful to them and formalizing such a restriction should help clarify the bounds. I'll be likely to support dropping the restriction in a while on appeal. Finally, continued discussion on this matter is clearly a drain on both JPL and the community; I encourage an uninvolved admin to be bold on closing this discussion quickly. Not now, but ideally soon. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose religion topic ban (Involved) I'm a regular editor in the Mormonism topic area. JPL's moving and renaming spree was annoying and disruptive. I know. I spent nearly an hour reverting it. And I was shocked by his complete loss of objectivity...calling people bigots for using the word "Mormon" and such. That said, in my experience this kind of behavior is not normal for JPL. I think part of it may have been a negative reaction to stress or something. More importantly, I think JPL has realized he crossed a line and is committed to correcting course. He's been unblocked for 2 days now and is gnoming articles in the 1921 category or whatever, as promised, drama free. I hope after several months of productive editing on this tiny sliver of the encyclopedia he can eventually return to full editing. The bias is still a concern, but that's something that can be managed. Recognizing it's a problem is the first step. I appreciate having gnomes around who are both knowledgeable about the subject matter and capable editors. ~Awilley (talk) 17:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unblock without very stringent editing limits, particularly with regard to religious topics. JPL has an established history of religious hate speech off-wiki coupled with targeting articles relating to religions he disfavors on-wiki, especially the Roman Catholic Church. There's also his bizarre comments here, barely two weeks ago, declaring that the concept of Islamophobia "invented by the same forces that orchestrated mobs that killed over 200 people in direct oppostion to the right of people to draw certain cartoons" and that people who use the term support "physical punishment for apostasy". He seems unable to sustain rational discussion when religious ideas he disputes are involved. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 04:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - on the basis of socking. Will except an unblock in 6-months, if no socking has occurred between now & then. GoodDay (talk) 12:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support unblock His presence on AfDs and CfDs is missed. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 12:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support unblock but also Support Religion TBAN as an add-on that, in a formalized way. I think the unblock was proper, I think the conditions were workable, and I think this discussion is malformed. We should, in general, be focusing on the TBAN proposals below and not on critiquing the behavior of an admin who was acting in good faith. If the unblock conditions are adhered to, I think it would be a perfectly fine outcome. But I do support the religion TBAN as a prophylactic measure. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deja vu

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

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

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

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

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

Final thoughts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Topic ban proposal for JPL - Biographical information

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose - a generalized topic ban on all biographies, including BLP's. If the proposal wants to be more topic specific, like biographies on religious figures, then it can be brought forward as a different proposal and evaluated on its merits. --ARoseWolf 20:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Support while biographical issues are a large part of his issues, I think we also need to consider LDS/Mormonism as well as that is what led to this whole mess. JPL is unable to edit neutrally on the church regardless of whether it's about LDS people or not. The challenge (which led to the indef) is he does not take criticism of his edits well, so imagine we'll be back here. Star Mississippi 20:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Tentative Conditional Support, although, much like User:Cullen328 and User:Star Mississippi (and multiple other users in the section above) have noted immediately above, I think the issue of a tban on editing LDS/religion in general broadly construed definitely needs to be addressed in definitive language and apart from any "ban on bios for a year and then come see us again". Heiro 04:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - as t-ban proposal is too broad. GoodDay (talk) 12:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - this is both too broad and also misses several areas of disruption. Try the narrower sanction first, and if the disruptive behaviour migrates to other topics then consider expanding the scope. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 12:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I think the user has shown they are capable of editing in the narrow areas proposed in the informal unblock conditions, and there's no reason why we should unnecessarily prevent them from editing the 1921/1922 births area. That, to my reading, would be included in this proposal and therefore the proposal is too broad. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: unworkable. Few articles on Wikipedia don't contain biographical information. There's a sleight of hand being used here to switch between BLP and "biographical". TBANs need clear rules and clear methods of enforcement. I believe this is particularly important to autistic editors. It's prohibitively difficult to check that every page (not just article) you edit doesn't fall under the TBAN, and JPL does lots of rapid gnoming edits. If I can't work out how I would act if I were under this restriction, I cannot expect JPL to either. — Bilorv (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban proposal for JPL - Religion

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

  Addressing some comments below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  I'm not sure how making it all religion is simplifying anything. There are literally thousands of religions worldwide. That is my issue with this tban. We need more clarity, not less. Is it just lay people, ministers, graduates of a seminary, a self-taught shaman in Asia or a medicine man from the Modoc tribe of Oklahoma? This is a trap topic. One violation will get JPL banned and it is more likely to happen than not. He could avoid every subject for three years on Catholicism, Mormonism and the LDS and edit the article of a "priest", or "shaman" from South Asia and get banned from Wikipedia even if his edit is nothing more than a category change. This is the problem with broadly construed tban's on such large topics. --ARoseWolf 14:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Hell, based on this tban he couldn't edit the article on Tibetan bowls. They are an instrument used in Buddhist religious ceremonies. I don't use them for that purpose but they are a "religious" instrument. --ARoseWolf 15:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see how "religion" is unclear. Is this article about a topic which a reasonable observer would (or might) consider to be a religious topic? Don't edit it. According to the standing bell article which covers Tibetan bowls, they are used in religious ceremonies, so that article is off limits (precedentially, only the portions of the article which cover religious use would be within scope, whereas their use as musical instruments would not be, but that is a very tricky argument and a slippery slope). We could say "organized religion" but then what counts as "organized"? If we have to start listing off every specific topic or even specific articles which John is not allowed to edit in order to ensure compliance, then John is not a suitable candidate for a topic ban and should just be site-banned. I don't see any reason to believe that he wouldn't be able to abide by a clearly worded restriction, even if it is very broad. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 15:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Reasonable is a subjective term as indicated by the different opinions stated here. What you see as reasonable may not be reasonable to me. This broad TBAN is a slippery slope to begin with. A more focused TBAN to protect specific areas that have been a problem and are the very reasons we are here having this conversation would seem more reasonable to me. LDS, Mormonism and Catholicism are specific topics that can easily be identifiable. Most topic bans I have seen are very specific so that there are less pitfalls and traps. --ARoseWolf 15:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  There are no "pitfalls and traps" in avoiding religion-related topics. You read the article before editing; if you see mention of religion or religious topics, you don't edit. As Ivanvector said, if we have to create rafts of specific restrictions for an editor, that's evidence they shouldn't be editing at all. JPL has been here a lot, so it's not as if this is a first-time effort where gentleness is necessary. Grandpallama (talk) 15:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe quite a few here would vote to support a site ban on JPL and you should definitely propose that if you believe that reasonable. That should not be the intent or purpose of this TBAN and it should be as constricted and specifically worded as possible. As far as gentleness goes, it is not for you to decide how or when I apply it or advocate for it. I believe the pretense of that statement is highly inappropriate and grossly offensive. --ARoseWolf 16:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Conversely, I find the pretense that in addressing a longterm, problematic editor, our first concern should be the editor and not the encyclopedia highly inappropriate and grossly offensive. It's also tiresome to see the old argument that a TBAN is somehow a "trap" rather than a measure to protect the encyclopedia from an editor who cannot edit neutrally within that topic. Grandpallama (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  What religious topic outside of Mormonism, LDS and Catholicism has JPL specifically edited on that is problem for you or that you view as non-neutral? So you understand I am not going to comment on your personal opinion of what you view as my "priorities" or "concerns" because that really isn't within your purview but I will discuss specifics of comments outside of that aspect. --ARoseWolf 16:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @ARoseWolf: I hear what you're saying and you've got me thinking, but I'm gonna push back a bit.

  First, that a TBAN'd editor can't edit an article related to the TBAN is a "feature" not a "bug". So no, if John were TBANed from religion, he couldn't edit the article about the Tibetan bowl used in religious ceremonies. I don't perceive that to be a problem, I perceive that to be the solution to the problem (the problem being John's disruptive editing on these topics).

  Second, the same thing (whether you call it a feature or a bug) would happen even if John were TBANed from something narrower, like, say, "LDS, Mormons, and Catholicism" (I'll call it "LDS etc."). The LDS etc. ban would mean he can't edit Utah, Salt Lake City, Brigham Young University, all of which are LDS/Mormon. Utah's basketball team, Utah Jazz, would be an edge case. Kyle Van Noy is an American football player, but also a member of LDS and played for Brigham Young, so his article is probably out of bounds. How about Girl Crazy (1997 film)? Seems fine? I don't know, it's made by Richard Dutcher, the "Godfather of Mormon Cinema." No matter what the topic area, there are these unexpected connections where making the determination of whether it's "in scope" is hard, and that's what "broadly construed" is all about.

  Which leads us to my third point: this isn't about John, it's about everybody else. I appreciate that you have a lot of sympathy and concern for John; I do, too, but I have more concern for everyone else, everyone interacting with John. When evaluating the TBAN, I think it'll be easier on the community to analyze whether something is related (broadly construed) to "religion" than "LDS etc.". Yes, it means more restriction upon John, but easier for the community. That's a trade-off I think is justified. Don't forget, this isn't like John is making some innocent mistake and we have to help him fix it. He has repeatedly made serious personal attacks against multiple editors. There have been multiple ANI threads just in the last six months about this. The purpose of the TBAN isn't therapy: the goal isn't to "heal" John or "fix" him or otherwise help him in any way. The TBAN is probation: it's an alternative to a full site ban (the point is to find something less than a full site ban that will prevent disruption), and the goal--the only goal--is to reduce John's disruption on everyone else. The TBAN gets lifted not when John is "fixed", but when John can demonstrate that it is no longer necessary to prevent disruption to others.

  So you've got me thinking about it, but I'm going to vote based on what I think is best for the community, not what I think is best for John. So, as of now, I still think "religion" will be an easier topic ban than "LDS etc." for the community to administer, and that's why I support the broader scope. If you think I'm wrong and the narrower scope will be easier on the community, I'm all ears. Levivich 16:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, consider that John's own proposal was to limit himself to only people born in 1922. This sanction gives him a lot more freedom. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I know what you intended by this comment but it comes off as a little insincere. Everyone knows if a personal sanction was enough we wouldn't be here discussing this. Also, putting it between parenthesis doesn't make it more believable. A personal ban can be lifted or put in place at the whim of the person making it. I ban myself from things all the time. It's a lot like those yearly resolutions so many people make. This TBAN is a community sanction and it will restrict JPL very far beyond the topics of his disruption. --ARoseWolf 16:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  but I'm going to vote based on what I think is best for the community, not what I think is best for John Exactly. Grandpallama (talk) 16:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  So it's about what is easier on the community now? On the face of it that would seem reasonable. Less headache, less oversight, less concern, less opposition. Is that not also a slippery slope. Hey, if I always chose the easier approach I wouldn't be here throwing out a different opinion. I believe we can protect the community while also placing restrictions on JPL in the very focused and specific areas that he has been disruptive. Does he deserve that? I don't know. What I don't want to see is us having to come back here and discuss an instance where he made a minor edit to an article that barely mentions anything religious, doesn't even have to say religion in any form, but someone feels is a violation of his TBAN because it says "broadly construed". This is about practicality as much as it is anything else. There are literally hundreds of thousands of articles that could fall into this category something about religion. I dare say more that do than those that don't. Why not get specific if it can narrow that approach? --ARoseWolf 17:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  So it's about what is easier on the community now? Not easier, but what's best. Often, easier is best, but not always. Hey, if I always chose the easier approach I wouldn't be here throwing out a different opinion. That's an example of easier not being best. Sure, it'd be easier (for you and the community) if you didn't throw out a different opinion, but it might not be best (for the community), because your different opinion might help the community make a better decision than it otherwise would. This is about practicality as much as it is anything else. Completely agree. Why not get specific if it can narrow that approach? I believe figuring out if something is "religion, broadly construed" is easier, and therefore better (it'll save editor time), than figuring out if something is "LDS, broadly construed", "Mormonism, broadly construed", or "Catholicism, broadly construed". Simply because it's easier to determine if something is in one broad topic, than three narrower topics. Broader is easier on the community, and therefore better. Or so my thinking goes. Am I wrong? Levivich 17:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We may have very different opinions on what is right and what is wrong so I don't usually look at things from that perspective. Beyond that I don't believe I have the right to say you are wrong in your approach as much as we might disagree. I have been here and commented on many of JPL's AN/I discussions. I know full well he has negatively impacted others to the point where they probably don't care what happens to him. I can't say that I blame them and I can't say they are wrong for thinking like that. Your opinion is your own and I am not trying to change that, just offer my own such as it is. --ARoseWolf 18:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) Except for sanctions that we can enforce technically (i.e. blocks, or granular parblocks more recently) we have to trade off between "covers the disruption" and "is enforceable". Editors who have been around JPL a lot longer than I have have observed that the disruption is centred on the LDS Church but frequently spills out into other much more broad topics, and this suggests a sanction needs to be expanded in scope to "cover the disruption". I get the sense that religion isn't broad enough, but we have to start somewhere. In other words, assuming that JPL is going to abide by the restriction, a broader scope means it's less likely we'll be back here dealing with spillover in a month's time. As for the slippery slope at the edges of the ban (I agree with you here) we do not treat kindly editors who weaponize sanctions, there's a policy about that. If we get disingenuous reports here that JPL edited an article about a person whose father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate once attended a Mormon church, the person doing the reporting is going to be the one facing sanctions. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 17:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could have the same confidence but history has dictated otherwise. Nevertheless, its an issue that JPL will have to contend with and I suspect he will receive little leniency going forward for even a minor violation such as you suggested above. --ARoseWolf 18:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

  Right, I think "Christianity" and especially these three concepts is ideal as a scope, broadly construed. The only reason I said "Judeo-Christianity" and not just "Christianity" is that there are some folks who do not consider Mormonism to be a Christian religion [63]. (It's complicated). Suffice it to say, a lot of Christians don't believe Mormons count: Basically a few Evangelical traditions, but also the American Methodist, Lutheran, and Presbyterian conferences. And Mormons have actually said they consider themselves as close to Judaism as to Evangelicals. Even Evangelicals would admit that Mormonism falls within the bounds of "Judeo-Christianity" as a religion which believes the Bible to be a holy text, believes in the divinity of Christ, etc. Even if they don't consider them formal "Christians." And of course, LDS-adherents and basically all Mormons self-identify as Christians [64]. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

• [65] which was followed by this user undoing my edit claiming that my edit wasn't right and my source wasn't valid as seen here:
• [66]

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

• [67]
• [68]
• [69]
• [70]
• [71]

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

• [72]

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

• [73]

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

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

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

Well I had a look at SkylerLovefist's recent contributions and found this [74] containing a personal attack. Addicted4517 was correct to revert this addition as per WP:SOCIALMEDIA it was not a suitable source and it fails verification anyway as it doesn't back up the claim made. SkylerLovefist's edit history on Buddy Murphy is exactly the same. Addicted4517 is patiently and politely pointing to the correct policy and explaining why SkylerLovefist is being reverted but SkylerLovefist responds with edit warring and personal attacks. I would suggest SkylerLovefist stop what they're doing right now as an admin coming here is likely to block them for A) Personal attacks and B) edit warring. SkylerLovefist should also apologise to Addicted4517 for your personal attacks when he was only trying to help them. SkylerLovefist might also like to look at WP:BOOMERANG as I strongly suspect one is heading their way if they don't stop now. WCM_email 08:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Non-administrator comment) I'm afraid that really isn't accurate, the problem here is the frequent personal attacks from SkylerLovefist and their inability to source their edits. EG [75] was sourced to a Twitter video, which makes no mention of the person concerned. They may be in the video but that is WP:OR and WP:SYN to make a claim for a WP:BLP. At Buddy Murphy he was edit warring to force his preferred Twitter source into the article even though HHH Pedrigree had provided one. I do wonder if this is more of a WP:CIR issue. WCM_email 10:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Bashereyre has been here since February 2007, and has in those 14 years created more than 8,000 articles. As an autopatrolled editor, few of his creations are actually checked by enough people. I noticed a lot of sub-standard stubs created by them, but not until May of this year did I pay more serious attention to them. As I found serious errors with creation after creation, I posted this, which lists a wide variety of problems, both with the quality of sourcing (including BLP issues) and the factual accuracy of his articles. They removed this a few hours later without replying[76]. Two weeks later, I tagged Ralph Brideoke (priest) as a copyright violation, adding yet another issue to the mix. I hoped that things would improve, but I see very little change. In the months inbetween, I have checked some of his older contributions and some of their current ones.

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

Examples of uncorrected issues:

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

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

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

A chain reaction of errors...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dubious tag on a highly opposed, active discussion removed saying "nothing dubious"[78] not self reverting despite warning about WP:WNTRMT. Viewsridge (talk) 06:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

However the stick has not been dropped, and I keep getting pinged over it (whilst also being told I should drop the stick [[93]]). Moreover the same user (Dominic Mayers) have taken to appeal to logic [[94]] and blatant statement to allow OR of primary sources based upon an RFC that did not ask that question [[95]].

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

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

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

And we have this [[96]], which is not only chock full of comments about me and not content. It is continuing a discussion we have been told to drop and yet again mentions me. This is now bordering on badgering.Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And this [[97]]. Which violates (as far as I can see) wp:talk.Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Being pinged to a discussion you do not want to participate in is annoying—I know the feeling—but it does not actually compel you to respond. It seems to me that you are very uncharitably cherry-picking a word, "logic", that another editor used, and trying to stretch out a narrative based on that one word alone. You're both experienced contributors, so why not assume that you both understand basic policies/guidelines and how Wikipedia works, and that disagreement you have is of two rational people disagreeing with this specific situation alone? (And then such a disagreement is resolved by listening to each other, presenting sources that address the problems the other person sees with the ones they have read, and if necessary soliciting third party opinions, rather than accusations that the other person is violating everything but the kitchen sink.) — Bilorv (talk) 22:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its not a case of I do not want to participate, we have been told to drop the stick, and its not being dropped. I am happy to participate as long as it is then not used against me as "not dropping the stick".Slatersteven (talk) 09:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Special:Contributions/77.248.85.29

Edits dating to at least one year ago by this IP ([110]; more recent [111][112][113]) suggest they're not really here to contribute constructively, and they appear quite interested in pointing out various instances of "propoganda" (along with actual insults and similar childish stuff). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

GovGuide has been rewriting article introductions and introducing errors at a fast pace despite being asked to stop a few times [114][115][116]. Their talk page is a mess of stream-of-consciousness questions/complaints and they're rewriting information pages, throwing around templates with no explanation, inserting nonsense, etc. Either they're not understanding something or refusing to understand something.Citing (talk) 04:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

someone just changed all the work i did thats crazy

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

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