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

I have brought up this issue multiple times before and it hasn't been settled and continues to be a problem. One user, Mztourist has been intentionally targeting me as well as being constantly uncivil. One failed AFD attempt after another, and now I have been the victim of tag bombing. Could understand an article here or there, he literally tagged 20 articles inside of 10-15 minutes. Mztourist's goal is to be disruptive, he has made it is personal goal to delete as many articles I have created as possible. The last AFD he even deleted citations and then claimed it should be deleted because of the lack of citations Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley C. Norton. Because of past issues I now refrain from editing any article he is involved with or AFD any article he has created to avoid contact, only to have him continually target me. I have attempted to have a no contact agreement in the past, something I still support to remedy the problem. Jamesallain85 (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've provided one link to an AfD from 2 months ago, which did not involve any obvious impropriety. If you want anyone to take this complaint seriously, you should provide evidence of inappropriate behavior, not just unsupported attempts at mind-reading. See Wikipedia:Simplest_diff_guide for explanation if you don't know how to produce diffs. --JBL (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a diff that I think is worthy of noting. – ².O.^Boxing 20:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm especially curious about this statement ("he literally tagged 20 articles inside of 10-15 minutes") and if the OP could provide diffs for this because I don't see that looking at Mztourist's contributions. We haven't always agreed but I don't think it's right to infer someone's goal as being disruptive without providing proof of that. How do you know what his personal goal is? I look back at the your contribs going back to September and I see possibly three articles brought up before AfD and two out of the three were a "keep" or "no consensus" result. Every other AfD you have participated in was started by someone else. I'm not doubting how a person feels and, based solely on what I read above, the OP clearly feels like Mztourist is targeting them but the community can't act on a feeling, however sympathetic we may be. JBL is right and we have to be fair to Mztourist too, thus the need for diffs. --ARoseWolf 21:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think if the article was deleted or not is the issue. It is the intention, Timothy J. Edens was nominated twice by Mztourist after it had already been nominated before. Then he deleted references to attempt to get Stanley Norton deleted. Then when the current AFD McGregor started to look like it wasn't going to be deleted, he tagged 20 articles saying "This page should be expanded with reliable sources or deleted." I wasn't informed on my page of any of those tags. Jamesallain85 (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Given the personal attacks leveled by Jamesallain85 in that AfD, I'd say WP:BOOMERANG block is in order. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The response I just wrote was deleted, so I have to start again. Look at his edits starting December 6th, every tagged article was created by me. As for my comment, it was a serious question, did you read the conversation to that point? I am accused of not citing an article enough, I improve the article and am accused of ref-bombing. In the past I AFDd and article of his which literally had no citations and was accused of revenge AFDing. Am I just supposed to take this lying down, because it doesn't matter what I do I am wrong. If I improve an article its wrong, if I don't it's wrong. If I point out an article needs improvement its wrong. My wife makes an edit with the same IP, I get blocked. I get targeted by a user, and I get blocked. Mztourist is not being civil, I have actually stopped editing any article he is involved with and will not AFD any of his articles because I am trying to avoid him, but he continues to harass me.Jamesallain85 (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For a list of the AFDs I am referring to, they are all listed on my talk page. Jamesallain85 (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps explain Special:Diff/1059147105 and Special:Diff/1059146759 or is there policy the rest of us are unaware of that allows you to remove others Talk Page comments because you don't like them?? Slywriter (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I started to mark them as vandalism, then I just came here to bring up the issue. Jamesallain85 (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, if I went right now and tagged every page that needed improvement that Mztourist has, that would be OK. I feel like there is some bias here against me. I have tried to take care of the issue I am having in the past, again it was ignored. His demeanor is unprofessional and results in hostility. Jamesallain85 (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel any article needs improvement then you can tag it no matter who originated it. We don't own articles here. Anything any of us has created or offered as time to the encyclopedia, while appreciated as it should be, is owned by the encyclopedia and controlled by consensus within the community. Please don't insinuate bias against you. I'm sorry you feel that way and I completely understand and validate the fact you do genuinely feel that way but accusing others here of bias isn't going to go favorably. You said 20 articles in 10-15 minutes. I only see 16 total articles they contributed anything to for the entire day of December 6th. I didn't check whom created all 16 articles but they aren't yours even if you created them and contributed heavily to them any more than they are owned by any other editor here. It doesn't warrant the aspersions I see in some of the diffs. The one on autism was highly inappropriate. I have a nephew with severe autism and it's nothing to speak of lightly. --ARoseWolf 21:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support boomerang of any kind. Another combative AFD participant. "Are you autistic? ... You are living in your own little world" [1] is beyond the pale. Let's remove editors who act this way from AfD (if not the website). Levivich 21:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone that read the entire conversation would notice this is not a new issue. I have attempted in every way to distance myself from Mztourist, he is the one that continues to initiate interactions and make accusations. It's been more than a year, what do I have to do. That comment was made after I noticed the massive list of articles he tagged. I apologize, it was made in the heat of the moment over a long and ongoing issue. Jamesallain85 (talk) 22:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Every time I have tagged or AFDd an article I have been accused of revenge, in every instance. I realize I do not own any articles, what I have issue with in one individual who over the course of a year has systematically targeted articles I created. It has been ongoing since August of 2020. I am constantly accused of having poor references because they are from books or from archives instead of online content that he can scrutinize. If I AFD an article I am accused of revenge. If I improve an article I am accused of ref-bombing. If I don't improve an article I am accused of writing poor articles. Every action I take is reflected as negative. I feel like I am constantly been bullied, and it isn't that other editors haven't noticed, but the issues continue. This has been an ongoing issue for more than a year, I have attempted to arbitrate it several times with no success. I don't care if a hundred other editors AFD all of my articles, I just don't want to be harassed every time I logon to wikipedia by the same person with the same negativity trying to destroy my contributions. I am sorry if my comment wasn't appropriate, but I am at a breaking point. Jamesallain85 (talk) 22:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support boomerang as per Levivich, with edits like this they can go find another past time. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 22:26, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would voluntarily take a year ban if it meant when I came back I wouldn't be harassed by Mztourist. Jamesallain85 (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also find it interesting that not a single person as acknowledged the escalation that led up to this. No one is looking at the issue or how it came to be.Jamesallain85 (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you're going to provide diffs to back up your claims, I would suggest you stop. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 22:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know how to provide diffs, I have provided the discussions. Jamesallain85 (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You have done a singularly crap job of presenting a case against Mztourist, and meanwhile your own behavior has been repeatedly and obviously problematic. It is not at all surprising that someone who behaves in straightforwardly unacceptable ways (deleting appropriate-looking talk-page comments, writing "are you autistic?", making obvious revenge deletion nominations) and alleging wrongdoing without providing any evidence at all is not getting a friendly reception. (Personally I think it is conceivable that there is merit to your complaint -- but I'm not going to waste my time building a case for you, particularly when your behavior is much more obviously problematic.)

I don't even know how to provide diffs I provided a link with an explanation in the very first response to you in this thread! --JBL (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here I am being accused of revenge for AFDing an article with a singe reference [2] Jamesallain85 (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your AfD nominations are obviously revenge nominations: you have only ever nominated articles to AfD that were created by Mztourist, and you have only ever done it immediately following a moment when they nominated an article you created for deletion. --JBL (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here he is bragging that he got an article deleted despite it passing all six requirements for the defunct WP:Soldier, [3] Jamesallain85 (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is a totally inaccurate summary of their comment. You are digging a deeper hole for yourself. --JBL (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no he isn't. He's saying that an article can (and should) be deleted even if it meets one of the six requirements, if it doesn't meet WP:GNG. And he's correct. In fact GNG trumps all of the requirements, technically. Claiming they're saying something they're clearly not isn't helping you at all here. Black Kite (talk) 23:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here another editor essentially states Mztourist is could be revenge AFDing me because of an ongoing dispute from June of 2021 [4] Jamesallain85 (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. They say there might be a dispute. Please stop doing this. Black Kite (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another editor acknowledging that Mztourist holds a hostile position to citations that he can not personally view online [5] Jamesallain85 (talk) 23:04, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Interestingly enough, back in June, Mztourist filed an ANI against Jamesallain85 with much the same complaints and shrill language -- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1070#Mztourist's concerns about User:Jamesallain85 -- and some likewise shaky grounds. A mutual interaction ban was mooted then but failed to gain much traction. Obviously, there's a great deal of mutual antipathy on both sides. It's plain that whether or not they're capable of playing together nicely, they're deeply unwilling to do so, and it seems to me that this would be soonest resolved by both of them being enjoined from interacting with one another now. (Whoops, and there's this one from September: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1079#Ongoing Target of Overzealous Editor Ravenswing 23:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree. It's fairly clear that Jamesallain85 is certainly displaying some elements of WP:CIR here. Black Kite (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• If so, it doesn't need to be Mztourist to play traffic cop. Nor should JA85 be AfDing articles Mztourist created, at this point. Ravenswing 23:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't AFDd any articles recently, the last one I did was because it had a single reference, once it was more clearly referenced I close the AFD myself. Despite that I have a continues line of AFDs, only from Mztourist. When one is finished, the next one is coming soon, and as I improve them he only becomes more hostile trying to delete them. Jamesallain85 (talk) 23:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm talking about in this report, where they're assigning motives to other editor's comments that they clearly never intended, even before the AfD nonsense. And frankly I'm still tempted to block them for the "autistic" comment. Black Kite (talk) 23:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Mztourist has been here several times before, and is certainly skating on thin ice. But he's never commented something that broke me out of my long time lurking relative silence. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 23:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• And that comment definitely deserves a block. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 23:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I assumed good faith until it became systematic. In the last year only one editor has tagged and AFDd articled I created, and despite any improvements I have made to all of those articles, he fights to the bitter end to delete. When it becomes obvious then I loose assumption of good faith. Jamesallain85 (talk) 23:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will happily take a block, I deserve it. I commented in the heat of the moment after I have been trying to improve McGregor, loading myself up to improve the article, only to have him stack a pile of tags that threaten to delete more articles. I apologize for the comment and will willfully take any disciplinary action, but I want the issue to be stopped in the future so it doesn't come to such matters again. Jamesallain85 (talk) 23:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Mztourist files AfDs on a number of articles, and a look at his history indicates that they're almost all military bios. This seems to be his gig. His match rate at AfD is frankly mediocre (62% of filings), but I just looked at the last 25 he filed. Not only do I not see any obvious signs that he's uniquely targeting you, but you have participated in a number of them without there being obvious signs that the AfDs concern your own articles. If you want to disengage with Mztourist as badly as all of that, you are doing a poor job of doing so. Ravenswing 23:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• When it comes to commenting on AFDs, I do not look who initiated the AFD. In face many times if I am on the fence I choose to refrain from comment. While true he AFDs more than just my articles, he is the only one AFDing my articles. Is that normal? Why was I accused automatically of revenge when I AFDd one of his articles? I have stopped interacting with any articles that he created, but I should have a voice when it comes to AFDs without being targeted. I am far from the only person that has had issues with Mztourist, I have said I take responsibility for what I said. But it still doesn't solve the issue at hand, why must I sit back and refrain from tagging or AFDing articles he created only to have him continuously do it to me? Why am I constantly being accused of revenge and nobody cares about his actions or demeanor? Compare Mztourists AFD match rate to his match rate with articles I created, he only achieved one merger. Every other article was voted to keep or no consensus, if he wasn't targeting me his rate with my articles should be at least similar. Jamesallain85 (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Gee, I dunno. Maybe we come to that conclusion because Mztourist has filed 120 AfDs, a handful of them being of articles you've created. By contrast, every single AfD you have ever filed [6][7][8] has not only been on articles Mztourist created, but each and every one of them closed as overwhelming Keeps, with only one single vote to delete between them other than your own. Kinda fails the duck test. Ravenswing 23:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Considering I closed them myself or asked for them to be closed after they had met WP:BIO, I think it is comparing apples and oranges. The articles I AFDd, except one I did by accident, were all source with one or two sources at the time I AFDd them. Jamesallain85 (talk) 23:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Nice try, but no. You closed none of them (nor would it be permitted under WP:Deletion policy for you to do so, and you only changed your mind on just one at the last bitter end. That's the one in which you outright called Mztourist an asshole. Ravenswing 23:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I could go back and find the instances where I asked to have it closed in the AFD discussion (at least two occasions) but it would be a waste of my time anyway ([9]). I can tell you there is one thing I didn't do, delete his references and then AFD the article he created on the basis of lack of references, but I am sure that doesn't matter either. Jamesallain85 (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It would certainly be a waste of your time, because other than the single one I read ten minutes ago and already mentioned, you didn't do it. By the bye, do you really find that this WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior of arguing every point to death with everyone -- it certainly shows forth in these AfDs -- is getting people to see things your way, instead of cementing opinions as to your own behavior? Ravenswing 00:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess this will be like every other time I came here to settle my dispute and absolutely nothing will be addressed about the actual dispute. If I had acted in the same manner as Mztourist and deleted his references and then AFDd his article how do you think the conversation would have been handled then? There is a double standard here, and a clear bias. Why hasn't that been addressed? Why is it ignored every time I have brought it up? As far as bringing up every point, that is what I was just asked to do, here again I am being penalized for something I was asked to do. Jamesallain85 (talk) 00:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is the second retraction that doesn't exist [10] Jamesallain85 (talk) 00:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm struggling to understand what you're trying to show here. The AFD in that template is a red link and I looked in your history around the time and don't see any creation of an AFD page on the article. AFDs aren't generally deleted just closed. So it looks like you started the AFD process by adding the template. But later I guess you changed your mind so you undid the addition of the template and didn't open the AFD. While this is sort of a retraction, it's a lot less positive then you seem to think. It's not like after opening the AFD someone pointed something out that you completely missed. Instead whatever caused you to change your mind happened before you properly opened the AFD. Which means you really should have done whatever it was that made you change your mind before you added the template. Yes it's good that you didn't actually open the AFD once you somehow came to the realisation the article didn't merit deletion but that's a fairly minor positive, it's the only real basic level of what we expect from editors. Frankly I'm not sure why you're adding the template nearly 1 hour and 30 minutes before you plan to open the AFD anyway (well that's how long it took you to remove it). AFAIK most editors start the AFD first then only add the templates as it doesn't leave others confused about why the article is linking to an AFD that doesn't exist. Or if they are going to add the templates first, have their AFD prepared so it only takes 10 minutes or something to start the AFD. Nil Einne (talk) 03:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jamesallain85: When you make atrocious comments like the autism one, you shouldn't be surprised if we don't give a damn about some alleged minor wrondoing of the other party. Even more so when your response here about your atrocious comment is so poor. Nil Einne (talk) 02:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support boomerang Frankly the autism comment is enough for me. If they had shown some recognition of how bad their comment was, perhaps we could let it be, but they've shown no such recognition instead seem to think whatever lead up to it makes it not so bad. And if that wasn't enough, they seem to have no answer to the suggestion their AFDs were in revenge. Further they evidence they've presented against Mztourist so far (although I admit I haven't looked at all of it in part since it's presented throughout this discussion) doesn't seem to shown significant wrong doing. E.g. yes it is wrong if Mztourist did stuff because they didn't understand that offline sources are perfectly fine but that's the sort of mistake that happens and if the editor learns from it and takes step to fix their errors as far as possible, isn't something we would likely block them over. Nil Einne (talk) 03:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Boomerang obviously. Jamesallain85 created a whole lot of minimally-referenced 1-3 sentence stub bio pages in December 2019 and January 2020 e.g. Wilhelm L. Friedell, Thomas Withers, John Addison Scott, William V. O'Regan, William Lovett Anderson which I have progressively tagged, PRODed and/or AFDed, as I have with pages created by other Users. Jamesallain85 has taken great offense at this and in addition to expanding the AFDed pages (poorly in my opinion) has abused me, REVENGE AFDed some of my pages and brought various complaints here. The only person being uncivil here is Jamesallain85 with his insults like the appalling autism comment. In addition he has absolutely no right to delete my comments on article Talk pages just because he doesn't like them, examples here: [11] and [12] Mztourist (talk) 03:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @Jamesallain85: the autism comment is a sticking point, people can't see beyond it. Recommend a couple options. 1) strike the comment and leave a sincere apology here (we have autistic users on Wikipedia). 2) request WP:OVERSIGHT to delete it entirely from the record as a gross violation of civil and hurtful to others (and an apology here to be clear not just hiding a mistake). I think you do good work and hope you can continue improving Wikipedia. -- GreenC 06:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Hm. People are "supporting boomerang" without any actual definition of what they're supporting. So here's a proposal: Jamesallain85 is interaction banned from Mztourist, defined broadly, and including AfDs. (No objection, of course, should an admin hammer him over his repeated incivilities and his reverting Mztourist's talk page comments.) In the interests of keeping the peace, Mztourist is enjoined from filing AfDs or PRODs on article creations of Jamesallain85; if JA85's article creations are substandard, someone else can file on them. Ravenswing 07:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jamesallain85's pages have been substandard for over 2 years without anyone doing anything about them and they are only improved (poorly IMO) if they go to AFD. I don't see why I should be enjoined from PRODing or AFDing them due to Jamesallain85's uncivil responses. Mztourist (talk) 07:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because you've been uncivil and abrasive too in dealing with him, and the easiest way to refute the notion that you have a personal crusade against him is not to have one. If his article creations are substandard -- and, for the record, stub creation on Wikipedia is not illegal -- other editors can deal with them. If they don't choose to deal with them, then perhaps the creations aren't so egregious as all of that. Honestly, you do have a success rate at AfD filings of little better than random chance. Ravenswing 08:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ravenswing That's very unfair. I think their AfD record is pretty good. Only 26 Keeps from 119 noms (62 delete, 12 redirect, 4 merge, 15 N/C) is a solid performance, especially when you consider that (a) a number of the military articles were improved after the AfDs began with offline sources that Mzt would not have had access to, and (b) a number of them were Keep-spammed by the Article Rescue Squadron. Black Kite (talk) 08:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(shrugs) Hell, I've been keep-spammed by ARS (what AfD regular over the last decade hasn't been, at one point or another?), and I've got 35 keeps off of nearly 500 noms. I'm aware that sentiment is trending towards painting JA85 as the bad guy, and not without cause, but c'mon. Ravenswing 08:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Boomerang - Jamesallain85's comments are beyond the pale. Might also require them to have to go through AfC for article creation. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "I am constantly accused of having poor references because they are from books or from archives instead of online content that he can scrutinize." Adding this here at the bottom so its easier for @Jamesallain85: to find: If Mztourist is telling you that they personally have to be able to review and scrutinize every source or it isn't reliable then they are wrong. Rather than getting defensive and becoming uncivil you could always point them to policy. WP:PAYWALL and WP:OFFLINE comes to mind as examples of policy or supplemental explanations. A source does not have to be online nor does it have to be easily accessible to be considered reliable. In some cases the only copy of a source may be found in a local university library. It can still be reliable. We generally accept offline sources when they are properly delineated. You can't just put down a book name and author nor can you say from page 1-999. Be specific. If you have read the source or possibly researched/own a copy of it then you should be able to add enough information to make us believe the source is credible. But to the point, no, a source does not not have to be online and does not have to be free to the public for access in order to be considered reliable. --ARoseWolf 14:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know of WP:PAYWALL and WP:OFFLINE, and am forced to remind Mztourist of there existence constantly, and I am not the only one, please look over Mztourists comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander K. Tyree. What I absolutely cannot stand is not that some of the articles I have created have been AFDd, it is when myself and the community have provided overwhelming support for WP:GNG, it doesn't matter what the source is or how notable the person is with proof, he will aggressively deny it over and over. With Mztourist, there is no discussion, there is no compromise. This discussion here shows the same thing, he absolutely refuses to take even a shred of responsibility despite the obvious facts that he is aggressive and rude when conducting AFDs, which others have noticed. I source my articles, and I am improving, but my interaction with Mz has been so frustrating I have been ready to give up contributing all together because it isn't worth the frustration and anger it causes when I cannot have a civil discussion with the person attempting to delete everything I create because he just keeps repeating the same thing over and over even if it isn't the case. Jamesallain85 (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I'm saying references have to be online and easily accessible, but there is a standard of "in-depth coverage" that should be followed and it's on the person who is providing the references to show proof that the standard is being met if they are the only person that has access to them. Which, unless I missed it, didn't seem like you were willing to do. In the meantime I don't really blame Mztourist for being skeptical of your references since you've repeatedly and openly been hostile toward him nominating your articles. It wouldn't really be much of a stretch that someone who thinks their work is under attack, revenge nominates articles for deletion and calls people autistic, would also use questionable references to get their articles kept. Not that I'm saying your doing that, but considering how you've acted I can understand where people might be hesitant to take your word about the references being adequate. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds to me like you didn't read the interactions between not only myself and Mz, but his interactions between Mz and others in the AFDs. When Mz first made those claims about paid archives, I actually took the time to clip, save, and add the copy of the article to the link so everyone could read the articles, it made absolutely zero difference, because he never actually has a conversation, he stands on his soap box yelling, and when you try to appease him, he just refuses to respond. Take the time to read [[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander K. Tyree]], it doesn't matter what we all do to appease him, he never stops yelling the same thing. He has not a single time admitted through all the AFDs, despite who has added them, ever conceded a new resource has helped the article at all. He stands there yelling to delete until the bitter end despite all of the articles except one, which was merged, being kept. The same here, he pushes the blame for our interactions 100% on me. You act like I have been making comments such as the autistic one from the beginning, that isn't true. That was made after more than a year of systematically being targeted again and again and Mz refusing to actually hold any time of meaningful discussion. If you would go back and look at the articles I AFDd of Mz, two of them had I believe a single reference and one and on references at all, the others were AFDd on the the same reasons he had AFDd another article based on WP:GNG. I was pointing out the hypocrisy that he was AFDing articles which were much better sourced while creating articles which had zero or almost zero sources. He became super defensive as well, despite being in the wrong. All of a sudden a single obituary was enough to support GNG. Jamesallain85 (talk) 09:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamesallain85: You might not be aware of it, but the first person who called him out about the paid archive thing was Andrew Davidson, who is topic-banned from participating in AfDs for various reasons. Including repeatedly harassing nominators about arbitrary nonsense. Whereas, the other person who raised concerns, Cullen thought Alexander K. Tyree should be notable because they are a vet and teacher. As if that's some great accomplishment that makes the person instantly worty of notability or something. Which is just laughable. So I don't think other people having opinions against MZ in that AfD is the slam dunk in your favor that you think it is. Especially with Andrew. As far as MZ being super defensive, the first comment was an accusation that he might have nominated the article as revenge, which he was pretty none defensive about, and then you were pretty defensive in your follow up comment. Which MZ ignored. So I don't that's a slam dunk in your favor either. If anything it just shows that you were needlessly defensive about it from the start when MZ was actually pretty normal about the whole thing. Even after he was being accused of doing a revenge nomination. I'll give you that he was kind of defensive toward Andrew, but my guess is that it had more to do with the ongoing issues that led to Andrew being topic banned then it did anything to do with you or that specific AfD. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given the level of synth and at times outright information fabrication that occurs in some of these articles, I completely understand MZ's skepticism about sources that can't be easily verified. It may be policy to allow paywalled sources, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's always good policy. Intothatdarkness 16:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here was my attempt to appease [[13]], and like normal no response or even a verification. Because it makes no difference I stopped taking the extra time to try and appease because it is simply a waste of my time if they are just going to continue making the same comments. This was the state of the article I AFDd [[14]], I think some are so focused on my recent poor behaviour, but are failing to see the issue that has led up to this point. Look at the Proposed deletion of Robert B. Carney Jr. here [[15]]. It can attest to Mzs civility while I was trying to have a conversation on the issue. Jamesallain85 (talk) 10:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you continue to post to that thread (in the last link) after they twice told you to stop posting to their talk page? That’s not very sensible and puts the claim of “trying to have a conversation” in a different light. DeCausa (talk) 10:27, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the discussion below a few points were made that I think deserve a response. The tone of a comment can be uncivil no matter how mild one may think it is. Saying someone can be "brash" and "abrupt" and that they need to "tone it down" is not a real admonishment nor does it curtail any act of incivility. The brashness and abruptness is incivility and will damage any ability for collaboration, especially with those that may share a different opinion from Mz. The unwillingness to admit or accept any fault is a cause for concern and it should not be ignored by the community. With all due respect to @Slywriter, we have a case where incivility has gone both ways, however mild as one may think one side is, and this is the venue for the community to discuss and admins to determine and enforce a consensus from that community discussion. This is the exact place and the perfect opportunity for this to happen. I stopped going to AfD's altogether because of the incivility that is so easily displayed and overlooked during the process no matter which side I fell on. Personally I loved the challenge of not only discussing but improving and seeing the improvement brought about because of AfD's despite the fact that AfD is not article improvement. I hated seeing articles deleted but Wikipedia has so many articles that are below sub-standard and filled with non-notable subjects. Mztourist does a great job of pointing these out and I have praised them in the past for doing so. We have agreed in some cases and disagreed in others. I believe both editors in this case could be and are amazing and can produce incredible things for this encyclopedia. When viewing this case in a vacuum, they are, however, both guilty of incivility, whether in tone or words themselves. These are just observations based on the conversations and examples provided. --ARoseWolf 14:57, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfD may not be article improvement, but it does serve this function almost by default due to many things that are beyond the scope of this discussion. One thing I have noticed, though, is that passive-aggressive incivility often gets a pass by the community. It's much easier to call out and sanction the brash person than it is to look deeper. I'm not disagreeing with your observations, or saying that this case is an example of passive-aggressive incivility, just adding an additional perspective. Intothatdarkness 17:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support boomerang. All else aside, I'm not seeing where Jamesallain85 has actually provided any evidence that articles he created are being targeted, which makes his prolonged campaign against Mztourist (both via revenge AFDs in the past and things like this filing) an extremely inappropriate response to the normal AFD process, as well as egregious WP:OWNing. --Aquillion (talk) 08:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Interaction Ban

A lot of people seem unable to get past the autistic comment, which was frankly completely outrageous and was deserving of a block in it's own right. However, blocks are to prevent damage to the encyclopedia and not punitive, the problem being the comment seems to have provoked a classic ANI pile on and we're not getting to the root of the problem.

A couple of points need to be noted:

1. Above Mztourist basically acknowledges he's been targeting JA85's articles, describing them as "substandard".
2. The interaction between the two is not productive, both are uncivil and abrasive towards each other.
3. Mztourist's nominations are routinely being closed as keep.
4. JA85's stubs are being improved and expanded by the community.

On this basis an interaction ban seems appropriate. It stops the toxic interaction between the two editors and allows both to continue editing. I think ANI needs to do something to nip this in the bud before it ends up at arbcom. WCM_email 09:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This is misleading.

• "Mztourist's nominations are routinely being closed as keep". Only 26 of his 119 noms have been closed as keep.
• "Mztourist basically acknowledges he's been targeting JA85's articles, describing them as "substandard"." Mz has nominated over a hundred of these articles for AfD, some of which have been JA85's. Meanwhile, every single one that JA85 has nominated has been started by Mztourist. Who is targeting who here?
• Apart from a few snippy remarks I don't see that Mztourist is doing much wrong here, whereas Jamesallain85 is an editor who has borderline CIR issues, calls others "autistic" and has misrepresented others persistently, even in this thread. That's not equivalence in a million years, sorry. Black Kite (talk) 09:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I meant that many of Mztourists nominations of JA85's articles are being routinely closed as keep. I feel that is accurate and not misleading. And it seems from the comment below I'm not the only one to notice. IMHO they're rubbing each other the wrong way and the best way to stop it is an interaction ban. That seems better than the arbcom case its heading for, neither would come out of that well. To add the comment from Mztourist that it's all the other parties fault does show a lack of awareness of the impact of their snarky comments. WCM_email 12:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: as I mentioned above. Ravenswing 13:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, as it seems that this is by no means a new issue. Both editors have accused other of vengefully nominating their articles for deletion. Both have, in fact, nominated the other's articles for deletion. There have been threads here from both of them about this already. Accusing people of being autistic is pretty rude — certainly, you should not be saying it about people you are arguing with on Wikipedia. I think that people are often allowed to slide on personal attacks, and this deserves some form of formal admonishment. However, Jamesallain is far from the only person who has been abrasive at AfD. In fact, in the discussion linked earlier in this thread (for Stanley C. Norton), I had an extremely long and unpleasant exchange with Mztourist after I added sources to the article, and I didn't even !vote on it. I think the most appropriate solution would simply be for both editors to stay out of each other's hair, and not interact on Wikipedia (perhaps simply avoiding nominating each other's articles for deletion altogether). jp×g 09:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• JPxG as you well know, I and others believe that you refbombed that page. Mztourist (talk) 11:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's fine — there's no rule saying everybody has to agree with each other, and I am perfectly happy with you saying you think some article is bad that I think is good — but it seems to me like the forcefulness with which your opinions are made is not entirely necessary in conveying your perspective. jp×g 13:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed -- having just looked at that page -- you did say so. Over and over and over again. Ravenswing 13:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem to be a recurring issue with Mztourist, I noticed the same at this AFD when I started looking at the interaction between these two editors. Perhaps @Cullen328: or @Andrew Davidson: may care to comment but he does appear to somewhat harangue other editors about sourcing. I get the impression he really doesn't like sources that are not online. The questioning of good faith comments by other editors does rather suggest a lack of good faith. WCM_email 14:22, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Davidson is topic-banned from AfD and will not be able to comment.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose completely misleading summary of my actions. The incivility comes entirely from JA85, not me. Mztourist (talk) 11:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I have already withdrawn myself from AFDing more articles of Mztourists, and will continue to do so regardless of the outcome. I sincerely apologize for my comment, it was out of line, it was the result of building frustration, however that does not make it OK. The issue here has been on both sides, and I do not believe anything other than an interaction ban would rectify it, it has been ongoing more than a year. Wikipedia has more than one editor that is able to point out failures. Jamesallain85 (talk) 13:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - While Mz can tone it down a bit, to equate the actions of both editors as equitable is not correct, imho.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose When someone edits in a narrow field, they are more likely to engage with the same small group of editors which can give the appearance that an editor is following them around. Also finding a sub-standard article and then reviewing the editors history for other sub-standard edits isn't hounding. And civility as a whole in AfD needs to be addressed by the community.Slywriter (talk) 13:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Mz is highly active in a narrow field, one that attracts some fairly passionate editors, as well as some who lack actual content knowledge but are intent on keeping anything that ever touches Wikipedia. Jamesallain85 seems to take criticism of content as a personal attack, and frames any response in that manner. While Mz can be abrupt, they certainly aren't comparable. Intothatdarkness 14:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I take it as a personal attack when it is worded as a personal attack ([16]) Jamesallain85 (talk) 14:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a response to your previous comment, this diff strikes me as downright mild. Dumuzid (talk) 14:23, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Something that friends of Mztourist might wish to consider, I've seen it time and again when incivility is excused, it becomes a habit and gets worse to the point where the community finally loses patience and yet again we mourn the blocking of an experienced editor. Real friends would tell him to stop. WCM_email 14:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a "friend" of Mz, and I take your point completely, but here I don't think that any perceived incivility by Mz is the problem - or it's certainly not the main problem by a long way. Black Kite (talk) 15:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wee Curry Monster I am surprised by your rather barbed comments about me. Please advise when I've been uncivil in my dealings with JA85. Mztourist (talk) 16:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not taking a view at all on this dispute, other than to say that I don't feel WCM's comment is at all misplaced. I too have seen exactly this pattern in other editors who ended up being banned after years of people defending incivility on their part. FOARP (talk) 14:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Mz is skating on thin ice, and really needs to look at how they interact with others. But this issue is much more to do with JA. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 14:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is this issue you are speaking of, because the issue I brought here was the interaction. Read my response to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob Roy McGregor (admiral) and how it escalated. This has been a perpetual problem for more than a year and it will not change. Mz takes no responsibility, he has stated himself that the issue lies completely with me. That is not the attitude of someone that is willing to change. Jamesallain85 (talk) 14:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Looking over things it appears that Jamesallain85 is mostly the aggressor and in the wrong here. So an interaction ban wouldn't really be the best way to deal with the issue IMO. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support points made by the nom. -- GreenC 19:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I feel, and this is my own personal opinion, this proposal hurts Mz more than it would James, especially considering James has backed off already. Mz does do amazing and positive things for the encyclopedia in a very targeted field and that's coming from someone that doesn't share the exact same point of view. I realize something must be done but I don't feel this will affect both parties equally. --ARoseWolf 20:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Looked at in context Jamesallain85's MZ's nominations are the root of the problem. They seem to be deliberating attacking the reasonably aceptable work of another editor, using a mistaken idea of the rules for WP:RS. I can not tell if it CIR, or something else, but at the very leastthey need to be removed from AfD. If conflict continues, it might require further action. As for Mz JamesA, he was acting under what I consider rather extreme provocation. They still shouldn't have responded that way, so I suggest either an admonishment and warning, or a very short block--perhaps 24 hours. DGG ( talk ) 22:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose; no evidence of any wrongdoing on Mztourist's part that would rise to the level of justifing sanctions against them. Indicating that they feel that Jamesallain85 has largely created substandard articles now, in this discussion, is the opposite of an admission of hounding, since it says that they were nominated due to their low quality rather than who created them. It's not ideal civility but insufficient to justify sanctions (since it is still ultimately a comment on contributions and not the editor.) Having some nominations closed as keep is also not an indication of wrongdoing. If people want to argue that Mztourist is at fault for something, they need to present specific obviously-bad nominations, or enough borderline nominations to support the accusation of a pattern of harassment, or an actual admission that that's what they were doing rather than them just expressing a low opinion of the articles Jamesallain85 has created. I'm not seeing any of that here. --Aquillion (talk) 08:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - mostly what Aquillion said. I asked for diffs and so far the only diff I've seen of alleged wrongdoing by Mz is Special:Diff/1059105125, which was an insult and that should be avoided of course, but it isn't anywhere near enough to support any sanction. Levivich 16:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: Maybe I am just being a curmudgeon here, but this AN/I thread (which includes this proposal) seems like fairly solid evidence that the issues here are not likely to be resolved by the two parties coming to any sort of agreement. jp×g 23:54, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:JPxG it was a good faith proposal to address the underlying issue here, JA85s creation of numerous minimally referenced 1-3 sentence milbios that don't show notability, apparently relying on the now deprecated WP:SOLDIER. I would hope and expect that when a User has had several pages they created tagged, PRODed and/or AFDed they would stop and ask themself "am I creating pages about notable subjects or not?" then revisit and expand and improve pages they had created to prevent future PRODs and AFDs, however JA85 has shown no intention of doing that. Mztourist (talk) 11:24, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a response to my comment? jp×g 13:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Mztourist (talk) 11:06, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose admonishment for Jamesallain85

I don't think the autistic comment can be allowed to pass without comment from the community. I propose Jamesallain85 is admonished for that comment with the warning that if any such comment is repeated it will result in an immediate and escalating series of blocks. Such blocks may be imposed by any admin without referral to ANI. WCM_email 09:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. As I said in my comment above, it has no place in a collaborative effort to write an encyclopedia, and we should not put up with it. jp×g 10:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Ban an admonishment is completely inadequate and will do no more than the warning given to him after this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1070#Mztourist's concerns about User:Jamesallain85 Mztourist (talk) 11:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Ravenswing 13:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Jamesallain85 (talk) 13:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support, as I feel this is a very weak response. But if this is the best that can be done, it's better than ignoring it and hoping it will go away. Intothatdarkness 13:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support per Intothatdarkness above. I find this sort of thing far more offensive than the standard sorts of statements involving four letter words. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support it's offensive and there is no place for such behavior.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Admonish is not enough, what epitaph would they have had to use to receive harsher censure? ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 14:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Two editors cannot get along, and it's not the first time an interpersonal conflict between the two has ended up at this noticeboard. An admonishment just reads like "we don't like what we're seeing, but we also don't know what to do about it / don't want to do anything about it." If this is all that's done, odds are this will end up at this noticeboard again at some point. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Which it already has twice before this year, and will again, given the lack of stomach for something as simple as a mutual interaction ban. Ravenswing 17:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested an interaction ban and the admonishment to deal with a comment that went too far. I'm disappointed that the community is divided over the interaction ban, particularly so when one editor is saying they are not the problem. It shows they have a lack of awareness that their conduct is also part of the problem and I feel they are being encouraged in that belief with editors stating one side was worse than the other. WCM_email 20:42, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Admonish it should be clear by the way Jamesallain85 has acted in this ANI complaint about their side of the disagreement that an admonishment alone probably won't deal with the issue and is therefore to weak of a sanction. Especially considering the whole autistic comment, but even without that there's enough on Jamesallain85's side to warrant more then a rebuke IMO. More so because there's already been ANI complaints about them that didn't seem to correct their behavior. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support reasonable solution along with the iban. -- GreenC 19:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I support admonishment even though James did apologize, which I personally accept as a member of the community. This is something that can't be overlooked and James needs to understand this type of comment is never okay and certainly not understandable under any circumstances. --ARoseWolf 20:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as a first-line remedy per above and my reply in the next section. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 20:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per WP:ROPE. James strikes me as someone who genuinely wants to improve the encyclopedia, but made a horrible, egregious decision. They seem to have gotten the message that such language is intolerable here and I doubt that they will repeat it. In light of this, I would support giving them a final warning with the understanding that using similar language again will result in an indefinite block. Mlb96 (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - per above, this is probably too weak, but better than nothing. Levivich 16:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support this definitely too weak sanction as better than nothing. --JBL (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose one-way IBAN for Jamesallain85 and admonishment for Mztourist

It's clear, from my reading of the above, that there are concerns about giving a pass to Mztourist's civility, but that it does not rise to the level of a sanction. I believe that he should be formally warned against uncivil behavior in the future. However, since the locus of the problem is primarily Jamesallain85's behavior and his conflicts with Mztourist, there should be an IBAN applied to him interacting with Mztourist. That IBAN will also serve as a suitable sanction given the "autistic" comment that was made earlier.--WaltCip-(talk) 17:55, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Could someone who supports action against Mz for incivility please quote and diff some recent examples? Levivich 18:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose one-way IBANs are good options only in limited circumstances. Even in cases where a one-way IBAN is enacted the other party should treat it as two-way (at minimum, not intentionally put themselves in the way of the other editor). Specifically in this case I'd note that (based on user talk page notifications at [17]) it seems post-2020 Mztourist is the only one who has nominated Jamesallain85's articles for deletion. It doesn't really matter whether the rationales for deletion were solid or not, the point is that Mztourist repeatedly initiates interactions with Jamesallain85; I'm assuming that will continue in the future, in which case a one-way IBAN would just create agitation and not be an appropriate solution here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see enough evidence that Mztourist is deliberately targeting Jamesallain85's articles for deletion out of malice, at least not in the same way that JA85 retaliated shortly after this became a sticking point between the two of them. The proper response to having an article proposed for deletion, if you feel that the subject is notable and that the article is worth keeping, is to improve that article so that it stands muster. Retaliating against the filer is not the proper response. This is why the IBAN needs to be one-way, since up to this point apart from being short, Mztourist has not attempted to weaponize Wikipedia's processes against another user. WaltCip-(talk) 18:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: (nods to ProcrastinatingReader) I was thinking the same thing; what, Mztourist gets to tee off all he pleases on Jamesallain85's article creations, and JA85's not allowed to defend them? Oh dear me no. Ravenswing 18:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I think Jamesallain85's personal attack in this instance was understandable in view od the absurd nominations being made by Mztourist, who does not recognize the principle that paywalled sources are acceptable. The proper remedy is a topic ban for Mztourist against making AfD nominations, at least of Jamesallain85's articles. An admonishment for Mztourist JAwould be quite enough considering the provocation. DGG ( talk ) 18:34, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• You think that calling someone "autistic" was "understandable"? Good f***ing grief, this place is rapidly going down the toilet. Black Kite (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • +1 I suspect anyone who used "Jew" or "gay" as a negative because they were "provoked" would be indeffed on sight. Can someone explain how using "autistic" as a negative is better? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:55, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Understandable" does not mean that I think it was good behavior, but I would not, personally, give anyone an indef for the use of an insulting word, tho I would for frequently talking this way. The more serious forms of personal attack are concentrated attacks on someones work , it's attacking for the purpose of attacking the individual, not for enforcing a (misguided) understanding of RS. DGG ( talk ) 23:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let me clarify my Jew/gay analogy. It's not just a personal attack. The implication of such an attack is that users who really are Jewish or gay or autistic are somehow unwelcome here. So it's a attack not just against the one user, but a large fraction of Wikipedians. People who are routinely discriminated against IRL, and might have thought of Wikipedia as a refuge. When we say it was "understandable", what message are we sending to those users? If Jamesallain85 had said "asshole" or another generic insult that would be different, because it's not targeting any group. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • (e/c) @DGG: What are you talking about? That last sentence is incoherent. Also, I assume you're not considering the effect using "autistic" as a slur has on, you know, people with autism. How does that rank on the seriousness scale for forms of personal attack? Also, there are more sanctions than "understandable" and "indef block", and in this section, indef block isn't even proposed. Also, to save on pings, in your comment in the previous section I'm fairly sure you've mixed up the two editors. Otherwise, great job though. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I can't speak on behalf of the entire autist community, but I don't feel particularly "targeted"; it's not like this is significantly worse than "imbecile" or "moron" or "idiot" (all of which would be clear personal attacks and worthy of sanctions/admonishment/etc on that basis). jp×g 00:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • If someone says, "You eat with chopsticks? What are you, Chinese?", that's an offensive slur, even though there is nothing wrong with being Chinese. It draws on a stereotype and implies that there is something wrong with being Chinese and eating with chopsticks. In the same way, the "are you autistic?" comment was offensive even though there is nothing wrong with being autistic, because it implied that if a person were autistic, that would explain why the person would "fail to grasp" things. That's tantamount to calling autistic people stupid, which is significantly worse than calling the editor you're arguing with an idiot, imbecile, or moron. It's one thing to get into an argument and call the other guy an idiot, it's quite another to get into an argument and call the other guy autistic. I think we can tolerate the former but not the latter. The former is an attack against the other editor, the latter is an attack against the other editors and autistic people. (And it's an attack even if no autistic person actually feels attacked...the success of the attack is irrelevant.) Levivich 06:05, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why does one get a pass while the other does not? On a project which supposedly has civility in discussions as a primary focus of the project how does either promote collaboration. Do I believe James was inappropriate? Absolutely. His autistic comment was vile. I also feel Mz was inappropriate. We all know the connotations and stigmatizations associated with the perception of mental illnesses. Some of the first code words you always hear are the ones mentioned here. Getting triggered enough to call another human terrible things inferring mental illness is okay but asking them if they are autistic is different? An attack is an attack and neither should be tolerated. I do think DDG has a point in the discussion of targeted actions. I think we can say that Mz targeted James because Mz feels that James produces sub-standard work, however, Mz targeted articles on Wikipedia that he feels are sub-standard and that's actually encouraged. Remove James and replace them with someone else and Mz would do the same thing. So it's not personal against James, in that sense, and no editor here should become so attached to anything they write that they feel personally attacked when someone disagrees that it belongs here. Likewise, no editor should become triggered enough to call another editor names just because they disagree, no matter the provocation. This is a case of both editors not being civil, regardless of the words used and it shouldn't be tolerated because, as a community, it is one of our primary principles for a healthy and productive collaboration effort. --ARoseWolf 13:31, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the last sentence means that he's attacking the articles to attack the editor; I don't see how it could be misunderstood. I fixed the names. . And I continue to think that emphasizing individual words as bright lines does rational handling of disputes a disservice: typically #1 pushes #2 repeatedly, until #2 says something we regard as inexcusable. But I've broken my rule not to comment more than twice in a single discussion, for which I apologize. DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per above. -- GreenC 19:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose one-way IBAN, Support admonishment In the past we had much more serious offenders who were allowed to stop their offensive behavior and go free. Something like this: [18:26, December 7, 2021]; is certainly unacceptable but it doesn't require IBAN. Admonishment for both is more appropriate. Relative to Mztourist behavior, something like WP:DISENGAGE might be advised. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 20:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose one-way IBAN, Support admonishment I oppose any interaction ban at this time but support admonishment of both James and Mz. Diffs have been provided, along with the witness statements of others who have dealt with Mz that have labeled them "abrasive, "abrupt" and acknowledged they need to "tone it down" which are all indications of the tone of incivility that Mz certainly is not alone in exhibiting but is often the result of their discussions with those that have an opposing point of view, especially at AfD's. Because I feel both editors can do amazing things for the encyclopedia I stop short of any ban or block at this point and feel an admonishment would give both an opportunity to evaluate and take corrective steps to improve their tone when dealing with others in the community. --ARoseWolf 20:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A one-way IBAN essentially means that Mztourist could nominate James's articles for deletion and James would not be allowed to defend his own articles. That strikes me as completely unfair. If there is to be an IBAN, it should be two-way. Mlb96 (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support directly addresses the only behavioral problem here. --JBL (talk) 22:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support since I agree with JBL that it's the only thing that will address the behavioral problems here. As a side to that, the thing about how Jamesallain85 wouldn't be able to defend "their own articles" if there was a one way ban is a little ridiculous. The articles don't belong to Jamesallain85 and if said articles are truly notable then other people besides Jamesallain85 will be able to defend them as such. I'm assuming without the behavioral issues being a part of it. So this seems like a good option to me. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know what I meant, don't nitpick over semantics; "their own articles" as in "articles that they wrote," not "articles that they own." And it seems unfair to force them to put their faith in other users when it's their work on the chopping block. The notability guidelines are intentionally vague, but that also means that sometimes users come to different conclusions. The person whose work is up for deletion shouldn't be prevented from making arguments in their favor. Mlb96 (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's less to do with what you meant and more to do with the fact that Jamesallain85 clearly has some ownership issues when it comes to articles they have created. Which IMO is just being fed into with how things are being phrased. I'm not saying it's intentional on your part though. Outside of that, I agree that a person whose work is up for deletion shouldn't be prevented from making arguments in their favor, but that doesn't include calling nominators autistic. If he was just making normal arguments we wouldn't be here right now and I wouldn't really care about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Without commenting on the specifics here, I've been fairly successful at getting ArbCom to stop using "admonishment" and I'd like to just butt in here and explain why: we warn users all the time for any number of things, but somehow with more long-term problems we admonish them instead. I don't think that makes much sense and strongly prefer "formal warnings" to "admonishments". Beeblebrox (talk) 00:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be inclined to agree with this. jp×g 00:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, per Mlb96 and ProcrastinatingReader; of particular concern to me is that in this situation both editors seem to have been behaving rather badly, so a one-way interaction ban would be quite lopsided (being, as it were, a reward for one party and a punishment for the other). Comments like this do not indicate that this is a situation where one person is just being aggressive for no reason. jp×g 00:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with Mztourist saying that Jamesallain85's time could be better spent writing detailed, properly referenced pages? Even if it's a tad defensive, it's rather weird to somehow equate that to Jamesallain85 calling Mztourist autistic. They aren't even on the same level. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you mean by "equating". Let me present you with the following scenario, and tell me what you think of it.

CEPHALUS: Thrasymachus, you are a gigantic goddamn idiot.

THRASYMACHUS: Cephalus, you are a gigantic goddamn idiot and you should go fuck yourself off a bridge.

Personally, I would posit that while Thrasymachus has clearly violated the bounds of civility, so too has Cephalus, and the greater indiscretion of Thrasymachus does not somehow vindicate or invalidate the fact that Cephalus has said something extremely impolite. In an environment where propriety was considered important, the conduct of Cephalus should not be permitted either. jp×g 04:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose one-way IBAN since that has no possible chance of working. You can't have one person allowed to talk about and try to delete the articles another created, and the other not able to say anything in response. Dream Focus 05:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support one-way IBAN and oppose admonishment obviously. Whether a few Users consider me "abrasive" or "abrupt" that doesn't in any way rise to the level of JA85's personal attacks of saying I'm screaming, being petty, making myself look like an ass and calling me autistic just in the one thread. So its a bit hard to accept that me saying "If only one of those "better things to do" was actually writing detailed properly referenced pages..." is in the same league. Mztourist (talk) 08:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose A one way interaction ban is a charter for abuse, this has been a two way street with both editors rubbing each other the wrong one. There is blame on both sides here and only one side is insisting they've done nothing wrong. A one-way ban sends the wrong signal. WCM_email 20:38, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose one-way IBANs in general, and I don't think it'll cure the disruption in this instance. Oppose admonishing Mz as I don't see any evidence of anything worthy of admonishment (Special:Diff/1059105125 ain't it). Levivich 16:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New proposal

User:Jamesallain85 first agrees to never again create a military biography stub and secondly agrees to within two months revisit and expand all the military biography stubs created by him with reliable sourcing, following which they are reviewed for notability by an impartial milhist User who will either pass the page or submit it to AFD. I will recuse myself from all involvement until after the Milhist review. Mztourist (talk) 07:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is completely unacceptable, it is perfectly acceptable to create stubs for other editors to later expand. WCM_email 20:32, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what is completely unacceptable about it? JA85 created 1-3 sentence bio stubs that haven't been expanded in 2 years. Mztourist (talk) 13:44, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also find this to be a good example of how AfD is in fact a default article improvement system. Nothing else here seems to work, even if the improvements are at times of questionable value. Intothatdarkness 14:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Mztourist (talk) 06:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Mainly due to the burden it might place on Milhist. Ja85 seems to have OWN issues with stubs in any case. Intothatdarkness 23:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Mztourist's lack of insight into the problem of questionable AfD noms does not appear to be improving and suggesting imposing restrictions that are stricter than policy mandates for new articles is neither justified nor helpful. Jamesallain85's autistic comment was definitely unacceptable / offensive and sanctionable, but this is a situation that leaves neither party looking good. 172.195.96.244 (talk) 06:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that an IP who has made a total of 34 edits should take such an interest in this issue... The root cause of the problem was that JA85 created 1-3 sentence bio stubs under the now deprecated SOLDIER 2 years ago which no-one has ever expanded and every time I AFD one of them JA85 comes complaining here to ANI. Mztourist (talk) 13:44, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• As a milhist coord, I should note that the project doesn’t have the special authority to review something like that. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:27, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is exactly the type of attitude which as plagued me for more than a year. I would like to point out that Mz has a large number of subs on fire bases and landing zones in Vietnam, many poorly soured with a single source for many of them, without specific page numbers, the source is not available online to be reviewed. Essentially everything Mz is accusing me of he has done himself on a larger scale, but if I AFD a single article, despite these the shortcomings, it results in explosive accusations of revenge by Mz and nonstop AFD of more articles, he is a bully. My AFDs are not revenge, they were to point out the hypocrisy of Mz pushing standards on others which he doesn't hold himself. Here are just a few examples: Landing Zone Virgin, Firebase Mile High, Firebase Checkmate, Firebase Currahee, Landing Zone Uplift, Catecka Base Camp, Ninh Hòa Base, Firebase Birmingham, and many more. Mz talks down to and belittles fellow editors and thinks he is somehow above the standards that are supposed to guide us. Then when there is a disagreement, the fault lies 100% with his opponent. I am not the only editor to have experienced this. Despite his many contributions, his attitude makes wikipedia a hostile negative environment. Jamesallain85 (talk) 14:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All of those pages are longer than your 1-3 sentence stubs. They are all sourced to a reliable source and they all have specific page numbers. The source is divided into sections, 5 is the book section and the number after the dash is the page number. Each page contains encyclopaedic detail that establishes notability unlike your Navy bio pages. Just being an Admiral is not a pass on notability. Mztourist (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You might wish to explain this page numbering convention somewhere in the sourcing tables, then, as it's not exactly conventional or readily obvious (or change to a format like Section 1, page X). And as far as explosive accusations...I've seen far more aggressive OWN behavior from JA85 than I have MZ. And I will mention yet again most of this wouldn't likely be a problem if there was a functional article improvement process apart from AfD. AfD isn't the proper venue for this, as it results in drama, an avalanche of poor or questionable sources and information, and articles being kept and then never improved again. Any process that allows an article to be kept by noting sources that are never added to the article is to my mind broken or at least in need of an alternative. Intothatdarkness 16:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Intothat I have gone through and clarified all the refs. Mztourist (talk) 10:58, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Intothatdarkness, I take your opinion with a grain of salt, as you have had a clear bias through not only this process, but the AFDs as well. As far as Mz's stubs, that book is the only single source for each of those articles and not available to be viewed, there is no support for GNG, and most of the articles I listed are also just a few sentences, all of the things you are accusing me of. I am sure you will argue somehow they are different, they aren't. Jamesallain85 (talk) 17:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not accusing you of anything when it comes to article format, JA85. That you think I am is interesting. The only format comment I had was directed at MZ. Your OWN behavior has been commented on by others in this discussion. My remarks about AfD's current default function also extend well past any stubs you may have created. Those stubs are actually a fairly minor example of the issue. Intothatdarkness 18:18, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of AfD is not to improve articles, it is to delete them. Please read WP:BEFORE subsection C1, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." Jamesallain85 (talk) 18:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Intothedarkness, have you ever voted "Keep" on a single AfD that wasn't written by Mz? I couldn't find one. Jamesallain85 (talk) 18:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it matters in the slightest, but like others I don't tend to vote keep if an article looks solid and notable. Since Keep or No Consensus (which is in effect Keep) both result in the article being retained, there's really no reason to vote Keep just because. I don't keep a spreadsheet of my AfD votes. Intothatdarkness 18:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it does matter, because the articles of Mz that you voted to keep were way under par in comparison with many that you voted delete, from my point of view I think one could easily claim WP:MEAT in those instances. You literally vote delete on every AfD except those from a known colleague? What do you expect editors to think? Jamesallain85 (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jamesallain85 you seem to have unlimited time and energy to argue here and elsewhere, however you can't be bothered to revisit and improve any pages you created unless they're AFDed, that really speaks volumes about you and what you're HERE for. Mztourist (talk) 05:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I find that very ironic coming from you. All I want is to contribute and not have any arguments, instead I am constantly being drug into debates on AfDs which shouldn't even exist according to policy. Then after nominating you get your pals to vote delete on your AfD nominations to boost your score. I wish you would focus more on adding content instead of attempting to AfD everything on wikipedia. I can understand targeting cases such as the Tuskegee Airmen where egregious copyright was called into question, but your continues targeting me I cannot understand. Every time I think you are finished I will not have to interact with you, you just AfD another article I authored and I get drug back into debate. I am trying everything to wash my hands of you, hence the requested interaction ban. You do not hold any special position of authority over other editors, and you claiming that I am not Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia is flat wrong. Jamesallain85 (talk) 13:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, you seem to have plenty of time for arguing. The simplest way to stop being "drug" into debates on AFD is for you to go to all the stubs you created and expand them with decent references and not create new stubs. I do not attempt "to AFD everything on wikipedia". The number of articles I have created and my total contributions are vastly more than yours. Mztourist (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should I bow before you and your articles? This discussion has turned into exactly what I knew it would. Like normal you just ignore the discussion and turn back to your stub accusation, which I have pointed out you have the exact same issue. Why don't you repair your stubs first, then when everything you have created is perfect and you no longer have any stubs, start AfDing my stubs, at least then you wouldn't be a hypocrite. I have every right to contribute to wikipedia, and just because you have created vastly more articles and stubs, again doesn't give you any special rights. I think this discussion is proof enough itself we need an interaction ban. Jamesallain85 (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Stub states: "If a stub has little verifiable information, or if its subject has no apparent notability, it may be deleted or be merged into another relevant article." and "State what a person is famous for". Unlike you, I don't create 1-3 sentence stubs, if I create a short page it is referenced to one or more reliable sources and notability is clearly established, whereas you act as though WP:SOLDIER still applies and just being an Admiral or winning a couple of Navy Crosses is a pass on notability, which it is not. Mztourist (talk) 10:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of information included in the info boxes which you are neglecting to notice, which cover things like awards and commands, which do speak to notability. I can go back and add a couple more sentences, but I know that wouldn't satisfy you anyway, just like when I took the time to post the articles so they were visible through the paywall, you just ignored that fact and just kept fighting to delete. You know very well that per WP:ANYBIO section 1 "has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times" has included multiple Navy Cross winners. Explain to me how Landing Zone Uplift passes GNG and Alexander K. Tyree which you fought so valiantly to delete doesn't? I would appreciate a serious and honest response, because it is issues like that which I cannot look past. Jamesallain85 (talk) 12:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If there is verifiable information in the Infobox then that should be in the body of the article, properly referenced. You say "I can go back and add a couple more sentences", please do more than that, expand all your stubs with as much verifiable information as you can find. It is a matter of debate whether multiple Navy Crosses satisfy #1 of ANYBIO, that category is usually for the Congressional Medal of Honor, Victoria Cross, Nobel Prize, Oscar, Grammy etc. Google Landing Zone Uplift and see how many hits you get compared to Tyree. Mztourist (talk) 11:19, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JA85, your attempt to bully me out of AfD participation is noted. Intothatdarkness 14:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When I Google Landing Zone Uplift and Alexander K. Tyree to be honest there were plenty of links for both. I would be more than happy to go back and expand my articles, but it seems most of the time I am able to devote to Wikipedia lately ends up dealing with AfDs discussions, not something I really enjoy. I have a lot more references on hand than when those articles were written, but it takes time to pull out information and get it documented. Also with concern to #1 of ANYBIO, Navy Crosses, Distinguished Service Crosses, Air Force Crosses, etc. are very often nominations for the Medal of Honor that were depreciated to these awards, which would pass ANYBIO #1 if they had multiple of these awards. I am not saying they should bring back WP:SOLDIER how it was previously, but it would be nice if there was a subsection for additional criteria that covered military biographies in notability like they do for so many other specialised biographical categories. On another note, I would like again truly apologise for my comment, it was out of line and the result of a lot of frustration. I really would like for us to put aside our differences and focus on contributing to Wikipedia. Jamesallain85 (talk) 20:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From my understanding of things the special notability guidelines are only "indicators" that the required references will exist, not a guarantee that they do or even if a guarantee of notability. So even if there was special guidelines for the medals you'd still have to find and references to the articles or risk being AfDed anyway. There's never going an instance where you can just create un-referenced articles and expect them not to be nominated for deletion at some point by someone. Even if it's ultimately not Mztourist who does it. In the meantime making this a personal issue between you and Mztourist, instead of an issue of your articles being of sub-par quality, is just kicking the can down the road and you should improve your articles either way if there's a way to. Your responsibility to create content that passes the notability guidelines doesn't just get a pass because Mztourist created a few questionably notable articles either. The only reason it flies at all in this case is because Mztourist is the subject of this complaint. That won't be the case when someone inevitably nominates your articles later though. So you might as well just improve the ones you can now and move on. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At the time those articles were created there were a different set of standards (WP:SOLDIER). The medals I have added are have always been referenced. I have no problem expanding the articles and will do so. Jamesallain85 (talk) 23:39, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By pointing out your AfD voting record? I am simply pointing to the facts, you are accountable for your own actions, and those actions have fairly clear motives. Jamesallain85 (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• So you will continue to create minimally-referenced stubs and in turn demand that no one question them? That's not super reassuring either. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:22, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - "following which they are reviewed for notability by an impartial milhist User who will either pass the page or submit it to AFD" isn't something we can make happen via proposal. Also, this doesn't need bespoke babysitting sanctions. Editors should either edit non-disruptively or GTFO, IMO. Levivich 16:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Mztourist, you can note my lack of edits from this IP address if you like. It does not alter my observation that neither you nor Jamesallain85 comes out of this discussion looking good, and frankly, your actions speak loudly in reinforcing my point. 172.195.96.244 (talk) 07:43, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You coming as an IP with 34 edits to this specific discussion on ANI to make comments about other Users will be treated with immense scepticism. The idea that me pointing this out somehow reinforces your point is preposterous. Your time would be better spent improving JA85's stubs or creating useful content.Mztourist (talk) 09:48, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The actions that I am referring to are displayed for all to see in this ANI thread, and I was thinking specifically of those in the last few days rather than your comment to me... but since you raise it, the implication that my edit count somehow makes me unable to recognise that the interaction between you and JA85 is creating a poor impression of you both, or unfit to share my perception, is indeed strange. You have noted elsewhere in this thread that you have made many contributions to WP, for which you deserve appreciation, but which is not a reason that your actions should not be scrutinised. Other editors will decide for themselves whether to give my view any weight, or whether their perceptions of how this thread portrays are similar to or different from mine. I encourage you to try to reflect on how you have handled this situation and to consider how you might appear to someone uninvolved in your dispute. I believe that most people share your goals of high quality article-space content but it does not follow that your approach and chosen methods are beyond reproach. You can emerge from this dispute stronger and more respected for having learned and grown from it... whether you choose to do that is entirely up to you. I hope you choose wisely. 172.195.96.244 (talk) 23:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I agree with the IP: your behavior in this long thread has weakened my earlier sense that the problem here is located entirely with JA85. --JBL (talk) 00:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Defeat snatched from the jaws of victory. EEng 04:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A thread was recently opened by Matthew hk about an IP-hopping editor who is persistently harassing and insulting other Hong Kong editors as well as adding uncited content (namely, obscure Hong Kong place names):

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1085#203.145.95.X harassment, personal attack and possible part of off site canvassing behaviours

However, no action was taken. Predictably the IP-hopping editor has gone straight back to their previous disruptive activity.

For one, as I mentioned in the previous thread, they are persistently stalking my edits. Yesterday, I made a significant expansion of the "Kowloon City Plaza" article. Immediately thereafter they peppered it with maintenance tags and added problematic content that has been discussed with them before (e.g. they keep adding obscure land lot numbers to Hong Kong articles). They have a long history of such harassment, with much more evidence presented in the previous thread. Citobun (talk) 06:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since OhNoitsJamie (talk · contribs) has warned 203.145.95.X for personal attack or groundless accusation, you probably need the actual ip range and which articles with {{la}}. Matthew hk (talk) 06:30, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Tuen Mun South extension's semi protection expired one day ago, and the IP is right back to pushing the same obscure place name there. Likewise at Kowloon City Plaza they are continually adding an obscure lot number. At Prince Edward, Hong Kong they are changing instances of the common "Mong Kok" place name to the obscure "Tong Mi". At Tung Chung East station they have changed "Tung Chung" to "Kei Tau Kok". What a headache. I am thinking of opening at page at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse because this obscure-place name-pushing has been affecting Hong Kong articles for a long time.

Citobun (talk) 07:40, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really surprised nothing is being done about this guy. This is getting dumb at this point. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 07:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Padgriffin: To be fair. From the edit log of City University of Hong Kong, seems there are more than one guy (203.145.95.X verse 1.64.48.231 verse 124.217.188.X which seems they have edit warring to each other). One of them (124.217.188.X) clearly linked to User:蟲蟲飛 (as evidence on participation on Afd), a globally locked user which linked to CCP. However, they enjoyed collateral damage by your can't tell the harassing is from the same person, just ip hopping using mobile service provider and home ISP, or multiple person that have the same harassing behaviour, as they refused to create accounts. For clearer documentation, i think user:Citobun really need to add the diff links to indicate which ip is actually harassing him recently, and which id keep adding narrow-interest info of land lease lot number , and which ip keep adding obsolete place name. Matthew hk (talk) 06:10, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the IP from Tuen Mun South extension for a year. I suggest that you make a page at WP:LTA.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:26, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, for example, this is yet another ip from HK using yet another mobile phone network CMHK (182.239.122.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)), which adding unsourced trivial Five Big Manmade Climbs" (五大人造爬上), in which does not even have google search result for "五大人造爬上" (Special:Diff/1060049801). I can't tell it is the same guy or not, but they (the ips from different range and ISP of HK) consistently adding unsourced content in non-constructive level. Matthew hk (talk) 15:12, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And tracking the page history, the above 五大人造爬上 hoax was also added by 1.36.41.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (zh:special:Diff/69080201) and in ja-wiki (ja:special:Diff/87001909) so that we never able to know it is the same person or not. Or is it the same as 203.145.95.X, or the ip that harassed Citobun, that Citobun fails to add the exact diff and ip number to this thread?) Matthew hk (talk) 15:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And as mentioned that this thread need proper documentation , Ymblanter blocked 42.200.166.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) which clearly not from the same ip range from my last thread (and also not the ip range of my second last thread), so that i really can't tell they are the same person or a cult of toxic people. Matthew hk (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And And tracking the page history, 42.200.166.X ip range did involved in ip hopping in the past. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/China Unicom Hong Kong. Matthew hk (talk) 15:45, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there are multiple long-term disruptive IPs active on Hong Kong articles (especially those relating to the MTR and border crossings), but I believe that the editing centred on adding obscure place names, uncited geographic/naming trivia, and land lot numbers is one individual (the same person who is harassing me) as the editing patterns are quite consistent. I will soon make a page at WP:LTA as Ymblanter suggested. Citobun (talk) 01:39, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have created a page at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Hong Kong geography warrior. Citobun (talk) 02:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding the question of whether it's one or multiple individuals – I was scrutinising the earlier discussion at WPHK. While IP addresses like 116.92.226.241 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 116.92.226.246 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) were pretending to be different people, it is clear from their editing that they are the same person. They were doing something similar over at Talk:MTR (two IPs were talking to each other pretending to be two different people, but they both have the same narrow editing interests, e.g. "New Kowloon" 1, 2). Although in relation to the Hong Kong border crossings dispute I do believe there are multiple anonymous individuals involved in that dispute. Citobun (talk) 03:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are still stalking my recent edits. Citobun (talk) 04:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Omg c'mon have you actually found out how common references to New Kowloon, the Victoria City or land lot numbers are on Wikipedia? Land lot numbers appear in news stories in the press here too. And no I don't think I ever edited the Tuen Mun southern extension article. 116.92.226.240 (talk) 13:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have observed a long-term tendency of Citobun to disregard entire edits whenever he or she deems something to be wrong. Since Tuen Mun South extension is protected I would use it as an example. In his or her edits[18][19] he or she has repeatedly disregarded changes to the capitalisation of the letter G, addition of the convert template, and disambiguation between the MTR and the MTRCL. This happens over many Hong Kong-related articles and it has been a long-term behavioural or editing style issue. It makes him or her a person particular difficult for other editors to work with. Even worse was that he or she never bothers to go to talk pages.

On the other hand he or she has kept asking for proof that the area was indeed referred to after Butterfly Beach. 42.200.166.13 had submitted references[20] and added some more[21] to fulfil him or her but he or she has never been satisfied. I have reviewed the references submitted and they do demonstrate that the neighbourhood is called after the beach, especially those added on 10 December. But he or she didn't bother to review the newly added sources. And he or she in fact does the same thing all along with many other Hong Kong-related edits - Dismisses whatever he or she doesn't know or doesn't like as obscure, and rejects all references. He or she is using his or her very own life experience to refute reliable sources. Perhaps he or she's too young to know what older people perceive about the geography, topography of this territory or life in this territory, perhaps he or she's living in a particular corner of this territory which hinders his or her knowledge of the rest of this territory in general, or maybe we have been all wrong and he or she's been right all along. No matter what from what I seen the way he or she puts it is discriminatory, antagonistic towards other editors. This isn't helpful to the Wikipedia project. 116.92.226.240 (talk) 13:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Needless to say, this is the Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Hong Kong geography warrior. I don't want to get bogged down arguing about another one of your made-up names – but: if someone refers to the "World Trade Center area" in a general sense, referring to the vicinity of the World Trade Center in New York City, does it then mean that Lower Manhattan can be called "World Trade Center"? No, of course not. But that's the essence of your argument. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to push your personal agenda. Citobun (talk) 02:11, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fellow administrators all you need to do at first is to verify whether what Citobun suggested was true. Land lot numbers are used extensively in Hong Kong.[22][23][24][25][26][27][28] They certainly aren't obscure. In older neighbourhoods stone markers aren't uncommon. And in fact there are mentioned in many Wikipedia articles, e.g. Cheung Kong Center, an entry which Citobun's associate Matthew hk had recently edited. ... but: if someone refers to the "World Trade Center area" in a general sense, referring to the vicinity of the World Trade Center in New York City, does it then mean that Lower Manhattan can be called "World Trade Center"? Names aren't made up by me but the locals, and we indeed gotta look at each individual cases. Locations as far as Sugar Street is still referred to by many as Daimaru even though it's a block away from where the department store used to be located. Tai Fat Hau isn't just a name used by the locals. It made its way to be the name of a local council constituency, even though the namesake company had gone many decades ago. Other similar examples may include Tit Kong, Ngo Keng, Tai Hang and A Kung Ngam. And despite his or her WTC example he or she has practically endorsed that same usage with something like "Tuen Mun Ferry Pier area" in his or her edits to Turn Mun southern extension. On the other hand references to New Kowloon (which he or she admitted to be not incorrect) and the Victoria City have been so extensive on Wikipedia that that's an implicit consensus among Wikipedia editors active in Hong Kong-related topics perhaps since the earliest days of Wikipedia. These are easily verifiable and administrators shouldn't hesitate verifying them yourselves. What he or she has been doing is to stick with his or her very own experience and understanding, enforce it in his edits, and use IP editors from Hong Kong (which he probably knows very well why so many Hongkongers don't edit from registered accounts) as scapegoats or human sheilds, that something he or she has succeeded so far. 116.92.226.235 (talk) 13:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@116.92.226.240:, you show up as ip hopper that block evaded? (from 42.200.166.13 ip). You literally borderline personal attack and admit you are involved in adding narrow-interested "official name" of some location (aka land lease lot no) that they never a common name and violate WP:WHATWIKIPEDIAISNOT on wikipedia is not a travel guide or a bin of trivial info. Matthew hk (talk) 07:01, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Matthew hk, 07:01, 15 December 2021: What? How could you come up with something as such? Please read carefully as far as possible. 116.92.226.235 (talk) 13:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And just checked , Ymblanter has blocked that ip (116.92.226.240) for 31 hours as well. Matthew hk (talk) 07:02, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Matthew hk, 07:02, 15 December 2021: I'm not informed of the exact reason why I got blocked. But my changes to the Wu Kai Sha station article were reverted, for no reason. 116.92.226.235 (talk) 13:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You (116.92.226.240 and later 116.92.226.235) are blocked as a suspect of ip hopping from 42.200.166.13 as LTA (and i don't bother to check page history of which ip that rearrange my comments order, but assume it is you). Just create an acoount or don't do the same behaviour as the LTA to received the collateral damage. Matthew hk (talk) 01:07, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't hop. I think my IP addresses are non-static and are randomly assigned within a very narrow band (most IP addresses here are like this). 42.200.166.13 is a very different band. Haven't checked if that's the same ISP. On the other hand it has appeared to me that the situation may have been inflated or exaggerated in what Citobun has presented in his so-called LTA list. Most people here are behind non-static IP addresses (but only within narrow bands), so the number of IP entries concerned should have been much much fewer whereas there's very little evidence if any that these people are related, given the considerable number of narrow bands he has alleged to be suspicious.

On the other hand, please don't move my remarks in such a way that they aren't responding to the right thing. My edits regarding Lok Wo Sha is referenced and I've so far got no clue why that has to be rejected. 116.92.226.238 (talk) 12:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Citobun is now reverting all edits made by non-registered editors as far as he or she is able to spot, regardless of what those edits are about, and regardless of whether those edits are in line with his or her view - to do away with lesser known place names. 116.92.226.239 (talk) 10:25, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I have fallen victim of what Citobun (mis)represented. He argues and edits against whatever kind of reference to New Kowloon for obscure reasons. But now that I got reported and reverted for removing a reference to New Kowloon. (@Scottywong: FYI.) 219.76.24.209 (talk) 12:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the damages are beginning to surface. He or she has made his or her way to mislead administrators. 116.92.226.235 (talk) 13:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@219.76.24.209: How and why am I getting roped into whatever this is? What do I have to do with any of this? Why are you pinging me to this conversation and posting cryptic requests on my talk page? —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the link posted on your user talk page, or click here. 219.76.24.217 (talk) 10:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OhNoitsJamie has made a good faith assumption that the ip can able to use talk page and other ways to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, but once again the ip bomb this thread with wall of text of no meaning and the same can't tell it is meatsock or ip hopping behaviour. And clearly canvassing Scottywong, which Scottywong don't even know what ip want for him. Matthew hk (talk) 01:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter:, I am not sure why 219.76.24.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) show up as the ip (or the range) is not mentioned in this thread before, but may be he want to self confess for a block. Matthew hk (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) I think that a few rangeblocks would help quell things down. From the LTA page created, I calculated these ranges:

• 116.92.226.224/27 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 219.76.24.192/27 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 219.76.63.96/27 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 124.217.189.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 220.246.91.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 203.145.94.0/23 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

wizzito | say hello! 04:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that this behavior started up again, I am still advocating for the rangeblocks here as needed. wizzito | say hello! 12:55, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that we follow WP:DENY for this LTA and simply revert on sight. We’re long past the point of getting any successful conflict resolution with this user and their persistent IP-Hopping and tendency to invent (rather obvious) alter-egos to stack discussions has shown that attempting to engage with them has and will be completely unproductive. This user has already wasted enough of our time. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 15:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve also noticed a pattern with this LTA’s editing style- they seem to have a tendency to first perform an unproblematic edit, then follows it up with another edit introducing a questionable place name or location into the article. Examples of this behavior can be seen on Java Road, Fat Kwong Street and Wanshan Archipelago. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 16:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The IP editor has also seemingly acknowledged their LTA “nickname”, as evidenced by this edit summary. DENY is definitely needed. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 16:29, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Instantnood?

I just realised this might be User:Instantnood – a user who was very active from 2005 before they were banned in 2007 for disruptive behaviour. Check out their edit history. Their editing patterns and interests are shockingly similar (similar subjects, adding the exact same obscure place names such as New Kowloon and Tai Wo Ping, same fixation on the terminology surrounding Hong Kong/Macau/Taiwan/China). And there have been a lot of suspected Instantnood sockpuppets over the past decade. Thoughts? Citobun (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. Looking at Instantnood's MO, I'm not 100% sure that the IP is Instantnood- they've mostly just been pushing obscure place names and not attempting to promote Hong Kong nationalism in articles. There might be a connection but it's prolly not enough to make a solid link. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 17:32, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the IP has been engaged in the same kind of country-terminology debates as Instantnood. Examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Citobun (talk) 04:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... Might be worth further investigation, but I'd wait until we find a concrete link between the two. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 15:53, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For several days, an anonymous person with dynamic IP keeps adding the unsourced information about the involvement of Cartoon Network Studios into this article (it was not involved in the production and never shown in the credits). I tried to draw his attention on the talk page, warned him about these kids of edits...no progression. Therefore, I am asking you to do something about this. I've seen the similar situation of the article of Kikoriki. Team Invincible. The simple ban of the user won't do justice, I think. Ромми (talk) 04:19, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ромми appears to be referring to these IP ranges:

• 2601:5C4:4300:93E7:CA4:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:4040:10DA:3700:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The person behind the IPs inserted the information in the following diffs: under the first IP range [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], and [36]; and under the second IP range [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]. The earliest diff is from mid-September and the newest is from within the last 12 hours (not sure if there are other edits outside of this /64 range). While the user has been warned for disruptive editing in the past, the only warning I saw regarding their edits on this particular article (on a user talk page) was here by the OP. Aoi (青い) (talk) 07:39, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ромми: when you start a thread here, please remember to notify the user you are reporting. I left a note here, though to be fair, it's probable that this IP range is dynamic enough that they won't see the notification (it's been about 8 hours since they last edited from what I can tell). Aoi (青い) (talk) 07:42, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoi:, that user doesn't listen and continues to do unsourced edits. From another IP, of course. Ромми (talk) 03:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ромми: Perhaps you could just request Semi-protection on that page? Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 06:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Padgriffin: I have already did, and that's why I am in this noticeboard in the first place. The anonym has been warned but is ignoring the warnings. Ромми (talk) 06:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi protected for 4 days. let me know if they start up again. appears they've stopped for now. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 14.177.7.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Impossibleultimate1545 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor persistently fails to adhere to WP:VERIFY. Warning have been issued on their talk page, and there have been no replies.

The editor may have used multiple IPs in the recent past (Special:Contributions/113.178.44.106, Special:Contributions/113.178.44.5, Special:Contributions/14.226.24.7, Special:Contributions/14.177.240.82) with much the same behaviour, with blocks being issued. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 01:42, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also appears to be User:Impossibleultimate1545. Impossibleultimate1545 is adding copyright-infringing images on Commons ([43]) and 14.177.7.174 is adding them to articles ([44][45]). - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 02:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user continues to have issues with adding unsourced content, despite multiple warnings, and have continued a strange, slow edit-war, again despite warnings. At least one range of addresses (113.) was given a 3-month block several weeks ago, but they have continued editing with the other addresses. - wolf 15:38, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_AraratEnverpasatr (talk) 10:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

USER:Lugnuts has been pinging all of the Keep !votes (and only the keep !votes) from one AFD related to an article they created into other AFDs: 1 2. When it was pointed out to them that this was canvassing, they responded with groundless accusations (3) of WP:TAGTEAM (an essay which says "Unsubstantiated accusations of tag teaming are uncivil"). They have been making the same accusation multiple times over the last few days 4 5 6 7 8 9. Lugnuts has had previous cases at ANI involving canvassing and is well-aware that it is disruptive behaviour.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am not in a "tag team" with anyone, do not communicate with any Wiki editor off-wiki, and merely work on AFDs (particularly. Geo AFDs) that appear on the GEO AFD notice board. FOARP (talk) 14:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• When are we going to stop Lugnuts from mass-creating microstubs? We pulled autopatrol, buy they're still doing it [46]. Canvassing AFDs and accusing editors of tag team (without evidence) to defend the microstubs is even worse. This is spam. Mass-creating articles like Harry Oppenheim and Akuşağı, Baskil is no different than spamming. A standalone for every village? For every guy who played one national football game 100+ years ago? Come on. Also, I believe systematically copying thousands of entries from worldfootball.net and other websites onto Wikipedia is a copyright violation or a license violation or a violation of those websites' TOS. I'd be pretty BS if I was running a database website, and somebody was just scraping it to copy everything over to Wikipedia and purport to re-license it for free. One of these days, folks, this bird will come home to roost. Levivich 15:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that there's a potential database rights issue with importing database entries wholesale that needs more attention. FOARP (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich and FOARP: US law does not recognize database copyright protection. If the information is highly basic as laid out like "Footballer from Australia was born on [date] and played midfielder" then there is no copyright concern. Our copyright policy is based off of US law provisions, except for our fair use which is more stringent. Sennecaster (Chat) 18:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is however also available in the EU. But as much an issue is the terms of use of websites like Sports-Reference.com whereby users explicitly agree not to use their data to create a competing or substitute service (see 5.j here: https://www.sports-reference.com/termsofuse.html ). FOARP (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WMF Legal, and by extension, enwp, is only concerned about US copyright law because it is the only jurisdiction where the WMF can be held legally responsible. It does not matter that WP is available in the EU or other sites because the servers are in the US. The concern with sports-reference.com is database rights, which US law and enwiki policy does not recognize. Sennecaster (Chat) 03:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sports-reference.com’s terms of use are contract-law. If data is transposed directly from their database to Wiki to the extent that people no longer need to use sports-reference.com because the data is all (or in large part) on Wikipedia then their terms of use are broken. Whether Wikipedia or just Lugnuts are liable in that circumstance for breach of contract is very hard to say.

Also we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that Lugnuts said in their previous ANI that they would stop making this specific kind of stub, and was warned about canvassing. He’s now acting as though the consensus of that previous ANI simply doesn’t apply any more. FOARP (talk) 04:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Lugnuts typically posts notifications at WT:FILM in a neutral way and does good work for the project, but this is a clear case of canvassing. It's best to stick with pinging projects and noticeboards with neutral notices than it is to single out specific editors, but if you're going to do that, ping all those involved in a past discussion, not just the ones who agree with your position. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreed, and he's been selectively canvassing some more on an unrelated notability discussion [47]. Alright, I get that Lugnuts has made a lot of edits, but he's been warned more than once at ANI already [48] for such antics. Are we really getting back to the days when having enough edits was sufficient immunization against having to follow the rules? Beyond that, his recent exhortations for people to stop posting to his talk page defy the purpose of a talk page, which is to communicate with other editors about (among other things) such controversies, or deletion filings. We would not look kindly at all about a newbie harshly rejecting such communications, and that newbie would be at serious risk of an indef for no other reason. Ravenswing 15:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed particularly on Lugnuts refusal to allow notices on their talk page and their uncivil attacks on people who post necessary notices there, including even the notice that I literally had to post on their talk page in order to raise this ANI notice.

Whether or not Lugnuts is being treated with undue leniency I can’t say. It is clear from their blocklog, however, that they have already made commitments not to engage in uncivil and disruptive editing, commitments which they were explicitly warned breaking would result in a much longer block than their previous blocks.FOARP (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(... blinks HARD) Hang on. He's accusing you of harassment for notifying him of the ANI action?? Ravenswing 18:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well presumably the edit summary is about starting a discussion at ANI (not the subsidiary act of notification). This seems to me like an unproductive angle to focus on. --JBL (talk) 18:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn’t assume that at all, as Lugnuts has been regularly doing exactly the same thing to people posting AFD notices and similar on his talk page, and because the edit summary says “RV ongoing harassment” (as in, the notice itself is “harassment” in Lugnut’s view, that they are reverting). These are interactions people literally have to do. They are standard notifications. Communication is a required part of editing on Wikipedia and not something editors can simply opt out of. FOARP (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If only, JBL, but this is nothing new. We have this diff [49], a notification of an AfD filing on articles Lugnuts created, where his edit summary was "what part of don't post here don't you undertsand?" We have this diff [50], another AfD filing, where his edit summary is "don't post here, rv WP:TAGTEAM." The same here [51], with the edit summary of "and please do not bother me again." From an editor who's been warned and admonished at ANI more than once, and with a pretty impressive block log, this is either a strong case of WP:IDHT, someone who's flipping us all off, or someone who's just going to keep on saying whatever he needs to say at ANI to get off with a stern finger waggling. Ravenswing 19:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been redirecting Lugnuts-created Turkish village stubs to their District articles, since no real effort had been made to improve them over the past 8 months. This has led to multiple conflicts which have escalated due to Lugnuts' incivility and refusal to communicate. Paşakonağı is a typical example: I redirected this version since the only source (besides the unreliable Koyumuz) was a trivial mention about its Kurdish population. Lugnuts reverted; fair enough, this seemed like a good-faith disagreement that could be talked out, but my only choice was AfD since Lugnuts had asked me not to ping them or post on their talk page. The article was then expanded to the point that I actually voted Keep. Great! If someone is willing to expand a stub with reliable sources then by all means it should be re-created.

But then, Lugnuts used that Keep outcome as a reason to keep two other sets of stubs [52][53] that had not been expanded, and called me "disingenuous" and asked me to not ping or post on their talk page after I pointed out their bright-line canvassing violation.

And then we've also got Çaltılıçukur and Büyükalan which Lugnuts un-redirected twice each, again citing that Paşakonağı AfD and suggesting that these articles go to AfD as well instead of actually discussing their objection to the redirect.

It seems like Lugnuts can't handle having their articles deleted/redirected and is fighting it at every opportunity, expecting others to do the work of finding sources and expanding. It's really a shame since many of these articles probably could be expanded, but Lugnuts has little to no interest in doing it themselves and seems incapable of approaching it in a civil manner. It's a struggle and makes this very large cleanup task even more difficult. –dlthewave ☎ 05:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In this AfD I pinged all the previous editors from this AfD. It appears I've missed ONE person out (Mike). I then copied that same notification, sans Mike, to another AfD. I've asked Dlthewave to stop posting on my talkpage at least twice, following on from this "apology", which I find hard to take sincerely. OK, so that's my issue, the least they can do is simply not bother me. Recent AfDs started by this user seem to come with a very quick follow-up from the OP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So we're expected to believe, with your history of canvassing, that it was just an accident that you pinged every Keep voter before Mike posted, and every Keep voter after Mike posted, and furthermore you did so in multiple AfDs? Ravenswing 11:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. As I said, I copied the same ping template and omitted ONE name. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You copied the same ping-template just two minutes after responding to a warning that it was canvassing with uncivil accusations and an edit-summary saying "pot. kettle. black", meaning you knew that it was canvassing, you just didn't care. FOARP (talk) 15:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And did so AFTER it was pointed out that this was canvassing? Just so we can be clear on the tick-tock here:

• 09:17 20 December - Lugnuts' first instance of CANVASS
• 10:36 20 December - warned that what they are doing is a breach of CANVASS
• 12:56 20 December - responds with an uncivil accusation of TAGTEAM and the edit summary "pot. kettle. black"
• 12:58 20 December - Lugnuts' second instance of CANVASS in another AFD
• 13:13 20 December - Warned AGAIN that this is CANVASS.
• 13:15 20 December - responds again with uncivil accusations.
• 14:40 20 December - Third instance of CANVASS by Lugnuts in a separate RFC.

This was not an accident. This is just Lugnuts doing what Lugnuts has been allowed to get away with for too long. It's high time the community made it clear that a higher standard of behaviour than this is required. FOARP (talk) 12:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And this is par for the course. It's not just the incivility, it's making uncivil comments instead of engaging. Here are a few more, I suggest folks look closely at what Lugnuts is responding to:

• "When the nom has been asked multiple times not to post on my talkpage, it's probably wise not to do so." Off-topic response to a comment by Ravenswing.
• "RV WP:TAGTEAM" In response to my question about deprods.
• "Please, AGF" This seems to be an implicit accusation of assuming bad faith, completely sidestepping FOARP's actual concerns about sourcing.

I can handle incivility, but Lugnuts' conduct is actively obstructing any hope of a productive discussion. –dlthewave ☎ 16:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Lugnuts is repeating allegations of TAGTEAM, again, and their evidence for this is simply the fact that I regularly look at the daily AFD noticeboard and Geo deletion-sorting board and vote on the AFDs that appear there. This could easily have been explained to them had they been open to communication - or even just asked on my talk page? Instead they just chose to use these allegations as an uncivil insult/put-down in edit summaries and when concerns were raised about their behaviour.
  

Also, it was not just one editor who was missed in their CANVASS breaches, as they failed to ping me also the second time they did it. They also kept doing it after was pointed out to them that what they were doing was CANVASS, more than once (see Ravenwing’s additional example above).

Finally, if Lugnuts does not wish to communicate this is one thing - they can of course just delete notices from their talk page or even put a notice opting out of receiving AFD notifications altogether - but repeatedly making false accusations against people who are posting notices they are required to put on their talk page is quite another. This is particularly the case when people are doing clean-up work necessitated by Lugnuts’ mass-creation of single-source stubs. FOARP (talk) 11:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I seriously think Lugnuts needs to stop creating articles. I hate to not AGF someone who clearly believes they are doing valuable work, but to me it really seems like the point of all this pointless stub creation is for statistics, and from their user page it looks like the current goal is to simply get credit for as many creations as possible. And I definitely think Lugnuts needs to immediately stop characterizing required notifications as harrassment. That is a clear attempt to dissuade people from complaining (or even from cleaning up after them) by intimidation. —valereee (talk) 13:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd certainly support a tban on Lugnuts both from new article creation and the AfD process. If both elements are so stressful to him that he lashes out at required notifications and resorts to repeated canvassing, no doubt there's plenty of work on Wikipedia he could be doing instead ... like, for instance, working to source the sub-stubs he's creating. Come to that, in the last 24 hours alone, he's created 43 new articles. Not a single one of them is longer than two sentences.

  Postscript: it gets even worse. I just went back over the last month of Lugnuts' new article creations. Of that total, other than a list article, only three are longer than two sentences long. Two of those are three sentences. One is a whopping four sentences long. You have to go back nearly 2000 creations before getting to an article as long as two paragraphs. What the hell? Ravenswing 14:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple other users have patrolled those articles. Is this off the back of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Proposal_for_a_sports_venues_guideline when I questioned your AfDs? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is off you selectively canvassing to try to get warm bodies to back up your POV. So I popped into your edit history to see which areas you'd "notified," and found that only three of the several dozen sports Wikiprojects were worth your notice. Then your talk page popped out with these glaring incivilities, and it's tutti all the way. And that being said, yes, I'm active at ANI, and see such filings. (Feel free to look over my edit history.) Are you really not comprehending why other editors have problems with your behavior? Ravenswing 15:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I notified three projects I work in, all of which have many active members, to get more comments to your request. Every single one of my notificiations was written in a neutral tone, hardly pushing a POV as you claim. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support sanction - Despite plentiful warnings Lugnuts response above to complaints about their disruptive and uncivil behaviour in literally the only forum in which they will hear them was essentially a double-down on their behaviour combined with a totally transparent excuse given the multiple warnings about canvassing that they had received. They're now compounding that with more accusations. It is beyond time that a sanction was imposed for this behaviour. FOARP (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I missed out ONE NAME from a ping I copy+pasted into two AfDs. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, here's the tick-tock:

• 09:17 20 December - Lugnuts' first instance of CANVASS
• 10:36 20 December - warned that what they are doing is a breach of CANVASS
• 12:56 20 December - responds with an uncivil accusation of TAGTEAM and the edit summary "pot. kettle. black"
• 12:58 20 December - Lugnuts' second instance of CANVASS in another AFD
• 13:13 20 December - Warned AGAIN that this is CANVASS.
• 13:15 20 December - responds again with uncivil accusations.
• 14:40 20 December - Third instance of CANVASS by Lugnuts in a separate RFC.

You were warned repeatedly that what you were doing was canvassing, you responded uncivilly to every warning. Particularly the edit-summary "pot. kettle. black" shows that you knew what you were doing was disruptive, you just thought it was justified by your (entirely imaginary, completely groundless and uncivil) allegations of TAGTEAM. FOARP (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed T-ban from stub creation

Proposal: Lugnuts must clean up their mess

In the March ANI, Lugnuts avoided further sanctions by promising to clean up Koyumuz-sourced stubs:

• "The Turkish gov. website has details of each village/neighbourhood. Happy to replace the existing source with that, and remove the population stat as I go."
• "Thanks - I've started work on changing the reference, so down from 4,452 (quoted above) to just 4,396 to go. Some of them using Koyumuz won't be articles I started, as the ref had been used way before I started to use it."
• "It was a geninue response to the claim made by that editor. I could say X source isn't reliable for a source they've provided, and get slapped with "you're not WP:AGF!" in reply. The alternative, which I'm now working on, is to replace cites to Koyumuz. I've removed about 150 today alone. I'll work on the rest and have that down to zero."
• "For each new article, I also link it to its page on Wikidata, and create redirect/dab pages for the first half of the placename as needed. And I've also been replacing links from the koyumuz site, doing about 200 in the past 24hrs. Obviously I wont be replacing that source if someone else has added it. Thanks."
• "Well I've addressed the original issue, and have begun to replace the unreilable source. I haven't created any more of these today, although everything I have done is clearly within the spirit of the guidelines for populated places, and per point 1 of WP:5P."
• "I've assumed a lot of good faith from the OP's concerns, despite the two of us not seeing eye to eye. The original issue being about the reliabilty of the koyumuz source. I updated a whole batch of them earlier today, and I've said I'll work through the rest."
• "Hi. The initial concern was the creation of populated places articles using an unreilable source. That has been recognised by myself, and I'm working through replacing said source. I think the original stats were 4,000+ articles with that source, the number is now just over 3,000. IE I've updated 1,000+ articles since the issue was flagged up. That's it. ONE mistake with a source, which is now being fixed. Everything I create is to the letter/spirit of the relevant notability guidelines/policy."

Since a great many Koyumuz references still remain, I propose that Lugnuts is banned from all activities except the cleanup of Turkish village articles, to be lifted when no references to Koyumuz remain in article space. Do not leave any articles unsourced/unreliably sourced; redirecting to the District article is allowed. This would be in addition to any other sanctions.

A more stringent option would be to require that all of Lugnuts' Turkish village creations be either redirected or sourced with at least two sources that cover the subject in prose, not just lists or tables. –dlthewave ☎ 15:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I agree that he should do this, this seems like “cruel and unusual” punishment. Let him just show he can edit productively and collegiately. FOARP (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We can't actually compel him to do any work he doesn't feel like doing, his sub-stub creation goes far beyond Turkish villages, and what poor bastard wants to be the one monitoring this all? The tban as proposed above is good enough. Ravenswing 17:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly oppose; sanctions should only be imposed in order to prevent disruption. This proposal has a different purpose. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Rather moot, now that he's apparently retired. GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig

Now that we are here, can someone please explain to @Lugnuts: that when there are redirects to politicians, it is not okay to move them to (foorballer) disambiguation to usurp the original article? They did this (now twice) with Otto Moltke, first moved to Otto Moltke (footballer) (corrected by me), and now again to Otto Moltke (Danish footballer), which now has a history starting with a redirect to Otto Joachim Moltke who isn't a footballer. Worse, they did the same (again twice) with Flemming Mortensen (now at Flemming Mortensen (Danish footballer)), a redirect to Flemming Møller Mortensen who is clearly the primary target for the search term "Flemming Mortensen"[61][62][63]. I get that they want to increase their "article creation" count at all costs, but moving article history to a blatantly wrong title is not an acceptable way to do this. Fram (talk) 15:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's all go here, isn't it. You can see there's no other articles with those base names, hence why there's no disambig needed. Hatnotes have been added. Anyone else? Oh, and a Merry Christmas to you, Fram! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop hijacking primary titles of biographies. An admin should pull your page mover perm for this (and the others too). I don't have time for this but if someone does, they can look at the page views of the two articles and the redirect and show that you're making the encyclopedia harder to navigate by changing a redirect to a less-sought-after target. This is even worse than spamming or ripping off off-wiki databases. Seriously you are so disruptive in your quest for a high score I can't believe it. Levivich 15:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This says zero page views for Otto Moltke in the past month. It's not "hijacking" - all I've done is moved an a redirect to save an un-need disambig page. I thought this was the done thing? Pinging @Anthony Appleyard and Tassedethe: who do tons of work in this area. Have I been doing something wrong here? If so, what should I be doing? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've not only pinged these two but posted to both their talks asking them to chime in here. I have no clue what your relationship is to these two, but to me this seems really questionable. Unless these are editors who have a history of actually criticising your work...is that the point here? —valereee (talk) 21:56, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, to get an impartial view on this from two editors (one an admin) who do the same work in this area. That's the point. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts, you haven´t even attempted an explanation why you thought it good or even acceptable to move redirects to politicians to "footballer" or "Danish footballer" disambiguations. Is there any explanation besides "I want to have my name as the creator of these articles at all costs, and I´ll do silly moves if that is what it takes"? Fram (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can see there's no other articles with those base names, hence why there's no disambig needed. Hatnotes have been added. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:07, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an answer to the question though. Leaving aside the question of priamry topics for now: why couldn't you simply write your article over the existing redirect, instead of moving it to a name which had no connection to the redirect at all? Moving a redirect to a politician to a "(footballer)" title, just to change it into a different redirect completely, simply makes no sense at all, unless you just need to be the page creator for some reason. Fram (talk) 09:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can see there's no other articles with those base names, hence why there's no disambig needed. Hatnotes have been added. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone give Lugnuts a jolt? He seems to be stuck in a loop here. Fram (talk) 09:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've answered your question, Fram. Don't know what the fuck your problem is with me. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't answered the question though. Why did you not simply usurp these redirects with an article, along with the necessary additional redirects and hatnotes? It gives the appearance of gaming page history to show you as the page creator; i.e. Otto Moltke now shows as being created by you (i.e. instead of as it was originally, by BD2412) and ridiculously, the history of Otto Moltke (Danish footballer) shows it as being created as a redirect to a politician. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, lets say I created it at Otto Moltke (footballer), as Otto Moltke already existed (as a r/d). It would eventually be moved to just Otto Moltke, as there's no other article with that exact title. That's the sort of work Anthony Appleyard, Tassedethe, and others do in these cases. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't you simply overwrite the existing redirect then? Why this complicated system which moves the original history to a page where it doesn't make any sense at all? It's not as if you can't or don't want to overwrite the original redirect, as you did that anyway (but only after moving it to a title which had nothing to do with the redirect). Fram (talk) 10:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lugnuts, the problem is the apparent gaming of redirects in order to show yourself as the page creator, which is abusing the pagemover permission. If you understand why people are objecting and will commit to not doing that again, good enough, but if you sincerely don't see the problem, unfortunately that permission probably needs to be removed. —valereee (talk) 11:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What Fram said. While I have some sympathy for wanting to be the official page creator (this is the only way I know of to get the "somebody linked to your page" notification; it would be nice to have other ways to get this), moving redirects around using the suppressredirect superpower of pagemovers isn't a clean way to do it. If you need a redirect deleted to move something else in its place, use {{db-move}}. If you are this unresponsive when challenged about the way you use your pagemover power, perhaps you shouldn't have it. —Kusma (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup II

I'm curious what editors think should be done about the stubs. I believe the order of magnitude is thousands created this year, tens of thousands overall. Should we leave them be, try to go through them, batch delete some, something else? Is there an automated way to figure out which have not been edited by more than one editor? Levivich 19:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all - Wipe the slate clean. GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I was wondering that myself. Could we delete all articles he's created since April (say) in which he's the only editor (as of yesterday, say)? Seems to me that if Wikipedia wanted mini-stubs of every village in Turkey (for instance) someone could go to the Turkish authorities, get a list of villages with their population, etc and some wizz-kid could create articles for every village all in one go with relatively little effort. We could have articles for every star in the sky, quite easily. Why would we need some editor doing such a repetitive exercise manually? Nigej (talk) 19:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The prospect sucks, but manual is the only practical way around it without a riot. Think about it; damn near ANY grouped AfD/prod these days attracts howls of rage (hell, people bitched about "mass AfDs" about me taking THREE articles to AfD ... some of them who voted for that exactly that result to happen at RfD). There is no way in creation that a mass deletion involving 9000 articles will fly, the more so in that a number of them will wind up with valid sources and expandable articles, and that people will claim NSPORTS/GEOLAND passes. Art of the possible, folks. Ravenswing 20:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• A lot of them will have had bot-edits since creation, and many of them will still be technical SNG passes which is going to make AFDing them difficult. Many are also expandable into real articles - Lugnuts just didn’t distinguish between the notable and the non-notable.

A lot of Lugnuts’ Olympian articles sourced only to sports-reference.com/Olympedia (essentially the same source) are now NOLY fails, though, since the automatic notability pass for all Olympians was removed and replaced by a pass for all medalists. Particularly the pre-WW2 Olympian articles have loads who are never going to pass WP:BASIC. I’ve started the process of cleaning up these with Francis English (which uncovered some problems with the accuracy of sports-reference.com) but there’s tons more just like it.

For comparison, we’ve STILL just barely scratched the problem of Carlossuarrez46’s problematic GEOstubs, and the AN case involving him was in April and the clean-up started years before it.

Frankly I’d favour a TNT solution but I don’t see it happening. I’d be pleasantly surprised if it did. FOARP (talk) 20:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(nods) We've had a similar situation at the hockey project, where Dolovis was banned from new article creation for pretty much defying all consensus to falsely claim his creations met the guidelines. It was hundreds of articles instead of thousands, on shakier grounds than Lugnuts', and that cleanup's taken years. Ravenswing 20:07, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes. We at WP:HOCKEY do indeed, remember Dolovis. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Really highlights what a net-negative mass sub-stub creation really is for the project. FOARP (talk) 20:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's really a job for a computer anyway, if it's needed. Take Eddy Carbonnelle which he created as Eddy Carbonelle when the database entry (in this case an archive of it, since its defunct) clearly has two n's. OK, we all make mistakes but I hope not many of us would make this sort of fundamental error. As I noted in another discussion "Perhaps this slip was related to the fact that the article was created at 17:56 on 22 September 2019, between the creation of Guy Debbaudt at 17:54 and the creation of Freddy Rens at 17:57." The article still says nothing, a link somewhere to the database entry would be more useful than the article itself, eg mentions his brother. Nigej (talk) 08:29, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, its an odd feature of Wikipedia that it's very easy to create articles but a hundred times more difficult to delete them. For some reason this is accepted and as a consequence we're apparently happy telling the world that 15% of all notable living people are notable because they play association football. Nigej (talk) 20:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This process is an absolute travesty, a witch hunt. You'd think people here would have more contructive things to do, like constructing an encyclopedia. StickyWicket (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• And I imagine we'd all rather be about that. But here we are, needing to clean up the mess of someone who has been far less interested in constructing an encyclopedia than in going for Game High Score. Even those of us -- what was it you called us? -- "knobheads" who aren't participants in WP:CRIC [64]. Ravenswing 21:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The idea that creating utterly useless articles is "constructing an encyclopedia" is nonsense. An encyclopedia is not a random collection of statistical and trivial information. It's a collection of well-written articles about people and topics that readers are interested in. Nigej (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• And BTW some of us did contribute to the cricket project. eg Archie Cumberbatch (created 21 May 2007‎) and others, but left for pastures new, so I presume my comments are not part of the "absolute shite chatted by people who never contribute to the cricket project". Nigej (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I've gotten through about 30 of 300-some districts in Turkey, using AWB to redirect stubs and create Village/Neighbourhood lists. The biggest time sink is copying over the coordinates and any other salvageable data. I think it would go much faster if we used an automated process to create district-level tables with coordinates and population from scratch, then use AWB to quickly scroll through each article and either redirect or skip if it's been expanded. Could probably process 6 stubs/minute this way. –dlthewave ☎ 03:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Yeah, it's absurd that someone can create dozens of articles a day, several thousand in a year, clearly having put zero thought into them except for how quickly the data from a sports reference site can be copied, but the rest of us have to spend a week scrutinizing them individually. Heck, start by filtering any article that contains the words "one match" and delete. Or take the phrase "for the ____ team" and redirect to that team, e.g. Johann Baar to List of Austria international footballers (1–24 caps). Put me down for the AWB crew if there's a way to do this. The link to StickyWicket's comment says he's made B-class articles from stubs, but there's nothing stopping you from doing that from a redirect to a list either! Would also concur with GoodDay though, say, anything under a certain length... Reywas92^Talk 05:31, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Footballer editor here - the stubs he has created about Danish/Austrian footballers from many years ago are definitely notable per NFOOTBALL and likely notable per GNG, but I agree that the mass creation of these very basic stubs was problematic and agree that a redirect to a relevant 'List of X international footballers' is sensible. In due course we can create proper articles if/when we want to. As for the Turkish village stubs - get rid of them all. GiantSnowman 08:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, following advice from @Lee Vilenski: and @GiantSnowman:, I would like to raise the topic of continued breaches of the manual of style, specifically MOS:CATORDER by @Geoff3Cae:. I have had to make a number of reverts in recent weeks of this behaviour, but I won't have even scratched the surface of the number of breaches I'm afraid. Users Lee Vilenski and GiantSnowman made attempts to steer Geoff3Cae away from this behaviour here and here, but unfortunately the user has not responded on either occasion and the behaviour has not changed. Per the advice from Lee Vilenski/GiantSnowman, I am raising this topic here to gain wider views on the matter and what action/s may be necessary to change this behaviour. Kind regards, MunsterFan2011 (talk) 16:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful @MunsterFan2011: if you provided examples of recent edits which violate CATORDER. GiantSnowman 16:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, here are a dozen examples of this behaviour from just yesterday alone: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 & 12. This pattern of behaviour has been repeated almost daily for some weeks now. Kind regards, MunsterFan2011 (talk) 17:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff3Cae has never posted to a talk or user talk page. I'm not familiar with categorization issues so can't have an opinion on how disruptive (or not) the editing is, but failing to engage with other editors raising their concerns on their talk page is a major problem. Schazjmd (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I left a warning for Geoff3Cae (talk · contribs). Let me know if problems continue. Johnuniq (talk) 22:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Sparkle1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

While reverting vandalism I've stumbled across User:Sparkle1, who has been leaving some pretty uncivil edit summaries while reverting other's edits or critiquing how someone else edited a page. It's not really targeted harassment but just general rudeness in their actions. Some examples: [66][67][68]

I'm leaving this on the noticeboard and not the user's talk page because I'm not directly involved in any of the edits / pages, and don't feel I have the authority to "warn" this user of any incivility. If my post here is incorrect or I've done something wrong, please let me know. Thanks, ― Levi_OP^Talk 16:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed this user around a little, and was disappointed to see them bite a newbie and mislabel good-faith edits as vandalism on their talkpage[69] and left a few more passive-aggressive edit summaries[70][71]. — Czello 16:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Block - after looking at their contribs and talk page (see talk page history, as many postings have been deleted), the battleground attitude is strong and has been going on since the edit summaries of their first edits (which suggests to me those aren't their first edits). Also prior ANI [72] and warned at ANEW [73]. An uncivil UK editor who began in summer 2019 with strong feelings about article layout and graphics... hmm... Levivich 20:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks like there's a 3RR violation here too revert 1 revert 2 revert 3 (the IP they were warring with has been blocked) -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 02:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I left a warning for Sparkle1 (talk · contribs). Let me know if problems continue. Johnuniq (talk) 22:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Dua Lipa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Veneta1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is a textbook case of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing, as explained here. User:Veneta1 has been trying since March 2021 to either alter the meaning of, or totally remove reliably sourced content pertaining to the maternal ancestry of the subject. The diffs below pertain to reverts over the course of 9 months. He/She has been reverted and warned multiple times in the past by a number of editors, yet continued with the same disruptive editing.

Diffs of User:Veneta1

1. 01:48, 10 March 2021
2. 03:17, 15 March 2021
3. 20:47, 6 April 2021
4. 21:36, 6 April 2021
5. 22:23, 6 April 2021
6. 00:04, 27 April 2021
7. 21:48, 28 April 2021
8. 00:07, 29 April 2021
9. 15:16, 30 April 2021
10. 22:46, 31 May 2021
11. 19:30, 5 June 2021
12. 21:27, 26 June 2021
13. 16:34, 18 July 2021
14. 05:44, 23 August 2021
15. 19:48, 23 August 2021
16. 22:06, 23 August 2021
17. 09:18, 24 August 2021
18. 09:01, 1 September 2021
19. 21:52, 1 September 2021
20. 00:01, 9 September 2021
21. 05:27, 12 September 2021
22. 07:03, 16 September 2021
23. 22:49, 30 September 2021
24. 08:00, 15 October 2021
25. 18:55, 20 October 2021
26. 08:23, 17 December 2021
27. 17:24, 17 December 2021
28. 13:16, 19 December 2021
29. 14:00, 20 December 2021

Diffs of edit warring warning

1. 02:29, 7 April 2021 by User:Binksternet
2. 06:02, 23 August 2021 by User:Binksternet
3. 20:40, 23 August 2021 by User:LOVI33
4. 10:41, 2 September 2021 by User:Demetrios1993
5. 15:17, 9 September 2021 by User:Demetrios1993
6. 23:00, 20 October 2021 by User:Demetrios1993
7. 13:49, 20 December 2021 by User:Demetrios1993

I initially reported the user at the "Edit warring" noticeboard, but was forwarded here, since this is a long-term issue. Demetrios1993 (talk) 17:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Few days ago, Dennis Brown on WP:AE had suggested that should file the report about Bringtar on ANI. Filing it here now since this user's edit warring to insert his misrepresentation of sources, BLP violations and engagement in typical battleground behavior is still not stopping.

1. 11 December: Wants to apply WP:BLPCAT on a person who died centuries ago.
2. 11 December: rejects his own edit summary by telling "it removed due to failed verification and not because of BLPCAT" but the added sources supported the information
3. 11 December: Falsely claims other user is vandalizing. See WP:NOTVAND.
4. 11 December: When presented evidence of his wrongdoing, he removes discussion with edit summary: "removing false claims and lies".
5. 11 December: Edit warring to restore misrepresentation of sources and BLP violations.
6. 11 December Files a disruptive SPI in retaliation.
7. 12 December: Adds a name on List of converts to Christianity from Hinduism in violation of WP:BLPCAT; the article does not mention "Hindu"/"Hinduism".
8. 12 December: Same as above.
9. 13 December Edit wars when above additions are reverted in violation of WP:BLP and shows his lack of understanding of WP:LINKVIO.
10. 13 December: Adds a quotation to establish a conversion but the quotation does not verify his claim.
11. 13 December: Same as above; quotation does not verify conversion.
12. 13 December Edit wars to restore another name by adding 2 sources, none of which mention "Hindu"/"Hinduism", thus violating WP:BLPCAT again.
13. 13 December: Restores his another BLPCAT violation when neither sources confirm the subject's admission of conversion from Hinduism to Christianity.
14. 13 December: Showing lack of WP:AGF by alleging me of "using WP:LINKVIO at your whim".
15. 14 December: Edit warring to restore his misrepresentation, LINKVIO and BLP violations with edit summary: "undo disruption"
16. 14 December: Engages in WP:IDHT by repeating himself and shows his failure to understand WP:LINKVIO. Claims that there is no LINKVIO violation because the "youtube video is not uploaded here" on Wikipedia. See WP:CIR.
17. 20 December: Same as above; restoring same violation of WP:BLPCAT and WP:LINKVIO as well as misrepresentation of sources.
18. 20 December: Still engaging in WP:IDHT: "I cannot take lectures from you on this", "I read WP:LINKVIO and no where it says that youtube links cannot be used"
19. 20 December: Strikes my messages on his talk page in violation of WP:REFACTOR and alleges me of "trolling" and "lies".
20. 20 December: Files another repetitive and retaliatory SPI same as the last one which was already rejected by Bbb23 and AmandaNP[74]

The user is an WP:SPA with whom, together with several other editors, I have already tried enough to guide on the basics of Wikipedia for months[75] but this user is unwilling to learn. Given the continued display of WP:CIR and battleground mentality, this user appears to be a case of WP:NOTHERE. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 18:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I have been keeping an eye on these "conversion" articles. However, it takes two to edit war, as you'll see from the history of List of converts to Christianity from Hinduism (2) The filer is no stranger to WP:AE, where they regularly try to remove ideological opponents from relevant areas, and they are equally no stranger to filing evidence-free SPIs after an editor reverted them (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LucrativeOffer/Archive). Why did they remove Anju Panta from List of converts to Christianity from Hinduism today, with an edit summary of "I have noted on talk page that there is problem with each of your entry", when they have not mentioned her at all on the talkpage, and there appears to be an RS? Well, that's a question. Black Kite (talk) 18:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• As per Black Kite, I think the behavior of all parties in these edit wars is less than ideal. Some parties are mass adding content, some of which is poorly sourced. Some parties are mass removing content, some of which is clearly well sourced and belongs.VR _talk 22:53, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW the AE report on Bringtar, has been closed as not actionable. GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bringtar's report on Aman Kumar Goel

• This user seriously has a problem and not just with me but with anyone who opposes their ideologies. Only a few diffs are enough to prove it.

1. [76]: wants to apply BLP policy on 3 dead people where at least 2 of them died centuries ago.
2. [77]: same as above, citing BLP violation to remove entries of people died centuries ago.
3. [78]: again mass removal as BLP violations for people who died long ago.
4. [79]: removing names with false edit summary of dont support conversion from X to X while it does and restored by Toddy1[80].

They never have the intention and interest to discuss, neither on the article's talk page nor on their talk page

1. [81]: never cared to answer why they removed sufficiently sourced texts
2. [82]: didn't even bothered to discuss even when an admin suggested to engage in discussion
3. falsely claim[83] they discussed while their first message was a "final warning used for diruption"[84].
4. [85]: continuous edit warring including mass rmeoval of sourced content without a single note on talk pages despite several requests by me[86], [87] etc.
5. [88]: falsly accusing me of WP:IDHT while they repeatedly undid my edits without any explanations even after asking them[89].
6. [90]: showing lack of WP:AGF by slapping me with a 3rd diruption warnning with their first interaction.

The allegations lebelled against me are not just false but done intentionally to have me blocked as they did same to Loveall.human like

1. [91]: first filing a SPI case
2. [92]: then trying with a WP:ARE case

Their pattern is to stop the article from evolving by consistently removing sourced entries from both List of converts to Christianity from Hinduism[93] and List of converts to Islam from Hinduism[94] without discussion even though they were requested repeatedly[95],[96]. When this fails, they resort to threats by abusing "final warning messages"[97] or reporting with false cases[98], [99], [100] etc.

I do not have problem collaborating with other editors like Toddy1 or TrangaBellam[101] or Vice regent because they explain their edits specially when they revert any contribution and are open to discussion, a quality which AKG seriously lacks and always shows hostile attitude to anyone with a different opinion. They are only here to use Wikipedia for their right-wing agenda. I was even compelled to open a report against them here just a few months ago where the discussion was related to these articles and still relevant so pinging those editors who objected at that time, if they have anything to add: @Maproom:, @Tayi Arajakate:, @Nil Einne:. --Bringtar (talk) 18:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Asma Alblooshi (talk · contribs). These aren’t stubs either, and they are created with just one edit. Doug Weller talk 19:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know what #KMUOS is? Some contest again?--Ymblanter (talk) 19:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Education noticeboard#Project #KMUOS--Ymblanter (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And an interesting off-wiki link:[102]. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's an ongoing educational project, I assume the teacher has been having them work on the articles in a Word document or the like before submitting them in a single edit. They seem like fairly high quality articles. I just wish they'd use the trans-title parameter in the references to also list the titles in English and to use the work parameter to list the actual source publisher and not the archive name. That would make it easier to look through the reference lists. Silverseren^C 19:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I should have guessed. I was thinking Twitter. Doug Weller talk 20:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: As far as I can tell these articles appear to be unatributed machine translations of articles from other projects, e.g. the text of Yousef Abou Louz is identical to ar:يوسف أبو لوز run through google translate. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 23:33, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just noticed this. I've been spending a lot of time in the new pages recently. The above-noted user isn't the only user creating these #KMOUS articles, and I haven't really figured out what to do with them. I think I've come across at least five users creating these articles. There a few being created every day for a while now... Singularity42 (talk) 00:44, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If these are all unattributed translations from other wikis, this is not good at all. I see the discussion at Wikipedia:Education noticeboard#Project #KMUOS is expressing concern about them. It seems they are meant to be translations. Doug Weller talk 07:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fully in favour of more articles on Arabic literature etc., but (1) we cannot have Universities treating Wikipedia as an examination task; it places undue burdens and pressure on WP's editors, who are not here to act as examiners; (2) It is fundamentally wrong that people should be becoming certified Wikipedia translators and editors; WP doesn't require certification to edit, and no one else should be implying that they can grant certification as some sort of super-editor - it's only one step away from another organisation deciding who is "approved" and who not; although in this case it may be well-intentioned it takes little imagination to see that organisations could easily profiteer or censor by controlling the stream of trained WP editors; (3) and if prizes, quite substantial prizes, are being offered, then the editing is WP:PAID. (4) while there is no fundamental problem with people putting articles straight into main space, unattributed translations are a really big problem; translations absolutely must be attributed properly, and with due regard to any copyright issues. This is all wrong. Elemimele (talk) 08:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging User:Diannaa who may have some comments on the copyvio issue. Doug Weller talk 10:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the copyvio aspect here is completely clear. Any translations from other Wikimedia projects are allowed (assuming they are otherwise fine) but must be attributed. In principle, any of us can attribute them by making a minor edit and adding an edit summary about the provenance of the text but (i) as a non-Arabic speaker I am not confident adding this attribution myself, it should be best done by an Arabic speaker; (ii) it is probably even easier to contact the program coordinator and to ask them to instruct the students or whoever these users are to add this attribution.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is identifying all of these articles. They all have the same hashtag is their initial edit summary when the pages were created. Is there a script that can look through the edit summaries for new pages within a period of time looking for that hashtag? Singularity42 (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Singularity42: https://hashtags.wmcloud.org/ 86.23.109.101 (talk) 21:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I picked a random article from his/her contribution list: Alsayed Agazayerli. It's edit history consists of one edit. You will see that it is remarkably similar to a machine translation of ar:السيد_الجزايرلي by Google.^[103] There are minor edits such as changing "1967 AD" to "1967". -- Toddy1 (talk) 22:51, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the last 5000 article creations[104], there are 39 with the KMUOS hashtag. Next set of 5000 has another 14, then 11 more, and so on probably. Fram (talk) 23:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

E.g. from that third group, I checked Amin Yousseff Ghurab (created by User:Fatima Ali Alketbi) which is an unattributed translation of Arabic Wikipedia as well[105]. The problem doesn't seem to be with one editor, but with the project as a whole. Fram (talk) 23:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram: I linked a tool that lets you search for tags in edit summaries above. Here's the entire list of contributions with that tag, 93 revisions in total [106]. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 23:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I missed that! Well, my way also works, it just is waaaay more cumbersome ;-) Fram (talk) 05:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Johnpacklambert is topic banned from editing articles about religion and religious figures (broadly construed). He was recently blocked for a week because of a violation of this ban (although he was unblocked after a day). Following that block he made this edit to John McManus "a British clergyman and historian of religion". The image File:Portrait John McManners.jpg appeared in the article at the time. Additionally, he also made this edit to Raymond Lee Lathan "pastor of New Hope Baptist Church in Milwaukee" and this edit to H. Evan Runner " a graduate of Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois, Westminster Theological Seminary". Frangible Round (talk) 22:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why so long in reporting those? They're days old. Silverseren^C 22:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are in dispute about something, and FR is trying to find an angle on JPL. -Roxy the dog. wooF 23:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brand new editor focuses only on a topic ban violation?? Isn't this the 2nd time? Slywriter (talk) 23:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban violations are topic ban violations. If you dispute what I have reported here, let me know. Frangible Round (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is. See here. Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 23:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Silver seren: Does that matter? Frangible Round (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the reporter's intentions, if there's a possible topic ban violation, it should be investigated. It's been made clear to JPL time and again to steer clear from this topic area. clpo13_(talk) 23:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Some observations. (1) OP is obviously a sock or meatpuppet (2) JPL needs to stop making edits that allow those like the OP to keep doing this. Black Kite (talk) 23:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously though, why does nobody want to discuss this? It can't keep getting swept under the rug forever. clpo13_(talk) 23:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• These edits were all mistakes. I had no idea when I made them any dealt with religion in any way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How many times have you been told to be extra sure you're abiding by the topic ban? This is becoming a time sink. clpo13_(talk) 23:21, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am very much trying. The state legislature article only mentioned that in the lead and I found the dates from the info box. I had no idea at the time what his non-political career was. I will be more diligent in the future and review these articles more before saving edits.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      • For what little it is worth, I can completely believe that the edit to Raymond Lee Lathan was a good faith mistake. The other two, however, are not even close. To me, they represent willful and flagrant violations of the ban. I don't believe there should be any sanction, but please, please, please stop doing that. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      • • • None of these edits were willful violations. The other two edits involved the issue of not using super common nicknames like Bill for William 8n quotes or in other ways lengthening the lead. That is the only thing I saw when I did those edits. I am very sorry that I did not review them further. I thought I had been, and I was not in any way trying to flaunt or disregard the topic ban in these cases. I was only focused on trying to implement the MOS on nicknames. I am very sorry about this mistake and will redouble my efforts to not edit anything that is even close to the line.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • In your edit here the article’s got a pretty big lead pic of an guy with a dog collar and the lead sentence that you edited ends with was a British clergyman and historian of religion who specialized in the history of the church and other aspects of religious life in 18th-century France. ??? DeCausa (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• We're not discussing it now because we don't give presents out to disruptive socks. If JPL continues to do this and an editor in good standing raises the issue then we can discuss it again then. Black Kite (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is 'we'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, I don't know, probably those people who are trying to close this section that was started by an obvious sock but keep getting edit-conflicted. Which bit of "obvious sock" is the bit you're having problems with? Black Kite (talk) 23:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm curious what part of "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy" is confusing *you*. --Calton | Talk 09:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wish folks would stop using bullet points in non-survey type discussions. BTW: How can an new editor know about ANI? GoodDay (talk) 23:43, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Last time this happened I blocked for a violation. I gave them the benefit of the doubt and took their word that they did not understand the nature of the ban, and I removed the block early. I made it very clear to them what the standards are. In my opinion JPL cannot claim ignorance again. I think this topic ban should be enforced with another block and this time they should serve the entire length. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh sorry, my mistake, apparently we *do* now reward obvious socks. FFS. Black Kite (talk) 23:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• These are two separate issues. The sock is blocked as they should be, when they come back we will block them again. Do we give immunity to violations because a sock reported them? The community has created this topic ban, they expect it to be enforced. At least one user in good standing has asked that this be responded to[107], so there ya go. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Fine, whatever. Carry on then. I think it sets a poor precedent, though. Black Kite (talk) 00:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm firmly in Black Kite's corner here. But what do I know?-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:05, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not doing anything, I am on vacation right now. I just popped in to dispel the claim that John does not know better. That was their song last time and I made sure there was no uncertainty when I accepted that claim last time[108]. This user has been given a second, third, and fourth chance and frankly I find their claims that this is once again an accident to strain credibility. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• On the edit with the man where it said John "Jack" then his last name all I focused on and saw was that Jack is the standard nickname for John and that the manual of style says that we should not put such a standard nickname is quotes inside the name in the lead. That is all I noticed before I made the edit. I only noticed that much and fixing that was all I was focused on. I realize now that I should have slowed down and surveyed the article a bit more, but I saw that and went straight to fixing it. I am very sorry for this mistake. I was not trying to break any rule, I was trying to comply with the common nickname rule. I thought I was surveying the articles before I did so but I was clearly not doing so enough. I am very sorry about this. I will redouble my efforts and make sure to survey articles more before editing. I am very sorry about this mistake. It was no way intentional. I was just trying to comply with the guideline. I will be more circumspect in the future. I am really sorry.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As they say around here, 'competence is required'. It appears that JPL's competence doesn't actually extend to reading a sentence before he edits it. Does he get a free pass for that too? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:13, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • I was editing the specific part where the name with the quotes was. That was a clear non-compliance with what the MOS says about using common nicknames in quotes. My whole focus was on that first part, and so I was just totally ignoring the rest of what it said about the person because I was only focused on the name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The topic ban is on religious figures and religion, broadly construed. John McManners, Raymond Lee Lathan, and H. Evan Runner are religious figures. McManners' photo at the top is him in clerical garb, so that was impossible to miss. The Raymond Lee Lathan article is only five sentences long, from which JPL derived his birth and death dates, so his various religious degrees would have been impossible for him to miss. In the H. Evan Runner article, JPL edited the sentence immediately preceding the Westminster Theological Seminary mention, and the whole brief article contains the words "Christianity" or "Christian" six times (plus another in the citations). I'd say it's time for JPL to receive a more extensive block, which is not removed early. Softlavender (talk) 00:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two articles where I changed shortened name references that is literally all I saw. It was not at all an attempt on my part to edit anything related to religion. I was fully focused on the name reference part and nothing else. The other all I noticed was the opening that only describes him as a state legislator. I was not trying to flaunt any bans by my actions here. These were legitimate mistakes caused by rushing and not paying attention to all the possible parameters. I am very sorry about this. I was not in any way trying yo flaunt any ban. I had no idea that any of these articles involved religious figures.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please re-read what I wrote. It's impossible that you did not know on Raymond Lee Lathan, as you derived his birth and death dates from the article, which is only five sentences long. And you had to have seen the clerical photo in John McManners, because you couldn't have edited the lead sentence without seeing it. To quote HighInBC above, "Last time this happened I blocked for a violation. I gave them the benefit of the doubt and took their word that they did not understand the nature of the ban, and I removed the block early. I made it very clear to them what the standards are. In my opinion JPL cannot claim ignorance again. I think this topic ban should be enforced with another block and this time they should serve the entire length." and "I just popped in to dispel the claim that John does not know better. That was their song last time and I made sure there was no uncertainty when I accepted that claim last time[2]. This user has been given a second, third, and fourth chance and frankly I find their claims that this is once again an accident to strain credibility." (bolding mine) -- Softlavender (talk) 00:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• These were accidents. I am acting in good faith. I derived the birth and death years from a narrow focus on categories, and I did not see the picture. I often do not look at pictures.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Latham is in no categories at all related to religion. He is only categorized based on being a politician. So looking at the lead and the categories would lead one to not realize he was in any way connected to religion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose a block. The edits are unobjectionable, the thread is opened in bad faith, and the explanation that one could make these edits without reading the article is plausible. JPL, please find a way to edit that won't let this happen again. --JBL (talk) 00:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I keep trying to post a response on my plans to be more deliberative before editing. I keep getting told there is an edit conflict. I am formulating such plans.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:02, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, JPL's contribution history around the times of those edits show him working through articles in Category:1915 births and Category:1916 births at a rate of about one a minute, editing the first sentence to remove some nicknames and/or insert or shorten birth & death dates as (yyyy-yyyy), and adding or correcting categories. It doesn't look as if he chose those articles to edit for any other reason. After doing that task so long, he may have become confident that he was doing something totally unrelated to the scope of his ban. He was wrong in that the task might be unrelated but some individual edits would not be. This meant that after hundreds of edits over a week or two for each birth year, anyone wishing to find breaches would have a good chance of finding them, especially with suitable category-intersection search skills. NebY (talk) 01:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • I have been trying to avoid conflict edits. There are multiple cases of wrong birth years in those categories I have glossed over because of the ban. There are also multiple cases of common nicknames I have left stand because of the ban. I was trying to avoid any conflict, rushing away from articles with even a little conflict. I did not intentionally include religious figures and was proactively avoiding them, even a few articles that said nothing about religion because I was sure if I dug deeper on them I would find something. However with the state legislator based on the lead and cats I did not bother to look through the short body. With the other two I was so focused on fixing the name reference that I forgot to figure out anything about why they were notable. I am very sorry I rushed so, I was not trying to and I was not trying to defy the ban. There were multiple cases of articles clearly in the wrong birth year category that I just left alone because of the ban. I was trying to abide by the ban. I am very sorry I did not take the time to ensure these articles complied and just rushed in to deal with stylistic issues at the very start. I will slow down and make sure to not do this again.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Block. The edit to John McManners was a particularly blatant violation of a topic ban on religion and religious figures broadly construed. I can understand not looking at the photo, even not registering the dog collar in that photo if one's own religion doesn't use them; for all I know, Johnpacklambert may have a sight impairment. But that article (not John McManus, there's a typo above), when JPL opened the edit window, began: "John "Jack" McManners {{post-nominals|country=GBR|CBE|FBA|FAHA}} (1916–2006) was a British clergyman and historian of religion who specialized in the history of the church and other aspects of religious life in 18th-century France." (And continued, as it still does: "He was [[Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History]] at the [[University of Oxford]] from 1972 to 1984. He also served as Fellow and Chaplain of [[All Souls College, Oxford]], from 1964 to 2001." Everything there except the name, the years and All Souls (which a cautious non-Oxonian subject to a topic ban from religion, broadly construed, might be expected to assume was a religious institution) is related to the Christian religion and two Christian denominations. This is in no way an edge case. McManners was not a clergyman and historian of a faith that JPL might not be familiar with or might not have considered included within the purview of religion. If JPL was working too quickly not to notice that, despite making efforts to check for articles that would violate his topic ban, he was not working carefully enough. The topic ban was instituted in lieu of a ban from Wikipedia, since indef-blocks for JPL's editing in the religious sphere have been tried and have not worked. (I read the discussion, but I don't believe I participated.) The community determined that this was necessary to prevent further disruption. If JPL is being this careless, the only possible conclusions are that he either is incapable of controlling himself and keeping away from religion (where the comunity has determined he causes intolerable disruption) or that he doesn't consider the topic ban important enough to take sufficient care. Either way, a block is required as the next step. Apologies are all well and good, but JPL also said he understood the topic ban when he was unblocked for his first violation. As to the identity of the reporting party, I'm afraid I consider that a red herring. We all have better things to do than monitor JPL's edits, that's why there was consensus that either a site ban or a topic ban was required. And many editors, I'm sure, try to cut a long-term, well intentioned editor some slack and would rather not tattle about them being naughty. But that edit is a blatant, careless, unignorable violation, so much so that I am afraid there are probably several more. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agree with Yngvadottir here. The John McManners was literally impossible to miss. Just open the editing window and see. The only way for the repeated drama to stop here IMO is for the topic ban to be enforced and not removed early. Either it's a topic ban or it isn't. If it isn't, remove or reword the topic ban. If it is, enforce it. If JPL can't help himself, then he can stop making small rapid edits. Softlavender (talk) 05:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it's not impossible: the edit only affects the name (the first three words), and if I were checking for the kinds of errors we're talking about then I also wouldn't read the whole first sentence or look at the lead images. JPL's explanation is completely plausible in all respects. --JBL (talk) 12:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose a block, he adequately explained what happened way up the page someplace, there is no conscious violation here. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose a block as I said above, for at least two out of the three edits in question, I cannot believe that the religious component was unnoticed--and if it was, that's such willful blindness that I hardly find it exculpatory. But, as I believe Cicero said, de minimis non curat Wikipedia, and I think there is wisdom in that maxim. I once again implore JPL to be more conscientious. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 03:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Deny The banned user is getting their way wasting everyone's time. Start treating their posts as poisoned fruit as it is obvious they are hawkishly watching JPL edits to catch minor mistakes. If JPL makes a real mistake, this board will be the first to know. Slywriter (talk) 03:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I really did not realize these were problematic when I fmdid them vecause I was so narrowly focused on the issues I was fixing I did not see anything else. I am very sorry about that and will not do it again. Two of them I was focused on the common name rule, this about name variations that are so common or so obvious that they do not need to be explained. I will make sure in the future that will check to make sure I know what the article is on fully in the future before I make any edit related to the name, no matter how obvious or intuitive it is. The other was a simple adding the birth and death years to an article that at quick glance appeared to be one of our myriad of articles on members of the Wisconsin legislature. We have articles on members of the Wisconsin legislature much further back in general than many other states. I did not think to check what his pre and extra legislative career was. That was clearly my fault. I want to make this right. If it will appease people I can go back and reverse the edits. Or I will just stay away. I am going to be much, much more careful in the future. I was not trying to flaunt the ban. I have tried really hard to abide by the broad topic ban. I have avoided editing even categories that may be more ethnic ones than religious ones where there might be any possibility of conflict. I was not trying to flaunt the ban in these cases. I was just so focuses on the narrow issues that I was editing that I forgot to check the whole article. I am very, very, very sorry. I did this totally without any ill will. I was just trying to bring the openings of these articles into compliance with the guidelines set forth in the manual of style of Wikipedia. I should have read them more fully before doing say edits. There was no good reason for me not to. I am very sorry about that. I am pleading with people to show forgiveness. I had no realization what the possible conflicts were here. In 2 cases I was just focused on editing the giving of the name at the start of the article that I did not look at all beyond the giving of the name. In the other case I was so focused on the placing of the birth and death years in parenthesis and on seeing that the subject was a politician I thought I was in the clear and did not delve into the life section, just looking through the opening that said he was a politician and the category section that gave his birth and death years. I really was not trying to evade the ban at all. I have been trying to avoid articles that are anywhere near the ban. I am really, really, really sorry about this. I recognize now I was too narrowly focused when I made these edits and apologize for them. I was not in anyway trying to be disruptive or evade the ban. I was narrowly focused on the matter of how the names of the subjects were listed and adding the birth and death years in parenthesis and neglected to consider the whole scope of the subjects. I am very sorry about this and am asking that people please accept my apology and my promise yo redouble my efforts to avoid any possible conflict in the future.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Block for violations, or change the wording of the topic ban. These are three clear violations according to the current wording of the topic ban. If JPL is allowed to make small gnomish edits (removing nicknames from lede, adding birth-death dates to lede) to articles on religious figures, then add that wording to the topic ban. If he's not allowed to do that, then block now for clear violations (which he has repeatedly been warned to be careful about) which he did not expend even the slightest effort to avoid, and since HighInBC has already noted that he's already "been given a second, third, and fourth chance", he's clearly not going to do so in the future, because his behavior clearly demonstrates that he could not care less about the topic ban when it comes to his rapid gnomish edits. Softlavender (talk) 06:29, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh my gosh , this is a clear violation of his topic ban. When I click on John McManners, I immediately see a portrait of a guy wearing a clerical collar and the first sentences of that biography say a British clergyman and historian of religion who specialized in the history of the church and other aspects of religious life in 18th-century France. He was Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History at the University of Oxford fMy thouhhtdbrom 1972 to 1984. He also served as Fellow and Chaplain of All Souls College, Oxford, from 1964 to 2001. Any assertion by this editor that I did not intentionally include religious figures and was proactively avoiding them, even a few articles that said nothing about religion because I was sure if I dug deeper on them I would find something seems be disingenuous at best and overtly false at worst, since is is glaringly obvious to any uninvolved editor that this is an article about a religious figure. Cullen328 (talk) 06:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Cullen328: Yes but that's because you're clicking on the articles to look at the articles, which is not what JPL was doing. Look at the three problematic edits: none of them extend past the first few words of the first sentence! --JBL (talk) 12:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  JBL, he had to have landed on the articles before he opened the edit field. And click on the edit fields of all three articles and what do you see? What is the very first thing you see here [109]? And you are completely ignoring Cullen's comment that "Any assertion by this editor that I did not intentionally include religious figures and was proactively avoiding them, even a few articles that said nothing about religion because I was sure if I dug deeper on them I would find something seems be disingenuous at best and overtly false at worst, since is is glaringly obvious to any uninvolved editor that this is an article about a religious figure." -- Softlavender (talk) 21:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Softlavender: Look at JPL's edits, in context: in order to perform edits like that, one quickly scans the first few words of the article. I perform edits like this from time to time -- for example, once I went through every article that contained a link to "e.g." and removed the inappropriate ones. Doing that doesn't involve reading any of the article at all, you just open, hit edit, fix, and leave. Maybe you've never done similar gnome-like editing, but it's really extremely easy to change certain kinds of things without engaging in any way with the text -- and JPL's relevant edits are just like this, mixed in among a lot of other edits that are also just like this. There's a real lack of WP:AGF in this thread: the underlying edits are not problematic, the violation of the topic ban is real but technical rather than substantive, and JPL has offered a completely plausible explanation of the behavior, along with an apology and a promise to do better. Meanwhile, blocking him would serve to encourage the genuinely disruptive OP. --JBL (talk) 23:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  JBL, you are not under a topic ban. Johnpacklambert is -- a topic ban that he has been warned and rewarned and rewarned and rewarned about again and again and again, and that he has already been given a second, third, and fourth chance on. You have also once again failed to address Cullen's statement above. "Any assertion by this editor that I did not intentionally include religious figures and was proactively avoiding them, even a few articles that said nothing about religion because I was sure if I dug deeper on them I would find something seems be disingenuous at best and overtly false at worst, since is is glaringly obvious to any uninvolved editor that this is an article about a religious figure." (bolding mine) Blocking him, without early removal, would actually force him to take the topic ban seriously and avoid the need for ANI threads about him (and endless faux apologies and promises which do not hold up) at every turn. -- Softlavender (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  What would avoid the need for ANI threads about non-problematic edits would be not rewarding trolls who start ANI threads about non-problematic edits. As for your other point, I'm sure Cullen will be able to determine how my post relates to his, and if he wants to discuss it with me he knows how to do so; but I don't see the point in trying to explain it to you again. --JBL (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Short timeframe block I can totally see how it happened, and I can believe that it wasn't done with intent to violate, but that doesn't change that it is a violation after many warnings. Perhaps a slap on the wrist? Leijurv (talk) 08:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Either block or alter the topic ban. This was a clear violation of the topic ban, as is. If the community is not willing act on it, then the topic ban should reflect that these kinds of trivial edits (so trivial they can be made without reading more than a couple of words in the article) are allowed or that whenever they are reported by sock/meatpuppets they should be immediatly disconsidered. Isabelle ^🔔 11:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support block: Hell, at this point, what's to say that JPL isn't the sockmaster himself, reporting himself so he can make religious edits with impunity, knowing that people will wave the "poisoned fruit" flag? Alright, that's a bit of a baroque scenario, but there was a topic ban -- and one put in place after many, many warnings. There've also been many apologies, breast beatings and I'll never do this again, I promise, honest to Betsy, really, this time you can believe mes. Cullen328 is dead on in his assessment. Either JPL is too deeply stupid to recognize that he's editing a religious article (in which case this is a CIR issue and he shouldn't be editing at all), or he's playing us, and at this stage it doesn't matter worth a damn who reported him and why. Because think of it, folks: since when does BOOMERANG immunize the target against wrongdoing? Ravenswing 11:51, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Christ what a stupid AGF-violating idea, why would you even suggest it? --JBL (talk) 12:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know about you, but I don't believe AGF to be a suicide pact, and especially not when an editor has manifestly demonstrated his bad faith. The definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result. JPL has been down this road over and over and over again. I don't know what you believe "topic ban, broadly construed" to mean, but editors have had the banhammer dropped on them for so much as making tangential mentions on their talk pages. Oh-it-was-just-a-minor-violation handwringing does not bloody cut it any more. Ravenswing 21:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Either JPL needs to change his way of editing or the topic ban needs to be enforced with blocks, because there is no point in having it otherwise. I have little confidence that he will be able to do the former. His edits give the appearance of someone editing quickly and not caring whether it could be on an article on a religious figure, because they are only minor edits and not "willful violations." We are going to be back here time and time again unless something changes. I do not know why, when JPL was let off from his last block early, he did not take extra care to make absolutely sure he was not breaching the topic ban in the future. How many more chances is he going to get?-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Block Until the end of 2021 by UTC. I am extremely sorry about this. I thought I was being careful and was trying to be very cautious. I was so focused on the nature of these edits that I did not look beyond them. I propose that because this is a clear, although totally unintentional violation of the topic ban, we block me from editing until the very end of 2021 by UTC. This is well over a week, and seems as good a time to end it as any. I was not trying to evade the topic ban in any way. I was so focused on the small edits in these cases that I did not look at the big picture. I am very, very sorry about this. I was not trying to evade the topic ban, I was just so narrowly focused on the issues of the proper form of giving the correct name and putting (1915-1996) or whatever exact years it was in the lead in the articles at hand that I totally forgot to look any deeper. I feel in this case that a block on editing for 10 days would be reasonable. None of these edits were deliberate on my part, and I have been trying to avoid any edits that would run afoul of the ban, generally not even reading further in articles when I see words that indicate the subject was a religious leader. I am very sorry about this, and was not trying to be disruptive at all. I am hoping a 10 day block of all editing will be enough to satisfy people who want to show this topic ban in enforced. I am extremely sorry about these mistakes. I did not do any of them intentionally, and will be more deliberative in the future. I am hoping 10 days, and blocking me from any more edits for the rest of the year will be considered enough to show that we are serious about the topic ban. I am hoping this will be considered to be long enough.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose block Seems quite a slim violation, trying to save the man's dignity by removing the incorrect nickname. I think if there was series of them perhaps over several days or weeks perhaps, but it seems such a small thing. scope_creep^Talk 13:59, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The two edits done related to the names of the names of the people were focused entirely on the names of the people and had no relation to anything else about them. I see now I should have looked deeper into the articles, and I have been doing that on other articles, I am very sorry I was too fast with these edits. One of these edits was to bring article leads into compliance with the Wikipedia manual of style guidelines that says use William Henry Gates not William Henry "Bill" Gates. I thought I was making sure that I was not stepping into religious figure ones when I came across them. I can think of at least 2 religious figures that I saw similar issues with and made sure to move on. With articles that have a religious figure title in parentheses, I only click on them because of wanting the whole birth year category to go from blue to purple so I can easily tell I have gone through all articles, and click back off before I even see anything. I guess I was so focused on making the changes in these cases that I got careless and did not check to make sure they were in no way a religious leader, broadly construed. I am very sorry about this. I was not at all trying to evade the topic ban. The other 2 were the fact that if we have a name given as say J. Edgar Hoover we in the opening say John Edgar Hoover and do not further than that explain the common name form. That was the issue involved in the second edit, if you look at J. Edgar Hoover] you will see we just give his name, and do not bother further saying in the lead he was commonly known as J. Edgar Hoover, because it is the article title. That is the issue involved in the second case, and it had no relevance to who the person was, so I unwisely and rashly did not even both trying to figure out, which I am sincerely sorry for. In the last case it is standard practice to put (1915-1996) or whatever exact years someone lived in parentheses after the name. In that case I saw that the person was a state legislator, and I knew their birth date because of the category, and quickly saw the death date in the categories as well. I probably quickly glanced through the article to ensure that the birth and death years were in the article, but I failed to read it in detail because the lead only said they were a member of the a state legislature and all the categories identified them as a politician, or were bare bio facts categories, there were no categories that at all related to religion. I see now that I should have been more careful before making these edits. I was only focused on the very narrow impact, and am very sorry about that. I was not in any way trying to evade the topic ban. I am very sorry about this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:02, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In summary, 2 were focused on issues completely related to the name. I unwisely did not go beyond looking at the name, I see that in the future I need to make sure to do so. The 3rd was a person who the lead only mentioned he was a state legislator. I will in the future make sure to better understand people before I edit the article at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose a block I understand that this is very serious. As I have explained it was accidental. I will redouble my efforts to make sure any edit I do does not in any way run against the topic ban. I am very sorry I rushed these edits and will not do so in the future. 2 of these were 100% focused on the form of the name in the full name giving space, and not at all focused on the rest of the article, and the other was adding (1915-1996) or whatever exact years to an article on a state legislator whose lead only mentioned that role and who was only categorized as a politician. I am very sorry that I did not pause and make sure I fully understood the content of these articles. I was not trying to be disruptive at all, nor was I trying to go against the topic ban. I am asking for people to please be understanding and lenient.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• No block, because:

• OP is a puppet, just as OP was a puppet here two weeks ago, and even if you don't mind encouraging puppets, others disagree so this is an invitation to time-wasting partisan drama.
• I know the guy. It is certainthat these edits were accidental. The editor was not seeking out religious articles, but going thru lists of like articles to make minor improvements, which was suggested and is proper.
• It is pettifoggery to consider these edits as anything but trivial and anodyne and had nothing to do with anything religions. Would you block the editor for removing an extra space or adding a period.
• As the song says "Sometimes I think that this old world is one big prison yard, some of us are prisoners, and some of us are guards". The songwriter was not suggesting that this is desirable. It's not a desirable paradigm for the Wikipedia in my opinionSo let's not get into that sort of relationship when it is not necessary or useful, as here. Herostratus (talk) 17:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am with Herostratus on this one. DFTT, or their socks. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I don't really know the ropes around here, but from what I can tell the only things changed were completely unrelated to religion. That does not seem like grounds for blocking, but I'm not going to oppose since I don't really know what I'm doing. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 18:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  This is an important consideration. The other way is a slippery slope, like judging someone guilty, because they have a topic ban on WWII and edited article on Europe#Geography, and obviously WWII happened in Europe so the t-ban was violated... sigh. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Block - Anything else would make a mockery of Wikipedia's rules and restrictions. Please use the tools the community has entrusted you with and block this serial abuser of our trust and patience. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  serial abuser jfc there is nothing abusive (serially or otherwise) about the edits under consideration here. Blocking for trivial shit like this will be an encouragement to the only person here whose behavior has been problematic (the troll who opened the thread). --JBL (talk) 21:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Please stop WP:BLUDGEONing everyone here who supports the enforcement of a topic ban. The "sock" topic is a red herring. If a "sock" posts that someone has vandalized TFA with a pornographic image do we kill the messenger and leave the vandalism ouy of spite for "socks"? This is rank stupidity. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 22:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  False analogies are not helpful. JPL has not done anything like posting a pornographic image. There is an explanation for the violations, namely that JPL plods through a long to-do list and becomes so focused on their style tweaks that they don't know what topic they are currently editing. The question is, what should happen when no one in good standing noticed a problem and a sock has raised it here. Johnuniq (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the topic ban is not to be enforced, as we've seen from the two times it has been violated recently, then it should be vacated. All I see here are excuses and apologism. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 00:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) You have gone from one grossly inappropriate and frankly offensive description to an even less appropriate and more offensive analogy. Well done, I hope you're proud of yourself. --JBL (talk) 23:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clutch those pearls tightly. 🙄 EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 00:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, with some reservations. If someone is doing a pile of edits making sure that the Reader knows that certain persons called “Bill” were actually named “William” or suchlike, they really aren’t editing the topic per se. This sort of editing is often a bad thing itself, of course, leading to heaps of carefully polished turds: bad articles made perfect in grammar and form; and it also allows cranks to form “facts on the groundpage” en masse, but it is an integral part of editing-Wiki-as-it-actually-is. Qwirkle (talk) 23:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• No harm, no foul. The long battle to stop JPL's disruption, injection of religious beliefs, and other unacceptable behaviour is won and done. Editors may have wished him gone during that battle, but it is no longer necessary to eliminate him. A prisoner breaking rocks should not be killed for hitting a rock that was the wrong shade of grey, and we should not crush a man who can and quite desperately will try harder to stay within his precise bounds. NebY (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I am not an admin so I may be way out of my lane, but this is an inordinate amount of discussion for what should be a quick decision. Why has no one stepped in and either given JBL [JPL] a punitive ban [for the violation] or closed it as hounding by socks? It's one or the other. From my perspective it is absurd. Are people thinking they are creating a precedent which will make it quicker the future? To this, I say "How?" ... everyone will always argue their case as unique.
Slap on the wrist or serious punishment [timeframe block]? I hope someone will step up and close this. --SVTCobra 02:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose block stop rewarding the socks by wasting time arguing about possible sanctions for good faith mistakes. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I can completely believe JPL's explanation that he was focused on his gnomish edit and didn't look at the entire article. I realize that for some editors who work on content differently, who focus on sentences and paragraphs rather than a word or a date, that seems unbelievable but there was a time I just worked on article categories without focusing on the entire article. There are different ways of editing and different things to focus upon.

THAT SAID, it was a minor topic ban violation and didn't deal with the substance of what the topic ban was concerned about and I would support a short, limited block. I think there has to be a compromise between those editors who see this as a small slip and those editors that seem to be advocating an indefinite block. This was an incidental and minor slip but it was a slip and there should be some consequences. But, please, keep the errors in some perspective...it's not as if he was creating articles on religious figures, he was making small MOS corrections. And the irony here is when we have been in the same discussion, I am almost always on the opposite side of the discussion from JPL....but I don't think small errors should incur mammoth penalties. In every thing, proportion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SVTCobra: See WP:NOTPUNISH. Also, I think you meant JPL instead of JBL lol –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 08:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, see WP:CONFUSED (currently entry 68). --JBL (talk) 12:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, sorry about that. I struck and replaced a few words. Cheers, --SVTCobra 15:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose anything more than a very brief block of one to three days. JPL and I often disagree but I have followed his work since the T ban and it’s clear that he is trying very hard to avoid controversy while still contributing to the encyclopedia in a positive way and on a daily basis. JPL needs to take more care to steer clear of religious figures, even when making gnomish edits, but a lengthy block would be disproportionate given the inadvertent nature of the violations. Cbl62 (talk) 14:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This editor, ICookie, has been causing a lot of trouble over at the COI noticeboard. He made edits to the Luckin Coffee page, which i reverted because of their suspicious nature and the fact that he had been reported at COIN (They were later rev deleted by an admin for violating the copyright policy.) and all other editors on this matter have agreed with my actions. Despite this, he is still denying that he was in the wrong and has readded content that got deleted for the aforementioned reasons and has threatened to report me to the Edit warring noticeboard despite me doing nothing wrong (even going as far as to accuse me of breaching TOS.) and has been incivil towards the other editors. This is my first report at ANI, so I hope i didn't do any mistakes along the way. Quetstar (talk) 01:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from ICookie

The revisions you deleted (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luckin_Coffee&oldid=1061097110) were not part of the rev-deld versions, so you've already been caught in a lie.

Anyone can look at my revision of Luckin Coffee before the reversions and edit warring started (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luckin_Coffee&oldid=1061097110) and see that it was NOT part of the rev-deleted versions that infringed copyright, all my edits follow the Wikipedia TOS and all other rules and legal framework, and that my language is kept as objective and civil as possible. Yes, some edits made by another user were removed by an admin for copyright infringement, but my edits were never rev-del'd. My edits included completely non-controversial data such as updating the sidebar with the recent financial data, revenue figures, the number of stores, as well as news citing Bloomberg and Reuters regarding a restructuring process that Luckin Coffee is currently undergoing. @Quetstar has been arguing with me on the COI noticeboard for some time, and has consistently deleted / reverted any edits I have made to the Luckin Coffee-site, with no regard for the actual content of my edits. He claims I am breaching copyrights, but has still not been able to point out exactly what or where I am breaching copyrights. AGAIN, the revision I did was NOT breaching copyrights and was NOT rev-deld, and anyone can still see it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luckin_Coffee&oldid=1061097110

As for the the COI debate, it is a mess, but @Quetstar almost immediately deleted my revision (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luckin_Coffee&oldid=1061097110) before any of the other editors were able to take a look at the edits made.

*above text was updated Dec 22th, I removed links to the current Luckin Coffee page, as this has been updated numerous times since this debate started. I replaced it with links to my revision of the Luckin Coffee before the edit warring started, as that revision is the one being called into question. See this page here: (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luckin_Coffee&oldid=1061097110) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ICookie (talk • contribs) 21:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest editors take a look at my revisions (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luckin_Coffee&oldid=1061097110), and make your own decision as to wheter or not there is copyright infringement, COI or whatever other excuses Quetstar has used in the times he has deleted my edits.ICookie (talk) 01:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not delete them, i just reverted them. Only admins can delete reverted ones, which is exactly what happened. Also, many of the rev deleted edits were made by ICookie. Quetstar (talk) 02:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Quetstar: I notice on your Talk page you have a lot of complaints against you about mass-reverting contributions. In fact when you mass-reverted the Luckin Coffee page the second time, you gave "copyright infringement" as the reasoning, despite there being no copyright infringement in the version you deleted. Take notice that the version that you deleted was NOT rev-del'd by admins earlier. In fact admins rev-del'd ALL versions of the page after 20:22 (GMT +1), 19 December 2021‎, for reasons unbeknowst to me. But most of my editing was done before this happened, the remaining edits I made were mainly spelling corrections and re-arranging categories. Again, the version you just reverted was not rev-del'd and had no copyright infringements in it. ICookie (talk) 02:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but the admin rev-del'd some of your edits as well. I will now let the admins decide the matter. Quetstar (talk) 03:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Quetstar: The revision you reverted was not part of the rev-deleted ones with the copyright infringement from Mattm64, yet you gave "copyright infringement" as reasoning for the reversion. You breached TOS, WP:AGF, WP:NOTBATTLE.

@Quetstar: Anyways. I would highly appreciate it if admins or other editors could take a look at the Luckin Coffee page and tell me if my edits are breaching Wikipedia TOS, Copyrights, COI or any other legal framework that @Quetstar seems to claim I am doing. PS: Before you start reading, make sure to check Version History so you know you're reading my edits, as it's fully possible that @Quetstar will soon do another unexplained mass-reversion on the article. Anyways. I do believe I have worded myself objectively and stayed true to the Wikipedia TOS, and correctly used citations where required. But I always appreciate constructive feedback. Thank you. ICookie (talk) 02:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't have any doubt that this editor is a true professional UPE, along with the other two editors. They were sent in to provide a comprehesive update to the article. This editor has decided to try fudge the issue up at coin. scope_creep^Talk 09:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Scope creep: I think it's a bunch of "investors" from reddit/Stocktwits trying to pump up the stock price of Luckin Coffee, see: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Underlying cause? 86.23.109.101 (talk) 09:38, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @86.23.109.101: Yip, True life stories. No doubt now. scope_creep^Talk 09:59, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is worth pointing out that the huge coin entry, has been post altered to make it less confrontational. scope_creep^Talk 10:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: @86.23.109.101: All of Mattm64s revisions were deleted so this is moot. Mine weren't, and I am not a member of stocktwits nor Reddit, nor am I an "UPE". Please stop with the speculative fable. My revisions do not break the Wikipedia TOS, copyrights or other legal framework, and are completely non-controversial, such as updating financial data, revenue numbers and store-counts on the side-bar. These edits are sourced and cited from AUDITED financial data, i.e. data that has been checked and validated by a third-party auditor of the company (secondary source). On the contrary, @Quetstar has twice wrongfully reverted my edits under the guise of "copyright infringement" when there are no copyright infringement, which is breaking Wikipedia TOS.ICookie (talk) 10:38, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) I just reverted this. Not involved in any way, but this seems to stretch WP:AGF beyond it's breaking point. Kleuske (talk) 11:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kleuske: I agree, Kleuske. I re-worded it a bit, and re-added it here for admins to see:

Again, I ask any admin seeing this to read through my revisions on the Luckin Coffee page and see that they are completely non-controversial, properly cited and I am not breaking Wikipedias TOS nor infringing on copyrights. The rev-del was AFTER my initial edits, as Mattm64 apparently broke copyrights. Again, the current revision does NOT break any copyrights and was NOT rev-deld. I am not sure why I was targetted in COIN along with Mattm64 (still haven't got a clear answer asides from @scope_creep and @quetstar calling me "suspicious"). I keep getting accused of being a WP:SPA or that I am "paid by Luckin Coffee" when that is not even remotely true. I feel I may be an easy target because my edits happened right before a rev-delete. Keep in mind that in the COIN discussion, @Quetstar mass-reversed my edits before any consensus was reached, or before users like Slywriter, SPVCobra and Santacruz even had a chance to read my edits. @Quetstar wrongfully revised my work based on "copyright infringement" twice, but the revision he reverted had NO copyright issues. I also suggest admins read the Talk pages of the accounts of @scope_creep @Quetstar @MrOllie to assess their previous complaints against them. Again this has escalated so much that I am now hoping an admin intervenes here, reads through my revisions on the Luckin Coffee page and hopefully locks it to prevent further drama. Thank you. ICookie (talk) 11:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given that we've established here that Mattm64 has a financial COI, and given that you've said that you two 'know each other privately', it is very hard to take your denials at face value. Please understand that if you do have a COI and you disclose it, you will still be able to participate on the Wikipedia article, you'll just have to use the talk page. MrOllie (talk) 13:13, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• ICookie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mattm64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 84.211.19.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Three editors is likely an overstatement. ICookie has already claimed the IP address. Also, ICookie has said to know Mattm64 in private (did not specify if it was online or in meatspace). ICookie and Mattm64 both come off an extensive hiatus since 2007/08. This is evidenced on edits on nowp for ICookie and the talk page for Mattm84. The edit history of the Luckin Coffee page shows the edits of this trio never overlap almost like a tag-team. ICookie and Mattm64 have both been quite verbose on COIN discussion with the added similarity of rarely using the section edit and both being very prone to forgetting to sign comments. I am not sure if an SPI should be opened. --SVTCobra 13:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, User:SVTCobra (and thank you Zzuuzz). But I think there is enough grounds here for a partial block for both, to prevent further disruption at least in article space. Drmies (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from iCookie ICookie (talk) 18:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Me and Mattm64 are NOT the same person, even though we know eachother. You can easily check IPs to see this. I have no COI w/ Luckin Coffee. My revision before Mattm64 started editing was never rev-deld, nor did it break Wikipedia TOS, and it used proper citations and sources from what I can see. Please, @Drmies:, I urge you to take a look at this revision here and tell me wheter you think it breaks Wikipedia TOS, policies, procedures, wheter my language was non-objective or there were any signs of COI: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luckin_Coffee&oldid=1061097110