User:Lugnuts has received some attention here and some restrictions, I guess I don't need to rehash this here. He is now disrupting AfD, on the one hand by accusing User:Cbl62 of being a proxy for User:Johnpacklambert at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gösta Grandin and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arnolds Krūkliņš, and on the other hand by starting revenge AfDs against Johnpacklambert, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conners Creek, Michigan and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duboisville, Michigan, on the latter even claiming that it fails WP:V even though it was very easy to confirm its existence and find multiple sources. Also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramdasa, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A. C. Nelson, ...

Can please something be done to make it clear that taking articles on viable topics to AfD as a revenge for having your own articles at AfD is very poor practice and should stop? Fram (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, not informing JohnpackLambert of these AfDs was a rather poor decision as well, but fits the pattern I guess. Fram (talk) 14:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • Interestingly I was informed of the 2 later mentione AfDs, and 1 other that is not named above, but the 2 on places that are now part of the city of Detroit I was given no notice on. So it is not that Lugnuts does not know how to inform editors of AfDs, he just chose not to place notice of the 2 on places in Michigan on my talk page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• For pity's sake, at what point is Lugnuts' manifest and ongoing bad faith going to stop? Quite aside from that it's a horrible look for the Wikipedia champion of creating SIGCOV-less two-sentence sub-stubs sourced only to databases, how many disruptive bites of the apple does this guy get to have? I'd be entirely comfortable with Lugnuts getting an indefinite topic ban from the AfD process (except for commenting in defense of his own article creations), to add to his mounting block and tban tally.

  And the further question is this: at what point will we be forced to conclude that Lugnuts is not here to build an encyclopedia so much as he views Wikipedia as a zero-sum battleground of combats to be won and enemies to be thwarted? Ravenswing 15:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• He did it again [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cliff, Michigan]. This may in fact be a valid AfD nomination, but he has again failed to notify me as the article creator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to clarify, "he did it again" could be misconstrued as "he did it again after this ANI report was opened", but it was started at the same time as the other AFDs. So it's more a case of "he did it another place that hasn't previously been mentioned". I was initially confused, so wanted to prevent others from being confused. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Your point is well taken. His failure to post notice on my talk page about these nominations made it harder to keep track of when they were occuring.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Another example is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A. C. Nelson, where Lugnuts took a gratuitous dig at Johnpacklambert's religion, knowing that he is unable to respond. Unseemly. Cullen328 (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I have taken the liberty to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duboisville, Michigan, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duboisville, Michigan, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A. C. Nelson, as Speedy Keeps. These are NAC's done under WP:SKCRIT #2B: nominations which are made solely to provide a forum for disruption. They could also be equally considered to qualify as criterion #2a: obviously frivolous or vexatious nominations. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• It's not just 2 sentence stubs. Most of the articles he created on gymnasts are wrong. He's created hundreds of articles stating that gymnasts competed in multiple events when they didn't make it out of qualifications. It's going to take a very long time to go through them and correct these mistakes. He clearly knows nothing about the subject, yet felt the need to create articles on it. Afheather (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ravenswing's suggestion is a good one. Let's make it a formal proposal.

Proposal (Lugnuts AfD)

Lugnuts is banned from the AfD process, except in defence of articles he has created.

If the last part proves problematical, it can be rescinded. Mjroots (talk) 17:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/oppose Looking at the most recent AfD noms by JPL, I see that half of the most recent ones (from 5th Jan) have targeted articles I created. Being somewhat vexed by this (and no, that's not an excuse), I picked some of JPL's creations at random. Many of them are fine. The ones I came upon were not/are not in the best shape, and would come under the comment of "SIGCOV-less two-sentence sub-stubs", above, sans the sourcing bit, such as this, this and this, for example. I did look for sourcing for all of these, and then logged the AfDs. I think other editors who found those stubs in those states might have done the same. However, I understand the tit-for-tat aproach this could be viewed as, for which I apologise, and for the spam comment too. Infact - @Johnpacklambert: I apologise for that comment about the spam/CoLDS and any offesene it may have caused.

My AfD data is pretty good overall (if that counts for anything). Good faith works both ways, and I'm happy to not log AfDs for articles created by JPL that would be viewed by any reasonable editor as a "revenge AfD". As for the bit about not letting the article creator know about the AfD, WP:AFD states "Consider letting the authors know on their talk page" (my emp.) - it's not a requirement. Maybe that needs its own discussion/RfC. The outcome of this proposal may already be a fait accompli, but I've responded, held my hands up, promised not to repeat it and apologised. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: And so here we are, yet again. From another editor, I would credit Lugnuts' professing contrition, but he's done that before. Over, and over, and over again. He promised back at ANI in April that he had learned his lesson, and would stop creating sketchy sub-stubs to bolster his creation count; he broke his word there the next day. His block log is studded with exhortations of good faith going forward, apologies, atonements ... leading right into subsequent blocks. After being tbanned from new stub creation, he's turned his attention to new redirect creation, dozens in the last month. JPL's slowly working through the many thousands of unsourced sub-stubs Lugnuts has created, and so all of a sudden Lugnuts is on the one hand screeching BEFORE! at JPL while taking JPL's own article creations to AfD, with such threadbare evidence and rationales that they're being speedy-kept en masse.

  Enough. Lugnuts has been around a long time now. He has over a MILLION edits, and I don't think it's the slightest bit unreasonable that after all the blocks, after all the ANI threads, after all the edit warring, after all the disruptions, after the bans, we not only expect the civil and collegial behavior that we would out of a newbie with a couple hundred edits, but we hold him as accountable as we would that newbie for willful defiance of those standards, and that he'd have just enough common sense to recognize that he's on very thin ice and ought not go out of his way to lash out at other editors. At some point, to paraphrase Anne of Green Gables, we need to see adherence to civil behavior more than fulsome apologies after the fact. If Lugnuts is incapable by playing by the rules, if after all this time he still doesn't get it, then what the hell, people? Ravenswing 20:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support tban from AFD, except to defend own creations - This is clearly beyond the pale. Between the aspersions of proxying at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gösta Grandin, these (fairly clear) revenge AFDs, and all of the past history with problems in this area, it's clearly time to nip the problem in the bud and stop the disruption in this area. Past attempts to deal with this have not worked, so in order to stop the disruptive behavior, this looks necessary. Hog Farm _Talk 20:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Commentpersonal attacks and well poisoning removedIt is also clear that Lugnuts' AfD's were, as he admits, a "tit-for-tat." We could just ban all three of them from AfD, but I think it would be more productive for all three of them to simply agree to cease the behavior that got us into this mess in the first place, with sanctions to be involved only if they don't. I would strongly oppose any sanctions that don't address all three users involved in this mess, but frankly don't see the need for anything at all if people just move on and don't repeat the behavior that got us here. If they show an unwillingness to do that, so be it, we'll do what we need to to make it stop. But hopefully cooler heads can prevail. Smartyllama (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smartyllama Unless you are willing to open a separate thread with direct evidence of proxying I suggest you withdraw the personal attack and well poisoning. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is possible JPL was just writing for his own convenience and did not actually expect anyone else to do his bidding, I'll concede that, and if that's the case, apologize to JPL for my lack of WP:AGF. However, if that's the case, it was still unwise given his already-in-place sanctions since it could easily be interpreted as such. If he would simply agree to refrain from suggesting pages for deletion on his talk page beyond the extent that he would be able to nominate them at AfD, that would be sufficient in my mind. As for having this conversation in a separate thread, the issues are related so I think it's best to consolidate them all in one place. But I don't particularly care about the formatting one way or the other, so do whatever is more convenient. Smartyllama (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I removed it for you. Don’t restore it, if you have an allegation open a separate thread. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• For what it is worth I am not trying to work through Lugnuts creations at all. I am working through 1912 births, and have been going backwards through the years from 1927 or so. I have since the end of December in part focused on the state of Olympian articles I come across. The fact that a large percentage of those that do not meet our inclusions criteria that I end up taking to AfD are from one creator is a function of who created what percentage of those articles, not from any actual attempt to target the work of one person on my part.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I never mentioned either of the articles I was alleged to have been proxying in my post. I mentioned a totally different person. That I have to even point that out is very odd.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I'm convinced that Lugnuts, unfortunately, has become a net negative at AfD. (t · c) buidhe 21:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Commemt — Unfortunately the trio of Fram, Lugnuts and Johnpacklambert are all editors I have high regards for, thus I’d recusing myself from either supporting or opposing this, but I’d make a few statements (off topic) prior addressing anything else. I see that editors time and time again are irate about Lugnuts's article creation to that I’d say they have always created articles that meet/met WP:PSA and satisfy the relevant SNG thus Lugnuts is in the right & if people are left underwhelmed by this then an RFC should be started to that effect as to the bare minimum of paragraphs before an article should be moved to mainspace. Now to the issue on ground, I’d like to state definitively that revenge nom's are tasteless and in the past I have “speedy kept” AFD's I believe were created in bad faith. Infact i speak about this on my Userpage, see; User:Celestina007#True Editor Growth, thus I applaud Eggishorn for doing the needful, In my experience Revenge Noms are disruptive because more often than not they are without merit. Furthermore it is improper to swear at AFD's thus i do not appreciate Lugnuts's choice of words at the AFD. It is also improper to say an editor acts as a proxy without cogent proof & that is seriously an egregious accusation to make if it can’t be corroborated, Having said I appreciate Lugnuts because they are an archetypal example of a “serial article creator” stub or not. it is unfortunate that this has spiraled into this, if there is a possible manner Lugnuts can be warned without any formal community enforced sanctions I’d be happy but as earlier stated I wouldn’t be supporting nor opposing this, I however fully understand the frustration on the part of Fram, JPL, RW & Buidhe. Hopefully this can resolved (amicably) without enforced sanctions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The creator of an article should not have to be contacted, when that article is being nominated for deletion. Such a contact-requirement hints of acknowledging a type of ownership. I wouldn't favour such a requirement. GoodDay (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Contacting the article creator makes sense when the article is new. Perhaps the creator was in the process of adding relevant information regarding notability or knew more about the subject that he/she did not include. The contact will act as a spur to improve the article. Once the article has been around awhile, contacting the creator doesn't seem a necessity. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 22:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think it's acknowledging a kind of ownership so much as acknowledging that there's a good chance they have an opinion on whether the article should be retained. Acknowledging ownership would be to give that opinion additional weight because they're the creator, which we don't do. Theknightwho (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Notifying the creator of something when it is sent to deletion seems fair IMHO....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  From the WP:AfD page - While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. -Indy beetle (talk)

  Not to mention that it just feels like common-sense and basic courtesy... Begoon 17:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Meh. What concerns me is counting article creations (95,525, 95,926, 95,545), being tbanned from making articles under 500 words, and then switching to counting category creations (7,871, 7,872, 7,873). This, combined with the "revenge AFDs", makes me question whether Lugnuts sees Wikipedia as a game, with a PvP component, and is trying to hit the high score. But he's apologized for the AFDs and said he won't do it again, so I don't see why we can't just accept that as resolving the issue; I don't see this AFD problem as so longstanding or widespread that we need a sanction to prevent further disruption. Levivich 01:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. An AFD topic ban does not really focus on, or address, the problem identified here; and allowing Lugnuts to participate in discussions involving their own articles (where much of the problematic behaviour seems to occur) seems to undermine the intent. Lugnuts appears to understand why their actions in targeting JPL's creations were unacceptable, even if it should not have needed pointing out to them, so it's probably best to accept their assertion that it will not happen again. Most concerning are the personal attacks and casting aspersions, which absolutely must stop. Given the volume of database entry-type stubs Lugnuts has created, it should have come as no surprise to them that cleanup efforts included a significant proportion of their creations. It would also be helpful if Lugnuts did not hamper such efforts by reverting bold redirects without appropriate rationale or article improvement, resulting in avoidable AFDs. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support at what point do we notice a user disrupting every area they turn to and realize that it's the user that is the problem here, not the specific area they're popping up in? Since there doesn't seem to be much stomach for the simpler solution, sure, let's keep going and adding more restrictions. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @David Fuchs: I'll tell you at what point: at the point at which you're ready to make a site ban proposal. Are we there? If so, go ahead and make the proposal, I'll probably !vote for it. But adding one bespoke sanction after another for what are really limited infractions... meh. Go for it all or it's not worth our time. Levivich 17:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think such a proposal would go anywhere, hence I'm not proposing it. If this restriction passes there is the slightly higher chance either Lugnuts figures out maybe being disruptive isn't a good idea and modifies his behavior, or it's another sanction to throw on the case for the inevitable ban discussion. My experience with wiki disputes is you're better off doing something to roll the boulder rather than waiting for it to come back down the hill. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think such a proposal would go anywhere, either, and maybe you're right about doing something. The way I process this is like this: if I'm at the point where I no longer believe that if Lugnuts says "I won't do it again," he won't actually do it again, then I should support (or maybe even propose) a siteban. Personally I'm not at that point. I've made plenty of criticisms of Lugnuts's editing, but breaking promises isn't among them. So I figure he should be treated like anyone else in this situation: you mess up, you say sorry won't happen again, you're given the chance to make good on it. I fear that editors already under sanctions will feel like they can't afford to make a mistake or else they'll get in serious trouble, and that's a tough way to edit, it's tough to expect reform from someone who feels they're under a microscope. I do see your point of view, though. To each their own? Levivich 19:12, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I rarely frequent AFDs, as I'm not an overly good judge of what article should or shouldn't exist. Just wasn't one to learn many of Wikipedia's alphabet soup article status rules. I figured leaving AFDs in the hands of those who are familiar with that area of the project, was best. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  While I'm sure we're all deeply fascinated by this little excursion, what does your personal relationship with the AfD process have to do with the proposal at hand? AngryHarpy‍^talk 18:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm already aware of the deep fascination by my little excursion has created, which adds up to me being Neutral, on whether Lugnuts should be banned or not from AFDs. GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for using a bullet point. Levivich 18:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Strong Neutral or Weak Neutral? That could be crucial. Begoon 14:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Bullying never works, it seems... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 17:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - When you look at all the long-term WP:CRIC members who have either driven themselves crazy, gone AWOL, completely raged against the machine, or just given up, it's not really a coincidence. One can name half-a-dozen long-term expanders of the project who have given up over the years. Lugnuts, this isn't just about you, and JPL, this isn't about you, either. Please know, JPL, that I empathize with you over some issues more than anyone here would understand. Use your frustrations that I know you have, to achieve good. Not for raging against the machine. Take a step back just for a while and focus on another area you enjoy. Or just do some Wiki-gnoming, or something that will keep your mind busy.

At the end of the day, how do you salvage a broken project for the sake of what has become Frankenstein's monster? It's impossible because Frankenstein's monster will come back. Bobo. 18:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So is that a "yes"? Begoon 17:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with a hope this will end the disruptive editing.--Darwinek (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Ban as I said last time a restriction came up, the disruption just moves when you restrict Lugnuts in one arena. While I believe he does indeed have the competence, he lacks the temperament to edit collaboratively. It's time to stop with regular time sinks related to this editor. Star Mississippi 02:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support TBAN from AfD as this user really doesn't know how to handle it in a constructive matter. Also would cite WP:CIR. 172.112.210.32 (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Which particular part of WP:CIR do you think applies here? Begoon 17:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose It has stopped already, so a ban would be punitive - no similar problems with the editor's other AFD participation. As for "views Wikipedia as a zero-sum battleground", if that's true, it looks like Lugnuts is not the only one - other editors describe opponents' contributions as spam([1][2][3]). The likely effect of recent changes to guidelines, and two proposals currently at WP:CENT, is that many articles that satisfied what was the consensus interpretation of guidelines for more than 10 years will be deleted; many of those articles were created by Lugnuts. There is even a recently written essay "Wikipedia is not a gazetteer", but there are printed encyclopedias in which the gazetteer section is the longest, and consists almost entirely of what would be called sub-stubs. Unfortunately ban proposals are made at a noticeboard intended for quick response to incidents, so context is usually missing. A865 (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Odd for a new editor with just 17 edits to find this discussion, as well as show familiarity with ANI practice, pick out essays and guidelines, and the like. Ravenswing 19:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above proposal needs closure, and perhaps someone can also have a word with Lugnuts about his continuing WP:OWN behaviour? This was already raised in the previous discussion about his editing, but simply continues; if someone dares to edit an article Lugnuts has created, he for some reason needs to be on top of the editors list again, even if that means making purely cosmetic, totally unnecessary edits to achieve this. That this needlessly pollutes watchlists and recent changes for other editors seems to be of no importance. All from the last few minutes: [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]. Fram (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Lugnuts apologised for what he said/did, with this happening the best part of a week ago with no repeat action. If this thread is anything to go by, they are doing their level best to improve their communication skills. If they create a similar issue in the future, and lets hope that doesn't happen, then think of stricter courses of action. StickyWicket (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - that little qualification, "If the last part proves problematical, it can be rescinded", would convince me, if I needed convincing. I accept that he has not behaved sensibly, and until I started looking at the recent AfD nominations, I thought he was over-reacting. But now I see what looks like a campaign to delete every stub he's ever created, I am concerned at the motivation for it. I think there are far more useful things we could be doing. Just because we've amended the guidelines to say that Olympic competitors aren't automatically notable, that doesn't mean we have to delete all relevant articles immediately. Allow some time for improvement, and I'm sure Lugnuts will try to do this himself. Deb (talk) 12:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Mm, well, considering that what, less than one thousandth of one percent of Lugnuts' article creations have been brought to AfD post-revision, I really rather think we're in no danger of a bare fraction of those sub-stubs ever being deleted -- if as many as 25 per day were nominated, it'd take over a decade -- never mind "immediately." As far as improvement goes, I've just looked over every one of the couple dozen pertinent deletion discussions filed over the last several weeks. In not a single one of them has Lugnuts advocated deletion. Your surety appears to be based on magical thinking. Ravenswing 21:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure what point you're trying to make, but you're not making it effectively. It appears to me that several of the nominations have been made without due consideration of the individual circumstances. See, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick Denman, where the best-performing member of a team has been randomly nominated. Deb (talk) 10:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ravenswing's point is coming across to me quite effectively, actually, but yours isn't. In the AFD you mention there is only one keep vote so far (yours, lacking any valid argument) and even Lugnuts agrees it should not be kept. Lennart97 (talk) 12:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ban - Lugnuts is a net-negative to this encyclopaedia. They are not here to build an encyclopaedia. They have shown this again and again.
  Editors above are asking why Lugnuts' articles are being targeted for AFD - the simple answer is they are not, but that Lugnuts has created so many notability-failing articles that you need only click on "random article" a few times and (if you do not come across a mass-created species-stub or geostub article first) you will arrive at a single-sentence, single-source stub about some 19th-century cricketer or pre-war Olympian. If one tries to make a start of cleaning up sports bio stubs the articles you will be dealing with will overwhelmingly be articles created by Lugnuts.
  None of this would be so bad if it weren't for the uncivil behaviour aimed at people who do try to clean these articles up. Last time Lugnuts received a TBAN but they seem not to have learned why they received it, what it was that led to the issue being brought to ANI in the first place, and that was their uncivil behaviour (in that case canvassing on AFDs and making groundless accusations of harassment against editors who AFD'd their articles). Here we see that their behaviour has simply moved on to another kind of uncivil behaviour (revenge AFDs). The constant feature is their inability to act civilly despite having been given so many chances. The object of this uncivil behaviour is to disuade people from dealing with their articles. In the absence of a ban I support the proposal, but in reality the massive number of Lugnuts' articles and the fact that the AFDs they are most likely to be uncivil on are the ones for their own articles, makes this only a very partial solution. FOARP (talk) 13:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look - if you really think I should be banned for being a a net-negative to WP, then feel free to start that as a new discussion. You've already stuck the knife in with your last complaint against me, where somehow canvassing editors equates to a topic ban on article creation. You even followed that up on my talkpage saying you don't want to gravedance.

I've already apologised to JPL (in this thread) and to CBL62 too (here) for the comments I directed towards them. Since then, several articles I've started have gone to AfD. Have a look through the comments I've posted in those to see if there's anything amiss. I'll save you some time now and say there isn't. Your comment of "....created so many notability-failing articles..." is incorrect, as at the time of creating any article, they met the notability criteria that existed at the time. There's this rather big RfC relating to sports notability if you wish to have your say on this area.

I'm not sure what more you want me to say or do, but I feel whatever it is, it won't be right for you. I'm not going to respond further to you here, or bludgeon this thread, in fear that you somehow bait me into saying something I may regret later. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"You've already stuck the knife in with your last complaint against me, where somehow canvassing editors equates to a topic ban on article creation. You even followed that up on my talkpage saying you don't want to gravedance.". I think the closing admin should read this comment and consider whether it shows any progress at all from the previous ANI, or whether Lugnuts simply saw the previous ANI as a bad-faith attack personal attack on them, and in fact that's simply how they see every ANI discussion that is brought about their behaviour. Ultimately, they don't think they ever did anything wrong in any of this. FOARP (talk) 19:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose any sanctions — I initially expressly stated that I’d recuse myself from this discussion but having seen the rationale by Deb, I agree with them, I’d have to oppose this, furthermore, I do not see Lugnuts as a net negative, I find their work in football/soccer topic area to be quite impressive and in general, the entirety of their body of work. Celestina007 (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support AfD ban. I had to control-F to make sure I hadn't already participated in this discussion, since it resembles so many of the others Lugnuts has been the subject of. Previous partial sanctions clearly do not/did not work, as he just immediately transfers his large-scale problematic editing behavior to a new arena -- in April 2021 when his autopatrolled right was removed and he was cautioned not to keep mass-creating poor-quality microgeostubs (something he continued doing during the ANI discussion) he just redistributed his efforts into mass-creating (even more) poor-quality athlete microstubs. When this resulted in a ban from writing articles under 500 words he quit editing for 2 weeks altogether before resuming with thousands of pointless cosmetic edits (something he's been blocked for before) and overriding existing Wikidata shortdescs with local shortdescs that have basically the same wording, seemingly to stay at the top of an article's edit history. All while continuing to be uncivil (which he has been blocked for multiple times). Things will not change without bans. JoelleJay (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay: If you look at the diffs of each of those BEFORE I added the short desc, each article DID NOT have a short desc. I've just added one to Paolo Gioli (+55 characters in the edit history) that has the same edit summary with the words "... overriding Wikidata..." But I'm over-ridding nothing, just adding the S/D. Same with the next one. Over-ridding nothing. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • I would note that he even does that when the Wikidata shortdesc is inappropriate, such as here where the subject being a tennis player is entirely unrelated to his notability.

While here, I will note for Deb and Celestina007 that when reviewing microstubs of Olympic athletes it is very difficult to find ones that were not created by Lugnuts. This means that a good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia by removing microstubs on non-notable Olympic athletes might appear to be a campaign to delete every stub he's ever created, when it is not. BilledMammal (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Really? From your recent contributions, and the flood on my talkpage, I find that very hard to believe. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I randomly selected ten articles from here and looking at their history. Of the ten, two had more than a couple of lines of text, neither of which were created by you, while of the remaining eight, seven were created by you. Given that of the articles I've recently nominated for deletion (counting only once articles that had their prod challenged and I then took to AFD) about half were by you, I think it is actually very easy to believe. BilledMammal (talk) 10:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you just happened to be looking specificy at Olympic stubs? And it "might appear to be a campaign to delete every stub he's ever created, when it is not". OK. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The comment that you're responding to begins "when reviewing microstubs of Olympic athletes"!! --JBL (talk) 11:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose AfD ban - on this specific incident I don't see any reason to doubt Lugnuts' apology. On the wider picture the impression is unavoidable, looking at the above, that there are editors waiting hopefully for Lugnuts to screw up so that they can get rid of him. Perhaps that's justified, perhaps not - I don't have a horse in the race but clearly he's seriously annoyed some people - but it leaves a bad taste, much like office politics. In terms of mass stub creation, while I understand the issues it really isn't fair to criticise someone for having done something that was perfectly acceptable for years now that the wind has changed. Ingratis (talk) 05:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I think Lugnuts' apology is genuine, and I really hope he can turn over a new leaf from this point on. I have faith that Lugnuts will once again be regarded as an editor in good-standing, but this is probably the last-chance a lot of us are willing to give. Curbon7 (talk) 06:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't doubt that it's genuine...but I don't think he's able to stop himself from eventually (or, more often, very quickly...) slipping back into the same bad habits. I think FOARP's comment here is relevant regarding all the other "last chances". JoelleJay (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - If this closes as a "last warning" then it will have been at least the fourth such "last warning" given to Lugnuts. Some other "last warnings":

• "Several more serious remedies have been proposed, including mentoring/oversight, a page creation limit, a page creation ban, topic bans, and blocks. As Lugnuts committed late in the discussion to consider the criticisms offered here in good faith, I decline to impose further sanctions at this time." - April 2021
• "Lugnuts (talk · contribs) blocked, then unblocked, on the proviso that the behaviour leading to the block [i.e.., incivility] does not reoccur." - May 2018
• Material Scientist:"I did't war with you and have no slightest interest in that. If you promise that you won't do that again (cosmetic edits) then I'll unblock (note that I do not see pings, but I'll try to check manually)."
  Lugnuts:"Yes, I understand and promise that the cosmetic edits are pointless and will stop. Please let me know if you need any more. Thanks." - August 2020

Whether or not people wish to see Lugnut's apology as genuine is up to them. For myself, I'm sure it was a genuine as all the other apologies and commitments to improve given over the years in response to warnings and blocks by Lugnuts. FOARP (talk) 10:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong opposition to any sanctions. In my opinion, the campaign against Lugnuts is a witch hunt that breaches WP:HARASS. This is rightly a site policy which begins by pointing out that harassment is repeated behavior intentionally targeting a specific person to intimidate them, to make editing unpleasant for them, and to discourage them from editing. Time and time again, this campaign has arisen at ANI and elsewhere. Always, it involves the same handful of individuals harping on about Lugnuts being a "net negative" who is WP:NOTHERE. The accusations are absurd and rarely relate to any incident that is more than trivial. So, Lugnuts had a disagreement with someone about one of the site's ambiguous rules and guidelines, did he? Hardly surprising, especially if he encountered one of the blockheaded stupidity brigade that blunders about the site. Arguments at AFD are a storm in a teacup and the sort of thing that soon blows over after other people get involved and a consensus is established. Handbags at six paces, it's called in football. Why bring that to ANI? What a waste of time and space. WP:COMMONSENSE, anyone?

Okay, there has been a bit of a row over something at AFD and the anti-Lugnuts crew have come screaming to ANI again. In response, Lugnuts has said: "I've responded, held my hands up, promised not to repeat it and apologised". He isn't Johnson, for crying out loud, so for any reasonable person that would be the end of it.

To say that Lugnuts is NOTHERE, after he has made over a million contributions and created thousands of articles, is such a contradiction in terms that it deserves ridicule. Even more stupid is the idea that Lugnuts is a net negative. There may be a few items in his debit column but his credit side – all those contributions and the help and guidance he frequently provides – would cause deforestation if WP was a book. Ludicrous accusations like NOTHERE and net negative show that his enemies don't know what they are talking about and (rather like Johnson, actually) are latching onto buzzwords and soundbites. One of the silliest accusations above is "polluting watchlists". How has he done that? Apparently, he had the effrontery to correct "access-date" in several articles by inserting the hyphen. Anyone heard of the WikiGnome? I'm one myself, and I'm always doing minor copyedits just like that so I suppose I should apologise for polluting the watchlists of people who have made mistakes and failed to correct them.

The best and wisest comment in all the above is, not for the first time, by Celestina007 who says: "Lugnuts' article creation – to that I’d say they have always created articles that meet/met WP:PSA and satisfy the relevant SNG thus Lugnuts is in the right & if people are left underwhelmed by this then an RFC should be started to that effect as to the bare minimum of paragraphs before an article should be moved to mainspace". Quite right. Lugnuts is very good on sourcing and his stubs provide context. As with any stub, there is potential for expansion. Someone complains about him creating stubs for "some 19th-century cricketer or pre-war Olympian". There are plenty of printed sources about both of those subjects and there is every chance that something will eventually be found in a book or newspaper that can be added to the article.

This thread is a continuation of a witch hunt against one of the site's best and most prolific contributors. It should be terminated immediately and sysops should think long and hard about the motives and activities of those who continue to harrass Lugnuts. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear! Claiming Lugnuts is a net-negative to Wikipedia when he has created thousands of sourced articles is a bit like saying Shakespeare was a net-negative to the English language. Maybe we should ban his literature too. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta be brutally frank: there's some weird and wonderful stuff that gets written on Wikipedia, especially perhaps at ANI, but does comparing Lugnuts to, uh, William Shakespeare win a cash prize? *facepalm* SN54129 18:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare must've written a lot of short stories. Levivich 18:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Lydia Davis would be a better comparison. JoelleJay (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been the exact same short story hundreds of times with only the names and locations changed. Reyk _YO!

Is this a stub I see before me? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To ban or not to ban... Kingoflettuce (talk) 11:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A source! A source! My kingdom for a source! Reyk _YO! 21:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare's legacy includes a host of celebrated stubs one-liners, all easily distorted:

• All the world’s a stub.
• A stub! a stub! my kingdom for a stub! (or, failing that, a carpark.)
• Beware the Stubs of March! (and January, February, April......)
• Once more unto the stub, dear friends, once more.
• To thine own stub be true.

Shakespeare probably invented the word stub. Or am I thinking of Upstart Crow, which is nowhere near as ridiculously far-fetched as some of the vindictive codswallop in this thread.

There is considerable opposition to the proposal here which has been raised and supported by people with long-term antipathy towards Lugnuts. If these people stopped to think about why there are recurring problems with sports articles at AFD (i.e., the cause rather than the effect), it might just occur to them that there is a fundamental issue at WP:N under the section heading of General notability guideline. The so-called GNG is not a policy; it is a guideline only and it is deeply flawed. The best thing that could happen on WP would be its removal.

The sensible way to judge notability is by an article's compliance with WP:5P, provision of suitable WP:RS and meeting the standards for inclusion set by the relevant SNG(s). WP:NOT, one of the 5P, begins with WP:NOTPAPER and that says: "Other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page, there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover, or the total amount of content." (My emphasis.) All this stuff about Lugnuts creating stubs is therefore absolute bullshit by editors who are themselves WP:NOTHERE because, instead of creating and enhancing articles, they spend their time seeking attention by making points and wasting everyone else's time. Besides, as was mentioned earlier, Lugnuts does not create stubs without reliable sources and his work in that area always meets WP:PSA. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support proposed restriction, suggest making it autoexpire in 1 year. I'm particularly sensitive to the widespread, serious and unresolved problem of conducting warfare via cleverly weaponizing Wikipedia systems. With the caveat that like many respondents I haven't thoroughly analyzed this overall situation but I've reviewed this thread thoroughly. But BTW I don't consider failure to notify the original article creator of an AFD to be a problem. At NPP patrol several times I've had the "first edit" person ("creator") rip me a new one for considering them to be the owner / responsible person for the article and so I no longer do that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Lugnuts does some (very) good work, but yeah, weaponizing AfD isn't the way to go. If it were the only time they'd had behavioral problems, the apology would be more than enough. It's not. I think the proposed restriction isn't ideal--IMO they are very much a net positive at AfD. But one more final warning probably isn't going to cut it either. And the only middle ground I'm seeing here is North8000's, but that too seems overkill. Sorry, I don't see a good solution. IDK, but something that grabs their attention a bit more seems wise. Hobit (talk) 20:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Doing nothing is too weak. It leads to an outcome where John Pack Lambert has a throttle on how many contributions he can make to AfD, but Lugnuts hasn't; and to my eyes that's backwards. I think Lugnuts' behaviour is more disruptive to AfD than JPL's. In short, I fully concur with Hobit. We need to do something, but we need to do something that isn't this.—S Marshall T/C 10:43, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as this going on and on, I'll raise this here too. If I had continued to nominate JPL's articles for deletion while this discussion was ongoing, it would be viewed in pretty bad light (I think that's something everyone can agree on). It would be nothing short of hounding and harassment if that was to happen, it would be dealt with quickly, without recourse. So why does the OP do this? Why would they follow my edits around to do this redirect from out of no-where? Another user has reverted that, which has lead to the OP logging it at AfD. Now if it was the other way round, and I had done that, wouldn't there be a wave of editors crying foul and saying I'm doing "revenge AfDs"? There's past form in doing this type of hounding in a very subtle manor (example). Again, if I was doing this, there would be a lengthy ANI thread, complete with a lengthy block. Is this not "very poor practice and should stop?" Or is it a one-way street? No idea why Fram wants to follow me around, but again, if I was doing this, at best I would be facing an I-ban. @Mjroots: - for info, as you started this discussion. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I was doing this rapidly on multiple articles with incorrect rationales (which lead to speedy keeps) as obvious revenge for having my articles nominated, then yes, this would be the same. As none of these elements apply though, it's hard to see the parallel you are trying to create. I thought someone who is still making countless cosmetic edits just to be the most recent editor on thousands of articles, would be happy if they had less articles to worry about. Fram (talk) 12:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That you're making a very subtle attempt of harassment against myself. Just happening to be checking those articles on the off chance? Right. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is also disingenuous. The cumulative effect of those kinds of edits is that users feel like you are taking WP:OWNership at best, and intimidating them at worst. Of course your edits aren't being checked at random - they're being checked to see whether there has been any improvement in your conduct. Being held accountable for your actions is not harassment, either, particularly when those actions are the exact thing that this ANI has been raised about. Please review WP:HA#NOT (Neither is tracking a user's contributions for policy violations), because this feels like WP:CRYBULLYING. Theknightwho (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ban - Lugnuts knows the difference between delsort and advertising an AfD on a WikiProject's talk page. So does everyone else. It's canvassing. For the cosmetic edits, which is a repeat issue, I would support a site ban. Enough chances have now been given, but Lugnuts fundamentally treats this website like a game. You can't "win" Wikipedia, not by article count, or edit count, or any other way, but Lugnuts is clearly more concerned with accumulating statistics than actually building an encyclopedia, and costs far more editor time than tolerable. Levivich 15:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"So does everyone else" - I doubt everyone knows the difference. "Lugnuts is clearly more concerned with accumulating statistics than actually building an encyclopedia" - utter rubbish. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possible canvassing by Lugnuts

Following the opening of this AFD, Lugnuts posted on Wikiproject Football's talk page, with the title "International footballer at AfD". This was a post that had already been listed at Wikiproject Footballs "list of association football-related deletions", and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Football. Since this was posted, an unusually high number of editors have arrived to !vote, many with arguments along the lines of "these AFDs are becoming a bit ridiculous, I think for international players there should be some protection", referencing the title of his post. As such, I suspect that this post to a partisan audience was a successful attempt to canvass editors to the discussion, and believe it is of relevance to this ongoing discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 01:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's appropriate to post an AfD of a sports article to a Wikiproject interested in editing sports articles. How could we ever have topical Wikiprojects if everybody was going to AN/I accusing them of being partisan towards the articles the project focuses on? MarshallKe (talk) 01:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In this case the AFD was already posted to Wikiproject Football, so to do it a second time raises canvassing questions, and that is before considering the possible issues with the title given that it appears to have influenced how editors !voted. BilledMammal (talk) 01:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also posted the exact same message at WikiProject Luxembourg. WP:AFD actively encourages the notification of wikiprojects (under the sub-heading "Notifying related WikiProjects") - "If the article is within the scope of one or more WikiProjects, they may welcome a brief, neutral note on their project's talk page(s) about the AfD". Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is an information page, while CANVASS is a behavioural guideline. The former cannot overrule the latter. However, AFD doesn't justify the notification, as a notification was already issued to Wikiproject Football, and so to issue a second one to a partisan Wikiproject is problematic. I would also note that as a general rule it is a good idea to inform a discussion if you do post notifications to it. BilledMammal (talk) 08:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:APPNOTE, this complaint is out of order and is an addition to the harrassment of Lugnuts by certain editors including BilledMammal. APPNOTE says:

An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:

• The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion.

A discussion about an international footballer from Luxembourg is of interest to the football and Luxembourg projects so Lugnuts was not only justified in placing brief, neutral notices there but was actually RIGHT to do so. The contention that he was wrong to inform FOOTY because of a prior placement on the related discussions list is not only false but petty in the extreme. An AFD needs to be communicated and, while some project members might see the list, most will not and there is a better chance of reaching them via the FOOTY talk page. I think BilledMammal should state the motives driving his antagonism towards Lugnuts. I find it strange that someone with over a million edits should be hounded by someone with less than 5,000. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What something is of interest to theoratically and what the practical effect of these notifications is very different. It is very clear, and it appears most likely that this was done on purpose (and is not therefore an unfortunate incident), that the WP:FOOTY project is a partisan audience (as understood under WP:CANVASS), and Lugnuts, who is surely aware of that (having done such problematic posts previously), should have refrained from posting duplicate notifications (again, there's no valid reason why a routine AfD would need so much notification). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So not letting the article creator know about an AfD is bad. And letting a project know about an AfD is also bad. The footy project have voted for delete in a ton of recent articles, so hardly "a partisan audience". No doubt if this AfD was all snow-deletes, you wouldn't have piped up. "there's no valid reason why a routine AfD would need so much notification" - says who? Can you link me to the policy that forbids notfying relating projects? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lugnuts: it is appropriate to notify a WP of an AfD discussion. The notice should be strictly neutral. I would suggest the form "the [Article name] has been [nominated for deletion]" is appropriate, with the [] representing wikilinks to the article in question and the discussion respectively. The second link can be piped. Mjroots (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, will do from now on. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:NoGreatShaker and personal attacks/aspersions casting

Oh, and please refrain from using tiresome and tedious expressions like "perma-database-created stubs" which are just too stupid for words. I suggest that you stop trying to make WP:POINTs and, per WP:HERE, create some articles, enhance some articles and expand some articles. [18]

I think BilledMammal should state the motives driving his antagonism towards Lugnuts. [19]

All this stuff about Lugnuts creating stubs is therefore absolute bullshit by editors who are themselves WP:NOTHERE because, instead of creating and enhancing articles, they spend their time seeking attention by making points and wasting everyone else's time. [20]

Time and time again, this campaign has arisen at ANI and elsewhere. Always, it involves the same handful of individuals harping on about Lugnuts being a "net negative" who is WP:NOTHERE. [21]

Now, I don't know exactly what is behind the above (since I do not pretend to read people's mind, unlike NGS), but this is very clearly (and in just a few posts) accusations that multiple, long-standing editors are on a "campaign to get Lugnuts" and "intentionally disrupting Wikipedia" and "NOTHERE", without much if any supporting evidence (and, on top of that, with some choice and uncivil irony). This is flagrantly in breach in WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given the tone of your edits in general and the many altercations at your talk page that you have conveniently removed, I think there may be a WP:BOOMERANG heading your way. I'll bide my time. No Great Shaker (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• If I had a dollar for every time someone screamed abuse at people for daring to suggest the encyclopedia shouldn't be populated by autogenerated contentless single-sentence microstubs I could afford to host my own encyclopedia on my own servers. Reyk _YO! 23:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, Reyk. That puts this "complaint" into context. You have only to run a quick scan of the OP's edits to see that he really isn't happy whenever anyone corrects or criticises him. I can easily provide examples if anyone is interested. I will be raising a thread of my own below because I haven't been formally advised of this complaint or even unofficially by a ping. I saw it when I checked the sub-section above. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's aggressively missing the point. Reyk _YO! 20:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I too find the tone of a lot of the criticism directed at people for raising completely on-point criticism of Lugnuts uncivil. That these complaints are on-point is substantiated not least by the fact that they entirely concern behaviour that on multiple occasions Lugnuts has apologised for and promised not to repeat. At this point a simple warning that defending someone's behaviour is not a free-pass to swerve into personal attacks on those making good-faith complaints about it would be welcome. FOARP (talk) 10:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But, of course, FOARP, the tone used by you and your friends towards Lugnuts is entirely civil. Bearing in mind the massive amount of work done by Lugnuts compared with your mere 10k edits (and I'm sure there is some good work amongst them), a comment like Lugnuts is a net-negative to this encyclopaedia. They are not here to build an encyclopaedia. doesn't look very civil to me. Neither does going to Lugnuts' talk page and banging on about grave dancing. Even if your complaints about Lugnuts hold any water, you do not have a free-pass to swerve into personal attacks on him whilst making those complaints. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Neither does going to Lugnuts' talk page and banging on about grave dancing." - Please show me where I have done that.

Lugnuts' total of 1 million edits, some large percentage of which are the cosmetic edits that they committed to stopping (but has not), do not buy them the right to be uncivil, nor for others to be uncivil on their behalf. Lugnuts being a net-negative is my good-faith assessment based on the amount of time spent on cleaning up their articles and repeatedly dealing with their behaviour at ANI. The "NOTHERE" assessment is based on the same set of facts - facts which stem from behaviour that Lugnuts has repeatedly acknowledged was wrong and committed to stopping, but again, has not stopped.

Lugnuts can end all of this simply by doing things they have already committed to do, ending behaviour they have already acknowledged was wrong and apologised for - it is that simple. Their failure to do so indicates the degree of sincerity with which those commitments and apologies were made. FOARP (talk) 16:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that NGS's contributions are far from civil. --JBL (talk) 12:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  What, all 53,800-plus of them? Wow! No Great Shaker (talk) 14:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks (I guess) for proving the point that you're behaving very badly in this conversation. You should stop. --JBL (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About a day after this sub-section started, NGS, for reasons best known to themselves, thought it was a good idea to open Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Breach of due process by RandomCanadian. At some point bad judgement is indistinguishable from trolling. My advice to No Great Shaker would be to absent themselves from the remainder of this discussion before it stops focusing on Lugnuts' conduct and starts focusing on theirs. You've said your piece; nothing you say from this point forward is likely to help anything. Mackensen (talk) 15:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Levivich 15:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

+2 FOARP (talk) 16:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

+3 Reyk _YO! 20:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

+4 Ravenswing 13:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

+5 JoelleJay (talk) 22:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts is following me

He is following behind me as I fix the mess he's made in gymnastics and editing the pages again. Thankfully, he's not reverting my corrections, but it's unnerving to have someone change every article I've edited soon after I've edited it. Afheather (talk) 13:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not much of a defender of the Lugnuts approach to article creation (as seen in past discussions), but going through someone's edits and then complaining that they're going through your edits that go through their edits seems like kind of a stretch... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but there’s a difference between having to fix someone’s mistakes and following someone around just to edit the page after they have. Afheather (talk) 13:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is, as has been explained a few times, that Lugnuts always goes back to all pages they created and makes an edit (often cosmetic or otherwise very minor) soon after someone else edited the page, which is extremely WP:OWNish behaviour, where they have to be on top of the editors list for some reason. It's not stalking Afheather (or anyone else) specifically, it's just a very weird habit (and as we can see here, unnerving for other contributors), and explains the majority of his "more than a million contributions" some of his defenders tout as a positive characteristic. Fram (talk) 13:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, couldn't think of a better term.Afheather (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewording the section heading to "following", though I'm not sure that it is much better. If an editor is working through some of your problematic creations and you are following around after them making minor, beneficial tweaks then that is acceptable, and some of Lugnut's edits fall into this category, such as when he adds additional external links (although I have seen an argument recently that at least one of those is self published and so shouldn't be used on BLP's, but that is a different topic).

The issue is the edits that are not beneficial, such as this edit, where he adjusts the white space in some (but not all) of the infobox fields, and this edit, where he changes "accessdate" in a reference field to "access-date". Given that this appears to be a recurring issue that brings no clear benefits to the project, perhaps it would be appropriate to prohibit Lugnuts from making cosmetic changes to wikicode that have no effect on the rendered page? BilledMammal (talk) 14:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not being someone that's followed this in great detail, but as someone who deals with copy-editing and revisions on a daily basis between numerous people with competing interests, that kind of behaviour is very commonly a form of dominance. It is essentially saying "thank you for your contribution, but my version of your work is even better". Obviously the nature of the project is incremental improvements, but when it becomes habitual (and, as you've pointed out, lacks any real utility), it's indicative of WP:OWN at best, and can also be used as a form of intimidation. Theknightwho (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Lugnuts was blocked in 2020 for "silly edit warring and making essentially null edits". They were unblocked after stating "Yes, I understand and promise that the cosmetic edits are pointless and will stop. " (see User talk:Lugnuts/Archive 55#Something else). Fram (talk) 15:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And when he does make a significant edit to stay on top, he reverts an improvement made by an IP[22] back to the incorrect version[23], making the article again internally inconsistent and contradicting the source... Fram (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts made a commitment to stop this, was unblocked because he made that commitment, and has not stopped it - does not this simply speak for itself? FOARP (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It should, but people seem to prefer yet another thread in a month or two, given past timelines and promises to behave. I guess Lugnuts is not technically unblockable given the log, but apparently unstickableblocks. Star Mississippi 18:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is an odd, kind of annoying behavior to have to make minor edits to one's own articles after someone else does. It should be noted that my initial response was when this section was accusing Lugnuts of "stalking", and while it's annoying or maybe even WP:OWNy, it's not stalking. I see that's since been changed. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles Afheather refers to didn't have an external links section - and I added one with the sports link template. I guess that's wrong too. "Access-date" is the syntax listed in the documentation at Template:Cite web. Maybe I should get a bot to run changes like that which have little difference to an article instead. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The articles you created that you didn't feel the need to do anything with until I edited them? I pointed out to you over a week ago that your gymnastics articles were wrong, yet you didn't touch them until I started correcting them.Afheather (talk) 13:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment — I’m not sure where this is going but comments such as
• ”Lugnuts is following me”
• “Lugnuts is canvassing”
• ”NoGreatShaker and personal attacks/aspersions casting”

To clarify, just (who) & (what) are we discussing here I’m afraid this is the quintessential analogy of why I’m weary of ANI's, this has become a coatrack of a specified discussion & has now morphed into something clearly not in synergy with the topic of this entry. I agree with Serial Number 54129 (one of the very few people I trust wholeheartedly), equating Shakespeare to Lugnuts is “reaching” however I refuse the rationale, implied or expressly stated by any editor here that “Lugnuts is a net negative”” as that would be very unfair, a high volume serial article creator (stub or otherwise) like Lugnuts can not be a net negative. Celestina007 (talk) 14:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By my count, of the top-ten article-creators of all time, three retired under a cloud, two are indefinitely blocked (one for massive copyvio, the other for sockpuppeting), one is a retired bot, and one is under an indefinite TBAN against stub creation. Two more are just no longer very active on Wiki. Only one of the ten is still an active editor in good standing. Based on that I don't think it should be very controversial to say that massive stub creation is generally not a healthy or productive editing activity, and instead is typically just a net-negative as the work-load created on other editors outweighs any gain.

I agree that this discussion has gone off the rails, but this is in large part just a product of the many instances of different behaviour that Lugnuts has previously committed to stopping and has in fact not stopped all being brought up here (again). FOARP (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FOARP, FOARP, are we to blame Lugnuts for adhering to standards set by the community? Every article created by Lugnuts pertaining the English football(Soccer) AFAIK has always met the relevant SNG and WP:PSA, he is literally following policy and we are hounding him for that? Come on mate. FOARP, look, I get it, there is no denying Lugnuts long lists of shortcomings but for anyone to brand them a net negative would be unfair. A look at the TP of Lugnuts is sheer witch-hunting/adding insult to injury, objectively speaking and going off topic here myself, I’m also not too pleased with the actions of JPL in the Development of what this has become, for someone who has been a subject of multiple ANI reports (with and without merit) he isn’t being entirely fair to Lugnuts and I’m saying this as one of his closest friends who “pushed buttons” both on and off wiki to see he wasn’t indefed during the last damning saga that exposed a terrible breach of policy that could have gotten anyone indefinitely blocked. Celestina007 (talk) 21:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue is that it's dawned on the community what a flood of junk these articles are. A couple of hundred of these stubs weren't an issue back in 2010. Tens of thousands of articles consisting of nothing but "$FirstInitial $Lastname was a $nationality $olympicevent competitor who competed at the $year olympics." do dilute content though. The community has moved on, it isn't 2010 anymore, we've come to realise that this sort of thing doesn't improve the encyclopedia, but the stamp collectors haven't been able or willing to adjust. Reyk _YO! 23:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They’re not just junk, they’re incorrect junk. I’m still trying to slog through the gymnastics articles he created that are factually incorrect. He could be spending time on here fixing them instead of just adding external links to the ones I have already corrected. He probably won’t because I don’t think he has any real knowledge of the subject, which means he had no business creating them to begin with. Afheather (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give some examples of errors? I'm looking at the gymnastics ones you've recently edited but I do not know enough about gymnastics to interpret or verify the meager information contained in that stats database. Reyk _YO! 03:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Every Olympics, starting with the 1960 games, had 6 (women) or 8 (men) events. These are separate competitions and who gets to compete in these events is determined by qualifications. There have been multiple ways who qualifies for what is determined. Currently, it’s the top 8 teams from qualifying, 24 make it into the individual all around, and 8 individuals make it to each event final. However, each country is limited to 2 gymnasts per country in individual finals, so a gymnast may only place 28th in the individual all around in qualifications but is bumped up into qualifying if several countries have more than 2 gymnasts in the top 24. Older Olympics have different methods and numbers, but, starting with 1960, these finals were competed separately from the team event. This page shows everyone’s qualification scores, but only the people with scores highlighted in blue made it to the finals. So, to say someone like Ana Paula Rodrigues competed in 6 events when she didn’t make it out of qualifying is incorrect.

I see. So if I understand correctly, because the qualifying events were held before the Olympics proper, saying a competitor competed in six events at the Olympics when she failed to qualify in four of them is wrong. Reyk _YO! 06:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Qualifications is held during the Olympics, but he’s saying they qualified to all event finals when they didn’t get past qualifications in any event. It is incredibly rare for a gymnast to compete in all events. Simone Biles was the only gymnast who qualified to all event finals at the Tokyo Olympics. The most recent person before her was Shannon Miller in 1992. It happened more in the past with the top teams, but those gymnasts already have fully fleshed out articles on them.Afheather (talk) 06:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Celestina007 This behaviour has been a breach of WP:MASSCREATE/WP:MEATBOT for a large number of years. Simple stub creation is not the problem - it’s the careless mass-production, compounded by a wide range of uncivil behaviour used to dissuade anyone from dealing with it, that is the problem. FOARP (talk) 04:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This is completely ridiculous and needs to stop. I closed an AfD so the article was briefly on my watch list. To the article page, he adds stub but on Talk he changes to start to have the last word. Regardless of all of the other issues here, it's clearly tendentious editing. Star Mississippi 14:51, 3 February 2022 (UTC) Struck per the below, with apologies.[reply]
  • Star Mississippi, best check again. He removed the stub tag on the article, and updated to start on the talk page. Let's not add imaginary failings to the many actual ones. Fram (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Struck, thanks. I clearly need not to edit before coffee. Star Mississippi 16:11, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to restrict cosmetic edits

User:Cunard has been occasionally merging articles while they are listed at WP:Articles for deletion. This creates attribution dependencies that interfere with deletion due to WP:Copying within Wikipedia (copyright guideline, shortcut WP:CWW). WP:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion (how-to guide, shortcut WP:EDITATAFD) has discouraged this since WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 58#Merging during live AfD (August–December 2009). (Disclosure: I made a small change to WP:EDITATAFD recently, but the article/page distinction is not relevant here.)

Cunard has cited WP:CWW frequently, and he should be well aware that merging during AfD is discouraged. There was a lengthy sequence of discussions from mid-February through the end of March 2021 sparked by Cunard's merging Squad (app) into List of mergers and acquisitions by Twitter during WP:Articles for deletion/Squad (app).

• WP:Deletion review/Log/2021 February 27#Squad (app) – Cunard was heavily active, and a few experienced editors made their disapproval clear: diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, and diff 4.
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive331#Review of DRV closures by King of Hearts
• WP:Village pump (policy)/Archive 165#RfC: Attribution when copying within Wikipedia

This report is because I noticed this merge from two days ago. I remembered the DRV, and I found an extended pattern after a little research.

Cunard and I participated in a dispute involving merging an article that had been deleted at AfD. I think it is only somewhat related, but I am including links to it for completeness.

I anticipate that some editors will agree with the outcome of Cunard's merges and thus dismiss my concerns. WP:Consensus and the processes established to reach it should be respected.

I believe that Wikipedia's licensing requirements must not be abused as a tactic against deletion. I request that Cunard be given a final warning. Flatscan (talk) 05:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification diff. Flatscan (talk) 05:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Flatscan: have you discussed it with Cunard (more recently than 6 years ago)? This feels like a discussion that needs polite discourse prior to an ANI thread Nosebagbear (talk) 09:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a huge fan of much of Cunard's work in general, but this does seem problematic. But I agree with NBB that discussion is probably the next step before coming here. If that doesn't resolve the problem then you're stuck coming back here... Hobit (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you both for your comments. A direct conversation can educate, persuade, and maybe negotiate undoing the contested action. All of those were unlikely: Cunard has demonstrated knowledge of WP:CWW and proficiency with merging, four experienced editors had objected directly at the Squad DRV (diffs above and below), and the merges cannot be undone with anything short of WP:Revision deletion. Flatscan (talk) 05:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but then we'd have his response. And his response is appropriate--the link you gave to a how-to guide probably isn't controlling here. That said, the discussion that got that link had fairly strong consensus. I don't he should be chided for not treating a how-to guide as a guideline when the thing says "It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, and may reflect varying levels of consensus and vetting". That said, the consensus was clear and that "varying level of consensus" is pretty high and should be respected most of the time (the discussion was clear it shouldn't be a "never") IMO. I'd say his proposed process for dealing with the merge is okay, but I'd prefer he A) only do this rarely (which frankly seems to be the case) and B) he also copy the names of the contributors into a note where it was merged as that appears to be enough to meet our licencing requirements (otherwise if the draft gets deleted we have problems). The "copy the names of the contributors" thing means that in the rare case where this does happen, we are fine on licensing. He could even wait until the article was deleted I suppose (and probably should if the deleted article has a ton of contributors). Hobit (talk) 13:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I looked at your last 50 contributions, and we last interacted six years ago when you were last active. Why did you not discuss this with me on my talk page? I thought that this merge of two sentences about a Macedonian-American newspaper to Macedonian Americans#Media would be uncontroversial. All three subsequent participants at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Makedonski Glas have endorsed the merge. I did not expect it to trigger an ANI report that included a list of all merges I have done in the last six years and a "dispute" from November 2015.

  When I merge an article, my intention is to improve Wikipedia. I do it immediately because I would otherwise forget or not have time. My actions are based on Wikipedia:Be bold and Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion, which makes no mention of forbidding merges during AfDs. I encourage editors who would like to forbid merging during AfD to modify Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Merging to add that language. If merging during an AfD should be forbidden and editors sanctioned for that action, the relevant policy should say this. The policy currently says nothing about merging during AfDs. I do not view the merges I've done as being against the current policy, but in view of Flatscan's concern, I will hold off on doing any merges during AfDs for the next few months until the policy is clarified. I had not read the paragraph in Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, a how-to guide.

  When I do a merge, my intention is not to "abuse" Wikipedia's licensing requirements "as a tactic against deletion". Furthermore, there is no need for any editor to conduct a merge "as a tactic against deletion". Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion says, "This page is also intended to serve as a central location to request that deleted content be userfied, restored as a draft or emailed to you so the content can be improved upon prior to re-insertion into the mainspace, or used elsewhere." WP:REFUND can always be used to request that an article's history be restored to draft or userspace to be "used elsewhere" such as in a merge. As I wrote here, to avoid contentious discussions like Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 February 27#Squad (app), whenever I want to conduct a merge of a deleted article, I will do this now instead of opening a deletion review:

  1. After Squad (app) was deleted by the AfD, I would have requested that Squad (app) be draftified to Draft:Squad (app).
  2. After draftication, I would have completed the merge and redirected Draft:Squad (app) to List of mergers and acquisitions by Twitter#Squad.
  3. I would redirect Squad (app) to List of mergers and acquisitions by Twitter#Squad with an edit summary noting that the history is now at Draft:Squad (app) and that a merge has been completed.
  Cunard (talk) 01:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have repeatedly demonstrated an understanding of WP:CWW and its implications, and your merge edit summaries follow recommended practices. I expected you to understand and respect the objections you received at the Squad DRV. (DRV diffs previously provided above)
    • The AfD closer was very clear on his talk page (new diff) and in the first response at DRV.
    • This comment linked to WP:FAITACCOMPLI.
    • This comment linked to WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Nobody, which I had filed in March 2010. Its talk page includes the original request with links that I provided in my initial post.
  • Whether AfD participants agree with the merge is irrelevant to this discussion. The problem is that merging removes delete as an option.
  • Thank you for pledging a temporary self-restriction. A mention seems like it could fit in WP:Deletion policy#Merging, but the prohibition was determined by consensus. WP:Consensus can change in 12 years, but no such changes appear in the history of WP:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion. It was stable 2009–2013, had a minor rewrite, then was stable again until I tweaked it a few days ago (diff above, not relevant).
  • I object to your proposed process, as I consider it to be a backdoor method of overturning a delete consensus. Avoiding a contentious DRV discussion avoids DRV. SportingFlyer responded with a caution to your original proposal at AN. I am concerned that you do not see its issues. Flatscan (talk) 05:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have observed other editors doing merges during AfDs without any concerns being raised. If you would like merges to be disallowed during AfD and to sanction editors who do such merges, then Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Merging needs to be updated to say this. Saying this in a how-to guide is insufficient as it does not have the visibility and weight of the policy.

      I object to your proposed process, as I consider it to be a backdoor method of overturning a delete consensus. Avoiding a contentious DRV discussion avoids DRV. SportingFlyer responded with a caution to your original proposal at AN. I am concerned that you do not see its issues. – another editor saw no issue with the restoring to draftspace approach to doing a merge after the AfD. It is very common practice for admins to restore articles deleted at AfD to draftspace or userspace for improvement or for use in other Wikipedia articles. Restoration to draftspace is usually denied only when the article history has copyright violations or BLP violations. If the AfD closer is fine with restoring a deleted article to draftspace (or says they do not object to WP:REFUND doing so), I see no problems at all with doing this. Even the how-to guide you are citing says this is fine; from Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion, "Even if the article is ultimately deleted, you can ask the closing administrator for a copy of the material to reuse, and the administrator can also advise you on any further steps that you may need to perform in order to reuse the content." Cunard (talk) 06:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a super big issue in the grand scheme of things, but don't you think it would be better to leave it to the administrators to merge to do since the guidelines says the administrators will deal with it? If nothing else it would at least eliminate any perceptions that your trying to use merges to get around content being deleted. There's no reason content needs to be merged in the middle of an AfD either. In fact, it might be better to wait until people have improved the article through the AfD process first before merging any content from it into another article. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would be surprised if the guidelines say administrators should do the merge since I rarely see closing administrators do a merge after an AfD is closed as a merge/redirect. In many cases, a merge doesn't happen after the article is redirected because no one remembers or has the time and inclination to do so. This is why when I have time, I do a merge when it will improve the encyclopedia. In a case like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Makedonski Glas, merging during an AfD is useful to show participants how the content would fit in the target article. I don't consider merging during an AfD to be getting around deleting content. To reuse deleted content that has no BLP or copyright violations, any editor can ask the closing admin to draftify and follow the merge/redirect approach I described above. Cunard (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be surprised if the guidelines say an administrator "should" do the merge to. Although that wasn't what I said. What I did say is that the guideline says administrators "will" do the merge. Which from what I've seen happens most of the time. Even if it means someone asking them to do it. In the meantime, what the guideline doesn't say is "anyone can merge whatever content they want, whenever they feel like." I don't see how the guideline would be implying that either when it specifically says "administrators" multiple times and goes out of it's way to say the user can ask an administrator what their options are after the AfD is closed. Why wouldn't it just say "you can merge content at anytime during the AfD process" if that's what we can do? --Adamant1 (talk) 04:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought that there was a large {{Afd-merge to}} backlog, but it has relatively few transclusions. Good to know! Flatscan (talk) 05:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What I did say is that the guideline says administrators "will" do the merge. – I am not aware of a guideline that says this. Cunard (talk) 06:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline says a user can ask an administrator what the options are if an article is deleted and that the administrator can provide them a copy of the material to reuse. Do you have any evidence of an admin refusing to do a merge when someone asked them to do one or not allowing someone to do it themselves? If it's something that never happens then there's zero reason not to just ask an admin for the content of the article after the AfD is closed. Otherwise, it seems like your trying to subvert the process. FYI, I don't think you are, but I can understand why people would interpret it that way. Personally, I don't see why you would care either way. It literally makes zero difference. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Copying the article's prose with a little trimming to a Media sub-section in Macedonian Americans#Culture" conveys the proposal nearly as well, as the article is only three sentences. You could make a note on- or off-wiki or review your contributions page to jog your memory. Flatscan (talk) 05:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That could work. I don't like adding to my long todo list and having to reacquaint myself with a topic when it can be done at the time. Cunard (talk) 06:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't patrol AfD, so I am not generally aware of merging happening at AfD. A few days ago, I recommended warning a user who had been making Draft: copies of articles at AfD. If merging/copying is widespread, I agree that changes should be made to increase visibility. I will note that the Guide to deletion is linked from every AfD in {{AFD help}}.

I don't know the distribution of closing admins, but refusing to restore is also common. REFUND's standard response template {{UND}} has an afd parameter for AfD declines, such as this one from yesterday. (For transparency, the AfD's closing admin would have been willing to restore to Draft space if not for it having two AfDs.) A minor point about the mention of providing a copy in EDITATAFD: it also covers off-Wikipedia use such as a personal collection or on a compatibly-licensed wiki like Fandom (website). Flatscan (talk) 05:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors have done merges at AfD without any concerns being raised. If you would like to disallow merging during AfD and sanction editors for doing so, this wording needs to be added to Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Merging. It is my view that the current policy does not disallow merges during AfD. Closing admins have restored articles to draftspace when I have asked them. If a closing admin refused to restore an article to draftspace and refused to allow WP:REFUND to do so, then and only then would I ask WP:DRV to restore the article to draftspace. Thank you for providing that example about a denial of restoration. I think the request to restore is reasonable and will improve the encyclopedia. I have asked the community to restore the article to draftspace at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 February 3#Pathan (film). Cunard (talk) 06:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning toward a RfC at WT:Deletion policy, as establishing a current consensus will be worth the effort. Would you like to participate in drafting it? Thanks for filing that DRV: it looks to have clarified the situation. Flatscan (talk) 05:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is worthwhile to establish a consensus about merges during AfDs that incorporates Hobit's and S Marshall's suggestions about attribution. I can provide feedback about any proposals but would prefer not to spend too much time on this as that would take time away from my main focuses of participating in AfDs and content creation. Cunard (talk) 05:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My rough plan is revise the RfC statement from 2009, WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 58#Revisiting Merging during live AfD. I think that S Marshall's hypothetical situation is an edge case that will confuse the discussion. Flatscan (talk) 05:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• On balance I feel that the best outcome here would be a small change to how we carry out merging during an AfD. I wholeheartedly agree with Flatscan that there have been editors such as A Nobody who used merging during an AfD as a deletion prevention tactic, and that by doing so they were undermining the community's freedom to delete content in a way that I think is quite unacceptable. No less wholeheartedly, I also agree with Cunard that merging during an AfD is often a reasonable and appropriate thing to do.

When someone draws attention to an article by listing it at AfD, that's often a trigger for experienced editors to review it. To those editors it's often pretty obvious that a merger needs to take place and I think a selective merge often is the best outcome for an article that's at AfD. But our project's difficulties with editor recruitment and retention means that participation at AfD is often random and consensuses that fail to consider "merge" as a possibility are increasingly common. If our experienced editors were constrained to wait for the discussion to be closed before merging, then the process becomes:- AfD -> Delete -> Request undeletion -> Eventually get the undeletion -> Carry out smerge -> Re-delete. It is, to my eye, clearly preferable for the process to be AfD -> Smerge -> Delete.

And that's why I think that the best outcome would be new guidance that reads:- When merging during a live AfD, please place a list of contributors on the target article talk page. If this is done, then I think we no longer have a problem. If the outcome of the AfD is "delete", then this can be enacted without further paperwork, so the merge no longer has any possibility of subverting the community consensus; and if the outcome isn't "delete", then the only downside is that we've provided attribution when we didn't strictly need to.—S Marshall T/C 03:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For an AfD like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Makedonski Glas, placing a list of the article's contributors in the AfD itself as part of the AfD comment works if it is easy to generate (this saves having to make a third edit on the talk page). What is the best way to get a list of all the contributors? Cunard (talk) 04:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2010 United States Women's Curling Championship/Attribution (the first page in Category:Pages used to preserve attribution) looks like a copy/paste of the history page with minor text manipulation to link each username (optional?). One may want to use incognito/private mode to reset the time zone to UTC. There are only 277 pages in that category, so this method of attribution is not common. Flatscan (talk) 05:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That works as long as the page history is not too long (which is usually the case). The page history can be copied in a collapse box to the AfD page in the same edit as the AfD comment. I think linking all the usernames would be a lot of work so would not do that. Cunard (talk) 05:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting proposal that satisfies the attribution requirements. I will mull over it, but my immediate reaction is that it adds effort and the risk of errors. Flatscan (talk) 05:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After consideration, I believe that this method's drawbacks outweigh its benefits.

• I realized that this proposal is WP:Merge and delete#Paste history to talk subpage ({{supplement}}), but not to a sub-page. "[This method] does not have favor among Wikipedia administrators at this time." has been in its text since the page was drafted in 2007. It was mentioned at the 2009 RfC, but the WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 58#Alternate attribution sub-section didn't get much traction. Talk pages are usually unprotected, so pasting there risks someone editing or removing the attribution. Please form a consensus that this method is acceptable for this application before using it. WT:Merge and delete could work with a RfC tag; it feels off-topic for WT:Copying within Wikipedia.
• My guess is that the combination of valuable, mergeable content and closing as delete is a rare edge case. Examples should be available if it happens frequently, and a pronounced pattern should be discussed as WT:Articles for deletion. If the situation arises once every six months, the editor will have to look up the procedure and will not save much time compared to rewriting from sources or filing the undeletion paperwork.

Flatscan (talk) 05:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After reflecting about this objection, I understand and acknowledge Flatscan's concerns and I would like to modify my proposal to take account of them. I propose instead the following change to the guidance: When merging during a live AfD, your edit summary should read: "Merging content by %user, %user, %user and %user from %article during an AfD" (where all the contributors to the source article are named). In the rare cases where this would make the edit summary more than 500 characters long, it should instead read "Merging content from %article during an AfD, see %targetarticle/attribution for a list of contributors". You should then create %targetarticle/attribution and add it to Category:Pages used to preserve attribution.

I agree with Flatscan that merging during a live AfD is currently rare, and I believe that this is at least partly because merging during a live AfD creates the difficulties with attribution that this thread highlights. I think it's plausible that if we revise our rules to enable it, it may start to happen.

I don't agree that it's preferable to wait until after the AfD has closed to enact the merge. Our experienced editor has found the article at AfD, read it, thought about it, checked its sources, searched for other sources, reached the conclusion that it's not notable, considered the alternatives to deletion, found a suitable merge target, and recommended it. This is a considerable investment of volunteer time, and volunteer time is Wikipedia's only scarce resource. With the "wait til it's closed" method, our busy editor is then asked to stop, watchlist the AfD and wait a random interval of time until it's closed. If they're a reasonably productive editor, it's likely that they will be doing other things during the interval and they will have a large watchlist to attend to. When the AfD is eventually closed, they'll have forgotten the detail and they will need to re-read and refresh. I think it's considerably more efficient for them to do the thinking and then merge then and there, so I would prefer to enable this if at all possible.—S Marshall T/C 16:57, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Using the edit summary is an upgrade: it is directly in the page history and cannot be removed without admin tools. It is still subject to user error. Your detailed instructions accounted for it, but a plausible mistake is truncating the list with et al. One of my concerns with recommending this method is along the lines of WP:BEANS: an inexperienced user desperate to save an article will follow it imperfectly and need clean-up.

I agree that editor time is a limited resource, but consensus has more weight to me. I prefer to follow the established deletion discussion process. If interrupting it is disallowed outright, the additional complexity to support that case is unnecessary. Since merging has consequences beyond a regular edit, measure twice and cut once. I doubt that the additional time is significant: a slight merge of a few sentences should be quick to refresh. A large one should not be done before discussion. Flatscan (talk) 05:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It's only the same as moving content before the AFD - a link to the revision in the edit summary, {{copied}}, {{merged from}} and {{merged to}} or similar templates on the talk page, and it's just something that has to be checked when closing. A865 (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

support ideaI suggested something similar above, but S Marshall did a better job than I in putting it to words. Yes, for really long articles, this will be difficult. But those are pretty rare at AfD. Hobit (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• There is already Template:Copied; before deleting a page, its talk page should be checked for this template, and an administrator closing an AFD should check the discussion for mentions of merging. If not useful as a redirect, the page can be moved to a talk subpage of a page it was merged to, using revision deletion if it is necessary to hide any of the content. Copy and paste of a history page is less useful as attribution does not update with username changes and is not visible in contributions pages; it was used for Talk:2010 United States Women's Curling Championship/Attribution because revision deletion had not been enabled. A865 (talk) 10:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please pay attention to the harmful activities of Ушкуйник. For many years he did nothing except of turning Ukrainians into Russians, Ukrainian names spelling to Russian spelling and diminishing role of Ukrainians in history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/%D0%A3%D1%88%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%B9%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA. Day by day. I do not think that such activities, which are targeted exclusively for erasing all Ukrainian traces from the history should be tolerated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.95.211.239 (talk) 13:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is something I am familiar with. Let me start by noting that you did not notify them as required.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now, most edits of Ушкуйник here are related to personalia of 18th and 19th century which reasonably have some relation to Russia and Ukraine, such as for example Dmitry Bortniansky who was born in what is now Ukraine and is mainly described as Russian in reliable sources. In Ukraine, all these people are described as Ukrainian. Since this editing area suffers from a huge amount of driveby Ukrainian editors who show up (sometimes in flocks), replace Russian with Ukrainian and disappear, these articles need to be constantly watched to keep their content aligned with reliable sources. This is what Ушкуйник is mostly doing. This is not to say that there are no harmful edits by Russian users (there are, and they are often paid by the government, but typically not for these topics), and this is not to say the all edits of Ушкуйник are ideal - they sometime overdo things. But this report does not have merit in my opinion.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever wants an illustration of the disruptive editing I mentioned above can look at the edit history of Aleksandra Ekster - driveby editors repeatedly come to describe her as Ukrainian-only (contrary to all possible sources, which describe her as either Russian or French or Russian-French), never discuss anything and disappear forever.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but as Russian language is your native language (in accordance with your page), I believe you could not be impartial and neutral in such situation. I think that the question should be checked by other administrator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.95.211.239 (talk) 13:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, American here. Can verify that what they are saying is correct. Also, an IP who's only edits are to come to ANI? RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment)I will never understand the need to claim everyone is Ukrainian—blindlynx 17:04, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Questioning a user's impartiality because of their perceived ethnicity/nationality, as the Estonian IP did above, is an act of prejudice and potentially violates WP:NPA. Especially in this case, they provided no diffs showing that Ушкуйник (talk · contribs) (Ushkujnik) has a nationalist bias and got rebutted by an administrator experienced in Russia topics (which presumably means that they are excellent at NPOV). I've seen users appear out of nowhere filing bogus accusations on ANI, so I'd say this IP will get the WP:BOOMERANG treatment. No rangeblock, please. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is about the page Lovejoy (band), which, per an AfD in May of 2021, was redirected to Wilbur Soot. However, multiple users have been attempting to recreate the article despite consensus (especially in the last 2-3 months), and I highly suspect some form of meatpuppetry.

The first attempt to restore the article was by user MrSisterM (talk · contribs) (who was later found to be a sockpuppet of ProTaylorCraft (talk · contribs)) on the 7th of June, 2021, which was promptly reverted by WikiDan61 (talk · contribs).

The next attempt was on the 10th of November, 2021, by user JesterClown8397YT (talk · contribs) (who also tried to make a page at Olentangy Hyatts Middle School, but the notability of that is an entirely separate discussion). I thought they were notable at this point, because I had only discovered the article at this point. (so I stupidly tried to fix up the article in good faith, as they did chart on Billboard, so I figured there should be sources...)

On the 6th of December, Onel5969 (talk · contribs) restored the redirect (which helped me realize I was stupid in trying to keep it, and that there is no real notability per the AfD and what sources I've found).

And, of course, on the 16th of January this year, Bigmancallum (talk · contribs) tried to recreate the article again. I found out about it through my watchlist, and promptly reverted it.

Sometime around that time, I went to WP:RFPP to request that the page be protected, and I'm pretty sure it was declined. (As I was writing this post, TheresNoTime did semiprotect Lovejoy (Band), though)

And now, to today (or, well, the 2nd of February)

User 80s Sam (talk · contribs) created new pages at Lovejoy (Band) (with a different capitalization at 'band'), Are You Alright? (EP), and Pebble Brain (EP). And I got... pretty pissed.

There's also problems I note with the user MainsNoobMains (talk · contribs) (most of their edits are about this band and Wilbur Soot, including trying to create an article at a Wilbur Soot-related redirect last month), and also editing two of the three new articles today hours after they were created (at Lovejoy and Pebble Brain). wizzito | say hello! 01:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both Lovejoy (band) and the recently-created and inappropriately-cased Lovejoy (Band) have been restored to redirect status and have been temporarily semiprotected. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:51, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, most of the users who are restoring this have semi-protected status (or at least I think so, based on their number of edits) wizzito | say hello! 01:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is a valid point. I'll keep an eye on these. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kinu: I suggest ECP instead, as at least two of the users (Bigmancallum and 80s Sam) appear to have access to semi-protected pages (but are not extended confirmed yet). wizzito | say hello! 02:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And speaking of Bigmancallum, there have been many issues about notability, self-promo, copyright, etc. raised on his talk page since 2020. That is very concerning to me. wizzito | say hello! 02:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I just wanted to add my comment here, and say that what I am being accused of (meatpuppetry) is untrue. I simply made created a Wikipedia page for a band I like. I did not realise what had happened before with this article, or that I shouldn't be creating it. I have no connection to the other people who have also created this article, and I have not been recruited by anyone to create this article. I also apologise for the notability issues (they were just articles I created a few years ago without properly understanding Wikipedia's rules), self-promo (here, I assume you are talking about my username change? I changed my username for reasons other than the the ones I expressed in the original change request. I'm very sorry if it came off in a way that sounded like I was simply self-promo'ing or similar), and the copyright issues (they were images I uploaded that I believed to fall under Fair Use, but I seem to not have understood the correct definition for that. I'm very sorry.). I hope this makes sense and aids you in your case. Thank you. Bigmancallum (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't explicitly reply to your comment, so just thought I'd do that so that hopefully you see it. See the full message I typed before on the 4th Feb. Thank you. :) Bigmancallum (talk) 14:24, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any action you can do into this user interrupting my editing works, every edit I made he always revert for no reasons, he just don't like it, even copyediting, he don't want it. Recently, I removed information in a lede that is wrong according to the sourced info in the section below it, and as usual he reverts it without any explanation, and later on he realized that hes revert is wrong. I made a minor copyediting in an article and he revert it again without explanation. He warned me about not providing edit summaries, cause I have reverted vandalism without explanation, but usually reverting vandalism does not require edit summary. So I've warn him harassment for his allegations against me, but he removed the warning now. He just made edit warring yesterday to two different users in various pages. An editor want to report this user but he don't know where to report. –Ctrlwiki (talk) 12:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified the reported editor about this report. —C.Fred (talk) 13:04, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over the contributions by Slashlefty, I do see a lot of reverts that are without merit. Worse is this talk page comment, where the user appears to not want to read a paragraph's worth of message from Ctrlwiki. That is of concern as an administrator, because I read that and get the send that Slashlefty is unwilling to communicate with other editors, and that doesn't fly in a cooperative project like Wikipedia. —C.Fred (talk) 13:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What action can you give to that user? –Ctrlwiki (talk) 13:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see what he says in response to this thread, first. --Jayron32 13:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve spent the past day trying to wrap my mind around my devastating behaviour, I hate resorting to this to express an emotion as delicate as frustration but this is where I find myself. I offer my sincerest apologies to those who got offended and for anyone who is suffering. I will continue to pray for all of you, and will be of service in any way I can to Wikipedia. If we can all put this behind us lets contribute to make a better encyclopedia. Slashlefty (talk) 09:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both editors could do with reading WP:EW, particularly relating to the three-revert rule WP:3RR. Slashlefty is a new user who is making some mistakes as many do initially and may be straying into disruptive behaviour through unfamiliarity with how it all works. WP:EP would be a good start. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that... the above edit by Slashlefty clearly demonstrates deliberate disruptive behaviour. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay... it's time Slashlefty got some time out. He was contacted regarding his WP:HOUNDING of Mako001 two days ago [36]. He's now taken exception to my edits above and has started singling out articles I've created in the past, nominating one for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mirror and comb (Pictish symbol), then tagging a further four [37] [38] [39] [40]. He also appears to have confused an essay WP:3REFS for editing policy. I don't have any problem with tags for references being placed on my articles, and I have a thick skin, but this combative approach to editing is disruptive and unacceptable. I would place the block myself but will leave it to an uninvolved admin. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I have Blocked' Slashlefty for 1 week given his vexatious stalking of Catfish Jim even after being warned off of the same behavior against Ctrlwiki. I have also told him that continued behavior in this manner may lead to an even longer block next time. --Jayron32 17:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jayron. Hopefully Slashlefty will take notice and return to editing in a manner that is beneficial to the project. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed this, I had thought that hopefully, me and lefty had just had a bit of a misunderstanding, and that they weren't actually intentionally hounding. But now that they have done some much more blatant hounding, after being told that hounding was a problem, I don't oppose them being given a bit of a time-out. I really don't think that they quite understand how much of an issue their behaviour actually is. Mako001 (C)  (T)  01:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the block for the moment on the understanding that Slashlefty does not continue with this behaviour. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please block Mciceran from adding unsourced info about herself at Istro-Romanians and possibly also from trying to change the article's topic at Čepić. I am not giving links as I believe it is better to see the article's history in each case. She seems to have ignored my explanations at edit summaries [41] [42] but also on her talk page [43]. Super Ψ Dro 14:32, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

She's still adding the information [44]. Could someone act on this case? Super Ψ Dro 18:42, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A look through https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/158.123.163.16 makes it obvious. Please block them. Dronebogus (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like the IP of a school and I don't see a pattern of disruptive edits? Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Contribuidorconta has, in seemingly good faith prior, made contributions to the article for Dallas, Texas (see their personal contributions from 19 January 2022 to 3 February 2022). In these contributions, they added nothing more than huge white spaces to the article by adding excessive images. Likewise, they have added periods to every image caption, removed high-quality, standing images for low-quality and extremely dark files, etc. I reverted those contributions about a week ago; today, these contributions on the Dallas article were reverted without explanation. I kindly reverted those contributions with the same explanation prior and additional detail; I then took it to the talk page to assist with a swift, proper closure to discussion on those contributions. Contribuidorconta, however, reverts such contributions involving them and I restored them. It seems they do not wish to contribute to proper discussion so I am escalating this here. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Please provide diffs so we don't have to look for ourselves. Especially since this report did not link directly to the user's contribs until now. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LaundryPizza03, I have added them. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes... almost the entire right-hand side of the second revision is occupied by random images about all sorts of shit in Dallas, mostly random buildings that in many cases have nothing to do with the nearest section. This dwarfs some of the other articles I've seen where excessive images caused layout problems. Not to mention adding unnecessary periods to captions. But they stopped immediately after you filed this ANI; if they return disruptively before this thread is archived by a bot, please describe the diffs. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:39, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LaundryPizza03 they even reverted the noticeboard warning. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 07:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

New account, with total of 3 edits prior to January 26th. WP:SPA, mostly edit-warring in AA area, doing controversial changes, and pushing strong point-of-view. Examples in a single article:

• 2 February 2022 - removes well sourced facts of Armenian Genocide.
• 2 February 2022 - controversial breach of MOS:TERRORIST under false description of "its attacks" is not grammatically correct. Specified who's attacks.", no consensus.
• 2 February 2022 - Same as above but now throughout the article, under extremely misleading edit description of "minor corrections".
• 3 February 2022 - Completely unnecessary change to the sourced genocide number, again with no consensus.
• 4 February 2022 - proceeds to edit-war with multiple editors over his introduced controversial edit, call them edit-warring "Stop edit wars my friend.".
• 4 February 2022 - edit-wars again, asking others to "reach the consensus".
• 4 February 2022 - 3rd edit-war over the same edit, same POV removal of Turkey's open genocide denial, which is a fact.

Their edits prior to this week were 3 in total. They removed well sourced information from Ramil Safarov by BBC and Al Jazzera, ethnically characterizing it as "Armenian lobby knowingly put much efforts and politized this case.". They later proceeded to open a talk discussion titled "‎Azeriphobia". Ramil Safarov is the axe murderer of Armenian Army Lieutenant Gurgen Margaryan during a NATO-sponsored training seminar in Budapest.

This user is clearly WP:NOTHERE. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ZaniGiovanni,

1. *2 February 2022 - This is false accusation. This edit is related to ASALA page, not to Armenian Genocide, and if you check talk page of the article, you will find that conversations to reach consensus. I did not remove well sourced facts of Armenian Genocide. Check the talk page, and you will find that proposed edit is about removal of part of statement, as referenced source does not say that.

2. *2 February 2022 - This is false accusation either. If you check talk page, you will find that we had polite discussion with other editors and reached consensus.

3.*2 February 2022 - If you check talk page, you will find that we had polite discussion with other editors and reached consensus.

4. *3 February 2022 - False accusation. Dispute on this topic in ongoing under the talk page. My proposed change is completely necessary and require referring to the agreed information on the Armenian Genocide page, which states number of victims of Armenian Genocide. If you wish, you are welcome to join Talk.

5. *4 February 2022 - it is not an edit war from my side, I asked to not edit the article as we did not achieve consensus yet. If you have any claims - please send them to the editor, not me.

6. *4 February 2022 - Again it is a false accusation. I asked to not edit the article as we did not achieve consensus yet. No information was removed, neither about Turkey's open genocide denial, nor about anything else.

I find you accusations fabricated with only aim to get my account blocked. you're trying to make it look like I'm being destructive and that's why you've gathered a lot of information, but you haven't even taken the time to verify your accusations. If you checked, you would find that I try to follow the rules of Wikipedia. Yes, maybe there were some mistakes on my part. I accept this as I'm new to Wikipedia and I'm always open to advice from experienced contributors. But your accusations are baseless and fabricated.--Abrvagl (talk) 11:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're a WP:SPA account who pushes strong POV and edit-wars with multiple users, you're edit-warring currently in other articles as well [45], [46]. You didn't have consensus for any of this. You're still edit-warring with users whom you supposedly "reached consensus" with, see Revision history of the article. And FYI, baseless accusations qualify as personal attacks. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. Thanks for pointing on personal attacks. I will thoughtfully read it. Sorry if you find any of my words as personal accusations, I did not mean that.

2. There were two disputes on the ASALA page. One dispute is closed. Another dispute is ongoing. Some editors edited article, although we did not reach consensus, and that is why I reverted his change and asked them to wait until we reach consensus. Can not see any problem or destructive actions from my side here. There part on which we reached consensus was never edited by me.

3. On Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan page we reached consensus, and article was updated. Then I did a minor edit changing from Azeris to Azerbaijanis, to match name of the article Azerbaijanis. Looks like some users have other opinion, so we will discuss that with him. Cant see any disruptive or not constructive approach from my side here either.

Regarding the Armenian genocide, I know that this is a sensitive topic for many people and you highlighted it. There was no intentional deletion of any information in my plans. On the contrary, I tried to make the information accurate, for example, in the article about ASALA, different numbers are given in different parts of the article, and I suggest referring to the main article about the Armenian Genocide to achieve consistence. Is this a destructive suggestion on my part?

I try to be as neutral as possible and refer only to reliable sources. I know that I am a beginner and cannot know all the rules. For example, I make an amendment (following all the rules and citing all sources) and if someone retracts my amendment, then I start a thread on the talk page. If I see a need for major changes to an article, I always bring up the topic on the talk page first and don't make any changes until I get support from the contributors. Am I doing it wrong?

I would be grateful to you if, instead of writing complaints against me, you would contact me and explain to me if I am doing something wrong. I am always ready to listen to the advice of experienced participants.

So I think that perhaps my behavior was misuderstood, given that I am new, probably many people prejudicedly think that I am a person who came in to engage in vandalism, but I assure you, this is not so.

Thanks, --Abrvagl (talk) 12:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And only after this report, 5 hours past their comment, the user does damage control probably understanding how self-contradicting their "polite discussion" and "reached consensus" claims sound like, see diff. Original comment:

• "FDW777, please provide your opinion. looks like buidhe does not want constructive talk, denies obvious, and insists that article should look the way he likes it."

This isn't the first time user vehemently defends their POV, with apparent conflict of interest reveling in the process. While looking at their other contributions, I noticed them calling Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan, a well sourced and documented article, quote:

• This article more looks like propaganda rather than article from encyclopedia. [47]

They made similar WP:JDLI and POV comments in Ramil Safarov talk page, after removing how Safarov was greeted as a hero in Azerbaijan, supported by BBC and Al Jazeera, quote:

• Information in the article should be neutral. This article is full of hatred, hatespeech and Azeriphobia. [48]

So I think that perhaps my behavior was misuderstood, given that I am new, probably many people prejudicedly think that I am a person who came in to engage in vandalism, but I assure you, this is not so.

So assuming you weren't familiar with personal attacks, how did your attacking comments directed to specific editor mean a "polite discussion"? And I find it hard to believe your claims, as you're somehow aware of WP:ATD-M [49] but not what personal attack means?

And for the last time, you didn't reach consensus for any of the diffs I linked. The editor who reverted your edit wars in Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan left a message in your talk page. And in ASALA, it seems like your opponents yet have to comment. Oh, and nice playing the "beginner" card, somehow we ought to believe that a "beginner" is aware of deletion policy and merging articles. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:06, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ZaniGiovanni,

1.you provided link to personal attacks, and I looked to some my old comments, and decided to fix those which may potentially sound not correct and hurt someone filling. To be honest I do not understand your point here. What is the problem in understanding that you did something wrong and fixing it? Is it also break of the rules?.

2. With all respect, but I find your following statements personal attacks:

• I find it hard to believe your claims, as you're somehow aware of WP:ATD-M [50] but not what personal attack means?

• Oh, and nice playing the "beginner" card, somehow we ought to believe that a "beginner" is aware of deletion policy and merging articles.

3. That is not true: :And for the last time, you didn't reach consensus for any of the diffs I linked. The editor who reverted your edit wars in Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan left a message in your talk page. And in ASALA, it seems like your opponents yet have to comment.

As I mentioned above, we reached consensus on the one discussion of the ASALA page: Dear FDW777, I spent the time reviewing all other terrorist organization's descriptions on the Wikipedia. Majority of them described as militant rather than terrorist organizations. Therefore, although MOS:TERRORIST is no applicable to the case, I would agree to keep militant instead of terrorist organization to keep consistentancy with majority of articles. Dispute is closed. Thanks for your time and efforts. --Abrvagl (talk) 15:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC). Another discussion is still ongoing an consensus not reached on that.

On Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan page we reached consensus, and article was updated. Then I did a minor edit changing from Azeris to Azerbaijanis, to match name of the article Azerbaijanis. Looks like some users have other opinion, so we will discuss that with him. Cant see any disruptive or not constructive approach from my side here either.

So although some discussions reached consensus, other discussions are ongoing. Is it violation of the rules to have several discussions on the articele at the same time? Do not think so.

Thanks for helping me to improve my skills in Wikipedia, I highly appreciate that. --Abrvagl (talk) 13:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time, you were edit-warring and pov pushing, consensus wasn't even close to being reached. Why are you linking your own comments as some sort of "proof" without actually showing the replies of your opponents, none of which agreed with you? [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56]. This is borderline trolling. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear [User:ZaniGiovanni|ZaniGiovanni]], links that you provided refers to the discussion about whether ASALA should be defined as terrorist or militant organisation. Please find my last comment on this topic, where consensus reached: [[57]]. Why u not referring this one either? Another discussion is still ongoing, and will be closed as soon as consensus will be reached.

BTW, is your statement "This is borderline trolling." falls under the personal attacks? Not sure.

Anyways, I thinks I provided answers to all point that you highlighted. I wish all the best to you. Have a nice day! --Abrvagl (talk) 13:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't address anything. You did pov push and edit-war in multiple articles, and you're still edit-warring which means you can't claim you reached consensus, it isn't possible. As I said, you're trolling at this point. I'll leave for admins to decide. I provided multiple diffs, and you're clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:06, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I also think that Abrvagl is a WP:SPA account. One of his very first edits [58] was an attempt to add that the name "Azerbaijan" was historically also used to describe the present-day country Azerbaijan, but this first occurred around 1918 per modern WP:RS. He attempted to add this by using a primary source from 400 years old, completely disregarding the information supported by modern WP:RS that was listed in the article, and which did not support this. Recently he also attempted to change the spelling of "Azeri" to "Azerbaijani" [59] [60], the former which is not supported by the current government of Azerbaijan and is almost abhorred. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Not commenting on everything else for now, but I don't think it is wrong to use Azerbaijani people instead of Azeri. In my opinion, while both terms are acceptable, and none of you is wrong, Azeri is more colloquial, and Azerbaijani is more official and scientific. Our own article here is called Azerbaijanis. So this is not worth the argument, I think we should use the same term as the main article on the ethnic group. Grandmaster 14:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it was wrong to "Azerbaijani", but changing it because you don't like the spelling is not constructive. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to HistoryofIran, my friend please go to the Talk page, I provided both Primary and Secondary sources and waiting for others to share their point of view and to reach the consensus. The primary and secondary sources which I provided may be not in line or support the WP:RS that was already listed in the article, but it does not mean that they are not reliable or valid. Good luck.

HistoryofIran what is not constructive is telling that I changed it because I did not liked it, even after I provided my arguments. But you know, it is ok both ways, I changed it as Azerbaijanis is more academic and official. but let it be as you like. dont see value in discussion on that.

• Comment User:Arbvagl is clearly on a single-purpose mission. That mission is to spread pro-Azerbaijani irredentist POV that is refuted by modern WP:RS. He tries to invoke historical negationism/revisionism by using primary sources in order to press the area to the north of the Aras river as being named "Azerbaijan". A cursory glance shows dozens of WP:SECONDARY WP:RS that refute his POV. And they were really easy to find. E.g.:

1. "Prior to 1918, the term “Azerbaijan” applied only to the Iranian province of Azarbayjan." -- George Bournoutian (2018). Armenia and Imperial Decline: The Yerevan Province, 1900-1914 . Routledge. page xiv
2. ""The name Azerbaijan was also adopted for Arrān, historically an Iranian region, by anti-Russian separatist forces of the area when, on 26 May 1918, they declared its independence and called it the Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan. To allay Iranian concerns, the Azerbaijan government used the term “Caucasian Azerbaijan” in the documents for circulation abroad. This new entity consisted of the former Iranian Khanates of Arrān, including Karabagh, Baku, Shirvan, Ganja, Talysh (Ṭāleš), Derbent (Darband), Kuba, and Nakhichevan (Naḵjavān), which had been annexed to Russia by the treaties of Golestān (1813) and Torkamānčāy (1828) under the rubric of Eastern Transcaucasia." -- EI. (2011) [1987]. "AZERBAIJAN". Encyclopaedia Iranica, Vol. III, Fasc. 2-3. pp. 205–257.
3. "Until 1918, when the Musavat regime decided to name the newly independent state Azerbaijan, this designation had been used exclusively to identify the Iranian province of Azerbaijan." -- Dekmejian, R. Hrair; Simonian, Hovann H. (2003). Troubled Waters: The Geopolitics of the Caspian Region. I.B. Tauris. p. 60.
4. "The region to the north of the river Araxes was not called Azerbaijan prior to 1918, unlike the region in northwestern Iran that has been called since so long ago." -- Rezvani, Babak (2014). Ethno-territorial conflict and coexistence in the caucasus, Central Asia and Fereydan: academisch proefschrift. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. p. 356.
5. "(...) the Baku and Elisavetpol guberniias, declared their independence (to 1920), and, despite Iranian protests, took the name of Azerbaijan (as noted, the same designation as the historical region in northwestern Iran) (...)" -- Bournoutian, George A. (2016). The 1820 Russian Survey of the Khanate of Shirvan: A Primary Source on the Demography and Economy of an Iranian Province prior to its Annexation by Russia. Gibb Memorial Trust. p. 18
6. "Until the Sovietization of the South Caucasus, Russian language sources refer to the Turkish-speaking Muslims of that region as “Tatars,” while referring to the Ottomans as “Turks.” Prior to the first decade of the twentieth century, the term “Azerbaijan” applied mainly to the Iranian province of Azarbayjan. The Iranian and Russian sources of the time, with rare exceptions, view it as the region located south of the Aras River. Iranian sources refer to the inhabitants north of the Aras by where they lived; hence Yerevanis, Ganjavis, etc. In 1918, the Muslim inhabitants north of the Aras and their spoken Turkish dialect became identified as Azerbaijani" -- George Bournoutian (2021). From the Kur to the Aras: A Military History of Russia’s Move into the South Caucasus and the First Russo-Iranian War, 1801-1813. Brill. p. xvii

Looking at the compelling evidence, I believe its safe to say that user:Abrvagl is WP:NOTHERE to build this encyclopaedia. The provided diffs speak for themselves. Please take a look at the dozens of indeffed/t-banned WP:SPA drive-by accounts that tried to enter this topic area over the years, and please tell me how User:Arbvagl's edits are a net worth to the project. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LouisAragon you did not find the time to reply to the talk page of the Azerbaijan (toponym), where on the [page I provided Primary and Secondary source. So urces are following:

1. WP:RSPRIMARY Jean Chardin stated: Azerbaijan, province of Persia, borders to the East upon the Caspian Sea, and Hyrcania; to the South upon the province of Parthians; to the West upon the River Araxes, and Upper Armenia, and to the North upon Dagestan. (https://archive.org/details/travelsofsirjohn00char/page/348)

2. WP:SECONDARY Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition, Edited by: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs. First print edition: ISBN: 9789004161214, 1960-2007 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1573-3912_islam_SIM_0736) states: The Arrān is usually applied in Islamic times to the district in Transcaucasia between the Kur (Kura) and Aras (Araks) Rivers. In pre-Islamic times, however, the term was used for all of eastern Transcaucasia (present Soviet Azerbaijan), i.e. Classical Albania (cf. article “Albania” in Pauly-Wissowa). By the 15th century A.D. the name Arrān was not in common parlance, for the territory was absorbed into Ād̲h̲arbāyd̲j̲ān.

We definitely need to continue discussion with involvement of the other editors to reach the consensus on my proposal. My proposal is to include above provided reliable sources into the article. So we need to either reach consensus on how to include them. I can not understand why reliable sources related to the article should not be reflected on it. You argument that reliable sources that I provided are not inline with the sources already provided can not stand any criticism.

With regards, to your claims that I am WP:NOTHERE and a net worth to the project. I find this claims groundless. I am editing on the wikipedia literally like 6-7 days and contributed to the few articles only. This can not be accepted as enough sample size to do such claims.

To the attention of the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, Dear administrators, yes I am new to the Wikipedia, yes I might not know all of the rules, yea i might unintentionally broke some of the rules, but i am open for advices and I am open to learn. I want to assure you that I am doing my best to respect the Wikipedia rules and policies. Please help me, I do not want to lose my account here. I do not state anything or blame anyone, but I personally and emotionally find above claims against me as targeted harassment. I really cant understand why user with whom I did not have any relation suddenly decided to spend his time and raised ANI, and why other users, who were not responding to the talks, suddenly found the time to write here. --Abrvagl (talk) 06:04, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• " you did not find the time to reply to the talk page of the Azerbaijan (toponym),"

Wrong, again. I actually did.[61] But WP:TENDENTIOUS users who are on WP:NOTHERE missions usually have tunnel vision goggles on. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:22, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• this user is also being disruptive in Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia article, calling the background information about the Armenian genocide Irrelevant information (talk page) and trying to remove it while logged off. He is just bludgeoning in the talk page without paying heed to any editors who answer him, his edit history shows him to be here to RIGHTGREATWRONGS. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk)

LouisAragon, 1. I am not talking about your not-constructive reply, which mostly consisted of WP:WIAPA , I am saying that I asked you to be constructive and provided more information to support my proposal, but you never reply back. 2. About the ASALA page and "calling the background information about the Armenian genocide Irrelevant information". The main point overthere is that cited source does not contain information which written on the article, and number of Armenian Genocide victims is not inline with the Armenian Genocide article, and even inconsistent within the article. Discussion on that still ongoing. You, and anyone else can join. Taking sentence from the context and citing it wont make it a claim.

I never logged off. Someone with IP 185.144.76.89 did an edit [[62]]. My IP address is 165.225.194.216. This is clear WP:WIAPA, as such are most of the claims against me here.

UPD. I checked the IP 185.144.76.89 edit, it was not even related to the my proposals. The IP 185.144.76.89 deleted information which I never proposed to be removed from the article. This is clear WP:WIAPA and very suspicious. --Abrvagl (talk) 14:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editing through an open proxy/webhost? If that's your real IP, that's not usually a good sign. Special:Contributions/165.225.194.216. Just an observation. Mako001 (C)  (T)  10:07, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is what Whois shows me. Im not using any proxy/webhost. Any edit I am doing I do only while Im logged into my account(basically it is always stays logged on, dont have any reason to log out). However, the network to which I'm connected managed by the Zscaler, so that might be a reason. --Abrvagl (talk) 10:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm somewhat satisfied by that explanation. I've said my bit. Cheerio. Mako001 (C)  (T)  22:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wilkja19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) marks all their edits as minor; they have never left a single edit summary; they have never, as far as I can see, provided a reliable source or indeed any source for their changes; and they have never responded to any message left for them. This WP:RADAR behaviour has been called out as problematic several times, they have been the subject of several AN/I threads, and they have been blocked a couple of times, but they just keep on editing in exactly the same way. See the following:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1054#Wilkja19 marking all edits as minor
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1087#Wilkja19 once again (mobile communication, unsourced info)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive329#Block review: Wilkja19
• User talk:Wilkja19#FINAL WARNING: Stop marking all of your edits as minor
• User talk:Wilkja19#Complete lack of communication

Their talk page carries a note stating that "This user's software does not display talk notifications, so messages left here may not be noticed immediately". However, whatever software they might use, I think they are still subject to the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. So I am raising their behaviour once again. I would like to request that they be compelled to a) not mark major edits as minor; b) leave edit summaries; and c) to provide sources. If they just do these things, that the vast majority of editors do without compulsion, I think everybody would be happy but I think their current editing behaviour is just fundamentally disruptive. 82.132.215.173 (talk) 12:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per @82.132.215.173:, I would support a 1 week block of this user, that's the fifth time the editor has been notified to another ANI discussion. Continous minor edit marking. Severestorm28 13:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging users who participated in previous discussions: @Sundayclose, P,TO 19104, EdJohnston, The Bushranger, Levivich, EEng, ProcrastinatingReader, Aquillion, Nil Einne, Foxnpichu, Heliatrope Fish, El C, Asartea, Nyttend, Floquenbeam, Barkeep49, Only in death, Beyond My Ken, and Magitroopa: —GMX^{(on the go!)} 15:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh god, this is a WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU issue again isn't it. This is a difficult one, because they are in no way engaging in bad faith editing: they simply aren't seeing any of these messages (per WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU they aren't seeing these pings, talk page messages, alerts, or block messages). I oppose a block of any kind here, because it won't achieve anything, unless an indefinite block is applied. Really this is the fault of the WMF for providing a non functional application. I'm not certain why they are marking all their edits as minor, but I assume its either a misguided idea of what it means or simply a preference they don't realise they have turned on. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 15:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I support a block. But I think it may need to be more than one week because of multiple issues with very little communication, and a previous indef. Sundayclose (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From a 24-hour block to an indefinite block (which was lifted) I'd support an indefinite block with Sundayclose here. Severestorm28 16:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The editor in question (Wilkja19)'s editing has been fine as a matetr of substance. As for the ANIs, the biggest interest in seeking admin attention against this editor seems to come from WP:BKFIP, which is why some recent ANIs were closed. I get the feeling the OP is the same block-evading LTA, also editing from O2 Telefonica which matches recent BKFIP-blocked ranges like 82.132.220.0/22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This ANI should be closed on that basis and the OP blocked. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yup looks like that to me, too. Ohnoitsjamie pblocked this range a couple months ago, pinging so they're aware. Levivich 17:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, calling BKFIP too. They were active just last week on 82.132.213.165. As to everyone else, try adding this:

.minoredit {
    display: none;
}

to your common.css. Then you will never again encounter a non-minor edit marked as "minor". Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find that there are a few million people in the UK who are on O2. Anyway, suggesting that this one editor should be allowed to add unsourced material and ignore all messages forever seems like an extraordinary position to take, doesn't it? I've seen lots of users get blocked until they acknowledge the need to communicate. How can anyone who totally rejects collaboration edit a collaborative project? 82.132.214.242 (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[non-admin comment] I was under the impression that notifications were added to the Android app. (?)
Went looking and found some history spanning several years: Phab:T201931 “Add Echo Notifications relevant to New Editor encouragement to the Android app” (resolved 2018); Phab:T123155 “Echo notifications on Wikipedia mobile apps (Android & iOS)” ("resolved" but query not implemented?, 2020); Phab:T281413 “Show notifications about Talk messages while browsing articles” Phab:T287113 “Implement in-article notifications” (both done, Sep 2021); [Phab:T288770]] “set apps default to notifications on” (filed Aug 2021, task still open, but possibly patch deployed end Aug, MW-1.37). ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 18:55, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is true, but Wilkja19 is using the iOS app. That's still a work in progress, from what I gather from phab:T27404. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate the situation with this user: they have never left an edit summary; never responded to a message; never provided a reliable source for any edit; and mark all their edits as minor. Is this a problem? Yes, I think each of these behaviours individually is a problem, and someone doing all four, very much a problem.

Consider just one of this user's recent edits: in this edit, they made a change that I cannot find any source that verifies. Why did they make this change? We have no way of knowing. Where did they get their information from? We have no way of knowing. If I ask them on their talk page, they will not respond. Every single one of their edits is like this. Verifiability is a core policy, but this editor violates it with every single edit they make. Communication is required, but this editor will not communicate.

None of these problematic behaviours are caused by any software issues. I've been looking at the recent changes made with the iOS app, and I see people using edit summaries, not marking major edits as minor, responding to talk page messages, and providing sources for their changes. Clearly, these four problematic behaviours are the choice of the user.

So what can be done? It seems to me that the only effective action will be to block the user until they respond to communication and agree to stop these problematic behaviours. Given their stonewalling, nothing else can possibly have any effect. And doing nothing sets the precedent that if you simply ignore all communications, you can edit as you please. I do not think that is a good precedent. What possible reason is there to exempt this one user from behavioural norms that everyone else is obliged to follow? 82.132.215.35 (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

¿Por qué no te callas? Mako001 (C)  (T)  23:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. For someone to leave a personal attack like this, in a discussion they haven't even been taking part in... 82.132.244.126 (talk) 12:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little concerned about postings made by Kioojmoo. If genuine, could be a safeguarding issue... not sure on policy re this Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I suppressed a few things and left a note--better safe than sorry. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with you that it's a concern, and I feel like it would be good to have a way of raising issues like this that isn't public. WP:CHILDPROTECT has nothing relevant, but it's one of the few situations where WP's transparency is more likely to do harm than good. Theknightwho (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:OVERSIGHT. But yeah - it would be good if more people knew about how to raise concerns of this nature without doing it on a widely viewed public noticeboard. (No offense to the OP - you can't magically know what you don't know.) Girth Summit _(blether) 22:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't think this is covered in WP:OVERSIGHT Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Catfish Jim and the soapdish: It's standard practice to oversight edits made by younger editors if they share too much information, it's done under criteria 1 as "Removal of non-public personal information". Normally they get a {{Uw-selfinfo}} left on their talk page afterwards. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like this is an area that it would be good to have something more explicit on, even if it's already covered by broader policy (which is also a plus, as it should make things uncontroversial): WP:CHILDPROTECT should cover safeguarding in addition to child abuse, and something that ties that into WP:OVERSIGHT would be good as well. I don't feel like it needs to be too complicated/wordy - just a point of reference, with WP:SAFEGUARDING pointing to the section. Theknightwho (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Theknightwho: Agreed, historically the preference has been to leave the criteria for oversight relatively open-ended and to allow individual oversighters to apply their own judgment, but this does end up with situations where it's unclear if a particular edit will be oversighted or not. I would add another example bullet point under criteria 1 to the effect of "Personal information such as birthdays, schools, full names and contact details, when posted by underage editors" and add a section to WP:CHILDPROTECT pointing to it. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How about a second-level bulletpoint under the one that mentions phone numbers etc, with "Additionally: personal information such as birthdays, schools, full names and contact details, when posted by children or potentially vulnerable individuals"? Safeguarding generally covers other kinds of vulnerable people too, and given this is a policy that affects a small number of responsible users, it's a judgment call for them as to when that would apply. Theknightwho (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Theknightwho: If you're going to do it as a second level bullet point I wouldn't bother with the list of examples and would just say something like "Personal information may be removed for safeguarding reasons if posted by children or vulnerable individuals". Do you want to open a discussion at WT:Oversight? I imagine this should be an uncontroversial change since it essentially documents existing practice. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 23:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, and I will do. Theknightwho (talk) 23:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion now open at WT:Oversight#Safeguarding. Theknightwho (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't comment on the content they were posting - I didn't see it prior to Drmies' suppression. My comment was just based on the fact that since oversight was used, it was probably covered. When I'm in doubt, I tend to revdel something per criterion 4, then e-mail oversight and ask them to review. Cheers Girth Summit _(blether) 11:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did see it, and can confirm it was justified. Theknightwho (talk) 13:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello i'm requesting admin to revert Ethiopia article to my last version, i will explain why below. I'm also requesting to adress The Supermind disruptive behaviour in general.

Ethiopia

It first began here [63] where he introduced text backed by nothing but pov storytelling, i corected some of user's inaccuracies [64] and doubting the rest (doubts proved correct) i asked Resource Exchange to provide the source: National Geographic by Berndl [65], the source was available on webarchives.

After confirming The Supermind blatant misuse of the source, i replaced the restricted google book version with the accesible webarchived source and took crap User:The Supermind put in out,[66] the unsourced and unsubstianted first section, and the made up storytelling about Susenyos turning to catholism because of Oromos imperialism there is nothing in the source to support that claim, no mention of Oromos or imperialism in the source, no evidence of that being the motive of Susenyos turning to the Jesuits.

The Supermind then reverts his crap [67] and adds a journal to the end of the first section [68], and Berndl after the first sentence of the first sentence [69].

I manually reverted The Supermind [70] to avoid one edit previous by User:Nat965 [71], warned the Supermind (the second time) on his talkpage [72] and invited him to talkpage [73],

The Supermind then reverted me again [74] and then claimed i breached the policy of WP:BRD[75] while i was the one who invited him to the talkpage and removed his made up crap first.

Then in a series of edits the user removed the entire first section and replaced it with an entire different text [76] which he then sourced with what it looks like an author own website [77], [78] and in the second section user still maintain his his bizar claim/storytelling [79] in contradiction to the source.

Amda Seyon I

The Supermind rarely uses the edit summary look at his contributions, when he does however such as at Amda Seyon I article [80] which was called out by another user:YonasJH at the talkpage [81]

What The Supermind typed in the edit summary does only partially reflect what he removed, he changed the latinized form in the infobox and replaced it with Amharic characters, nothing wrong with that. But what he didn't put in the edit summary and what removed the most are texts in the lead namely the Amharic translation of a Amhara historical figure.

He has been called out to use the edit summary [82] but i'm afraid this user might be using the edit summary and editing something else instead as the above example showed, he should be warned to properly describe his changes.

Gondar, Amhara Region

Overall whenever i'm in dispute with this user, i don't find that his edits improving the article at, such as at Talk:Gondar over the spelling in the lead because of his general lack of knowledge of Amharic spellings, and the use of montages as picture in the article, which i objected to because the pictures were already in the article [83], [84], [85]

Montage issue also arose in the Amhara Region article, [86], [87], i doubt if there's an policy against it, but can you say something about this user need of adding montage pictures, when it doesn't have to.

I could add more but this is enough for now. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Admin notice: Reckless source removal by @Dawit S Gondaria: as I mentioned their raised issue with no insufficient evidence accusations of disruption in the talk page. Second, problematic behavioral revert (see WP:BRD policy) without good rationale, example look [88][89], false ridiculous accusation claiming "adding montage is my disruption." Simlar accusation in Amhara Region but eventually I retreated from their heated argument notifying them in their page. For noticeable time, I've no hostile feud with them because I thanked in several occasions for error detection, notably here, and I've no intent to claimed disruption. Thanks! The Supermind (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)... I also uncertainly afraid of the user is using WP: Hounding in multiple occasions and the creation of account User:YonasJH to create meatpuppetry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Supermind (talk • contribs) 20:55, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment reaction to my so-called ‘‘reckless’’ [90] revision The Supermind is claiming, he had to delete/change [91] the first section that was full pov storytelling not backed by sources. The claim of Susenyos turning to jesuits because of Oromo imperialis/expanionism is also unsupported by the source, and is The Supermind pov and misuse of the source, which is now removed by another user [92]. I reinstated the accessible webarchived version of Berndl [93](something The Supermind kept reverting).

As for his ridiculous accusation about YonasJH being another account, feel free to open a investigation! It's The Supermind low key vandalism that was caught by YonasJH @Amda Seyon I[94] article, and i only ended up there after i found that The Supermind has been falsifying/vandalizing/typing other claims not supported by sources in Ethiopia article, so i had a good cause to check his contributions and see what else this user has been up to.

The issue here is The Supermind is storytelling claims out of his ass unsupported by the sources, i take issue with that. This user expects me to have good faith after being found abusing sources and then reverts to his version of crap, no i do not have good faith. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 06:17, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mr @Dawit S Gondaria: I have told you many times and please your heavy false accusation is implausible without rationale. Yes, I made a mistake in fact for example removing sourced Amharic translation of Amda Seyon I (that's unintentional when I saw MOS:LEAD) to shorten the with significant summary, but my approach is to contribute, nor to vandalizing or editing warring like you. You're in fact now seeking WP:NPA by replying "ass" and "crap" despite I don't want to accuse you for this. Our goal is to create article and expanding like encyclopedia, even if editors disagree each other, they have obligated to respect WP:CON and finally WP:CONACHIEVE by discussing talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Supermind (talk • contribs) 08:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's going around in circles with @The Supermind: this user annoys me and i'm done responding to this user. This user misused reliable sources and made al sorts of falsified claims, and then started edit warring by reverting to his version time and again, saying i have to reach consensus over his damn vandalism? How many more articles did this user ‘‘spin’’ make claims contrary to sources? I'm done engaging with this user, admin can take over. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 15:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose close without action as a content dispute. This should have been taken to WP:DRN. You have both failed to communicate with each other. I saw one talk page message on Dawit's page after the fact, and after Dawit replied once, he did not continue communication. Everyone involved should get a trout and hopefully learn from this experience. [95] ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 13:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear administrators, I have some problem here, CreecregofLife is keeps removed editing with the Toonturama or Planeta U in every 24/7, can you please block him? Thank you. --Angel Arreguin Hernandez (talk) 06:08, February 5, 2022(UTC)

Wait why do you want me blocked? It’s the IP user 2603 that’s the problem. They keep cursing other users out. Even Some Dude from North Carolina reverted them. I swear I’m not the issue here. The OP was left by the IP and then Angel overwrote the IP and put their name to it. I’m very confused as to what’s going on--CreecregofLife (talk) 06:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. --Angel Arreguin Hernandez (talk) 06:18, February 5, 2022(UTC)

Then why did you put your name to the IP’s frivolous report?--CreecregofLife (talk) 06:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because you made me mad, the adminstrators will block you, after you did in 24/7 week in a row. It's against the rules or have some broke the rules what you did, don't lie. --Angel Arreguin Hernandez (talk) 06:26, February 5, 2022(UTC)

I think two people are using the Angel account because I’m seeing two very different behaviors. All I did was remove excessive lists and bring correct English grammar into the articles, after removing columns from the table that weren’t necessary. I was also trying to remove disruptive edits from the page. I haven’t done anything wrong.--CreecregofLife (talk) 06:32, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is going to be the funniest case of WP:BOOMERANG I've seen in a while, though I wonder if this even counts as a BOOMERANG if the boomerangee didn't start the thread. Why would you alter a frivolous AN/I report to falsify its origin [96] and say it's "because you made me mad"? And admit to doing so in the report? Why would you possibly think anyone would take your side here? Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 08:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This likely counts as a WP:VEXBYSTERANG. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 13:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose WP:Boomerang block on Angel Arreguin Hernandez for wasting our time, or being incompetent, I can't tell which.-- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 08:08, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's both, they're clearly incompetent at trolling since their deception was discovered pretty much immediately. But I totally agree with a block. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 08:11, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well. That was interesting. There's also a rather glaring CIR issue, aside from the CIR issue present in this thread: I looked at Angel Arreguin Hernandez's talk page, and honestly, I can't make heads or tails of most of their comments. It's not even clear who they're addressing half the time, or what is being said to who (e.g., they will often use pronouns like "you" and "me" interchangeably, which makes their some of comments quite literally impossible to follow). They likely don't have the requisite English abilities to make coherent edits request, let alone edit article space directly. I'm not sure what can be done, except for blocking them to prevent disruption (intentional or otherwise). Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 13:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was definitely bizarre watching Angel play both sides, that he was leaving the warnings on the talk pages of his own IPs? Admittedly I was worried about being nipped for 3RR, but once their intentions were clear, that they weren’t interested in improving the article, it became necessary to mitigate the damage--CreecregofLife (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are a mess of issues here, some of which I can't go into, but the short version is that I've indefinitely blocked Angel Arreguin Hernandez. For what it's worth, SolaryMedia, Inc. is also this editor. And in case anyone else becomes suspicious about ARH99 after the account goes stale, I'd say that's probably a different person. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I'd like to hear the long, considering this wasn't even the first time I dealt with his disruptions (an issue I thought we worked through), I won't push it. I will point out however that protocol wasn't even followed when this discussion was opened. I was never notified this discussion was happening, I found out through contributions.--CreecregofLife (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was certainly a competency issue in terms of language, so it's probably not surprising that policy wasn't followed. Quite what the intentions were are somewhat of a mystery... I can't make head or tail of it, but it looks like you were being targeted for some reason. It happens, try not to let it get to you. Hopefully it's been addressed. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 122.161.48.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 122.161.48.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 122.161.52.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

These IP addresses are a part of the ongoing disruption. Could a proper range of these IP addresses be blocked? Thanks! — DaxServer (t · c) 18:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Petrov2017 has been warned many times about his editing of the article Charles Dutoit, but he has not responded to the warnings. See User talk:Petrov2017. What can be done to persuade this user to engage in dialogue? Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:56, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See also Talk:Charles_Dutoit#Reliable_sources. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not only has Mrschimpf reverted my edits on BET Soul and BET Jams to unverifiable entries, but they have removed my post on the talk pages explaining my edits. The previous edits had little to no citations to trusted sources confirming any information on the page.Thecleanerand (talk) 21:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page edit removed other editors' comments, that's why it was reverted. Schazjmd (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As already stated on your talk page, you have a history of removing a lot of content from a page as 'fanspeak', which is not acceptable at all, and you removed talk page content that was placed by other editors in good faith (I removed your own comment there to restore the previous content, as you just stated 'I removed it' rather than wanting to engage in any discussion). There are talk pages on an article for a reason; use them. And your edits will continue to be reverted, as instead of finding ways to source information, you just remove 2/3 of the article without a good reason. Nate • (chatter) 22:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Thecleanerand:, please stop removing content, now! Your continued persistence and removal of article content is likely to lead to a WP:BOOMERANG block. Nate • (chatter) 22:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Thecleanerand: Officially, last warning. You again removed a large chunk of information from an article without any discussion whatsoever, and instead of quickly correcting an incorrect Rotten Tomatoes link...cut it from the article. Start fixing the so-called 'horrible grammar and phrasing' rather than just removing content. Nate • (chatter) 06:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused. Some of their edits are sub-optimal reverts like RT but they do have a point that MTV Jams page has significant unreferenced sections. Threatening a boomerang on someone for removing unsourced content isn't really grounded in wikipedia policy.Slywriter (talk) 17:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU!Thecleanerand (talk) 17:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mrschimpf deleted MY TALK PAGE section explaining my edits to BET Soul and BET Jams. You have repeatedly reversed my edits to messy, unreferenced pages for no justification. It is the basic rule of editing Wikipedia; if you can't prove something about the subject isn't true, then it shouldn't be on the page! Why not actually fix any mistakes that I've made, instead reverting my edits out of spite. - like you did on History (Canadian TV network)! You are the one with the problem, not me.Thecleanerand (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks are not going to help your case. I suggest you strike those. Schazjmd (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ApologiesThecleanerand (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is with no joy that I make my first appearance at ANI to report that User:Davidgoodheart has been disrupting AfD for at least three years by copypasting the same rationale for keeping articles. This is extremely problematic because it has gone undetected for such a long period of time, because the user has claimed ignorance with AfD etiquette, and because it ultimately undermines the AfD process. Note that the same AfD rationale was copypasted at times only a minute apart over several discussions, which casts serious doubt on this editor's review of the deletion discussion and source material. Below are the diffs for 2022 alone (note that the user also mistakenly pasted the same timestamp into his comments):

• 3 February 2022 (UTC): diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4
• 3 February 2022 (UTC): diff5, diff6, diff7, diff8, diff9. Diff 6, 7, and 8 were published only one minute apart from each other.
• 2 February 2022 (UTC): diff10, diff11
• 22 January 2022 (UTC): diff12
• 19 January 2022 (UTC): diff13, diff14, diff15, diff16, {{{1}}}, diff18, diff19, diff20, diff21, diff22, diff23, diff24, diff25, diff26, diff 27, diff 28, diff 29, diff30, diff31 (diff 16 and 18 were made one minute apart; diff 19 and 20 two minutes apart; 21 and 22 one minute apart; 24 and 25 two minutes apart; 26 and 27 two minutes apart; 28 and 29 one minute apart);
• 18 January 2022 (UTC): diff32, diff33, diff34.

Have a look at the AfD stats of this user. This behavior has been ongoing since at least January 2019 (diff35).

There are currently 17 deletion discussions in which this user has made these problematic !votes, and that are also yet to close. My suggestion is to strike all the 17 associated comments. AFAIK, this user hasn't been warned about this before, and this is also their first time at ANI, so in terms of sanctions a stern warning should be enough a TBAN from AfD seems warranted. This 100,000 edits user is a repeat offender at AfD, having engaged in sockpuppetry at AfD in 2017, canvassing at AfD in 2018 and 2021, built a history of WP:ICANTHEARYOU, and spammed the same comment ad nauseam for 3+ years to make a WP:POINT and retaliate against his articles getting brought to AfD. Pilaz (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• So my initial thought was "it's a bit lazy, but what's the issue if the same rationale applies to each one?" But I feel that the wording needs laying out with emphasis on ANI:

  Keep, for the reasons of those who want to keep this article.

  I agree that such votes are demonstrably a waste of everyone's time. Theknightwho (talk) 23:18, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly relevant here is a sockpuppet investigation from 2017 which led to Davidgoodheart being blocked for three days (which seems lenient to me) for creating socks to agree with his own posts in AfD discussions. [101] AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I object to this as I was never told this before. I did feel the same about each article being kept and did look over them and edit them. I know now not to do this and don't think I deserve a bad punishment for this or to have my votes striken neither. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:42, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• He has 100K+ edits and doesn't know what ANI is, but edits Pilaz's post with the link? This is after being told on his Talk not to edit other's user pages? Pilaz flagged this issue for me earlier today (thank you) but I was headed offline and didn't have time to review at that time. The user's name rang a bell, and then I remembered it from Iridescent's TP here. I'm not sure the particular AfD issues as I haven't had the chance of a broad review, but coupled with editing issues at ANIri, and AndyTheGrump's link above, I feel we're in final warning/CIR territory here. Star Mississippi 01:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Why did you sitike diff17? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It doesn't look like my edit did. If it did, it was inadvertent. Please feel free to re-add it. Likely an edit conflict, which I thought I got out of. Star Mississippi 02:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, I meant to address Pilaz. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You're probably remembering the name from my talkpage on multiple occasions. After all those discussions—all of which essentially boil down to variations on "I promise I won't do it again, whoops I did it again"—my AGF/CIR reserves are well and truly at zero with regards to this editor. (This one was the final straw.) ‑ Iridescent 07:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I struck one diff because it was the exact same one as the one that preceded it, and I didn't feel like retyping all the diff numbers manually to account for my mistake, LaundryPizza03. Also, this user has been doing this for three years without ever reading WP:DISCUSSAFD, WP:AFDEQ, or the arguments to avoid WP:PERX/WP:EVERYONEELSE. Given his past sockpuppetry at AfD uncovered at SPI, I wouldn't be surprised if he did know. Pilaz (talk) 09:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Ahh yes, and this one, which is another needle in my CIR haystack. The recidivism is worrisome especially above in the reply to @AndyTheGrump where David says I object to this as I was never told this before where he literally contributed to the linked discussion. Thanks! Star Mississippi 13:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• If what they wrote represents their reason for !voting as they did, I fail to see the problem with it. (If there is one, perhaps the person who writes "Why not?" at every RfA should be warned as well.) Would everyone be happier if Davidgoodheart changed the wording every time? "I have examined the arguments in this discussion, and I agree with those made by the editors !voting Keep." "Looking up, I see that the Keep arguments are persuasive." "XXX and YYY and ZZZ have made arguments which convince me." All of these are substantially the same, and we all have seen many AfD !votes such as "Keep, per AAA, BBB and CCC" all the time. How is this substantively different? Will those editors be warned as well?
  No comment on any other issues with the editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know of any other editors who try to make a WP:POINT ("people are now way too picky of what should be included",[102], [103], [104]) in response to what I assume is one of their articles getting deleted [105], who were told almost four years ago not to canvass [106], and who have done so in spite of warnings until at least 2021 [107] [108]? Do they also engage in multi-year sockpuppetry to disrupt AfD [109]? Do you think they respect the spirit of AfD by copypasting/spamming the same AfD !vote within a minute of another, and do you think they read the article/discussion in question within that timespan? Do they have a history of WP:ICANTHEARYOU [110]? Because if you know other editors like these, feel free to point them to me. I'm sure I'm not the only one who would take interest in them. Pilaz (talk) 10:26, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yeah, people get upset when articles they've created are deleted: welcome to basic human nature. I'm not excusing it, I'm just saying that it's perfectly understandable. They might also get upset when they express their opinion on AfD and are basically told that it's not worth diddly. I see absolutely no reasonable rationale for warning or sanctioning this editor, and would suggest that this thread itself is sufficient (actually, much more than sufficient) to let them know that they might want to give a little more thought to their AfD comments. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:11, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To me those actually show that the editor has maybe reviewed the discussion. The literally copy pasting, including with multiple sigs so you know it's done, shows "I came here with the planned decision to !Vote this way, regardless of my actual opinion. Why even bother participating? AfD isn't mandatory. Star Mississippi 12:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence leads you to believe that what they posted isn't their actual opinion? To me, it seems rather the opposite: why would they even bother to paste in a Keep response if they actually wanted to Delete? I'm clearly not understanding this argument. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a different argument, then. Someone with only four Delete votes out of nearly 200 AfD votes -- especially with cut-and-paste arguments -- isn't so much voting his conscience as being intentionally disruptive of the deletion process. Just a few months ago, a few ARS members were dealt blanket tbans from the deletion process for similar antics ... and they at least generally advanced actual reasons for their POV beyond spamming "Keep because what other keep voters say." I would consider numbers so extreme to be suspect even with actual arguments. Ravenswing 13:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I saw this recently here [111] but was not aware it was basically the only vote they ever post. My thought was that it was so vague and useless that the closer of the discussion would basically ignore it. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

That User:Davidgoodheart receive a three-month TBAN from participating in AfDs (other than to defend any of his own article creations that might be up for deletion), anticipating that if he chooses to participate in the deletion process thereafter, he'll advance actual arguments in support of his votes. Ravenswing 14:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: as proposer. Ravenswing 14:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• If he's been doing this for three years, why on earth do you think a three month break is going to make a difference? Should be indefinite, with the understanding that any appeal will have to come with samples of putative contributions to then-current afds that demonstrate that he's so much as looked at the articles under discussion. —Cryptic 14:42, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support three months/support indefinite: clearly not at AfD to individually assess each article's merits. Past disruptions at AfD (sockpuppetry; multi-year canvassing despite warnings) make me think that this is a proportionate response. Maybe taking a 3-month breather will help this user; but I also understand why Cryptic thinks it won't. At any rate, some action is better than none. Pilaz (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing back to three months. I've seen an apology and a promise to get a better grasp of the rules and etiquette of AfD discussions, so I'm willing to take a chance. Pilaz (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC) Pilaz (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Seeing above, 3 months seem fair, though we must ensure it's a stop to the behaviour, not merely a pause doktorb _words^deeds 15:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, it was said no more about this editor, so why are you continuing this discussion? Support, If I do receive a block I would be willing to settle for three months, indefinite seems too harsh. Davidgoodheart (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Facepalm. Davidgoodheart, have you even read the proposal, which is about preventing you from participating in AfDs, not about banning you from Wikipedia altogether? Frankly, this comment makes me think we should be considering banning you from Wikipedia altogether; if you can't even understand a discussion in which you're the topic of discussion, why should we expect you not to go back to your old hobby of writing potentially libellous comments and claming you "didn't understand the BLP policy"? ‑ Iridescent 16:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Davidgoodheart, a TBAN is a topic ban, where you would essentially be forbidden to participate Articles for Deletion discussions for the duration of three months - unless the articles in question are your own creations. This is not a full ban/block: you would still be able to edit Wikipedia articles and create new articles. Do you better understand what this proposal is about? Pilaz (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Fine I will settle for three months, I would be willing to accept that. Davidgoodheart (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Normally I think this type of "kick the can down the road" exercise is pointless, but to judge by my long and wearisome previous history with Davidgoodheart (linked above), he genuinely is someone who thinks he's being helpful and doesn't get the message that he's being actively disruptive until someone expressly and explicitly says "Davidgoodheart, you're being disruptive". This may be one of the rare cases in which sending the signal "look, Wikipedia isn't some kind of anarchy where you can do whatever you want unless someone specifically tells you not to" might actually work. I have a feeling we're going to be back here in a few months discussing an permanent siteban—I have difficulty recalling any editor I've ever encountered who's so consistently messed up across so many areas, and this doesn't exactly deactivate my CIR alarm—but decency suggests that if he's actually able to contribute constructively, he be given the opportunity to try. ‑ Iridescent 16:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I was thinking about making a similar proposal myself. Davidgoodheart clearly has difficulty understanding why Wikipedia has a deletion policy, and how to participate usefully in deletion discussions. He could usefully spent the time he will have available looking at the relevant policies and guidelines, where hopefully he might gain a little insight as to their purposes, and procedures. Or alternately, decide that such policies aren't in agreement with his own preferred objectives - in which case he will have to find some other outlet for his talents, since such policies are unlikely to change. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant support I truly do not think he understands the collaborative environment, or how consensus works. See my Talk, for a parallel conversation. I'm not sure an AfD ban will solve the problem, but willing to try it Star Mississippi 16:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, I can spend usefully spend the time looking at the relevant policies and guidelines. That would be very helpful. Davidgoodheart (talk) 17:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is some WP:CIR issue. Judging from user's past responses to issues, I'm not optimistic that this will be the end of it.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:26, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indefinite block I don't think a "three-month TBAN from participating in AfDs" is going to solve any WP:CIR issues with the user. In addition to the AfD problems above, Davidgoodheart has a chronic problem with not listening to others when being told multiple times to not edit other people's comments.
  • On Talk:Richard Ramirez, Davidgoodheart makes 35 pointless edits messing with other editors' comments. I asked him to not do that again a year ago in February 2021 [112].
  • In July 2021, he was warned by an admin about refactoring discussion comments, with the admin adding that it is starting to look like you [Davidgoodheart] are either severely lacking in clue or are deliberately trolling.
  • In September 2021, a different editor tells him that he shouldn't edit other people's comments without their permission [113].
  • And again, just yesterday per Star Mississippi's link above and the notice on the user's talk page User_talk:Davidgoodheart#Editing_others'_comments, he is still editing other people's comments.
• Since Star Mississippi mentioned Iridescent's talk page, here's another discussion four months ago involving Davidgoodheart where the admin had to say: You've now been on Wikipedia for eight years and have racked up almost 100,000 edits. I'm sorry to be blunt, but the very fact you're still commiting basic breaches of basic and obvious principles like "don't breach copyrights", "don't accuse living people of crimes" and "don't link to neo-nazi websites" is starting to get worrying. To add: About a year ago, Davidgoodheart told an admin that he is "well on [his] way to reaching the 100 000 edit award" and asks if "any special things that can happen" once he reaches 100,000 edits and if there's a page where "people who have earned the 100,000 edit award can have their names listed on." Make of that what you will. Some1 (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC) Some1 (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I can find no incidence of "no more about this editor" on this page, yet Davidgoodheart seems to think that was the consensus. Not meaning to pile on, but the more this goes the more I'm seeing he lacks the required competence (or willingness to understand) to edit here. Star Mississippi 17:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, with the clear expectation that continued disruption upon their return will result in an indefinite ban. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:06, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support three-month only, oppose indef. Davidgoodheart has indicated that he's willing to improve and will use the block time to study the links Pilaz provided. I think he should be given a chance. Schazjmd (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose - Absolutely ridiculous over-reaction to minimally disruptive (if at all) behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 3-month ban (I'd have gone for only a month to be honest, but whatever); this seems like a good idea and gives the user time to undestand how to contribute usefully at AfD. Black Kite (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - the problematic AfD !votes and the messing with other people's comments are enough to warrant the 3 month ban, with a potential to indef if no corrections are made after their return. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support clearly warranted, also concerning is Davidgoodheart's ability to understand WP policy. LibStar (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose any AfD related action. Granted, Davidgoodheart's M.O. appears to be to post a pro-forma vote with little to no consideration based on the posting times. It has been argued that this is WP:POINTy behavior but "disrupting the project to make a point" actually requires disruption. After looking through all of Pilaz's diffs, I see no discussion where DGH's !votes would be influential in the outcome of any discussion that is open or has been influential in any of the closed ones. AfD closers already know to routinely ignore content-free votes such as this which makes DGH's impact on AfD's minimal at best. Annoyance is not a good enough reason to sanction an editor. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Eggishorn, curious if you meant this as vindication since that's how David took it based on timing. Star Mississippi 02:16, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi:, I fail to see how anyone of competent reading comprehension skills could read that as vindication. "Grudging tolerance" would be the strongest version. Perhaps there is a CIR case to be made, but that's not where this discussion started. Davidgoodheart, could you possibly explain? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He explained on my Talk that it wasn't and I'm AGFing for the moment although that's wearing thin. I personally believe we're in more CIR territory but agree with you that this particular discussion has shifted focus. FWIW, I read yours as "it's annoying but not ban worthy" which I also wouldn't call vindication, nor would I particularly describe BMK's !Vote as such Star Mississippi 02:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a TBAN. I have noticed his comments for a while when closing AfDs and found out about this discussion when I went to say something on his talk page. In response to Eggishorn's comment immediately above, I can say that I have been discounting these comments due to their obvious pro forma nature once I noticed it was the same wording repeated in multiple AfDs, but a new or infrequent closer could easily not notice this. In any case this approach to commenting is inappropriate and has gone on far too long. --RL0919 (talk) 01:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I've seen this several times myself but never put it together until now. I'd assumed it was the usual lazy keep vote, but now I see its now lazier, if that is possible. scope_creep^Talk 12:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as the only concrete measure that's likely to come from this. Maybe it will be a wake-up call that sticks, but I'm struggling to work up that kind of optimism myself, especially considering tenure. The fact that they seem to have initially misunderstood even this very proposal is telling. AngryHarpy‍^talk 13:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @AngryHarpy, that's a diff of me discussing the lasting influence of the 19th-century Aesthetic Movement on modern-day popular culture. While I indeed agree that it's a point that's often overlooked on Wikipedia and could do with a wider dissemination, I'm guessing "the fact that you're either too lazy or too incompetent to even read the proposal when you're the topic of discussion, makes me think that maybe we should be talking about banning you" is probably what you're actually looking for. ‑ Iridescent 16:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, that's the one – what happened here is that I wanted to permalink the current revision but accidentally typed Special:Diff/ rather than Special:Permalink/. Good ol' brainfart, I've fixed it now... AngryHarpy‍^talk 16:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user edits exclusively public holiday articles, and has been active there for about four years. However there are some issues.

• They never, ever use an edit summary.

  Never respond to any talk page messages.

  Every now and again, they mass delete content from articles, even if sourced.

  After being reverted and warned, they often return to the article later and continue to make the same changes.

Here are some diffs of their behaviour:

• Deletes all references from the article for no apparent reason, yet leaves the content (mostly) intact: [114][115]

  Deletes most of the article: [116]

  Deletes references, but not the content:[117][118]

  Garden variety section blanking: [119][120][121]

  General unexplained deletion: [122][123][124][125][126][127]

  Removing content even after being reverted for removing the same content: [128][129][130][131][132][133]

  And last but not least, their first (known) edit:[134]

And these aren't even all of their edits with serious problems.

Their other edits are just generally odd and (at best) barely constructive, sometimes contradicting the manual of style, and sometimes even contradicting styles that they themselves have used elsewhere, which, along with the totally bizarre behaviour of deleting refs but leaving content, suggests to me that we might have a WP:CIR case here.

The IPs I can say are definitely involved are:

• Special:Contributions/77.56.21.2

  Special:Contributions/77.56.17.244

  Special:Contributions/77.56.17.121

  Special:Contributions/77.56.16.89

There's also an account, which seems to be linked, Special:Contributions/SRueger and an IP with a more tenuous connection as well Special:Contributions/77.46.206.170.

I think this needs a block, because:

• The talkpage of User talk:77.56.17.244, and the other IPs shows that they have been warned multiple times.

  They were blocked for 3 months by Materialscientist, but within a month of their block expiring, were already repeating the behaviour that led to the block, clearly, they learnt nothing.

I think that a long term anon-only block of the /20 is needed, due to the persistence of this user, and the total absence of any response. @Materialscientist: who made the first block, @Nekomantia: (a friendly, self-admitted WP:SPA, who alerted me to the issues with this IPs contributions). I will place the ANI notice on the talk pages of all IPs and the talk page of the suspected account. Mako001 (C)  (T)  04:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC) major edit 13:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will also add that, having looked at their global contributions, these issues aren't limited to the English Wikipedia. Mako001 (C)  (T)  08:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SReuger responded on their talk page, which essentially rules them out, (a characteristic of this IP being to never do so.) Mako001 (C)  (T)  10:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I dropped a six-month block on 77.56.16.0/21, which is mild considering that this goes back to 17 February 2018. I wouldn't have done it if they had chosen to ever respond. Drmies (talk) 16:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, time to break this into sections because there is a lot to cover for this ANI.

Content Dispute: User:76.69.7.202 has been involved in a ongoing content dispute on January 14–17, 2022 North American winter storm. A previous AN, (found here) was withdrawn as no editor, including User:76.69.7.202, violated any rules. In this AN, I made one mistake, which was amended and corrected, where I initially took another editors word at face value and accused User:76.69.7.202 of violating 3RR, which was never the case, nevertheless, it was pointed out in the AN that User:76.69.7.202 had done 7 reverts of the same material over the course of a few days. After the AN was withdrawn, an edit war broke out between User:76.69.7.202 and User:184.146.205.69. Multiple talk page discussions/arguments took place on Talk:January 14–17, 2022 North American winter storm between the two users. Seeing the ongoing edit war, I requested [135] a Temporary pending changes protection for the article. This page protection was accepted for one week, meaning another editor agreed there was an ongoing edit war. After the page was protected, I undid a revert from User:76.69.7.202, which had removed a confirmed fatality from the storm. Moving on to the next point about WP:OWN and person attacks.

• Note: On February 4th, another user notified 76.69.7.202 to drop the edit war. [136]

WP:OWN/personal attacks: After my final revert on the article, User:76.69.7.202 wrote a message on my talk page [137] which included a personal attack as a "threat of ANI" and false accusations saying an admin scolded me for the wrongful 3RR accusation, which never occurred. I then replied [138] which a very lengthy message explaining why I would not undo my revert and asking User:76.69.7.202 to not threaten me. I also explained that I am just attempting to prevent an edit war, and protect the articles, as well as vital information, such as a fatal car accident, which will increase the death toll on the Weather of 2022 article, a top importance WP Weather article. User:76.69.7.202 then replied with this. "Listen, now read this point carefully: You openly and falsely accused me of 3RR in a public form, which is slander. That alone is grounds for you to be blocked from editing. I highly suggest you revert your edits.". That confirmed my suspicion of WP:OWN. User:76.69.7.202 did not read any part about why I would not revert the article. Before User:76.69.7.202's last reply on my talk page, I began a discussion section on Talk:January 14–17, 2022 North American winter storm to discuss each and ever point that was in question from User:76.69.7.202. I also dropped a message to User:76.69.7.202 about the discussion taking place on the talk page. User:76.69.7.202 replied to my talk page, which the threat and ignorance quoted above, before replying to the discussion on the article's talk page. Also, in User:76.69.7.202's reply to the content dispute discussion, they ignored the content in question and went after User:184.146.205.69.

I believe there is enough evidence to support a block for User:76.69.7.202 for personal attacks/WP:OWN, and the overall content dispute. Elijahandskip (talk) 05:33, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Thankfully, a user pointed out I mixed up one of the revision and that has been corrected. Also noting the user that warned 76.69.7.202 also warned 184.146.205.69 [139] to stop the edit war. Elijahandskip (talk) 06:57, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: 76.69.7.202 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is a sock of the indefinitely banned UrbanNerd that is brazenly operating under the radar of good faith editors and administrators, subtly (in some respects) and obviously (in other cases) disrupting the project (wish others aside from me would notice for once). The IP is draining the community's time and effort on articles and frequently here on numerous recent ANI reports. @Swarm: recall Saboteurest bunging up ANI and going after Canterbury Tail at Arbcom in early 2018. I have borrowed many of your eloquent words with respect to what went down back then in my opening sentences. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 11:17, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that’s definitely UrbanNerd, the editing patterns are unmistakable. Megalopolis and city definitions, can’t stay away from light rail, edits around the area of Ottawa, Gatineau and Hamilton (the Hamilton one in the pattern of this is always defining, they have clearly at some point moved from Ottawa to Hamilton in the real world.) Canterbury Tail talk 13:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And don't forget area codes, area codes, area codes, and classic incivility such as this and this. 16:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kinu: you redacted an edit from an IP on this thread. Was the content an attack at me and is it blatant evidence of sockpuppetry by UrbanNerd? This sockmaster has lashed out at me before when asserting the true identity of the sock. The edit could be a slamdunk piece of evidence for a new SPI. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was an insult directed at you and Canterbury Tail from a different IP account. Typical juvenile troll stuff. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Too bad not having clicked the diff in time. Hwy43 (talk) 05:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have had very little interactions with this user outside of edit summaries and the brief threats to me on my talk page, so I don't know the complete history of this sock abuser. So, can someone else, with more background of this sock user, open the SPI? Maybe @Hwy43: or @Canterbury Tail:? Elijahandskip (talk) 03:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Canterbury Tail is presumably unable as being “involved” as the admin that levied the indef block in 2013 and being party to Saboteurest’s ill-conceived and unsuccessful ANI and Arbcom attempts in 2018. If members of the community that are crossing paths with this editor have truly grown tired of tolerating this disruptive time sink, they will invest the time to open or to learn how to open an the SPI. But be assured, the sock master never goes away. This has been going on for 12 years. See here and here. Hwy43 (talk) 05:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment/Observation - This ANI revealed something about User:76.69.7.202, which does not play a part, per say, in the verdict of this ANI/SPI, but gives me more suspicion of being a troll. On January 26, I started an AN over the edit war. User:76.69.7.202 made a single edit on the AN[140], then went quiet on Wikipedia for 4 days, which is how long the AN lasted before it was withdrawn. 6 hours after the AN was withdrawn, (with another editor attempting to get the article page protected, which failed due to asking for a too high level page protection), User:76.69.7.202 went right back to the edit war/content dispute [141] and continued to revert edits. Since the AN's withdrawal, they have been active, mostly with the content dispute. Now during the time of this ANI being open, User:76.69.7.202 made a single edit on their talk page[142] which was a revert of a discussion taking place titled "Complaint about your edits". They have once again gone quiet, and I would somewhat assume that if the ANI closed without some punishment, they would perk back up and continue where they left off. I do not know if they are a sock (SPI in progress), but they are giving off a lot of troll vibes based on these disappearances when their edits become examined by editors outside the content dispute. Elijahandskip (talk) 06:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What you have observed is a pattern of behaviour that I have observed in the sockmaster before. Things get rocky so the sock suddenly goes into 'flight mode', while 'fight mode' can appear, either after a successful block or during the rocky period randomly a single-edit IP coming out of nowhere.

In the meantime, the SPI case appears to have been successful. Just waiting closing admin action. Hwy43 (talk) 08:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]