Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Tom.Reding's use of an unapproved WP:MEATBOT to do contested mass-editing tasks (again)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Not related to AC, but if you see here, Tom.Reding has edited at a speed of over 20 edits per minute. I have no opinion over the edits themselves, but it is better to do such edits with a bot flagged account to avoid flooding the recent changes. Routing these edits through a bot account will make WP:RCP easier. BAG usually speedy approves small scale tasks like this (example). ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 05:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• Restoring my comment which was mysteriously reverted: * Just wanted to add that I did ask Tom to add AC templates to Vital Articles, a project I’ve worked on for some time, as it makes sense that VAs would have ACs. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• It seems we are at an impasse again. Not necessarily due to disagreement, but (by my read) we've basically reached the same conclusion we did in the previous ANI (that these edits shouldn't happen without approval). Except we already tried that and we ended up right back here in two months anyway. So, what now? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Johnpacklambert

first close attempt withdrawn.

(non-admin closure) WP:BOLD partial close as no consensus. This part of the discussion (whether or not El_C's unblock should be undone) is a sticky situation, indeed. El_C's original block was for Johnpatricklambert's personal attacks and disruptive editing. It was not an interpretation of consensus of the community, but rather a regular admin action. The unblock, likewise, was done after a direct appeal to El_C by JPL. None of the above requires community input, as it was not done or undone based on any community consensus. However, as always, the community may decide that the editor should be blocked or TBAN'd. It is within our purview to form such consensus, and admins are sometimes tasked with acting upon that consensus. One such proposal is directly below this close! (A TBAN) I encourage everyone read and consider that TBAN proposal carefully. Likewise, I urge the closer of that proposal to review any votes in this discussion re: possible TBANs. Even ignoring procedural irregularities, we have sped towards No consensus. 13 votes in favor of the unblock, 16 votes opposed. On first glance, the nays have it, right? However, it is not so simple. To overturn an admin action like this would require a much more robust consensus. Surely not such a slim margin! Or we would be reinstating blocks and unblocking all over the place! The difference between a forced reversal of an unblock and a novel block is a small one, but an important one. Overall, we should focus on new proposals which are framed on specific actions (e.g. "Proposal: Block JPL") And such a proposal would still be in order. That is the magic of the no consensus close. Given what has transpired below, the confusion surrounding all of this, the muddying of proposals, etc. etc., we should probably all ignore this part and instead focus on some concrete policy-based proposals.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 04:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC) I have reversed User:Shibbolethink's inappropriate, unilateral close of a very active, pngoing discussion. Nothing in policy justifies such a close. It was simply a unilateral supervote. Significantly, Shibbolethink grossly misread the trend of the discussion. He said "we have sped towards No consensus. 13 votes in favor of the unblock, 16 votes opposed"; butr what has in fact happened is that after an early batch of !votes breaking narrowly (9-7) in favor of unblocking, subsequent discussion and !voting swung in the opposite direction (4-9); if the current trend continues, there will soon be a solid consensus opposing unblocking. But that's hardly a sure thing. This is a community decision, and no single editor or admin should act unilaterally to throttle discussion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 05:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC) @Shibbolethink: I don’t like a straight numeric assessment but if we must I think your numbers are off. I count much closer to 20 opposed. Not necessarily opposing the close, just asking you to check your work. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC) @Horse Eye's Back:,@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Close withdrawn, that's WP:BOLD-revert-discuss for you. I might add that all closes are unilateral by their very nature. And that, regardless, I still think this is a malformed discussion that should be about imposing a new block, not undoing an old unblock that was done completely independent of any ANI thread. I don't feel strongly enough about this to do anything, though. Enjoy the mess this has become...Collapsing as off-topic and withdrawing close.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 11:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Johnpacklambert unblock conditions

• Johnpacklambert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

extended explanation of my comments

It's clear the previous thread and discussion was closed partially under the reasoning that JPL was indeffed with no chance of any action of responses on them for ~7 days. That period has now elapsed and indeed JPL has been unblocked. For those of us with long experience of Wikipedia, we know that a good way to get people here riled up is to prematurely shut down or prevent discussion about something they're not happy with and there seems a strong risk this would be one such case. This may not even be about a different outcome, but simply that people feel the issues haven't been properly explorer. Even if a thread with way more anger than was needed doesn't eventually result from such an attempt to prevent discussion, it can lead to long simmering tensions that keep coming out. Further AFAIS, the previous closures were mostly accepted with perhaps some minor silliness. There's a good chance that if instead of allowing a discussion in the future like was promised we shut it down, this makes it far harder to have relatively clean cut-offs like that in the future. (The pending changes mess and other cases I can't recall offhand resulted at least partially from a feeling promises of discussion were broken.) To be clear, there may be a few cases where we can go against promises made, but there need to be exceptional circumstances and/or where the situation has substantially changed neither of which seem to apply here. Also while I'd prefer no need for an ANI thread, I see zero significant harm in one. (There is one recent arbcom announcement and preceding ANI thread where we had far more reason to limit discussion and did, but even there we still allowed some discussion.) Ultimately if the community does not agree with this decision, then they have a right to impose some other decision and it's incredibly unfair of anyone especially admins to suggest they can't. Likewise if the community or JPL cannot handle this thread in a reasonable fashion, then any problems which result are a symptom and not a cause; and we really need to work out how to resolve those problems rather than doing stuff which just makes everything worse like preventing discussion when people want it. While Floquenbeam could have let someone with concerns open the discussion, I think the comments here show why they are the best place. While Floquenbeam clearly feels at least 2 of the replies so far are unfair, and may not totally agree with the way the unblock was handled, they are still largely an uninvolved admin and so I'm sure have the experience and wherewithal to deal with such comments. By comparison, it's easy to see some editor who is very unhappy about the unblock or conditions getting rather pissed off about any perceived attacks of them opening a thread and for the thread to substantially degenerate as a result.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Frivolous digression

Shake your head all you want, Horse Eye's Back, but if you're not going to bother reviewing what I've written here and on JPL's talk page, I'm not sure why you think you're owed a substantive response. Please stop pinging me to this discussion, my patience is wearing thin. El_C 15:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC) Thats not correct, I have read everything that you’ve posted here and on JPL's talk page. I’m not sure why your patience is wearing thin, I pinged you a grand total of one time so there is no need to give me a scolding. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC) Whatever. El_C 16:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC) Well, you sure showed me by revising your statement to call JPL an abuser, Horse Eye's Back. Major smh. I honestly had a higher opinion of you, which saddens me. El_C 16:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC) If you’re going to ask me not to ping you I would expect an extension of the same courtesy, thank you. If it makes you feel any better the reassessment of opinions and sadness at the result is mutual. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC) Double whatever. El_C 16:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC) Can you not? It makes me feel weird when an admin acts like a kid, I don’t really know what to do here. If you actually have an objection to me calling JPL an abuser I would like to hear it, seems fair after the PA, socking, etc. Don’t we refer to all of those as abuse? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC) Can I not what? Explain to you the difference between "abuse" and "abuser"? No thank you. Please leave me be. El_C 16:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC) You could perhaps explain how its possible to have abuse without the one doing the abuse being an abuser... But I will digress, I do hope you don’t take this personally. You’re still one of my favorite admins and I know at the end of the day I’m probably the dick for taking such a strong stance against someone on the spectrum, but I think its the right thing even if it makes me feel shitty about myself. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

  Absolutely no.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose as proposed. What will he be allowed to do and not allowed to do? For how long? Everyone needs clarity here, especially John. (Go to his talk page, he doesn’t know how he is supposed to use it at this time.) If John is to be successful, such arbitrary phrasing is likely to lead to trouble. He had talked about being on the autism spectrum before; however, all users deserve more specificity than this. Beyond the as-proposed issue: Socking to double-vote and perhaps to get around a likely block reveals an addiction to using this site. This is not some unbecoming behavior that can be chalked up entirely to frustration and is quickly forgivable when one is contrite (accusing someone of something one has a history of experiencing in the heat of a moment is; I can overlook that in light of the apology). But the socking is unethical, problematic, a red flag, of utmost concern. Outside of this website, this kind of deceit is the sort of thing one could lose credibility, licensure, and career over. It doesn’t matter how long the accounts existed. Are there other accounts? Will there be accounts in the future? John desperately wants to stay. His actions suggest he should move on. I would love to see him enjoy anything in the real world, or even something more creative online. His comments about his life being a failure, etc. are alarming. Anyway… I asked John on his talk page about his involvement in deletion point-blank; his reply suggests he is uncomfortable answering questions there and here because he is concerned about repercussions. Reading between the lines of what he said, he may be agreeable to this. He could keep going on with category work and perhaps more minor edits to articles and I’d be fine with that (though “minor” perhaps should be defined; I know there have been run-ins). A permanent ban from all AfD processes is a more than fair compromise. He is stuck on it enough to sock. 99.9% of what he does in AfD is prodding or nominating; anyone can do that. We aren't losing one of our better HEY researchers by taking him out of that space. (NOTE: John and I have probably been on the same page in AfD as often as we are opposed, and when we’re opposed, I generally can make an article pass muster, so I’m really more disappointed at the thought of losing his votes in the religious corporation space than I am threatened by the thought of his continuing here.) Socking must be met with a permanent consequence of some kind… or some of us will lose faith in Wikipedia. Can’t we iron out some specific terms? FYI, I would support his return if a full and permanent ban from deletion is in the terms. Per Morbidthoughts, Only in death does duty end, and others. Sorry this is so long! DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from religion and article deletion (previously "oppose but might support with more appropriate specific conditions"). Indefinite topic bans from religion (all religions) and from all article deletion processes (including CSD and PROD, and project-side discussions about deletion) ought to be minimum, owing to the fact that JPL has on two separate occasions within the past six months created socks to avoid scrutiny and in the more recent case to evade a block to edit those topics. While some others in these various discussions have applauded JPL's devotion to Wikipedia, I see a level of fanaticism that is disruptive to the project: after being blocked, in two spurts totalling five hours of editing JPL made more than 80 comments on his talk page which were some variation of this begging apology, including "my life is unlivable", "I am sinking into despair", "I am not going to kill myself", "I always fail at everything", "I have spilled out my life in trying to make Wikipedia better", and including a handful that required suppression. But in amongst this flailing against a block he considered "like a death sentence" he nevertheless continued to ping editors to his talk page to start new discussions about LDS content that he disagreed with ([4] [5]). That is not dedication, it's obsession: John is demonstrably unable to disengage from this topic. If he really only wants to edit articles about people born in 1921 and 1922 then fine, these restrictions shouldn't hinder him much but ought to keep him out of the areas he frankly can't handle. That being said, the unblocking admin's wrist-slap unblock, and their flippant and dismissive comments in this thread, shouldn't be held against JPL. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Deja vu

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

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

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

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

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

Final thoughts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actually, I would take it a step further and say that I think Floquenbeam (talk · contribs)'s approach in particular left a lot to be desired. Yes, they closed the original thread because the situation warranted sensitive treatment, compassion and/or calm discussion with minimal drama, which is admirable. But the unpleasant taste left by reading the first posts in this thread was in my view caused entirely by Floquenbeam's ill-considered wording within the closure text and their subsequent exercise of unintentionally poor judgment. Their closure of the original thread noted: It is not possible that he will be unblocked without significant restrictions... I do not think a community ban discussion has, or is about to gain, consensus, but I also don't think unblock conditions are going to be hashed out now either. When/if unblock conditions are discussed, people will have an opportunity to comment. That is, there was no consensus on unblock conditions or bans, which made it within El_C (talk · contribs)'s discretion as individual blocking administrator to unblock if El_C was persuaded, but the wording of the text concurrently and inappropriately suggests that El_C cannot unblock without community discussion (that is simply not the case). A more considered closure would have swapped the promise with something like "Discussion on restrictions will resume at the time or shortly after the block is lifted"; that might have been worthwhile and generated less concern and frustration at the outset, though arguably, Floquenbeam could have left it at that too. In any event, even with the ill-considered text that was written, exercising sound judgment and "doing the right thing" in that scenario would involve Floquenbeam having a discussion with El_C individually about his desire to return to ANI to fulfil said "promise" (or indeed, seeking input about El_C's views on it prior to opening this thread as an unblock review) at the outset; I believe that level of courtesy and camaraderie is expected of administrators and would have generated a response from El_C which was far less "frustrating" to Floquenbeam, and in turn probably would not have resulted in Floquenbeam's unseemly response in this thread to El_C about "nonsensical comments", being a "douche" and "disrupting this thread" about their own unblock. (Lastly, my observations are certainly less pleasant, less disappointed and more wordy than El_C was in answering Floquenbeam's question at the outset of this discussion of what else they could have done, but personally, I'd prefer El_C's response over mine - but then again, maybe my comments are also somehow nonsensical.) Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist, while I appreciate the support, I'd really like to put this behind me. Yes, the oppose unblock !votes were weird to me, to say the least. At no point did I promise that JPL will remain blocked during a TBAN discussion phase. As I noted above, I used my discretion when blocking (not a CBAN) and I used my discretion when undoing my own block (not the TBAN). It just feels like a lot of confusion and tension followed for naught, but maybe I have too rosy a view of my own actions (probably). El_C 23:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Except for the last sentence, the comment was intended more as clearer feedback about Floquenbeam's approach rather than support for you specifically. I couldn't do that without mentioning you unless I did so indirectly (which would make the response more wordy), sorry. Ncmvocalist (talk) 23:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal for JPL - Biographical information

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose - a generalized topic ban on all biographies, including BLP's. If the proposal wants to be more topic specific, like biographies on religious figures, then it can be brought forward as a different proposal and evaluated on its merits. --ARoseWolf 20:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• Conditional Support while biographical issues are a large part of his issues, I think we also need to consider LDS/Mormonism as well as that is what led to this whole mess. JPL is unable to edit neutrally on the church regardless of whether it's about LDS people or not. The challenge (which led to the indef) is he does not take criticism of his edits well, so imagine we'll be back here. Star Mississippi 20:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• Tentative Conditional Support, although, much like User:Cullen328 and User:Star Mississippi (and multiple other users in the section above) have noted immediately above, I think the issue of a tban on editing LDS/religion in general broadly construed definitely needs to be addressed in definitive language and apart from any "ban on bios for a year and then come see us again". Heiro 04:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - as t-ban proposal is too broad. GoodDay (talk) 12:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - this is both too broad and also misses several areas of disruption. Try the narrower sanction first, and if the disruptive behaviour migrates to other topics then consider expanding the scope. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 12:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think the user has shown they are capable of editing in the narrow areas proposed in the informal unblock conditions, and there's no reason why we should unnecessarily prevent them from editing the 1921/1922 births area. That, to my reading, would be included in this proposal and therefore the proposal is too broad. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: unworkable. Few articles on Wikipedia don't contain biographical information. There's a sleight of hand being used here to switch between BLP and "biographical". TBANs need clear rules and clear methods of enforcement. I believe this is particularly important to autistic editors. It's prohibitively difficult to check that every page (not just article) you edit doesn't fall under the TBAN, and JPL does lots of rapid gnoming edits. If I can't work out how I would act if I were under this restriction, I cannot expect JPL to either. — Bilorv (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, this is so broad that I don't think this will help clarify the distinction between this editor's constructive editing and ability (or not) to refrain from problematic contributions - which is in any case the purpose of considering an editing restriction over more extreme measures. Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose You've got to give even the most condemned a fighting chance to survive! There's more than 1m articles in Category:Living people vs 6.3m articles on WP. Add in the deceased biographies, and it would be quite hard not to edit a biography. Unless you only worked on ant species in Rwanda or some such obscurity. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose "Biographical information" can cover so much on Wikipedia that this is unworkable.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  "Information about a person". A much more concrete definition than what I see in the thread below. Nearly anything can be associated with religion in one way or other. Which, I think, is being discussed below. - jc37 16:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Rationale

The idea behind this was straight-forward. JPL has had multiple issues around information related to people. He's even currently under BLP sanctions which do not appear to be religion-related. And by setting an appeal date, we give him a timeframe and a chance to work and show the community (on a longer term than just during AN/I discussions) that he is moving forward as a productive contributor.

This actually is something he has done in the past. It sometimes took the community to show him, but once he understood, he did get better about trying to follow policy/process in those specific instances.

Limited sanctions should always have a sense of focus and rehabilitation to them. (We say 'preventative, not punitive' for these very reasons.)

I look and see in the discussion below that there are those who really seem to see this as a mere bureaucratic formality towards what is apparently their end goal - a complete ban.

This all is really starting to look punitive, not preventative.

If that's the plan, then just indef him now. Don't slowly drag him through this seeming torture, just to ban him anyway. That just seems wrong. - jc37 16:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal for JPL - Religion

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

  Addressing some comments below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

extended conversation
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm not sure how making it all religion is simplifying anything. There are literally thousands of religions worldwide. That is my issue with this tban. We need more clarity, not less. Is it just lay people, ministers, graduates of a seminary, a self-taught shaman in Asia or a medicine man from the Modoc tribe of Oklahoma? This is a trap topic. One violation will get JPL banned and it is more likely to happen than not. He could avoid every subject for three years on Catholicism, Mormonism and the LDS and edit the article of a "priest", or "shaman" from South Asia and get banned from Wikipedia even if his edit is nothing more than a category change. This is the problem with broadly construed tban's on such large topics. --ARoseWolf 14:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC) Hell, based on this tban he couldn't edit the article on Tibetan bowls. They are an instrument used in Buddhist religious ceremonies. I don't use them for that purpose but they are a "religious" instrument. --ARoseWolf 15:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC) I don't see how "religion" is unclear. Is this article about a topic which a reasonable observer would (or might) consider to be a religious topic? Don't edit it. According to the standing bell article which covers Tibetan bowls, they are used in religious ceremonies, so that article is off limits (precedentially, only the portions of the article which cover religious use would be within scope, whereas their use as musical instruments would not be, but that is a very tricky argument and a slippery slope). We could say "organized religion" but then what counts as "organized"? If we have to start listing off every specific topic or even specific articles which John is not allowed to edit in order to ensure compliance, then John is not a suitable candidate for a topic ban and should just be site-banned. I don't see any reason to believe that he wouldn't be able to abide by a clearly worded restriction, even if it is very broad. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 15:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC) Reasonable is a subjective term as indicated by the different opinions stated here. What you see as reasonable may not be reasonable to me. This broad TBAN is a slippery slope to begin with. A more focused TBAN to protect specific areas that have been a problem and are the very reasons we are here having this conversation would seem more reasonable to me. LDS, Mormonism and Catholicism are specific topics that can easily be identifiable. Most topic bans I have seen are very specific so that there are less pitfalls and traps. --ARoseWolf 15:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC) There are no "pitfalls and traps" in avoiding religion-related topics. You read the article before editing; if you see mention of religion or religious topics, you don't edit. As Ivanvector said, if we have to create rafts of specific restrictions for an editor, that's evidence they shouldn't be editing at all. JPL has been here a lot, so it's not as if this is a first-time effort where gentleness is necessary. Grandpallama (talk) 15:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC) I believe quite a few here would vote to support a site ban on JPL and you should definitely propose that if you believe that reasonable. That should not be the intent or purpose of this TBAN and it should be as constricted and specifically worded as possible. As far as gentleness goes, it is not for you to decide how or when I apply it or advocate for it. I believe the pretense of that statement is highly inappropriate and grossly offensive. --ARoseWolf 16:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC) Conversely, I find the pretense that in addressing a longterm, problematic editor, our first concern should be the editor and not the encyclopedia highly inappropriate and grossly offensive. It's also tiresome to see the old argument that a TBAN is somehow a "trap" rather than a measure to protect the encyclopedia from an editor who cannot edit neutrally within that topic. Grandpallama (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC) What religious topic outside of Mormonism, LDS and Catholicism has JPL specifically edited on that is problem for you or that you view as non-neutral? So you understand I am not going to comment on your personal opinion of what you view as my "priorities" or "concerns" because that really isn't within your purview but I will discuss specifics of comments outside of that aspect. --ARoseWolf 16:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC) @ARoseWolf: I hear what you're saying and you've got me thinking, but I'm gonna push back a bit. First, that a TBAN'd editor can't edit an article related to the TBAN is a "feature" not a "bug". So no, if John were TBANed from religion, he couldn't edit the article about the Tibetan bowl used in religious ceremonies. I don't perceive that to be a problem, I perceive that to be the solution to the problem (the problem being John's disruptive editing on these topics). Second, the same thing (whether you call it a feature or a bug) would happen even if John were TBANed from something narrower, like, say, "LDS, Mormons, and Catholicism" (I'll call it "LDS etc."). The LDS etc. ban would mean he can't edit Utah, Salt Lake City, Brigham Young University, all of which are LDS/Mormon. Utah's basketball team, Utah Jazz, would be an edge case. Kyle Van Noy is an American football player, but also a member of LDS and played for Brigham Young, so his article is probably out of bounds. How about Girl Crazy (1997 film)? Seems fine? I don't know, it's made by Richard Dutcher, the "Godfather of Mormon Cinema." No matter what the topic area, there are these unexpected connections where making the determination of whether it's "in scope" is hard, and that's what "broadly construed" is all about. Which leads us to my third point: this isn't about John, it's about everybody else. I appreciate that you have a lot of sympathy and concern for John; I do, too, but I have more concern for everyone else, everyone interacting with John. When evaluating the TBAN, I think it'll be easier on the community to analyze whether something is related (broadly construed) to "religion" than "LDS etc.". Yes, it means more restriction upon John, but easier for the community. That's a trade-off I think is justified. Don't forget, this isn't like John is making some innocent mistake and we have to help him fix it. He has repeatedly made serious personal attacks against multiple editors. There have been multiple ANI threads just in the last six months about this. The purpose of the TBAN isn't therapy: the goal isn't to "heal" John or "fix" him or otherwise help him in any way. The TBAN is probation: it's an alternative to a full site ban (the point is to find something less than a full site ban that will prevent disruption), and the goal--the only goal--is to reduce John's disruption on everyone else. The TBAN gets lifted not when John is "fixed", but when John can demonstrate that it is no longer necessary to prevent disruption to others. So you've got me thinking about it, but I'm going to vote based on what I think is best for the community, not what I think is best for John. So, as of now, I still think "religion" will be an easier topic ban than "LDS etc." for the community to administer, and that's why I support the broader scope. If you think I'm wrong and the narrower scope will be easier on the community, I'm all ears. Levivich 16:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC) Also, consider that John's own proposal was to limit himself to only people born in 1922. This sanction gives him a lot more freedom. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 16:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC) I know what you intended by this comment but it comes off as a little insincere. Everyone knows if a personal sanction was enough we wouldn't be here discussing this. Also, putting it between parenthesis doesn't make it more believable. A personal ban can be lifted or put in place at the whim of the person making it. I ban myself from things all the time. It's a lot like those yearly resolutions so many people make. This TBAN is a community sanction and it will restrict JPL very far beyond the topics of his disruption. --ARoseWolf 16:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC) but I'm going to vote based on what I think is best for the community, not what I think is best for John Exactly. Grandpallama (talk) 16:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC) So it's about what is easier on the community now? On the face of it that would seem reasonable. Less headache, less oversight, less concern, less opposition. Is that not also a slippery slope. Hey, if I always chose the easier approach I wouldn't be here throwing out a different opinion. I believe we can protect the community while also placing restrictions on JPL in the very focused and specific areas that he has been disruptive. Does he deserve that? I don't know. What I don't want to see is us having to come back here and discuss an instance where he made a minor edit to an article that barely mentions anything religious, doesn't even have to say religion in any form, but someone feels is a violation of his TBAN because it says "broadly construed". This is about practicality as much as it is anything else. There are literally hundreds of thousands of articles that could fall into this category something about religion. I dare say more that do than those that don't. Why not get specific if it can narrow that approach? --ARoseWolf 17:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC) So it's about what is easier on the community now? Not easier, but what's best. Often, easier is best, but not always. Hey, if I always chose the easier approach I wouldn't be here throwing out a different opinion. That's an example of easier not being best. Sure, it'd be easier (for you and the community) if you didn't throw out a different opinion, but it might not be best (for the community), because your different opinion might help the community make a better decision than it otherwise would. This is about practicality as much as it is anything else. Completely agree. Why not get specific if it can narrow that approach? I believe figuring out if something is "religion, broadly construed" is easier, and therefore better (it'll save editor time), than figuring out if something is "LDS, broadly construed", "Mormonism, broadly construed", or "Catholicism, broadly construed". Simply because it's easier to determine if something is in one broad topic, than three narrower topics. Broader is easier on the community, and therefore better. Or so my thinking goes. Am I wrong? Levivich 17:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC) We may have very different opinions on what is right and what is wrong so I don't usually look at things from that perspective. Beyond that I don't believe I have the right to say you are wrong in your approach as much as we might disagree. I have been here and commented on many of JPL's AN/I discussions. I know full well he has negatively impacted others to the point where they probably don't care what happens to him. I can't say that I blame them and I can't say they are wrong for thinking like that. Your opinion is your own and I am not trying to change that, just offer my own such as it is. --ARoseWolf 18:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC) (edit conflict) Except for sanctions that we can enforce technically (i.e. blocks, or granular parblocks more recently) we have to trade off between "covers the disruption" and "is enforceable". Editors who have been around JPL a lot longer than I have have observed that the disruption is centred on the LDS Church but frequently spills out into other much more broad topics, and this suggests a sanction needs to be expanded in scope to "cover the disruption". I get the sense that religion isn't broad enough, but we have to start somewhere. In other words, assuming that JPL is going to abide by the restriction, a broader scope means it's less likely we'll be back here dealing with spillover in a month's time. As for the slippery slope at the edges of the ban (I agree with you here) we do not treat kindly editors who weaponize sanctions, there's a policy about that. If we get disingenuous reports here that JPL edited an article about a person whose father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate once attended a Mormon church, the person doing the reporting is going to be the one facing sanctions. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 17:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC) I wish I could have the same confidence but history has dictated otherwise. Nevertheless, its an issue that JPL will have to contend with and I suspect he will receive little leniency going forward for even a minor violation such as you suggested above. --ARoseWolf 18:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Right, I think "Christianity" and especially these three concepts is ideal as a scope, broadly construed. The only reason I said "Judeo-Christianity" and not just "Christianity" is that there are some folks who do not consider Mormonism to be a Christian religion [8]. (It's complicated). Suffice it to say, a lot of Christians don't believe Mormons count: Basically a few Evangelical traditions, but also the American Methodist, Lutheran, and Presbyterian conferences. And Mormons have actually said they consider themselves as close to Judaism as to Evangelicals. Even Evangelicals would admit that Mormonism falls within the bounds of "Judeo-Christianity" as a religion which believes the Bible to be a holy text, believes in the divinity of Christ, etc. Even if they don't consider them formal "Christians." And of course, LDS-adherents and basically all Mormons self-identify as Christians [9]. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

This is a very reasonable compromise. --ARoseWolf 20:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

It's actually not that hard to explain. New prophet plus new scriptures equals new religion. c.f. [10] for one take on it. Jclemens (talk) 18:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

  The issue here is that JPL seems to hold deeply personal beliefs about the LDS Church and Mormonism and isn't able to depersonalize when editing anything close to that topic, and he loses objectivity and can't deescalate whenever someone challenges his POV, which is unfortunately often. Personally I don't see how we can craft a restriction which permits him to continue editing those topics, and per comments on his talk page recently he seems to agree. He's separately under a "one AfD nom per calendar day" restriction (since 2017) and has done well under that (blocked once for violating it, for less than 48 hours) and so I think "he won't understand/comply with the sanction" is an unfair argument. He may be neurodivergent but he's not incompetent. I guess the other side of that coin is that if he can't follow sensible restrictions then he gets site-banned, and I don't think there's really anyone here who wants that. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 20:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Ivanvector: if what I communicated with my comments is that I think JPL won't be able to comply with sanctions because of his autism then my several rounds of rephrasing and copyediting my comment were in vain. I did not intend to convey that and I do not believe that. My argument was that clear and well-tailored rules are needed, and I said that I (a neurotypical person) would really struggle with obeying the sanction as currently described. The "one AFD per calendar day" restriction is immediately clear (just the pedantic word "calendar" rules out the only obvious edge case). This TBAN is not at all clear. If the restriction were reframed, say, "any article in any subcategory of Category:Religion" then it would at least be clear (albeit still prohibitively expensive to follow). As framed, I see several major points of contention that are unclarified and would be unsurprised by a quick indefinite block when JPL does something that falls within their understanding of the TBAN's allowances, and maybe even several admin's, but not by the blocking admin. — Bilorv (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

  • Narky Blert, I don't think talking in terms of "his enemies" is warranted here. Drmies (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Propose another word, if you will. The people I have in mind are the WP:GRAVEDANCERS who infested JPL's UP and TP during his recent block. Narky Blert (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
      • Narky Blert, gravedancing troll LTA sockpuppets are not just Johnpacklambert's enemies. They are enemies of all of us and of this encyclopedia, and any such nonsense would gain no traction here at ANI. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
      • Narky Blert, I counted two socks on his talk page and one sock on his user page; all, no doubt, the same editor. (That's actually very, very little, considering the exposure this has gotten.) All had CU run on them and if that delivered an "enemy", I'm sure it was blocked. This troll is not the kind of editor who is going to be someone calling "Gotcha" as if they were a real editor. In fact, that thought is so far-fetched that I am wondering how you could seriously think that this was a real opportunity. Drmies (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support but I don't mind a Christian tweak. Drmies (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support a narrowed TBAN applied to Judeo-Christianity (or just Christianity) My personal view largely matches Ivanvector's. If we're going to exclude JPS from LDS which he's passionate about, I'm not sure a general Religion ban would be much more onerous. Yes the trap potential is there, per religion still permeating so widely. But I agree with Ivanvector about JPS's competence, and (mostly) his assessment that the community is too decent to punish JPS for the inevitable minor violations. That said, RW, Shibbolethink etc strike me as insiteful editors - perhaps they are right that a more focussed Tban is for the best. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support either all religions or the more specific Judeo-Christianity area. For some reason or another, their editing in this area is disruptive, and well this seems like a good attempt at preventing that disruption. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support narrowed to Judeo-Christianity per above. Ncmvocalist (talk) 23:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. It's clear that this is a problem area for JPL. I don't want to see JPL re-indeffed, this seems a good compromise. -- Mike 🗩 00:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
• Weak support a topic-ban narrowed to Judeo-Christianity, but... I guess my query is whether articles like this one (about someone who taught at a Jewish Community Centre) or this one (about someone who wrote about Secularization in Multi-Religious Societies), or this one (about someone "prominent in her efforts to rebuild the Catholic Church in China") would be caught up in either version of the topic ban? JPL has made largely innocuous edits to each since being unblocked (in an effort to establish he can be productive). But his typical editing pattern seems to consist of rapid-fire categorisation until he stops to read something, stays to fix it a bit, and then moves on. I have to query the value of sanctions that force a substantive change to JPL's editing pattern so that he can diligently assess each and every article for indications that it might covered by his broadly construed TBAN. Why not just let him focus on the one category he is currently interested in for a while? (I did advocate for expansion to 4-5 specific-year categories on his talk page). St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  Surely the answer is to be found in what part religion plays in the person's notability. I haven't looked in detail, but the third example above (Audrey Donnithorne) self-evidently would fall under the ban based purely on the quote given from the article's lead ~ anyone whose notability depends on efforts to rebuild the Catholic Church would naturally fall under such a ban. As for changing editing patterns, aren't we all supposed to be diligent in assessing our edits? What difference if JPL needs to assess them with regard to a ban? Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 08:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  Absolutely, but I suppose that's easier for those of use who wouldn't be subject to sanctions for making a mistake. If I include a factual error I can go back and rectify it. I can re-write the same paragraph 17 times before being happy with it. And I can drive-by tag a bunch of articles regardless of what they are about (and then go back and fix my mistake if I make an error). But I recently clarified that even talking about the subjects covered by a topic ban, with admins, to rectify damage done by someone else, was considered a breach. So I imagine all of those articles could be interpreted as being covered by the ban. I just think it will inevitably lead to dozens of editors watching JPL's edits and at the first mistake, we'll be back here again (again!). This is supposed to be about getting everyone back to productive editing, including JPL. I'm not sure this proposal will achieve that, but there seems to be support for it. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

This was my biggest concern going forward. JPL's disruptive editing, thus far, took place in the natural course of conversation. It's not like he was trolling along looking for ways to be disruptive. He allowed his emotions to get the better of him during conversations and in his editing. Such a broad topic ban is basically a delayed site ban. It has nothing to do with intelligence or ability. We are asking a human being to never make a single mistake in editing or discussing anything related to one of the most broadest subjects on Wikipedia. And with it we are inviting other editors to watch him for the slightest mistake so they can drag him back here for more punishment. To this point, it has been a legitimate reaction to a disruptive editor. This ban, as it was worded, doesn't just cover obvious subjects but also subjects at the very edge of the periphery. He could literally be in violation for discussing the birth or death date of an individual that attended a religious institution, even if their focus was not religion and they didn't pursue that in life, and even if the institution doesn't clearly define itself as religious. Baylor University is a private university in Texas. It is operated by the Baptist church. According to this broadly construed ban he can't even discuss anyone that attended that university. Nothing in Baylor's name indicates they are a religious institution. This is what Bilrov is talking about when they say that JPL and the community needs to know what the details are of such a ban. --ARoseWolf 12:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I think you may be overly broadly interpreting the WP:TOPICBAN scope. It would cover any edits about those persons where the edit was related to their involvement in religion. But not in mundane facts about their life. a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic, as encapsulated in the phrase "broadly construed". (emphasis mine) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:17, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

You've emphasised the wrong bit: the point is all pages ... broadly related to the topic, so that edits that are not about religion can fall afoul of the ban. Any of the three pages (in their entirety) given by Stalwart11 could fall under the TBAN, or not do so (except that the third is pretty blatantly under it), depending on which admin makes the decision—and crucially, JPL is not permitted to discuss whether any of the three articles fall under it. — Bilorv (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I believe they are allowed to ask for clarification on their TBAN? Of the Admin in question? If it's a super complex case I think it's supposed to come back here, but I think if it's relatively simple the implementing admin is supposed to be able to assist with that. Am I wrong about that? It's been my experience with other people's TBANs. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I mean, in this case (and many others) the admin in question would simply be implementing the will of the community. While holding a mop comes with more responsibility, I don't (personally) believe that should extend to constantly re-adjudicating the original context of a ban to determine scope on a case-by-case basis. If it's too complex for an admin (or the community) to agree on its application (as indeed those three random examples suggest it might) then we should probably default to the proposal suggested by JPL himself (and provisionally accepted by the unblocking admin). In the end, JPL's conduct will determine if he can return to unrestricted editing (regardless of the scope of any ban). I don't see the value in making this more complicated that it needs to be, whereas I see merit in his choosing the length of his own WP:ROPE. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support either full religious ban or narrowed Judeo-Christian one. Should help JPL and the community in avoiding further conflict. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 08:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support At a minimum a full religious topic ban (although I will again say this is hardly the limit of JPL's disruptiveness). The idea that a ban limited to judeo-christian specifically would actually be worthwhile is just setting up for wiki-lawyering later on. Its laughable the idea that given the chance JPL will be productive/not distruptive about religions that are not Judeo-Christian. When JPL holds, by any standard, views that are extremist both about their own and other religions. I am pretty confident that the Buddhists wont want him touching their articles either. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe discussing the merits of the personal views of another editor are where we want to go as a community. Discussing edits is one thing, attacking personal views is another entirely. --ARoseWolf 18:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that Buddhists owned any articles on Wikipedia, or that anyone did... or that we make decisions based on what we assume members of a group believe about articles of particular interest to them. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 18:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Has the user in question showed any disruptive behavior in articles or on talk pages related to these other religions? if not, I don't think we should go around pre-emptively TBANning people based on what we suspect may become an issue. In the absence of evidence. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Shibbolethink, I had asked you a similar question in a comment but rescinded it after seeing you post this question. It is a valid question and I asked for diffs earlier in the conversation because I cant find where he may have been disruptive on article related to other religions except LDS/Mormonism and Catholicism. Maybe someone will provide them. --ARoseWolf 18:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

The only thing that comes to mind is John's questioning of the (if I recall correctly) non-policy-but-precedence-set blanket notability of bishops of Catholic and Protestant (exclusive of LDS, and we won't get into its classification here) faiths. He works on and sometimes nominates such articles for deletion when they basically serve as little more than a Wikipedia-as-directory listing when they are unsourced or poorly sourced. That is generally met with significant pushback. For what it's worth (nothing, really), I agree with him on the need for a real standard on this issue and appreciate his more critical thought on the issue. But that's one example of behavior that some would consider disruptive. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:17, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Questioning something is considered disruptive? I've questioned lots of things on Wikipedia. Surely it must have been the way he questioned it, like did he make disparaging remarks, and not the questioning itself. But isn't he already limited in AfD nominations? --ARoseWolf 19:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I suspect this is easier to show than tell. See the recent AfD on William Thomas Larkin. I believe there have been other articles, but I have neither the time, nor the interest, nor still the need to dig them up, as I think this covers it. Some people go for the essay/not policy of WP:BISHOPS and others don't believe every bishop ever of the 2000+ Catholic diocese are a) by default notable and b) should remain in Wikipedia even if sufficient sourcing is not provided. Now, that is my own summary based on my experience in bishop AfDs. I am not saying I could draw both conclusions from the Larkin AfD. Just context. So, that's why *some* *might* consider his work in one religious, non-LDS space disruptive. I disclose it here because I read the question and had some evidence to shed light; it doesn't mean I find such work of his disruptive (for the record, he nominated based on policy and was not out of line in the Larkin nom). To answer your other question, John is limited in number to one nom per day, but, I believe, not the topic of the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DiamondRemley39 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, DR. I really hope no one thinks that AfD was disruptive because I have about a million more that would be considered uncivil if that was disruptive. It appeared to me to be a back and forth discussion. Should we really be punishing editors for nominating at AfD when it is policy based, even if we believe faulty application of policy is involved? I'm sure there are better examples of disruption and incivility is intolerable but I don't see an example of either in that particular nomination. I wouldn't call it disruptive if he nominated every bishop ever known to the Catholic church. At the same time, I wouldn't call it disruptive if he nominated every chief of the Cherokee people either, so long as he thought he was going by policy and provided said policy as he understood it. I digress, it is only one example. I'm sure there are other examples that are actually disruptive. --ARoseWolf 20:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

_{It wasn't. I was the one who suggested it be closed per WP:SNOW and I did so because at the time we were dealing with another AFD at DRV which had to be overturned because of JPL's conduct. I thought it easier to rule a line under (or through, as it were) JPL's conduct that week and move on. But nothing about that particular AFD struck me as disruptive.} St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

ARoseWolf, my perception is that Johnpacklambert is consistently inclusionist about LDS Church officials and consistently deletionist about the officials of other churches. A long pattern of that is disruptive in my view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cullen328 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I would agree with your assessment, @Cullen328, from my perusing of his past conflicts as shown in his talk page history. That's part of why I think the TBAN should cover all judeo-christianity, but probably doesn't need to extend to non-abrahamic religions, and probably not even to Islam. But I think it probably should cover protestant christian denominations as well as catholicism and mormonism. And probably also cover judaism as there are many ways in which LDS doctrine associates itself with the early church (e.g. gnostics) and jewish history. See: Judaism and Mormonism. Compare this to Islam and Mormonism. I guess I wouldn't be opposed to an entire TBAN on abrahamic religions, but I would prefer as narrow a scope as possible. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I assume this is Cullen and I apologize if it is not. I appreciate your perspective. Mine is different. If we decided that someone was disruptive just because they had "inclusionist" views on one topic and "deletionist" views on another (honestly, I'm not even sure why we still use those terms) there wouldn't be very many editors left at Wikipedia. It is just an AfD. One of the first lessons I learned about Wikipedia is if my favorite subject has to have an article on Wikipedia in order for me to feel legitimized, and I really hope JPL is looking at this because it applies to him too, then maybe I need to evaluate why I am here. I love articles on American Indians because that's my heritage. I remember being caught up in AfD's over about twenty articles on the Sioux people. I vigorously fought for those articles and we saved some and lost others. There was so much incivility thrown around that I realized it wasn't even worth it. The assumption that certain editors were here for dubious reasons and just being disruptive by nominating something they felt didn't belong felt so wrong to sit through and entertain. If I have to fight that hard then why am I here? You can nominate every article I care about and I'm still going to be who I am and I am still going to be here and I promise you that I will not view the nominators as disruptive just for that reason. Incivility and edit warring and socking are a different topic altogether but that isn't even being discussed at this point. Maybe it should, I don't know. I will never agree that a person's view and actions based on policy, even if misguided, is solely defined as disruptive. I'm yielding the conversation because I feel I have said enough and others opinions matter too. I was just responding to yours specifically. --ARoseWolf 21:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I apologize for failing to sign that comment and thank the bot who signed for me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Beep boop. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Ultimately, ARW, I think the question is "what solution can we find that prevents JPL from being his own worst enemy, and that also protects Wikipedia in the most comprehensive way." Questions about JPLs motivations can help us get there, but I don't find them very convincing. No one truly knows what evils lay in the hearts of men. (or what angels). I very much do not like hypothesizing about the minds of others. I just want us to look at his past disruptions, figure out what pattern there is, and prescribe a solution which prevents those from recurring in the most targeted way possible. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support per above --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 02:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support a full ban from all religion topics, indefinitely, with no appeals to be considered for a period of not less than two years from TBAN start. Jclemens (talk) 18:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• Reaffirming my earlier comment. A TBAN on "religion" would be too broad. It would, for example, preclude removal of the deprecated |religion= field from {{infobox}}es. From what I know of JPL, he would need a precise definition to enable him easily to distinguish between allowed and forbidden areas, and "religion" does not do that. Narky Blert (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

collapse digression

Narky Blert, you already !voted above. You can't !vote twice, and I have therefore unbolded the beginning of your post. You should also use the word "vote" rather than "comment", because this really was a !vote [11]. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC) Not-vote jargon is unduly confusing. If the editor not-voted, then they can call it a "not-vote" or a "comment" (even if that comment begins with an initial "oppose" sentence). Calling it a vote pretty much negates the value of using the not-vote jargon. isaacl (talk) 02:56, 11 September 2021 (UTC) You're not making sense in my view. No one cares that you don't like the "!" convention, so that's just trolling on your part IMO. This is a poll/survey. Each person can vote in the poll only once. Votes are bolded by convention. Anything else that is bulleted plus bolded at the front and is not labeled "Comment" is generally perceived as a vote by closing admins, particularly when it says "Reaffirming my comment". The problem with NB's bolded bulleted statement was that his so-called "comment" far above was a clear vote ("Oppose as currently framed"), not a "comment" [12]. If it had only been a comment, then there would have been no need for unbolding (or notifying closing admin, etc.). Softlavender (talk) 03:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC) Since you called it really a not-vote, it was odd to request that it be labelled a vote instead of a not-vote. If you had said to call it a vote because it was really a vote, or to call it a not-vote because it was really a not-vote, then the request would have been consistent. Although I agree that it's courteous not to make multiple posts with bolded summary sentences at the start, I have confidence that closers can handle it appropriately. But I don't have any concerns about unbolding the sentence. isaacl (talk) 03:48, 11 September 2021 (UTC) I didn't call it "a really a not-vote"; I called it (NB's first bolded statement in this thread [13]) a "!vote"; nor did I "request that it be labelled a vote". Please stop trolling; push your fringe agenda and false double-talk elsewhere. We also disagree about closers -- it is standard to correct issues or to notify closing admins when someone has made what appears to be two bolded votes. Softlavender (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC) Softlavender, see WP:NOTVOTE. isaacl is trying to be helpful here, not trolling or agenda-pushing. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:21, 11 September 2021 (UTC) My comment above was ill-advised, and I apologize for the condescension implicit in linking a basic policy/guideline at an experienced user. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC) I have no disagreement on choosing to unbold the sentence or notifying closers. isaacl (talk) 04:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Since religious topics have been JPL's problem area, removing him from these topics gives him the best chance of continuing to contribute. Cbl62 (talk) 05:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support with the understanding that after an indefinite period proving his ability to improve articles in the non-religion space that he be allowed to return. Viriditas (talk) 08:20, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Requesting a close

I think this has gotten to the point where it's pretty clear the result. I might be biased but I think we need a WP:CLOSE here so the community can move on and get back to working on the project instead of debating about the number of angels on the head of a pin or whether this user should be able to tell us about that number! — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree. It often seems that the length of time a discussion runs is inversely proportional to the obviousness of the result. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I also think a close now would be best. If it helps, I support whatever brand of religious TBAN the closer determines best matches the consensus here. Constructions as narrow as just LDS/Mormonism to as broad as my proposal are all fine with me. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:48, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

User making a point of starting trouble.

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

• [14] which was followed by this user undoing my edit claiming that my edit wasn't right and my source wasn't valid as seen here:
• [15]

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

• [16]
• [17]
• [18]
• [19]
• [20]

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

• [21]

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

• [22]

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

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

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

Well I had a look at SkylerLovefist's recent contributions and found this [23] containing a personal attack. Addicted4517 was correct to revert this addition as per WP:SOCIALMEDIA it was not a suitable source and it fails verification anyway as it doesn't back up the claim made. SkylerLovefist's edit history on Buddy Murphy is exactly the same. Addicted4517 is patiently and politely pointing to the correct policy and explaining why SkylerLovefist is being reverted but SkylerLovefist responds with edit warring and personal attacks. I would suggest SkylerLovefist stop what they're doing right now as an admin coming here is likely to block them for A) Personal attacks and B) edit warring. SkylerLovefist should also apologise to Addicted4517 for your personal attacks when he was only trying to help them. SkylerLovefist might also like to look at WP:BOOMERANG as I strongly suspect one is heading their way if they don't stop now. WCM_email 08:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Non-administrator comment) I'm afraid that really isn't accurate, the problem here is the frequent personal attacks from SkylerLovefist and their inability to source their edits. EG [24] was sourced to a Twitter video, which makes no mention of the person concerned. They may be in the video but that is WP:OR and WP:SYN to make a claim for a WP:BLP. At Buddy Murphy he was edit warring to force his preferred Twitter source into the article even though HHH Pedrigree had provided one. I do wonder if this is more of a WP:CIR issue. WCM_email 10:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not before Hulk! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Fucking wrestling again. How long is the project going to continue flushing editor time down the drain refereeing childish disputes over these phony personas? EEng 16:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree, we should only have childish disputes over real people. Levivich 16:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
    • I too agree, beauty pageant and reality show contestants are far more notable; oh and politicians who lost an election. Narky Blert (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

      As it happens, beauty pageants and reality shows are on my list too. EEng 02:01, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

      • Absolutely! So Sharmell, The Miz and Bob Backlund walk into a daycare milk bar. Fuck, marry, kill? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Bashereyre

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

User:Bashereyre has been here since February 2007, and has in those 14 years created more than 8,000 articles. As an autopatrolled editor, few of his creations are actually checked by enough people. I noticed a lot of sub-standard stubs created by them, but not until May of this year did I pay more serious attention to them. As I found serious errors with creation after creation, I posted this, which lists a wide variety of problems, both with the quality of sourcing (including BLP issues) and the factual accuracy of his articles. They removed this a few hours later without replying[25]. Two weeks later, I tagged Ralph Brideoke (priest) as a copyright violation, adding yet another issue to the mix. I hoped that things would improve, but I see very little change. In the months inbetween, I have checked some of his older contributions and some of their current ones.

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

Examples of uncorrected issues:

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

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

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

A chain reaction of errors...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, the block is absolutely needed. Bashereyre needs to engage in this discussion. — Bilorv (talk) 18:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Crawiki WP:OWN/WP:ONUS/WP:CRYSTAL

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

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

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

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

Part of the problem seems to be that the article is less of an article and more of a bullet list of everything related to the topic, so there's a lot of wp:undue stuff in in in general. Though it's not clear if wp:OWNership of article is the cause of this—blindlynx (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

User:GovGuide making frequent careless edits, not responding to talk

GovGuide has been rewriting article introductions and introducing errors at a fast pace despite being asked to stop a few times [26][27][28]. Their talk page is a mess of stream-of-consciousness questions/complaints and they're rewriting information pages, throwing around templates with no explanation, inserting nonsense, etc. Either they're not understanding something or refusing to understand something.Citing (talk) 04:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

someone just changed all the work i did thats crazy

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

---

this person User talk:Citing

they changed all the work i did for no reason ?? GovGuide (talk) 04:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

As Wikipedia is a wiki, it means that anyone is able to edit pages, including to remove some or all of the edits you make. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stifle (talk • contribs)

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

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

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

The user hasn't edited since 4:36am yesterday. I am not blocking them, because blocking is preventative not punitive and there is nothing to prevent. Stifle (talk) 10:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Blocking isn't all we do, Stifle... Drmies (talk) 15:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

+1 ♟♙ (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

The most damningly threatening personal attack I've ever seen, from an IP-hopping, block-evading editor

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

---

• 2409:4064:e97:ece9:5b55:87a8:17c6:50c3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Since the beginning of September, a user has been edit-warring to remove films from List of Miraculous: Tales of Ladybug & Cat Noir episodes on the mistaken supposition that films aren't technically "episodes", so they musn't belong on a list of "episodes" (See #Content dispute and possible slow edit war above). That user got a 24-hour block, after which he used a variety of IP's to continue his removals, including on List of Sid the Science Kid episodes, which I used to civilly explain that movies should belong on episode lists. (A discussion on the talk page of the Miraculous episode list arrived at the same conclusion.) In the most recent of his removals, he used a profane, vulgar attack in his edit summary, with all the triggers I can imagine (profanity, damnation, s*icide, body shaming, mental illness, p*rnography, death threats and more). I urgently request his summaries removed and all his socks blocked. Miracusaurs (talk) 08:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Edit summary removed and article protected. I'll leave any range blocking to somebody else. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth:. Thanks. I guess you'll need to protect List of Miraculous: Tales of Ladybug & Cat Noir episodes, his main target, as well. Miracusaurs (talk) 10:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• Widr has blocked the /64 and NinjaRobotPirate has partially blocked the /32 from the two pages for 3 months. I note that there have been previous blocks at /33 and /34. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Samsonite Man, again at Alicia (album)

Previously reported at this noticeboard for edit warring at the same article, confirmed by an admin to not have engaged my points in discussion regarding the content dispute, this time at this thread at that article's talk page. Not complying with WP:BRD, appears to have no interest in compromise either. Diffs of reverts as follow:

• 08:50, 5 September 2021
• 13:52, 5 September 2021
• 08:26, 8 September 2021
• 08:27, 8 September 2021

Piotr Jr. (talk) 16:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I've tried time and time gain to discuss the changes but to no avail.Samsonite Man (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

You have tried to discuss? How does one try to discuss? You either discuss or you don't. If you have opened dialogue then why have you stopped. The discussion doesnt end until and unless there is consensus or the consensus is that there is no consensus. You started this off with a Bold edit. That edit was Reverted. The next step is Discussion. The edits can not be re-added unless consensus is in the favor of your edits. The only thing you can try to do is convince the community that your edits are backed up by reliable sources and then wait for a consensus decision. There is no time limit on discussion. --ARoseWolf 18:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@ARoseWolf Have you read the article's talk page? My edits have been backed up by sources. Samsonite Man (talk) 13:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Samsonite Man, Have you read WP:BRD? Do you understand what it says are your options if your edit has been reverted? You don't get to circumvent the process just because you believe your edit is legitimate. Once it is disputed, the ONLY recourse is community consensus on the talk page, period. By you reverting it back to your version of the article you are edit warring. --ARoseWolf 13:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

This editor is clearly trying to bet me blocked for making edits to the article he doesn't agree with. So far he has reverted every single edit I've made.Samsonite Man (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

You seem to have offered no other recourse, with the way you've handled this dispute. You have exhausted my capacity for compromise and understanding. I am here hoping for remediation. If a block is necessary, so be it, at this point. Piotr Jr. (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I take that back, being hard on myself: I have compromised, particularly with recent edits surrounding the recording period concern raised by the editor. Piotr Jr. (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I must thank the editor for offering the newly added source. The article is better for it. Piotr Jr. (talk) 19:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Samsonite Man: I think you are the one who is edit warring. Alicia is a featured article, that means it should have high quality sources and the sources you added are not in high quality. Also the article is fine as it is, no need to change it. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 21:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@TheAmazingPeanuts I'm not the one who's edit warring. The article is not "fine" by any means. Please read the album's talk page. This editor thinks he is allowed to police the article and revert every edit he doesn't agree with just because he's written most of the article. Every source I've offered has been reliable. So far I've only been able to convince him that link to a student newspaper article didn't offer any "additional and more detailed overage of the subject"... He's a severe case of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR! Samsonite Man (talk) 13:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Wow. What a jerk. "By any means"?? Piotr Jr. (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Piotr Jr., please strike that. You can comment all you want on the content of their edit but please do not call them disparaging names. It's really not helping matters. Thanks --ARoseWolf 16:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Stricken, but still felt ... Piotr Jr. (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Bruno Rene Vargas

In April this year I created a draft page for the movie TÁR. User:Bruno Rene Vargas, who at the time was having what I'll call a credit dispute over Cocaine Bear, elected to shove this version to my userspace, and make their own version as a means of spite over my decision to stop the fight at Cocaine Bear by relocating his draft with this abysmal and pathetic rationale "It seems unfair to me that someone like you who months ago reproached my way of creating drafts now does the same and does not suffer what I suffered at the time with Draft: Cocaine Bear. I proceed to send your draft to your personal workshop because I consider that my draft was created with a better format and information, just as you did with User:Bruno Rene Vargas/Cocaine Bear (film). There was a back and forth back then and I, just not wanting to continue dealing with it, dropped the issue. Cut to now, when I notice that the film TAR has now begun filming, I decided to correct the wrong done unto me and use my version and move it to draftspace. Vargas, now using the account @BRVAFL: (despite "permanently retiring") is again utilizing absuive edit practices to continue this spite to again garner credit by twice shoving my work out of the way, despite being warned not to. They are not entitled to any regardless, I created it first anyway as per the edit history, they have no claims to that and has gone on to create multiple needless userspaces I do not want just to continue spiting me. I demand at this point they be blocked for their abusive edit practices and that my version of the article be restored back to userspace. They fundamentally do not care about what's best for the site, just what's best for them. Rusted AutoParts 23:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@TAnthony: @Anthony Appleyard: would WP:HISTMERGE be usable here to clean up all the needless new pages BRV created? Rusted AutoParts 23:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll also ping @Liz:, BRV seems to have taken unbridge with some of her decisions too, from the looks of it. Rusted AutoParts 00:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping but I just do not get the issue about getting "page creator" credit among editors working on contemporary films. This is just pettiness. No one is keeping score and handing out awards for who creates the most film pages. Is this about bragging rights? Work on the article that is the most developed and complete no matter who made the first edit. This is like the old days when talk page participants would yell "FIRST!" when they posted the first comment. I thought this in-fighting would end when Starzoner was blocked but it seems to be endemic to the subject matter. You should be working together to create great articles, not competing with each other. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

P.S. I write this without examining the facts of the case so I'm not passing judgment on who is right, just shaking my head that this bickering is still going on. And Bruno, I thought you retired...no? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I highlight the credit aspect as that's really the only rationale I can fathom as to why Bruno conducts themselves in the way they do. I used to be similarly minded when I would see duplicate versions of an article/draft I made but over time I realized it's both pointless, and duplicate pages tended to fall on my shortcoming of not fully double checking if it already existed. I just wouldn't go to the lengths Bruno has, by sending different versions of the same content spiraling all over the site just to insert theirs. Rusted AutoParts 08:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

It does not seem very smart to come here to accuse me making use of lies such as the fact of having cited a dispute in which it was not even you who was arguing with me, you only got to make page movements without anyone having requested it. The one who should be punished for abusing your page-moving privileges is you since you can clearly see the history of unnecessary movements you made to position your draft.BRVAFL (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

You are moving pages simply to spite. That is abusing your abilities. Your choosing to ignore I intervened in a dispute where you were pulling the same shit on @Vistadan: doesn't negate that. Whether I was involved with the Cocaine Bear dispute from the start is not relevant, you were redirecting them repeatedly, despite their version having better information at the time, and you continuing to do that just for the sake of beingf first. Here, in this instance, This isn't two editors making drafts at the same time, this is you LITERALLY discrediting my efforts cause you believe I screwed you over or something. All because you were so offended I simply asked you to improve your draftwork style. How pathetic. Rusted AutoParts 23:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy link to previous ANI discussion about this issue and these editors: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1064#User:Bruno_Rene_Vargas_draftwarring. Schazjmd (talk) 23:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

"Bruno Rene Vargas agrees not to repeat a move of a draft to userspace to create space for his own draft" they certainly ignored that. Rusted AutoParts 23:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm definitely wasting my time here, the fact that there are people like you who prioritize their whims over what others have to contribute tells me that the best decision will be to definitively withdraw. I already tried several times, first when I was editing on the Spanish Wikipedia (where I am blocked up to now) and now the same thing happens to me on the English Wikipedia. This will be my last edition, for me to do what you consider most appropriate, at the end of the day life is too fleeting to waste time in banal discussions like this. If creating pages about movies is not allowed here then I will stop writing about movies and instead start writing my own movie.BRVAFL (talk) 00:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I prioritized ending your bickering over something so trivial as who created it first, not some petty whim like deliberately hijacking an existing edit space to spite. Rusted AutoParts 00:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Uninvolved opinion The shenanigans with TÁR and the user pages (literally hijacking a page out of what appears to be some WP:OWN silliness) are grounds for drastic and unequivocal action. Suggest A) speedy deleting the hijacked pages and restoring the originals (because this is a collaborative project, so if Bruno had anything constructive, he could just have added it to the existing article) and B) since apparently, this is not the first time, giving the culprit an extended break (potentially of indeterminate duration...), because not heeding the concerns of others with one's edits and repeating the same disruptive silliness, months after being warned about it, is, as in point A), incompatible with participating in a collaborative project. (edit conflict) As for the above comment, and since people will surely ask, in addition to it confirming some of my points, given that Bruno had previously "permanently retired" (only to come back), I don't think it's reason to avoid imposing any sanctions. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Well, if what they want so much is to see me sanctioned myself, I request a permanent blocking of this account and the main account so that if I wanted to return again, I would not be able to do so. As Kendrick Lamar says "Whatever you doin ', just make it count" so I won't waste my time here again.BRVAFL (talk) 01:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Nobody's out there to get you sanctioned. If, however, you're not willing or not able to actually collaborate, and instead keep digging, then there's nothing further that needs to be said. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:17, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
• @RandomCanadian and Rusted AutoParts: Special:Contributions/BRVAFL shows what pages BRVAFL has worked on; but which of those pages need history-merging or whatever? A look shows TÁR, Draft:Draft:TÁR, User:User:Bruno Rene Bargas/TÁR;:are these relevant? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Man I didn't know just how many pointless versions of this got made in this mess. All three of those are just the exact same thing. They should be merged and moved out of mainspace to reimplement the original version or just be deleted. Rusted AutoParts 08:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• This is ridiculous; Wikipedia is not a game to be won, and each one of these unattributed copies of another editor's work is a violation of Wikipedia's content license. Here's what's going to happen here:
  1. I'm removing the page from mainspace and create-protecting the location, and restoring both drafts to their original locations. All other versions will be deleted.
  2. For abuse of the permission, RustedAutoParts' pagemover rights are revoked. They may reapply at any time via the usual process, unless the proposal below passes.
  3. Neither of you is to move either of the drafts, nor make any more cut-and-paste copies of either one, nor create any new drafts for this film. If you do you will be reverted and blocked.

If anything remotely similar to this happens again, you will be blocked from editing. Here is a list of the pages/copies/redirects I've located already; most were created within the last 24 hours:

• TÁR (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:TAR (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Draft:TÁR (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:Bruno Rene Vargas/TAR (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:Bruno Rene Vargas/TAR (upcoming film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:User:Bruno Rene Bargas/TÁR (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:Rusted AutoParts/TÁR (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:Rusted AutoParts/TAR (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:Rusted AutoParts TAR (film)/1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:Rusted AutoParts TAR (film)/2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• -- Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  Scratch that proposal I wrote here earlier (I've removed it). On further investigation the disruption here is all Bruno Rene Vargas' doing, and it's plainly obvious that they're trying to steal credit for other users' contributions and settle old scores, and doing so in a way that is highly disruptive to prove a point. So I'm going to simply propose that Bruno Rene Vargas (using any account) is banned from moving any page, period. (Cut and paste moves are already forbidden) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  Primefac and I were working on this at the same time and might have stepped on each other a bit, but I think we've got this down to the original two pages. The draft originally authored by RustedAutoParts now lives in the article namespace, while the version that Bruno Rene Vargas created some time later and repeatedly tried to hijack over the first version by cutting and pasting has been reassembled and lives at Draft:TAR (film). Several redirects from page moves are littered around the project but all the actual content is now in the history at one of those two pages. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: move ban

To formally agree with Ivanvector's point above, I am proposing that Bruno Rene Vargas (under any identity or alt account) is banned from moving pages. I was hoping this whole "who gets credit thing" was limited primarily to Starzoner (now indeffed) who was doing similar things but on a much larger scale. Through that entire experience I was in discussions with Bruno and thought I had intimated that these "who gets credit" issues are trivial, and that they understood, but clearly I was mistaken. I am not going to go through another dragged out dramafest like with Starzoner, so it's time to nip this in the bud. Primefac (talk) 14:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support - is this something that can be enforced by use of the software or are we relying on Bruno Rene Vargas to not move pages on pain of an indef? Mjroots (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  An edit filter could be set up to prevent page moves. Otherwise, it would be based on checking their move history occasionally. Primefac (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  It's not the best reason to consume an edit filter, and I'm more concerned about the cut-and-paste moves personally. A move ban works just like a topic ban, really. We (presently) can't block someone from page moves, but the tradeoff is if they don't follow this restriction, we'll block them from everything. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support Rusted AutoParts 18:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support. As the minimum. After violating their voluntary ban this proposal seems necessary. Tiderolls 19:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support to prevent future problems and to have the restriction on record should BRV undo their most recent retirement. Schazjmd (talk) 19:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support One extended rodeo of that sort was enough, thank you. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support per having proposed this above. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support - This behavior is unacceptable. - Aoidh (talk) 21:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support – it seems being able to move drafts and articles makes it impossible for Vargas to edit constructively. Restricting it may help him to become more accustomed to working collaboratively and stop being so concerned with how many drafts or articles he has "officially" created. —El Millo (talk) 21:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support per all the above, and should think themselves lucky it's not an indef for being WP:NOTHERE. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:35, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support as less drastic than my original proposal for a block due to the NOTHERE and per WP:ROPE. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support. This would hopefully reduce the amount of pages they have created for films that just haven't met NFF or NFILM, many of which require cleanup to improve (at best) or deletion (at worst). ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:56, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support in light of breaking this promise and as captured in the last thread on this. DeCausa (talk) 08:26, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

96.19.71.229 again

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

---

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

User is continuing their edit warring ways, this time repeatedly attempting cut & paste page moves on various Windows articles. Looks like they haven't learned their lesson even after release of their first block. Jalen Folf (talk) 01:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for three months. Let me know if problems resume later. Johnuniq (talk) 03:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Ethnic aspersions, bulk POV edits and re-reverts

Toghrul R (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

• Removal of sourced content from contentious areas [29], [30], [31]. Source Armenpress oldest news agency in Armenia
• Similar bulk disruptive edits in AA topics, just a few: [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38].
• re-reverts in AA area without opening a discussion, notified of WP:BRD, [39], [40]
• Casting ethnic and other aspersions when confronted for their disruptive edits, and disregard for the official MFA statements just because the reporting source is Armenian (the oldest one in the country btw): [41], [42] | full discussion: [43].
• still going and re-reverting as we speak [44]

Their POV edits, subsequent blind re-reverts without discussion (even when they were notified of relevant guidelines such as WP:BRD), and casting of ethnic aspersions (one might say hatred of Armenia/Armenians) suggest that the user is WP:NOTHERE. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting before i was going to you report you. I removed unsourced information from the articles and I totally stand by my edits, while on Shusha article, I created a heading in which we can talk about the claims. There's not a vandal act there as you exaggerate. While you stated that I don't care what your opinion is. This type of statement cannot lead to fruitful discussions. And Here some of your reverts which go against the rules: [45] [46] [47] [48]. Once again, i stand by my edits, so your reverts of unsourced content are against the rules, straight up. — Toghrul R (talk) 11:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

At least do the bare minimum and link the exact diff, so people can see what you're talking about. My response was to you bringing my supposed ethnicity (which you have no way of knowing btw) 2 times in a row, after I kindly implied you to stop and focus on the edits [49] (there is much you should focus on right now): yet you still persisted [50], [51]. Comment on content, not on the contributor.

Here some of your reverts which go against the rules [149] [150] [151] [152]

Care to explain what rules? How do I know your edits aren't just another POV like you did with above examples removing official Artsakh MFA statements just because "source was Armenian"? Hence, the reason I explained and reverted you per WP:BRD, yet you re-reverted me after without opening a discussion in all of the articles I reverted you. I don't think you're here to build an encyclopedia. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

ZaniGiovanni first off, i have been on Wikipedia for many years, please check my activity. I'm not a controversial person, but in this case your tone of speech ("what the hell", "I don't care") ruins the process. Your etnicity has a role in your view, sad but it's true. If you're an Armenian, you support Armenia. As for the sources, it's not a guesswork, if the source (in this case: the statement) doesn't include exact names, you cannot add that to the article (in this case Madagiz, Shusha and etc.). It's just a statement to relieve the people who suffered from the war, that's it. Your reverts ([149] [150] [151] [152]) were absolutely incorrect. Firstly, NKAO was located in Azerbaijan SSR. We mention the birthplace in the articles and correct subdivisions that existed back in the day. Toghrul R (talk) 11:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Toghrul R: It is absolutely not true that [i]f you're an Armenian, you support Armenia. I know that may be hard to believe, but people can have nuanced and complicated feelings about their home country. I highly recommend you strike that statement (by adding <s></s> around it). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

And armenpress doesn't mention Madagiz, Shusha or other places: [52]. So the verification fails in this case. That reference can be added inside of the article of Artsakh as it mentions that "The territories of Artsakh are considered occupied by Azerbaijan", nothing else — Toghrul R (talk) 11:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Please stop, this is not the place to discuss content, see Wikipedia:ANI_advice (you should've done this in the talk pages of articles which you failed to do). The issue here is your editing behavior and your breach of WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:BRD, WP:EW, WP:DE, WP:CONSENSUS. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

The root of the issue comes from that citation and your false reverts, so without discussing the contents it's impossible to determine the guilty. Toghrul R (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you're reading my replies very carefully or any of the relevant guidelines. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm already aware of the guidelines. In my case, I've done my edits absolutely correctly and stand by them. — Toghrul R (talk) 12:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Toghrul R, "Your etnicity (SP) has a role in your view, sad but it's true. If you're an Armenian, you support Armenia." That is a dangerous precedent to set. It would almost seem you suggest that a person of a particular ethnicity can not edit articles related to their ethnicity or in reference to without presenting a non-neutral POV or that they may even have a COI because of their ethnicity. We shouldn't be trying to guess ethnicity here on Wikipedia or assume that it plays a role even if you believe it does. --ARoseWolf 12:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

ARoseWolf, I know, but unfortunately, that's the core of the issue. The rage between the countries and people is at its peak, so his reverts are quite understandable in my book. Looking for the tiniest details, etc. By the way, whenever I edit an article, I feel attacked by others. Most of the time I check their user page and it says that they belong to the mentioned etnicity. I wouldn't want to talk about this on an encyclopedia, and feel sorry for this, but it's the situation, not only on enwiki, but other platforms as well. — Toghrul R (talk) 12:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Toghrul R, that's not an excuse. The fact you search for it as a means to determine the intent of an editor is troubling in my opinion. Assuming good faith is not an option and we are not to assume bad faith based on ethnicity. That goes against the very core principles of Wikipedia. If you were that aware of guidelines and principles then you should know that. This has morphed from a simple content issue into something that is bizarre and concerning. --ARoseWolf 13:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

ARoseWolf The intention i have from the beginning is to remove falsification of reality, even thou the I don't care what your opinion is comment made by the user makes it impossible to have a consent on the issue. I've said nothing against his/her will, didn't say that he has a bad faith because of his ethnicity. I said that it's understandable for him/her to make such edits (reverts). — Toghrul R (talk) 13:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I already showed the context of my reply with diffs, Here again [53]. Yet you try to 'clinch' on something to belittle me or my arguments. Indeed, I don't care about your ethnical aspersions. Just because the community is busy with "drama" (learned yesterday, apparently how this board is described [54] :)) doesn't mean your continual repetition without context will go unnoticed. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Toghrul R, You referred to their reversion as "vandalism". How is that not bad faith? Vandalism is one of the most serious charges of bad faith here. You admitted, right here in this discussion, that you arrived at this conclusion based upon assumption of their ethnicity. --ARoseWolf 13:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@ARoseWolf: yes, i did. But it was not because of the person, but the revert itself. It's quite misleading. — Toghrul R (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Do we need to keep going here or can you just admit you targeted his edits and called them vandalism because you believe the editor is Armenian and you disagree with their view of the issue? I'll leave this right here as yet another exhibit of how you keep trying to move the target. If it's not about the editor or their ethnicity then why even say this, Yes, the ethnicity has a huge impact on the settlement of your vandalism edits.? --ARoseWolf 18:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm already aware of the guidelines

Oh really, then you should be aware that you're breaching WP:BRD, WP:ONUS, WP:CONSENSUS. The disruptive edits you did on mutliple pages already enjoyed consensus at the very least per WP:SILENCE hence my reverts to consensus/stable version. As shown by the diffs above, most if not all of your edits were unsourced addtions on Armenia/Armenians related pages. When you get reverted (espeically in contetious articles), it's on you to achieve consensus for your changes on talk. You failed to do so in every article I reverted you in and edit-warred with re-reverts later. Your contributions history is full of examples (as the diffs mentioned above) [55].

Moreover, breaches of WP:PERSONAL and casting ethnical and “vandalism” aspersions done by you [56] [57]. Some quotes:

• Chipmunkdavis, ZaniGiovanni is Armenian, so his defence on the issue is quite understandable. In general, Armenia tries to calm their citizens down by referring to the lost areas as claimed or occupied by Azerbaijan. In reality, it's controlled (both de-facto and de-jure) by Azerbaijan, so the country should be Azerbaijan only, no matter the Armenian media says.
• Yes, the ethnicity has a huge impact on the settlement of your vandalism edits. Wikipedia is based on neutral sources (if the local ones are not necessary). The so-called Artsakh MFA can say anything, they can even call the lands not lost, but the reality and 3rd party sources say otherwise.

FYI,

1) you had no way of knowing if I'm Armenian (or any nationality for that matter), and you automatically assumed and cast your bigoted and completely WP:OR aspersions

2) I didn't do any edits, I reverted your disruptive edits and sourced content removal / sourceless additions per WP:BRD yet you re-reverted me and refused to open talk discussions. The one and only discussion you opened so far was in Talk:Shusha#Country_section, where I didn't even revert you [58] (and discussion topic seems to also be different, but again POV focused)

3) Since you're admitting yourself that you're aware of relevant guidelines and still see no wrong-doing in your editing approach, it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that you're not here to build an encyclopedia. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand, but I mentioned that I assumed your etnicity due to the nature of your edits, and to show that obvious conflict between the nations shouldn't make its way here. I'm not for that on Wikipedia, never have been. Plus, haven't added any unsourced information on the articles, but removed them, stated that many times already. Reverting is also a part of the editing process, it means that you agree with the provided data. I've been creating neutral articles, and the scenery on this side of became quite concerning to me to say the least. — Toghrul R (talk) 13:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Toghrul R, do you not see how you violated WP:BRD in regards to this diff? --ARoseWolf 13:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  ARoseWolf excuse me, but it's not. Let me explain. The Hadrut Region is different, it was within the divisions of Artsakh. Aknakbyur was the name given to the settlement after the capture of the town in 1993. So, from 1993 to 2020 i can agree the given division, but for 1930, the name was Ağbulaq and it was located within Hadrut District not Hadrut. Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast, Azerbaijan SSR, Soviet Union follows the rest. He reverted to Aknakbyur, Hadrut, Nagorno Karabakh which is incorrect. Nagorno Karabakh was not an administrative division in 1930, but Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast was. Cheers — Toghrul R (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  Why is any of that relevant to BRD? You made a change, you were reverted and you restored that change. DeCausa (talk) 13:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  @DeCausa and ARoseWolf: because the revert he made led to false information. The same with this diff and this diff as well. The user removes the word Azerbaijan for no reason, but it should be there. — Toghrul R (talk) 14:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  (Non-administrator comment) Then the onus is on you, as the editor who made the initial change (the "B" in BRD) to then discuss why it should stand, not to simply revert the revert again. If you truly believe the information was false, provide a source to verify your position and discuss the change. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 14:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Grapple X: the administrative divisions don't require a citation in my opinion. It's already written in the relevant articles, so a reader can see the administrative chain. That was the original intention while making such changes. — Toghrul R (talk) 14:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  All information requires a citation, especially if it's considered controversial or likely to be challenged, and editors reverted its addition is explicitly challenging the information, so the need for verification is clear. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 14:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  because the revert he made led to false information

  Ah yes, reverting "false information" of course. We'll return to this, but firstly,

  I think you just don't listen at this point. I reverted you, the articles were modified/edited today by you. So your subsequent re-reverts without attempting to talk is indeed WP:EW, and a clear breach of WP:BRD .

  Regarding your edits and "false information reverts": What Azerbaijan SSR and this person have to with each other [59]? Did you even read their birth date of 1998? Azerbaijan SSR was long gone by that time. How was your edit an improvement to the article? Why did you re-revert me again without a discussion [60]? This was nothing but a disruption and a clear POV, and I'm baffled by your persistent stubbornness here.

  It doesn't even feel right discussing all this content issues here, which you should've done in any, just ONE of the article's talk page. Yet you choose to edit-war, cast aspersions, and then come here to discuss content? What? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) @DeCausa, ARoseWolf, and Grapple X:, I concur with you all. User:Toghrul R, your behavior is concerning and that includes your behavior across articles violating BRD, your behavior towards users both when you insult them and invoke their nationality, and your behavior here as you stubbornly refuse to see that you're in the wrong regardless of how many users point it out to you. We don't need to discuss if you did wrong, as that's settled. The matter is rather this: if you are allowed to continue editing Wikipedia, how will your behavior change? Jeppiz (talk) 14:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  @DeCausa, ARoseWolf, Grapple X, and Jeppiz: excuse for the ping, but i never denounce another person for their nationality. The reasons for the reverts were not because of this, but for administrative divisions which have been widely used across Wikidata as well. I'm an administrator on another wiki, and create articles in different languages as well. Among which there're Armenian people too. Does this exonerate me from being free here? Of course, not. I respect the principles on Wikipedia and the decisions made here, but if a user says I don't care what your opinion is, then i think there's no point in discussing it, so i'll leave it and take a rest. — Toghrul R (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  I’ve had a look at your edits and I see you’re making a series of mass changes on a number of Armenia/Azerbaijan articles. That’s a bad idea to start with. But I see that your approach is to revert when you get reverted as you have been multiple times. This isn’t just with the OP but others too eg here. You need to stop doing this and head for the talk page when that happens. Being right isn’t a defence to edit-warring. And, btw, stop calling edits vandalism when they are not, and stop talking about others’ ethnicity. You will get blocked if you continue in that vein. DeCausa (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  Note to the community - this is the third time user brings out of context quote and tries to belittle my arguments based on it. Third time I'm showing the context:

  After their ethnical aspersions [61], [62], I correctly (to which I stand by) said that I don't care about their bigoted opinions and showed the exact reasons of my actions and relevant guidelines. Here, [63]. You can have a look and judge by yourself, as I'm not just going to provide diffless quotes out of context. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  DeCausa i don't talk about it, the discussion mentioned that so i had to clarify it that my intention is not bad, but to provide clear knowledge — Toghrul R (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  That’s simply untrue. You brought it up first on CMD’s talk page. And, btw, the OP saying “I don’t care what your opinion is” is in response to you saying “Yes, the ethnicity has a huge impact on the settlement of your vandalism edits.” The OP’s response is justified. DeCausa (talk) 14:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  (Non-administrator comment) It may sound uncooperative and certainly could have been worded better, but ultimately when it comes to article content, no one's opinion matters—your opinion, or mine, or any other editor's, is not verifiable, not reliable, and not pertinent. Now, if you presented adequate sourcing verifying your position and a reverting editor refused to discuss this, then you would be in the right to pull them on not engaging in the BRD cycle, but you still have to initiate that discussion regardless of whether you think they will engage or not. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 14:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Toghrul R, I'll be blunt. Any of the following is likely lead to your expulsion (WP:TBAN) from the WP:AA2 topic area: 1. Ethno-national personalizing of disputes; ascribing ethno-national -inspired motives to your fellow editors during these. 2. Calling legit good faith edits vandalism (see what vandalism is not), a personal attack. 3. Contested mass changes. 4. edit warring, especially over items that you have introduced (WP:BRD, WP:ONUS). I think that's it. Hoping you're not gonna Dunning-Kruger it up, like the user whom I banned from the WP:BALKANS topic area yesterday, following a noticeboard discussion that bears certain parallels to this one. I am loggin this warning. Thanks in advance for your close attention to this matter. El_C 15:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  @El C: I took a break for a few hours to deal with real-life issues, and feel relieved to comment again on the topic. While AA2 topics are quite irritating, i think it's better to keep the drama out of Wikipedia and keep it for somewhere else. Thank you for your take on it. — Toghrul R (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Nylankramwiki

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

---

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

After Nylankramwiki attempted to create a duplicate copy of Jean Garcia at Jean Garcia (Actress), I turned the latter into a redirect, with an explanation in the edit summary [64]. They wrote Hey fuck youu what is your problem on my article [65] on my talk page; I tried to clearly explain the issue in my reply [66]. Another personal attack followed [67], and yet another after a warning on their talk page [68]. This is not the first time they have lashed out at other editors [69]. DanCherek (talk) 13:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

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

I just wanted to add to this, they had created a draft Jean Garcia Official that was a copy of the main article, so I deleted it. I would note that it seems the account is claiming to be the article subject, and it seems they're viewing Wikipedia in the same way as a social media account on other platforms, hence the Jean Garcia Official designations. So we may not want to completely dismiss the editor. However the behaviour and attitude are not acceptable and if it is that person, it's not a good look. However given the language usage, it doesn't strike me as an experience 52 year old actress. Canterbury Tail talk 14:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I doubt an experienced 52-year-old actress would be trying to directly promote herself - her agents/promotional staff would, but not her herself. Image is everything. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 00:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

ZeusAmmon1

This user did posted a message falsely claiming I am a Greek editor and containing another personal attack because I disagreed with him.[70] Then he admitted there is an organized editing community on Turkey-related Wiki articles.[71] Later, he claimed that there is an Armenian trolling group.[72] Lastly, he said that my profile is "full of being how great being greek" and claimed that I am being "paid" for this.[73] This shows clearly a WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. Best regards.--V. E. (talk) 15:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

You litterly miss understood everything. How did you manage it do it? And i didn't ask you for do you gettin paid for "full of being how great being greek". I litterly said do you get paid as moderator. What is wrong with you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeusAmmon1 (talk • contribs)

(Non-administrator comment) Please refrain from making personal attacks as you did here. Wikipedia is a volunteer effort, and moderators are not paid as you claim; as such we are to focus on the edits and not the editors. If there is a content dispute regarding information on the Turkish War of Independence page, please use that article's talk page to discuss—with reliable sources—any changes necessary, but do not resort to insulting editors you disagree with. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 15:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Which part do i attack him? Greek nationalists accuse me of being an organized nationalist troll and when I answered i get warning but your beloved mod not getting one. This is literaly called as hypocrisy sir ZeusAmmon1 (talk) 15:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Accusing someone of having "brain seizures" simply because you disagree with them is clearly a personal attack. If you do not have content to contribute to the article in question it may be better to walk away from any argument rather than engaging in insults. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 15:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

He twist my words and you're focused about i said "brain seizures" , since when brain seizures is an attack? ZeusAmmon1 (talk) 15:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Just minutes after this incident on Talk:Turkish_War_of_Independence#Possible_Turkish_Nationalist_Troll_Network_and_Meatpuppetry_Case, a highly-followed, aforementioned Twitter account shared a post on this event.[74] This user is clearly WP:CANVASSING.--V. E. (talk) 15:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Again with the ethnicity stuff? I can see some TBAN's or even main space bans coming in the future over this mess. ZeusAmmon1, you knew you were insulting and attacking when you accused them of having "brain seizures". You meant it as an attack because they were frustrating you. But you allowed that frustration to turn into a personal attack rather than walking away (that is a thing). Canvassing isn't cool either and I hope it stops but I'm not confident it will. The content issues should be discussed on the article's talk page. I wish people would just forget what they think they know and open their ears and eyes and pay attention to what they are saying and doing. Attacking someone because of their ethnicity is so ridiculous. We all come from somewhere so we all have an ethnicity. Yours is no better than anyone else's. Neither does mine qualify me to edit any more than yours and it sure doesnt make my edits more relevant than yours. The same goes for everyone else. Just stop it already. --ARoseWolf 16:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Apparently he didnt say anything about voting. He says look what wiki mods are doing. If you're not understanding Turkish why still trying to accuse someone for WP:CANVASSING. ZeusAmmon1 (talk) 16:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

The Brain seizure part and the repeating of it jointly with hypocrisy seems to merit some admin action. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

You keep saying ethnicity but it's nothing about ethnicity ZeusAmmon1 (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

The diffs pointed out by Paradise Chronicle: "Do you have brain seizures or what?" and the clarification that only makes it worse: "And "Do you have brain seizures or what?" part simply means your hypocrite and pretending differenly." are outright personal attacks which are not allowed on Wikipedia. A personal attack does not have to be an ethnic slur.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 16:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

ZeusAmmon1, I am assuming you are making a serious statement in response to my comment. "I am actually a socialist. And you're a greek nationalist." If it had nothing to do with ethnicity then why did you bring it up to them? --ARoseWolf 17:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm glad finally someone asked properly. That person took a screenshot and said, "Look, Turkish nationalists gather and trolls like this, sometimes by deliberately making wrong translations." I felt the need to respond to this because I am neither a nationalist as he mentioned, nor am I a member of any group, nor am I trolling. I didn't even have a conversation with the person he called as this person is organizing. The person in that account, whom he refers to as a nationalist, also says that he is not a nationalist. And when I told that he pretended like I say quite opposite. Anyway as a response I told him I am nationalist but apparently, you're nationalist. But when I called him a greek nationalist he acted as greek is a slur but it's not a slur and never was. Dunno why but he acted weirdly and i asked "Do you have brain seizures or what?" why do you make this? Yet again he acted like I say brainless or etc. Also when I simply asked does moderator getting paid? (which I asked as a serious question) and his response was creating Adminastor notebooks and wrote this "Lastly, he said that my profile is "full of being how great being greek" and claimed that I am being "paid" for this.". This is only one of the things he purposely typing false things. And about "Later, he claimed that there is an Armenian trolling group" part I am not claiming I do have some proof and her tweets still stands here. on her profile you can see "Co-founder of #WikiArtsakh". This is their group and they're breaking COM:NPOV. ZeusAmmon1 (talk) 19:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Your message is factually incorrect, I did not call you nationalist nor troll. Besides, you thought that I was Greek with prejudice; because, as I said earlier, I am not Greek which means you label people as Greek when you disagree with them. Secondly, you are falsely assuming random Wikipedians on Twitter to be a part of troll group. In fact, they are not even editing English Wikipedia as it is apparently seen in the image. AFAIK, this misinformation was spread by the same Twitter user I mentioned earlier; you shouldn't take him seriously as he publishes incorrect information. The only part you are right is me incorrectly linking "paid moderatorship" to being Greek; however, that's irrelevant to the personal attack you did. Lastly, I did not mention the other PA which does not relate to ethnicity explicitly, because, it was already an obvious one.--V. E. (talk) 19:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• This whole discussion has gotten weird. I'm suggesting to a potential closing admin to close the discussion with a warning to both editors. WP:AGF is non-negotiable. WP:CIVIL is non-negotiable. Both probably need to take a break or both might end up with a TBAN, or more, and before you say anything, Visnelma, we can all see your talk page and we know you've had some issues with civility in the recent past. We need to take our own medicine sometimes, self included. Let's keep it real. Overall I believe a request for both to take a more civil tone with each other and discuss content, only, on article talk pages is in order. If you both can't do that I would suggest a self-imposed interaction ban. I don't think we want any escalation and sometimes it serves both parties in a dispute if we walk away from it. The disparaging remarks on ethnicity and back-in-forth as if this is a battleground needs to stop. That's my personal observation. I will yield to my fellow editors for more discussion should they feel it necessary. --ARoseWolf 20:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@ARoseWolf: Hi, during this discussion, I am unsure where I was being uncivil or did not assume GF. If you think there is a contrete reason for that, please quote the most offensive message I posted. However, I strongly believe that I did not post any such messages. On the contrary, there is a clear violation by the user that multiple non-involved users quoted. Regarding the previous incident on my talk page, it's a seperate issue and is completely irrelevant to the current discussion as that discussion was not related to the same article-topic nor it was an argument with the same user. Besides, it is not "some issues", it was a single-time issue. You suggested an interaction and topic ban, but another incident with another user should be a reason to impose such a restriction.--V. E. (talk) 20:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I also yielded but you brought me back so I will explain. I never said you were uncivil, this time. To your point, this is one incident, is it not? My words were those of caution and a call for both of you to take a more kindly approach with other editors in light of these issues. I suggested neither a TBAN nor an interaction ban from this particular discussion or any other in the past, simply a close with a warning. Regardless it is just a suggestion to whomever closes the discussion and I believe that astute individual is competent enough to know that my suggestions are just that. They are based on my observation of the totality of the issue and mine alone. I encourage you to continue discussing any content related concerns on the associated article talk page and if you have any content related questions please feel free to visit the teahouse. Happy editing! --ARoseWolf 21:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I am not saying it is not important because it was one incident, however, I think seperate issues should be discussed seperately. If you or anyone else wants to discuss it, I let it be known that anyone is welcome to my talk page. However, I am not sure why you want me to be warned for something happened in the past which is not related to the current discussion. If there was a continuation of the same behaviour after that incident, I would get it but it was not repeated by me again. Best regards.--V. E. (talk) 21:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

See, this is the canvassing I was talking about.[75]--V. E. (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@ARoseWolf: I hope you are not thinking the same after all the canvassing this user caused.--V. E. (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Visnelma, do you have clear evidence that the person "canvassing" is the same as the user here or is that your educated assumption? --ARoseWolf 17:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

At the beginning, when the discussion was not publicised by the troll leader and nobody voted to delete the image file except for ZeusAmmon1, there was an earlier Twitter post, calling people to delete this image to which nobody answered. During this point, there was only one vote to delete the image, the ZeusAmmon1 himself. If there is only one person voting to delete, it is highly unlikely someone else would go and call people on Twitter to delete this image.[76] When I talked about this and the troll group in general on the talk page of Turkish War of Independence, ZeusAmmon1 hastily replied saying that neither him nor the troll leader is nationalist. However, I made no remark on him stating that he is a nationalist, never; I only called the troll group nationalist. And just minutes later when User:Deji Olajide1999 replied to my message, this troll leader posted a Twitter message calling Wikipedians terrorists,[77] and then called people to arms en masse.[78] When the file was decided to keep, he wrote on the talk page, "The hypocrisy of Wikipedia administration...".[79] I don't know if this fall into your definition of "clear evidence" but those are the things that lead me to think he is canvassing.--V. E. (talk) 18:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: looking at the case myself, I hardly can find any reason for User:Visnelma to be warned over the current incident. We ought, as the Wikipedia community, to isolate disruption and misbehavior, not scare away those who are trying, in their own capacity, to deal with such incidents, such as V.E. The Turkey topic area is a very difficult area of Wikipedia, the last we need is to discourage capable editors from trying to do the right thing here. If they don't have our back, then who will? We already lost capable and competent editors in various topic areas, especially the Middle East, the Balkans and the Turkey topic areas just because as a community we wouldn't lend them a minimal support for their hard work. I am speaking as an Editor who also was framed as "Greek" and was attacked for my perceived ethnicity, again in the Turkey topic area and the offender was banned for doing that. I expect the admins to take a similar stance here as well, just like how they did in past cases, and throw a serious warning at User:ZeusAmmon1 or impose sanctions if their problematic behavior continues. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 09:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

The warning I mentioned is nothing more than including in the closing statement that editors are expected to conduct themselves appropriately without disparaging others based on nationality and without making assumptions based on what we think is true versus providing clear evidence prior to making claims. I looked at the case as well and I see where each side called the other a nationalist and included an ethnic group in the comment (Turkish vs Greek). At that point both were in error in my opinion. To be perfectly honest, if everyone treated Wikipedia as a place to discuss content rather than focus in on nationality or political leanings we wouldn't need AN/I quite so much. Take it or leave it. Agree or disagree. I really don't care and it's not going to change my assessment at this point anyway. I made my statement. Please don't ping me back here. The discussion has moved into this weird place of making accusations without proof and calling others vandals, sock puppets and such. --ARoseWolf 17:39, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@ARoseWolf: Can you please quote my message where I disparaged the other editor based on his ethnicity? I asked this you already twice[80][81] and you did not quote anything and you yourself said I was not uncivil.[82] This is the third time I am asking this. Besides, I am Turkish myself; so, it is pointless for me to use the word Turkish as a disparaged term.--V. E. (talk) 18:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, in a haste, I forgot you wrote don't ping back.--V. E. (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

It's fine, I realize you probably commented without seeing it. I do not believe you were uncivil but you were very provocative in starting that discussion. You wanted to provoke someone into responding. That was the intent. That is the battleground mentality that I am speaking about. There are other venues to discuss off-wiki groups that may be trying to infiltrate and disrupt Wikipedia. It could be that the leader of this group is just watching what is going on. It could be that Zeus is the leader. I don't know. So far all of the evidence presented is circumstantial. It didn't have to be presented in a provocative manner on an article talk page. My request was for everyone to just pause and move forward exercising a little more kindness in how we deal with others here. --ARoseWolf 19:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

ARoseWolf (didn't ping per request), What makes you think I'm being provacative? You are presenting that not just as a mere opinion but as a fact, AFAIS. Why would I want to provoke someone into responding for a user with whom I had no single interaction before? What's your evidence for that? As you have probably noticed, I've been sharing links for every claim that I made; however, this is the fourth time I am asking you to tell a reason for thinking something like that. Besides, I have never claimed ZeusAmmon1 to be the group leader. In fact, that is not even related to the core of my argument. Quoting myself: At the beginning, when the discussion was not publicised by the troll leader and nobody voted to delete the image file except for ZeusAmmon1, there was an earlier Twitter post, calling people to delete this image to which nobody answered. During this point, there was only one vote to delete the image, the ZeusAmmon1 himself. If there is only one person voting to delete, it is highly unlikely someone else would go and call people on Twitter to delete this image. When I talked about this and the troll group in general on the talk page of Turkish War of Independence, ZeusAmmon1 hastily replied saying that neither him nor the troll leader is nationalist. However, I made no remark on him stating that he is a nationalist, never; I only called the troll group nationalist. Furthermore, why would someone claim not to be something when you don't call him to be something but rather a group? Lastly, I posted it in the article talk page because I didn't know that there were other places to discuss off-wiki groups. In such a circumstance, why do you think it to be provocative?--V. E. (talk) 20:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Plus, as SilentResident explain here, ZeusAmmon1 defended the sock attempt to delete the file, isn't that alarming?--V. E. (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

By the way, what I initially posted in the article talk page was this: There is this one user named ERLIK on Twitter who seems to have an influence on Turkish nationalists. He says "our Wiki team is not ready yet" and "we are calling seasoned editors to join us". His posts target articles such as Turkish War of Independence, and Nutuk.[15] Another example is one user posting a message under the same post by ERLIK calling other nationalist users to delete an image on Wikimedia Commons.[16] A few months ago, he posted other messsages some of which target these articles.[17] Best regards. However, ZeusAmmon1 paraphrased it like this when answering you: "'Look, Turkish nationalists gather and trolls like this, sometimes by deliberately making wrong translations.' I felt the need to respond to this because I am neither a nationalist as he mentioned". Can you please show me where I claimed him to be a nationalist or troll in my original message? My message did not target him in any way. It's weird he wrote something like that. Furthermore, he not only paraphrased what I said wrongly but also put inside quotes.--V. E. (talk) 20:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Chain of events

• I posted a message on Talk:Turkish War of Independence regarding a Turkish troll group. Moments later, out of nowhere, ZeusAmmon1 appeared, claiming he is not a nationalist (although I made no such remark on him). He also said the leader of troll group is not a nationalist. And ultimately, he accused me of being a Greek nationalist and said "do you have brain seizures".[83]
• Then, he said there is an organized group but it is not trolling.[84]
• After that, minutes later, the leader of this troll group shared a post regarding this discussion on talk page of TWoI, claiming Wikipedians are terrorists.[85]
• Lastly, a commons deletion nomination by ZeusAmmon1 was swarmed with sockpuppet accounts upon another post by the same troll leader.[86]

I hope this helps to understand the situation. Best regards.--V. E. (talk) 09:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Thankfully, the objective evaluation of the Deletion Request by User:Gbawden, resulted in the request being denied and to the sock attempt's failure. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 11:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

 Comment:He literally accuses me over and over again but you're telling "we should punish ZeusAmmon". That does not make sense. Also, you guys really shouldn't call people "sockpuppet accounts". If you don't like people's opinions that doesn't make them troll, sockpuppets, or something like that. Also don't forget to teahouse. By the way some of you say "Kept: no valid reason for deletion" so what will happen if someone tries to make bin Ladin as good person. Will you say same thing ?

Also, you guys really shouldn't call people "sockpuppet accounts". If you don't like people's opinions that doesn't make them troll, sockpuppets, or something like that. Defending WP:SOCKPUPPETRY is a suicide case. If you really don't want to get banned and save what little respect is left for you, I suggest you WP:DROPTHESTICK right away. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 13:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

If you don't have proof you're breaking the rules by False accusation. And if someone is detected as WP:SOCKPUPPETRY then report them they will get banned. By accusing random people you're supporting real WP:SOCKPUPPETRY accounts.

• Let's just say it like this; neither user's conduct is particularly edifying. Now, if one of them is unwilling to drop the stick; then they might indeed need a enforced temporary break from here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Andlol17, disruptive editing and out of process draftifications

• Andlol17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Weboproj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Over the last couple of days these two accounts have been trying to create an article on Ranaghat News, the current article is located at Draft:Ranaghat News. The article was drafted twice due to lacking sources and generally not meeting the minimum standards for an article [87] [88]. After trying to win the move war by requesting page protection [89] the page was move protected at it's draft location with instructions to submit it for review.

Following this Andlol17 seems to have been going on a spree of draftifications, sending articles on other newspapers to draft space on the basis that they lack sufficient sources to remain published. they did this to the article on Bartaman [90] and to the article on Sangbad Pratidin [91]. The issue is that both these draftifications were not done in line with policy - these articles are 16 and 15 years old respectivley, WP:ATD-I is clear that draftification should only be done to recently created articles, if there are concerns about notability they should be prodded or sent to AFD. Because of the subject of the daftification (other newspapers) and timing I can't help but feel that these are being draftified for "revenge" purposes.

I requested that Bartaman be undraftified a couple of days ago when I noticed what had happened to it [92] and another IP has just shown up at the teahouse complaining about the missing article for Sangbad Pratidin [93]. The article was temporarily moved back to article space by User:Blaze The Wolf before being re-draftified by User:Deepfriedokra.

In accordance with WP:ATD-I and WP:DRAFTOBJECT The article on Sangbad Pratidin should be moved back to article space and dealt with through PRODS or AFD if necessary. I ask other admins to look at the draftifications that Andlol17 performed and to judge whether they were for disruptive purposes. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 15:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I forgot to include this in my original report, but I think it's worth noting that most of the remainder of Andlol17's edits consist of adding links to Ranaghat News' website to various articles [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] and adding Ranaghat News to various list articles [100] [101] so I think it's highly likely that there's some COI involved here. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 19:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not making any comments on this other than that I think one account is a sock of the other because of how similar their behavior is with both accounts having tried to create an article on Ranaghat News. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 15:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Related discussion at WP:TEAHOUSE

Sangbad Pratidin is a reputed reliable print Bengali newspaper started in 1992, created in 2006 in Wikipedia, is already supported by reliable sources. I request to restore it. It looks like it was moved to Draft:Sangbad Pratidin erroneously or by someone who does not understand Bengali topics or about the region. I request to restore it. Please find the weblink to get familiar (https://www.sangbadpratidin.in/) and e-paper link (https://epaper.sangbadpratidin.in/). Thank you. 2409:4061:2C85:9787:51F7:1B0B:9DAC:9466 (talk) 14:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC) This is a piece of page move vandalism - the account that did this did the same thing with Bartaman a couple of days ago. They seem to be on a spree of revenge draftifications because their article wasn't accepted. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC) pinging @Titodutta and Deepfriedokra:. The editors Andlol17 should be blocked immediately causing vandalism and Sangbad Pratidin should be restored. I pinged you both since you have commented at Andlol17's talk page. 2409:4061:2C85:9787:51F7:1B0B:9DAC:9466 (talk) 14:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC) Hello IP! I decided to be bold and move the article back out of the Draft space. I hope my reasoning is sufficient enough for people to understand why I did it. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 15:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC) @Blaze The Wolf: thanks for helping. 2409:4061:2C85:9787:51F7:1B0B:9DAC:9466 (talk) 15:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC) (edit conflict × 2) Hello, indeed, the move does did not make sense, I think. I asked them about the move. The editor has not edited after that and I am waiting for their response. Regards. --Titodutta (talk) 15:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC) The move has since been undone by User:Deepfriedokra with appropriate reasoning. IT will probably be moved back if it should remain out of Draft space. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 15:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC) @Blaze The Wolf: You are not helping. This clearly lacks sufficient coverage in reliable sources to show notability. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC) My apologies. I did not fully understand the situation. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 15:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC) @Blaze The Wolf: Might I suggest you reread WP:CORP, and if you are not an AfC reviewer, do please leave main spacing drafts to those who are? Thanks --Deepfriedokra (talk) Will do! Reading what was going on I thought it was someone who was making article's drafts for no reason but it appears that the move had valid reasoning. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 15:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC) @Deepfriedokra: I disagree with your draftification of the article, it doesn't line up with policy - From Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Incubation If recently created, articles that have potential, but that do not yet meet Wikipedia's quality standards, may be moved to the Wikipedia:Drafts namespace ... Because many drafts are not regularly reviewed, unilaterally moving articles to draft space ("draftifying") should generally be done only for newly created articles (as part of new page review or otherwise) or as the result of a deletion discussion. Incubation is not intended to be a "backdoor route to deletion" A 15 year old article should not be getting draftified - if you think the sourcing is poor and does not demonstrate notability (which it doesn't - the sources in the article are really poor) then prod it or send it to AFD. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 15:17, 9 September 2021 (UTC) (edit conflict × 2) User:Deepfriedokra, Thanks for your comment. I think the articles passes #3, #4, and possibly more of the notability criteria. I agree that the article needs better demonstration/sourcing. If you search, please use alternative spelling or variants such as "Pratidin", "Pratidin newspaper", "Sambad Pratidin". Example: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (See Google Books). Happy to discuss this further or work on to improve the article collaboratively. Regards. --Titodutta (talk) 15:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC) @Titodutta and Deepfriedokra: Its really surprising that Andlol17 is doing this because Draft:Ranaghat News was declined. You are letting vandalism to go undetected. I am really sorry for ourselves. For prrofs see @Deepfriedokra: your talk page. 2409:4061:2C85:9787:51F7:1B0B:9DAC:9466 (talk) 15:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Related discussion at User talk:Deepfriedokra

Sangbad Pratidin was not moved by admin Liz. It was done as an act of vandalism. See logs [102]. Andlol17 has done that since Draft:Ranaghat News ‎ was declined (see [103] and [104]) and in revenge. See proof [105] for Bartaman and [106] for Sangbad Pratidin. Also @Titodutta: for views. 2409:4061:2C85:9787:51F7:1B0B:9DAC:9466 (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC) Yes, @Titodutta:. damn tremorsInterested in your views as this clearly has not been shown to meet WP:NCORP, and 2409:4061:2C85:9787:51F7:1B0B:9DAC:9466 looks like they have a WP:COI. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC) @Sdrqaz: You moved another page that looks dratifiable. Need your input. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC) @Deepfriedokra: I having nothing to do, I came across Sangbad Pratidin as part of my school project info, and now found its gone and moved to draft. 2409:4061:2C85:9787:51F7:1B0B:9DAC:9466 (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC) You might want to report Andlol17 at WP:ANI. Awaiting more feed back. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC) I am Andlol17 reporting at WP:ANI. Its really a shame how a person is removing articles since their drafts Draft:Ranaghat News got rejected 2409:4061:2C85:9787:51F7:1B0B:9DAC:9466 (talk) 15:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC) I was just in the process of writing up an ANI report when the other IP decided to ping a load of other people, I'll post something in a minute. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 15:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC) @192.76.8.74: I am waiting for my fellow IP editor to post a complaint. This is ridiculous. 2409:4061:2C85:9787:51F7:1B0B:9DAC:9466 (talk) 15:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC) Give me a minuite, I'm getting the diffs together. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 15:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC) @192.76.8.74: please go ahead and report. Also, @Deepfriedokra: Andlol17 is operating one more account Weboproj by removing your comments (proof) and working on Draft:Ranaghat News. 2409:4061:2C85:9787:51F7:1B0B:9DAC:9466 (talk) 15:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC) Done Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Andlol17, disruptive editing and out of process draftifications 192.76.8.74 (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC) I assume we're talking about my move of Bartaman. Per WP:DRAFTIFY, draftifications should only be carried out in a few instances: following an AfD, when the creator has a COI, or during new page patrol. Given the page had been in the mainspace since 2005 and none of them applied (okay, maybe the creator had a COI going off Special:Diff/23752861, but so many people have edited it since that it's basically moot), it's far more desirable to put it through AfD than draftify it and probably get it deleted after half a year. For me, the same applies to Sangbad Pratidin – it's been in the mainspace since 2006 and the ship has sailed long ago as far as NPP is concerned. Also relevant but ignored by most NPPers: WP:DRAFTOBJECT states that if an editor raises an objection to draftification it should be moved back to mainspace and AfD should be used. I'd argue that doesn't hold for COI and paid editors (their work really should go through AfC), but that doesn't come into play for Bartaman and Sangbad Pratidin. I'd advocate keeping it in the mainspace, especially given how long it's been there. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC) @Sdrqaz: thanks for a through and logical explanation. I don't know how to report at WP:ANI. One of the fellow IP editor 192.76.8.74 said he/she will do it. Also,Andlol17 is operating one more account Weboproj and fooling us. That needs to be stopped. 2409:4061:2C85:9787:51F7:1B0B:9DAC:9466 (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Titodutta and Blaze The Wolf:, 2409:4061:2C85:9787:51F7:1B0B:9DAC:9466,. Apologies all around for my part in this. I made a number of mistakes here. I will return the one I moved to draft to where it started. Please let me know what other blunders I've made today. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: Thank you. Looks like only the issue of sock remains un-attended as pointed by Blaze The Wolf 2409:4061:2C90:7EBD:E18D:7915:CA79:72ED (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

To investigate the possible socking going on would could open up an investigation at WP:SPI, however that would require figuring out which one is the master and which one is the sock of the master. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 18:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: It's alright! I was a bit confused when you moved it back due to how I had understood the situation and assume that I has misunderstood what was being stated. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 18:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• I have no opinion on whether this should be kept or deleted, but I wish people would just follow WP:DRAFTOBJECT and list this at WP:AFD if they think it should be deleted rather than edit-war and argue about the issue here. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Personal attacks

• 2A01:4C8:1404:22BB:8CBD:914F:8A9F:2115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Yesterday, I made some edits on Zombie (The Cranberries song) that removed non-reliable sources and some general copy-editing. Today, User:2A01:4C8:1404:22BB:8CBD:914F:8A9F:2115 made this edit on the page in which they changed a word in a sentence and gave a passive-aggressive edit summary. The sentence in question beforehand read "Graham Fuller commented that the metaphor could "reanimates the children whose deaths inspired O'Riordan to write it"." before they changed it to "Graham Fuller commented that the metaphor perhaps "reanimates the children whose deaths inspired O'Riordan to write it"." I then received a message from them here on my talk page in which they flat out attacked me and named me the specific reason they "will not donate any cash to the Wikipedia project" and that I "demean it and all the dead children".

For context, I did not write this sentence originally (I don't know who did). This IP is implying that because I made a string of edits to the page yet missed this sentence, I am a disgrace to the WP project and "demeans dead children". I replied to them here explaining that. According to their contributions page the IP is already partially blocked but I still thought I should bring it up here in case another course of action needed to be taken. Thank you. – zmbro _(talk) 16:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

See also the IP range's other edits to user talk pages. Kleinpecan (talk) 17:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

For a particularly egregious example, look at this. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the internet. People here are assholes. This seems like a particularly boring and harmless kind off assholery, that you should have ignored, reverted from your talk page and then forgotten about completely, not brought to ANI. —JBL (talk) 11:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• On reviewing the IP's history, there appears to be a persistent history of egregious incivility and threats of violence. This is not mere "boring and harmless assholery." It needs to be dealt with. Here's a series of posts last year to one other user's talk page:

• "YOU’RE FINISHED IT’S OVER FOR YOU CVNT"
• "I’ll stab the fvck out of you, cvnt.
• "Listen here, mate. I’m your worst nightmare. DON’T YOU DARE TRY TO WARN ME AGAIN BECAUSE I’LL FIND OUT WHERE YOU LIVE AND I’LL FVCKING THROTTLE YOU!! ALRIGHT? GOOD.
• NIGHT SWITCH IS A ROCK SPIDER. HE ASSAULTS CHILDREN WITH HIS SMALL WACKER. HIS FAMILY WISHES THAT HE WOULD JUST END HIS LIFE ALREADY AND SPARE THEM ANY FURTHER EMBARRASSMENT LOL
• I’m getting sick of you. ... you absolute loser. Just end it right now. You might as well.
• HAHA BET YOU’RE SH1TTING IT NOW YOU LITTLE B1TCH
• Why are you such a boring cvnt, Night Switch?

Cbl62 (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

This is, indeed, boring and harmless. People on the internet are assholes -- don't read the comments, don't get worked up about anonymous idiots, etc. There's no need for a community discussion here, AIV or poking whoever blocked them most recently would have been quicker and done a better job. --JBL (talk) 16:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Wow! If these comments are "boring and harmless", god help us. Cbl62 (talk) 17:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

They are indeed boring and harmless. Probably just some teenager trying to get a rise. WaltCip-(talk) 00:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• Some of these are very egregious personal attacks that should be rev-del'ed. I'd recommend blocking the range at least from User and User talk spaces indefinitely. Isabelle ^🔔 17:35, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Mehedihasn and a physics hoax

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

---

I don't think it's quite blatant enough for AIV so I'm bringing this here. Mehedihasn has been playing a nice game of tap-dancing with a physics hoax, Draft:Derivation of E=mc^(2n+2) from Einstein's E=mc^2 (layperson explanation of why it's nonsense). They submitted it at AFC, and it was declined a couple of times, and then they moved it to mainspace directly, and then it was speedily deleted, then they got it refunded and recreated it in article space, so it was snow close deleted at AFD, and then their latest two refund requests were declined and today they've tried to blank the AFD page. We're clearly just going to see more disruption (however transparent) until the user is actually blocked—they've never made unrelated edits and made no serious engagement in discussion of why it's pseudoscience. An admin could also choose to salt Derivation of E=mc^(2n+2) from Einstein's E=mc^2 and Draft:Derivation of E=mc^(2n+2) from Einstein's E=mc^2. Since the topic is complete nonsense, I can't possibly see an issue with these pages being creation protected. — Bilorv (talk) 18:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked this editor as not here to build the encyclopedia. It makes no difference if this nonsense is a hoax or a crank theory. As for salting, that could be circumvented by a slight rewording. If this nonsense returns, any new account can be indeffed for block evasion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Username006 closing own page move discussion & general competence issues

Username006 has had a troublesome and frustrating past in making (and latterly requesting) page moves that have not always been widely accepted as sensible. This morning perhaps things have got too much for them and they made this [[107]] move on a page they had made a move request for and was under discussion Talk:BKS_Air_Transport_Flight_6845#Requested_move_9_August_2021 for which there is as yet undetermined consensus.

The edit summary for the move was "The move request has been stretching on for too long. Nothing much is going to happen anymore. It is evident that it should be renamed to the proposed title." I must say this is typical of this user and the sensibleness of such an edit is only really "evident" to them. I do think that there is a general question of this users competence not in a technical sense (these are fixable) but in a general willingness to understand how Wikipedia works.

@Acroterion: @WilliamJE:

Andrewgprout (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Username006 has been warned multiple times for making page moves without prior consensus. He was also blocked temporarily for just that. In fact he came close to being indefinitely blocked for his behavior. They deserve another at least temporary block for his latest actions. 006's general conduct, as seen on his talk page, has been problematic....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I would also note they seem to have a habit of badgering those who take the opposing position in the debate, as they did with Andrewgprout in the linked debate, and in Talk:1961 Ndola United Nations DC-6 crash to a lesser extent. BilledMammal (talk) 22:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I had previously given 006 strong advice to not make undiscussed moves or moves against consensus to make "obvious" corrections. Technically, I can't impose a formal move ban - that's a community decision. The alternative is a catch-all disruptive editing block, Therefore, short of blocking, I suggest a formal community move ban for Username006, since they keep trying to claim IAR and overwhelming obviousness that nobody else perceives. It is my perception that Username 006 is very young, and may simply be out of their element on WP. Acroterion (talk) 23:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I've left yet another note on their talkpage, warning that if they're going to branch out from their own interpretation of move guidelines into a personal MoS, a site ban my be required. Acroterion (talk) 23:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd support such a restriction, or eventual ban. Five months of these unilateral moves and it does not seem to be getting any better. Eventually WP:IDHT becomes WP:CIR. Meters (talk) 23:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support a CBAN on moving pages. I note in the BKS case that 006 moved a page in which they had initiated the move request. This is a practice that should be avoided, even where there is clear consensus. Mjroots (talk) 05:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support a TBAN on moving pages. The recent item was an egregious move in clear opposition to the RM consensus in an RM that he initiated [108]. When compounded by various recent warnings and blocks for the same reason, a TBAN is the least we should do here. Softlavender (talk) 05:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support ban on moves, just to formalize my above cmt. Meters (talk) 18:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support a ban on moves....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support a ban on moves. I wasn't aware before now the BKS move request was anything other than an isolated incident, but closing a move request you initiated is very rarely appropriate and never when consensus is anything less than unquestionably obvious. I'm involved in that discussion, but the only plausible outcomes I can see are either no consensus or consensus against the proposal so to close it and move because the outcome is "obviously" in favour of the move is egregiously wrong in every respect. Combined with the rest of the evidence here, a ban on moving pages is unfortunately needed. Thryduulf (talk) 16:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Skiyomi

I wished to bring to attention that after another socking by User:Skiyomi I have placed full protection on their user talk page, as I see no reason for others to post there with the risk of further evasion. I invite others to review this and change if desired. 331dot (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree out of exhaustion with that user and this prior thread. @Deepfriedokra: Star Mississippi 20:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Makes a nice honey trap. But, yeah. Exhausting. So exhausting. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

In hopes that a UTRS ban works before user posts there, I've banned that last one. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

My original question was whether or not I can decline to take a unblock request here from UTRS. (Skiyomi being a poor example, cause yeah.) That question was not actually answered, but . . . . --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I think you can decline to take an unblock request, at least when a user is community banned, based on the wording of the ban appeal, where it says about asking an administrator to post their appeal to AN,"This is a voluntary act, and should not be abused or used to excess."Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Deepfriedokra, without presuming to speak for the entire community (and having discussed this issue with you briefly before) I don't think the community would oblige you to transclude appeal requests, regardless of previous involvement. I assume that if another admin subsequently felt it appropriate and filed an appeal, you wouldn't be offended or consider it wheel-warring? St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Stalwart111: As I clearly demonstrated earlier today, I sometimes make mistakes. So, I rely on the good judgement of my colleagues. I am never offended if another admin sees their way to doing something I could not. I would make clear in my UTRS note that anyone else should feel free to carry to the community what I did not. My concern is with usurping the Community's prerogatives by preemptively saying "nope" and denying them the opportunity to decide. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:57, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I can't imagine anyone having a concern with that approach, and your track-record in this instance speaks for itself. Choosing not to flog a dead horse (on someone else's behalf, no less) is not the same thing as refusing the community a right to consider the horse; another admin can pick up the stick (or use their mop) if they so choose. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:35, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

NOTHERE and other issues - Capurta

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

---

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

I'm not sure if this is the right place to bring this, but I thought I should bring it somewhere.

The user Capurta has been editing Wikipedia for almost six months now, but in that time most of there edits have been reverted, including ones on contentious topics such as the Armenian Genocide that were presented with the edit summary "Added more arguments. It didn't happen :)". They also have a small habit of removing "Citation needed" and similar tags from articles without fixing the mentioned issues.

On the 9th of September, Capurta altered the date format on Fall of Kabul (2001). I reverted the change, and User:Tamzin placed a notice on their talk page about changing data formats. In response, Capurta edited their comment to make it look like they were apologizing to Capurta for an unspecified wrong, against WP:TPO, before going to the Fall of Kabul (2021) talk page and editing a lengthy discussion about the page title, replacing it with a section titled "I'm a dumbass" and stating "Kill me!!", falsely attributed to User:Kettleonwater. BilledMammal (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked Capurta for one month for disruptive editing. Falsification and fabrication of comments by other editors is utterly unacceptable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me of this, BilledMammal. In my view, a month isn't enough. The latter offense, regarding Kettleonwater, reads to me like a death threat. Given the rest of this user's behavior, I see no reason to AGF that it was meant any other way. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 00:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I've also left an ARBAA2 DS alert in light of the genocide denial. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 00:35, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Capurta wants me dead :( no Kettleonwater (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: their replies on their talk include gross incivility and a vow to sock. Time to upgrade to indef? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

As a result of their response to the original block, I have extended the block to indefinite and revoked their talk page access. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Concerns about Softlavender by Butterslipper

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

---

Hi. Softlavender has been extremely aggressive towards me. Softlavender has

• Accused me of a "pro-Communist agenda" [109]
• Accused me of lying [110]
• Accused me of a coordinated effort and having an observable agenda-pushing [111]
  • All without evidence

I tried to tell Softlavender about the personal attacks on their talk page instead of replying [112] because they would ignore my replies and then Softlavender made an entire post on my talk page agitating Acroterion to block me again [113]. Their claim was that I exercised "accusations, personal attacks, battleground statements, and quasi-legal threats" citing

• me trying to tell Softlavender that they were assuming bad-faith in me [114] but took it out of context to focus on "you're revolting and vilifying assumption of bad-faith is intolerable" when I only insulted their assumption and not them which wouldn't account as a personal attack because it was not personal and it was correct
• me trying to defend myself from attacks [115] which I was right in saying due to the aspersions being needless and rude
• me saying that I have had personal attacks thrown at me which I was correct for saying because another user personally attacked me [116] which Softlavender had done before too [117]
• me pointing out how they have disrupted the consensus and pointing out how they had no reason to remove my edit [118]
• me saying vulgar mudslinging (like what??) [119]
• me pointing out how Softlavender sullied the page [120]
• me saying that they're slandering me (specifying in a non-legal sense) [121]
• me saying people do not have to contribute if they're going to be derogatory (because they assumed me of arguing based on reddit...) [122]
• the talk page message I gave them for personal attacks [123]
• me saying their personal attacks were foulmouthed gossip which was true [124]
• me rightfully saying their reply was a hatchet job of false accusations [125]
• a so-called "edit war" where I had reverted disputed information that required a consensus on a BLP and changed the page as to remain neutral and in a middleground between the editor and I from which the dispute began (Mikehawk10)

Please help. Thanks. ButterSlipper (talk) 07:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I am copying my comment from AE: I am not sure why ButterSlipper is still allowed to edit the English Wikipedia. They have tiny contribution to the article space, all of which have been reverted, and their contributions to talk page discussions, apart from personal attacks, show complete misunderstanding or disregard of our policies and inability to listen to the opponent. Basically, they label all sources they disagree with as unreliable. Unless there are objections, I am going to block indef per WP:NOTHERE, this will save a lot of time of the community.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Please substantiate all those claims Ymblanter. I am here on Wikipedia to build an encyclopedia for the public good. ButterSlipper (talk) 08:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

(EC) You seem to have made a mistake with your diff for 'coordinated effort and having an observable agenda-pushing' as all it shows is SoftLavender removing a duplicate post. The next edit doesn't show anything like that either and the previous edit is by some other editor so it's a bit confusing what you're referring to. Nil Einne (talk) 08:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

My bad Nil Einne I will fix that.

I have fixed the first Nil Einne but the second is pretty clear. You just have to scroll down in the diff and then you can see the accusation of lying. ButterSlipper (talk) 08:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@ButterSlipper: I have no idea what you are talking about now. I never said anything about the lying bit as the diff I saw did say lying. I only commented on the diff for 'coordinated effort and having an observable agenda-pushing' which was [126] and did not show anything like that simply the removal of a duplicate post. This was the only issue I commented on, so anything else is irrelevant.(To be clear, my comment about the next and previous edits only related to my attempt to find the diff you might be referring to and nothing else.) Nil Einne (talk) 09:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

It has been correct Nil Einne. Maybe it isn't showing up for you but that is surely the one I corrected. If you cannot access it then please see [127] that is the link that was linked above. ButterSlipper (talk) 12:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@ButterSlipper: I never said you didn't correct it. I simply said I had no idea why you brought up the bit about lying as it's not something I commented on. Nil Einne (talk) 19:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Nil Einne oh I thought that's what you meant by previous edit my bad. ButterSlipper (talk) 02:48, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Why do you have three editors' names being directed to the letter "U"? instead of pinging them? GoodDay (talk) 08:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh I must've made a mistake I will make them pings, thank you. ButterSlipper (talk) 08:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

(EC) I assume they were trying to use the {{u}} template. Unfortunate mistake but the concept seems fair enough. Pinging should not matter since they should have notified all the editors on their talk pages. Nil Einne (talk) 08:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Although it seems they notified Softlavender but not MikeHawk10 or Acroterion. I'll notify them myself. The main problem remains failing to notify on the talk page rather than the ping failures. Normally I'd remind ButterSlipper's of what the big box says, but since they're probably going to be indefed I won't bother. Nil Einne (talk) 08:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

(EC) I myself haven't done the work of Ymblanter but I think they're probably right that we should just indef ButterSlipper. Checking out ButterSlipper's talk page and finding out they are justifying introducing a potential BLP violation as instead exempt from 3RR for BLP reasons ('My edit that changed "He is a fluent speaker of Mandarin Chinese" into "The Telegraph says he's a fluent speaker of Mandarin Chinese"'). Anyone who tries to use BLP to harm living persons is not welcome on Wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 08:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Nil Einne that is an assumption of bad faith I am trying to improve the BLP. If you have contentions with my suggestion then please address them with me but do not accuse me of such behaviour. ButterSlipper (talk) 08:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@ButterSlipper: actions speak louder than words. Whatever the fuck you're trying to do, you're not achieving it and instead risking harm to living persons by your edits. That's not an assumption of bad faith, it's what you did. As someone who cares about BLP, when I see such disregard for BLP, I'm not going to mince words. Nil Einne (talk) 09:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Nil Einne thank you for caring about BLPs but you said "[I am] justifying introducing a potential BLP violation" which I did not do and assumes bad-faith. ButterSlipper (talk) 12:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@ButterSlipper: are you denying you wrote the bit about how it was okay under BLP/3RR for you to violate 3RR to reintroduce text which was itself a BLP violation "The Telegraph says he's a fluent speaker of Mandarin Chinese" and far worse of than what you were trying to "correct" ("He is a fluent speaker of Mandarin Chinese") could ever be? I'm not going to check the diffs, but if there is comment signed by you on your talk page that I'm quoting but you didn't write it, you really should be working out what happened on your talk page rather than complaining to me. If you're trying to say you didn't realise it was a serious BLP violation frankly it doesn't matter since you've demonstrated in you replies here about this issue that even when you informed of this fact you don't care about the harm you're causing to living persons. But I'll freely admit I don't believe you. I didn't at the time I wrote my first comment, and considering the other ridiculous things you've done in this thread like trying to deny Zenz's fluency in Mandarin is highly related to the Uyghur genocide topic area, it's unlikely you'll be able to convince me. Nil Einne (talk) 19:35, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes Nil Einne I did not realise it was a BLP violation and thank you for correcting me on my error I apologise for but since you're going to dogmatically repudiate the fact that what I did wrong was a mistake then why are you trying to have a discussion with me? ButterSlipper (talk) 02:21, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I myself have just given ButterSlipper a final warning about their disruptive behavior concerning the Uyghur genocide. They are on thin ice regarding the general sanctions on Uyghur genocide and the discretionary sanctions regarding BLP. Having just recently seen that these disruptive activities amount to the near totality of their contributions I am wondering if they are a net benefit to the project at all.

They are constantly finding faults with others while insisting that any criticism against them is faulty. They demand evidence to meet their arbitrary standard when they are called out on their behavior while insisting they don't have to listen to users they feel are wrong, this is but one example. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 08:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

HighInBC almost all my contributions have added to the encyclopedia positively so I don't know how the near totality of my contributions have been disruptive and I am not doing any of the negative behaviour you are describing. Yes if I have evidence that someone is wrong then I do not have to listen to their suggestions because they are wrong and the "example" you cited was me just asking for you to provide evidence for allegations??? The burden of proof is on you to prove how I am doing what you believe I am but you are refusing to. I have a very open ear but you are accusing me of not listening to others. ButterSlipper (talk) 08:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Those contributions have been reverted as problematic. Most of your edits are to talk pages where you bicker with the numerous people who disagree with your particular view of things. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 08:54, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

HighInBC those are the small minority of my edits (the previous disruptive ones I made) and how is "bickering" (discussing) on talk pages an issue??? Was me alerting Softlavender of their personal attacks bickering and disruptive too? Please explain. ButterSlipper (talk) 08:57, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@ButterSlipper: why do you keep complaining about a lack of diffs for others warning you and you not listening when you've provided the diffs or links in this very thread of SoftLavender and Acroterion warning you, warnings you've clearly failed to listen to, to the extent you had to be blocked for one of them. And for added bonus, we can now see in this thread editors are warning you and you're clearly not listening. You're like the person who goes to court and when a police officer/woman/whatever testifies they say they were assaulted by the person, the person jumps out and starts beating the officer telling the judge, "That's a lie your honour, I never assault police officers/women/whatever". Nil Einne (talk) 09:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

What Nil Einne?? The "warning" given by Softlavender was harshly ill-mannered and hypocritical when they had reverted my edit without consulting the talk page as I replied with and I replied to Acroterion too and I believe he was misled by Softlavender's misleading exclusion of context with their accusations. And it is not comparable to that scenario you described; the accusers I am asking for diffs from have the burden of proof placed upon them so they have to provide the proof of their accusations. ButterSlipper (talk) 11:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@ButterSlipper: you're missing my point. You keep demanding HighInBC provide evidence that others have warned you but you didn't listen. Even if it's correct HighInBC did not do so, you yourself did so when opening this thread. After opening this thread, multiple people who'd never interacted with you before warned you, and you've basically proceeded to ignore most or all of them i.e. you didn't listen to these people. So there's no reason to demand evidence any more since you've already provided evidence yourself that people are warning you and you're refusing to listen. I mean even if it's correct that no one warned you and you didn't listen before, which doesn't make sense given you provided the evidence of this happening when you opened this thread, it has clearly happened now. Nil Einne (talk) 19:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Nil Einne my actions in this ANI is not evidence at all towards me ignoring others. I have tried to reply to as much comments as I've gotten (including yours) but some might've slipped through the cracks since I have almost 20 notifs and much, much more replies that haven't notified me. Cut me some slack, I have a life too. ButterSlipper (talk) 02:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• Ymblanter is exactly right about very single point. And to HighInBC, the answer to "I am wondering if they are a net benefit to the project at all" is no. Softlavender (talk) 08:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

ButterSlipper, you're peeving off a growing number of editors. They're gonna push you out the exit door, if you don't stop. GoodDay (talk) 08:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Is making them mad a qualifier for a block?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ButterSlipper (talk • contribs) 08:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Your view of Wikipedia (on your userpage) isn't a great start. Personally, I don't care what any editor puts on their userpage. But, my guess is it's putting you in a bad light. GoodDay (talk) 08:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• My evaluation of ButterSlipper is that they are pretty blatantly not acting in good faith. ––FormalDude talk 08:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Sorry to hear that FormalDude what evidence led you to believe that? I always work to maintain the encyclopedia to the best of my ability and your assumption of bad faith is disheartening. ButterSlipper (talk) 09:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
    • It was an inference of bad faith, not an assumption. The evidence being your comments at this AN/i, at Adrian Zenz, and at WP:RS/N. I find your arguments to be disingenuous and naive. Your refusal to concede is the main issue though, and something that you are continuing to do here. ––FormalDude talk 09:09, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• FormalDude it is still an assumption because the discussions you've cited does not qualify as proof of bad faith. You find my arguments to be disingenuous and naive but that is still your personal view. From a factual and objective view, I can tell you that your assumption of bad faith is incorrect as I have no other goal other than building an encyclopedia that abides by all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. There is no higher evidence than my own confession. If you do find opposing evidence though, please notify me and we can talk about it because having bad faith is horrible and I would never want my actions to exercise that. ButterSlipper (talk) 11:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• ButterSlipper, why not try your hand at BenNortonpedia? You should fit in well over there. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Martinevans123 your humour is not appreciated. This is a very serious matter as I have been the victim of personal attack after personal attack by Softlavender and billionaire-owned The Intercept is has uncomparable views with Ben Norton even though he's an editor there and has received praise from it. ButterSlipper (talk) 09:09, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Humour? It's free careers advice. A big bold banner headline stating "Wikipedia is corrupted on a fundamental level" is possibly not appreciated. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Amusing that you're ridiculing me for that quote when you have no critique of it Martinevans123 perhaps it means that I'm right. ButterSlipper (talk) 09:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, perhaps "you are right and everyone else is wrong." Martinevans123 (talk) 09:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• Martinevans123 said it's possibly not appreciated. That's not ridicule. Thinking their comment perhaps means you're right is confirmation bias. ––FormalDude talk 09:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Martinevans123 please do not manipulate what I said. I never said I'm right and everyone else is wrong and that is not even a charitable comprehension of what I said. Please re-read my reply. FormalDude they called the quote a "big bold banner" and said their previous reply was a "free careers advice", it's obvious they are making a humorous mockery of me which I do not find as funny. And yes I know about confirmation bias, I was just trying to reply back in a snarky way. Of course their comment does not prove my quote. ButterSlipper (talk) 11:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Correct, that's not what you said, it's what I said. That's why I signed it. What's "funny" about a big bold banner, dissin' the whole of Wikipedia, on your User page? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• You put it in quotations Martinevans123 it's clear that you were trying to paraphrase what I said in a satirical way and you're the one making a joke about the "big bold banner"; yes I have a lot of disagreements with how Wikipedia is set up. ButterSlipper (talk) 02:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I think they may have an agenda, or they may just not have properly understood our policies, after all they have only been here three weeks. But it is clear something needs to be done to show them their behavior is not acceptable.Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC) Warnings HGere is met waiting Butt about edit warring [[128]], here is me using the word warning [[129]. So they were (at least) aware of their edit warring.Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to indefinitely block ButterSlipper

• Propose and support indef block for ButterSlipper as it seems they are here to push their point of view about the Uyghur genocide rather that create a neutral encyclopedia. Their behavior is very disruptive and they are providing more strife than useful content. Talking to the seems to have no effect on their actions. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• HighInBC I have barely edited the Uyghur genocide page which has caused no confrontations with others and I have made many useful contributions like here [130] where I edit Telesur for neutrality, paraphrasing and clarity. I do not deserve to be indefinitely blocked. ButterSlipper (talk) 09:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• You know very well that your recent disruption, including the disruption that resulted in your previous block, was at an article related to the topic of the genocide(Adrian Zenz) even if it was not the article itself. I have already tried to manage this situation with lesser measures but those measures would involve your cooperation which is not forthcoming because you are completely sure that you right and everyone else is wrong. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:09, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Those were both about Adrian Zenz's page. Perhaps you are conflating Adrian Zenz with the Uyghur Genocide. And what's funny is that you're going on about how I'm not cooperating with you, but you are the one who is being unresponsive to a number of my replies as I write this while accusing me of not listening to others. I am trying to cooperate but you are sending attacks with no basis in reality against me. First, could you please try cooperating HighInBC. ButterSlipper (talk) 09:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

  @ButterSlipper: Zenz is only notable for his studies on the Uyghur genocide. Nothing HighInBC said was wrong. You'd do well to start actually listening to other editors—WP:CIR, and if you can't understand how Zenz is related to the genocide, you don't have the required competence to edit here. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 09:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

  @ButterSlipper: It's fairly obvious that whether Zenz is fluent in Mandarin, a scholar who has published and been quoted extensively on the Uyghur genocide based in part on analysis of Mandarin sources, is strongly related to the Uyghur genocide and so will be covered by any broadly construed restrictions of the Uyghur genocide. If you don't understand that, it's another sign you don't belong here. Frankly I think the whole Zenz article is, but it doesn't matter so much when you are disputing something more obvious. Nil Einne (talk) 09:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Psiĥedelisto Zenz also has studies on Tibet that he is quite popular for, not only his studies on the Uyghur genocide have made him popular so is the sinicisation of Tibet also related to Adrian Zenz? Clearly it is wrong in associating Adrian Zenz purely with the Uyghur genocide in this instance. I do and have listened to HighInBC and I am competent enough to edit here. Please read WP:CIRNOT "It does not mean we should label people as incompetent. Calling someone incompetent is a personal attack and is not helpful. Always refer to the contributions and not the contributor, and find ways to phrase things that do not put people on the defensive or attack their character or person". Nil Einne my edits on Adrian Zenz' page is not an attempt at delegitimising or legitimising the Uyghur genocide and are not associated with it in any way. I understand that if I made negative remarks towards his studies or his PhD in social anthropology it could be considered as a manipulation of his work towards the Uyghur genocide but I have not done that. I am just trying to verify whether or not we should be including if he can speak Mandarin Chinese fluently when I have gathered a summation of evidence that counteracts that fact. ButterSlipper (talk) 11:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
  • And RSn has now come down on the side of yes, multiple users have said yes. Do you now accept that yes we can say he speaks fluent Mandarin? Will you now drop this objection?Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Slatersteven please refer to WP:TALKDONTREVERT, consensus is measured by the validity of arguments. ButterSlipper (talk) 11:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• @ButterSlipper: frankly I don't think it matters any more why you were trying to do what you were doing at the Zenz. It's ridiculous to deny that whether Zenz is fluent in Mandarin is highly related to the Uyghur genocide topic area. Whether it's highly related to the Tibet area or other topic areas is besides the point since no one brought up those topic areas. The specific concern of HighInBC were related to your involvement in the Uyghur genocide topic area, and instead of simply defending your edits based on what you did, you also tried and continue to defend your edits with that silly assertion, which is a clear problem. To be clear, even if you were totally right about the claim not being supported by sources, it would still be an issue highly related to the Uyghur genocide. Note although commented IMO the whole Zenz article should be considered within the purview, I made clear my specific criticism was of you denying that even their Mandarin fluency was. Nil Einne (talk) 19:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oh I'm sorry I didn't understand. Thank you for telling me. ButterSlipper (talk) 02:51, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support. ButterSlipper has wasted the time of nearly every single admin and non-admin editor who has engaged with them or been forced to deal with them. At this point it's blatantly obvious they are not here to build an encyclopedia, but only to POV-push, endlessly engage in personal attacks and battleground behavior, refuse to listen, falsely wikilawyer, and troll. Softlavender (talk) 09:15, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Softlavender I literally just had to file a report for your personal aspersions. ButterSlipper (talk) 09:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

  They're not aspersions when they're backed up by evidence. ––FormalDude talk 09:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• FormalDude could you be willing to name a single aspersion that Softlavender has made that was correct? Perhaps could you tackle the insane "pro-Communist agenda" aspersion? ButterSlipper (talk) 11:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support, clearly a disruptive editor, who apologises whenever called out but continues their pattern of pov pushing.-gadfium 09:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - I've checked the lad's blocklog & he's only been blocked once (60 hrs). Why not consider a topic-ban, instead? GoodDay (talk) 09:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

  They have only been editing for 2 weeks and already got a 60 hr block.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support. My exchange with this user above is enough to sway me; the fact that they brought this to AN/I despite being so obviously in the wrong about so many things shows they don't meet WP:CIR and there's no point in allowing them to continue to exhaust the time of constructive editors, who could be working in article space instead of dealing with them. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 09:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Support Indef, they are a new account and they have a lot to learn.Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Slatersteven: Not everyone with a new account can learn or is here to try to learn. It may help if you could let other editors know what indications to the positive you see in ButterSlipper that long time admins have missed. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 10:09, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

  True, but we all start of thinking we know it all. I am not saying no sanctions, just not an indef right now. It maybe (as it sometimes has in then past) be that their actions here change that view. But I will not support an Indef until I am sure they cannot or will not learn. As a user who has been in dispute with them I want to make sure I give them a chance, so as to make sure my personal feelings about them do not get in the way.Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

  And with this [[131]] and this [[132]] its clear they are not listening.Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

[Copied from below] A show of good faith and seemingly sincere interest in learning was made by the editor at my talk page. I don't want to copy a talk page message here so left the link. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Let it go 72 hours. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support I've yet to see any indication from ButterSlipper that they are WP:HERE. ––FormalDude talk 10:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• FormalDude I fill in all expectations for WP:HERE. Look at my edits on the NED. I first tried to make a bold edit and remove incorrect information as I explained on the talk page [133], then it was reverted [134], and then I had a civil conversation with the user who reverted my edit. [135] This is so much of my Wikipedia experience and to reduce it to no "indication from ButterSlipper that they are WP:HERE" is hurtful and false. ButterSlipper (talk) 11:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not trying to be hurtful, sorry if I came across that way. I just had yet to see you concede anything, even at my talk page, which, by the way, is an example of Sealioning. I see now you have admitted some of your actions were disruptive. I see you have also said you may leave Wikipedia, which is your choice. I do think there are ways for you to still be a beneficial participant of Wikipedia, but that also has to be your choice. ––FormalDude talk 06:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose indef if and only ifButterSlipper sincerely acknowledges our concerns and agrees to avoid problem behavior. Would prefer WP:TBAN on Uyghur genocide. Would block for one week, though, to give time for reflection. If this does not work, we can indef. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

This is a big if. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: The lad seems impervious to reason. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:51, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Deepfriedokra even if I did "sincerely [acknowledge your] concerns" and agree with what most of you say then I would be indefinitely blocked still because this indefinite blocking campaign has gained unfathomable traction. I am correct in saying what I did in that diff. ButterSlipper (talk) 11:56, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support TBAN.Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

  I also would oppose an indef block if they actually recognized the concerns and improved their behavior. This is essentially saying if they stop doing the thing that is the actual problem that the problem will be solved. I would love if this happened, not seeing any hint that it will. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• HighInBC perhaps instead of going on with the bickering here could you engage in meaningful discussion and reply to my previous comment. ButterSlipper (talk) 12:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Nor my choice of words. As their comment above shows. Heading toward WP:NOTCOMPATIBLEville. Well, we done our best. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Switch to support I am convinced they are either WP:NOTHERE or WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE or both. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I had not picked up on the possible homophobia on their user page, if I had seen that I would have supported an Indef from the off.Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose, learning curve learning curve learning curve (say it three times and Jimbo appears in a mirror). This user seems like a Wikipedian in the new-user cocoon, those who have to learn to emerge and fly in the midst of rules and regs. They are being forced to learn civility and other life lessons while navigating some pretty choppy waters. New editors all have to go through boot camp, and potentially very productive editors should be allowed to do so without being booted. Probably a topic ban or four may be in order and hopefully they will also grow their way out of that. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

  I do not see any learning in this thread to be honest. I only see continouos insistence that ButterSlipper is right and everybody else is wrong.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

  They've been here for five minutes. That's where many good editors start, frustrated that their POV isn't instantly cheered and rewarded with love tokens. Then they get slapped on the back of the head like Gibbs used to do. The leap between topic bans and couple day blocks to full indef show-them-the-door should be a long one. Let's see where this one is at 10 minutes in, the passion and interest is there. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• It is wrong to put words in my mouth. I never said everybody else is wrong Ymblanter and please engage in discussion with me by replying to my good-faith comment asking that you substantiate all these rumours. ButterSlipper (talk) 12:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Mostly because the editor is reacting in the negative to events. They have only just arrived. scope_creep^Talk 12:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Though the behaviour of the user in question could be improved, they have not been here for a long time. I feel an indefinite block at this point in time is excessive and inappropriate, as I do not believe being passionate when defending yourself is grounds for an indefinite block. If the user in question should be blocked anyway, I would be content with either a temporary block or a temporary/permanent topic ban. I feel the more experienced users here are being a bit too aggressive towards the user in question, though the user in question's behaviour could be improved as well. In short, I would be content with a temporary block or a temporary/permanent topic ban, as an indefinite block is not yet warranted in my opinion. --KingErikII (Talk page) 12:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think a topic ban, as well as an encouragement to restrict how the number of replies they make in discussions, would be sufficient for now - perhaps with a temporary ban throwing in as well. No reason to jump straight to an indef ban without seeing whether they can contribute effectively outside of these contentious areas. BilledMammal (talk) 13:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

  They can show willingness now, as I said to them they need to show they are interested in editing outside this topic area, this [[136]] was their response.Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support No chance this editor will be a net positive.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• Ab-stain Although what Randy says above about noob boots and bootcamp is right, I'd like to see this user make some non-controversial edits to a few other articles, way off the topic under consideration, to demonstrate good faith. Then I might be encouraged to !vote. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC) p.s. I'm prepared to give them 24 hours. But the way things are looking right now, I think the matter might be decided a lot sooner.

• Support Looking at this comment it's pretty clear they do not want to contribute. A complete waste of time, it seems. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support how can you call wiki corrupt if you want to build it by contributing@ButterSlipper:? That's a total contradiction maybe a ban would help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonofBatley (talk • contribs) 13:35, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I have a concern that this editor may be a sock though I can't say of whom. Looking at their short edit history they seem to know their way around Wikipedia and the wiki software quite well. Their first edit was on the 27th. On that day they quickly created a user page, talk page and sandbox page. Unlike a number of new editors they seem versed in using things like minor edit tags, edit summaries and going to places like the Treehouse to ask for help. It's kind of like someone coming into a new kitchen yet knowing what's in the various cabinets. As for the indef proposal, I personally would like to see it but that's because I think they are a sock, not because I think their edits, are so egregious. If they really are a new editor then, on principle, I think they should be given the new editor benefit of doubt and warned rather than indef'ed. Springee (talk) 13:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Pinging and getting mad because I think your behavior looks like that of a sock editor vs a new editor is a great way to push me towards the already crowded side of this room. However, at this point, given the weight of sentiment for an indef I can't imagine there is much I could say either way to save your account from that fait. Perhaps if you accept a voluntary multi-month block with a clear explanation how you will not make the same mistakes next time? Honestly, Softlander is probably right, you were given a wp:ROPE when you were previously blocked. Springee (talk) 03:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• • Springee, they were already warned in no uncertain terms by an admin, Acroterion, on September 2, as follows: "Your entire course of conduct toward Neutrality has been overtly hostile, as you know very well. Since you continued after a direct warning from me, I’ve blocked you. Your conduct toward everybody else you’ve encountered has been less than exemplary as well. If this recurs, the next block may be indefinite." [137]. That's actually one of several such similar warnings, before and since, by a variety of administrators. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:28, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Sealion seeking further explanation.DFO

• • Springee I've just been a bit obsessed with Wikipedia and reading all the rules and stuff I only recently found out what a sockpuppet please don't accuse me of this and criticise me on fair grounds as every editor should be. ButterSlipper (talk) 02:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support The user was created on 25 August. Since then, the user has racked up a 5-day ban for making personal attacks towards other editors, and has been generally disruptive in the areas of living people and politics. These include edits to Adrian Zenz, which was a page involved when the user was blocked for making personal attacks (see edit summary on this comment on Neutrality's talk page) against other editors. Comments they made about day after they got off their topic ban gave the appearance of legal threats (which they backed off after Deepfriedokra told them they might get banned for it.) This comes after they apparently outed Bobfrombrockley in some form. But, undergirding all of this is a well-established motive to push their point-of-view into articles. Whether that's by deleting information sourced to The Globe and Mail (RSP Entry) as an unsubstantiated smear (presumably against the Chinese state), argued that an "objective" POV would see that even though the Grayzone has been "deprecated", it is clear from an objective view that the "deprecation" smear campaign was initiated by a clique of partisans with an assortment of fabrications and misrepresentations, and has made their motivation for editing the Zenz page pretty damn clear. And, even after they were blocked for five days, and that block was affirmed by other admins, the user still denied that they had done anything wrong. Perhaps their tone has changed now, and perhaps they'll try to become a WP:SEALION, but I don't think that the editor is here to build an encyclopedia. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 13:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Mikehawk10. Thank you for making a seemingly substantive argument as to why I should be indefinitely banned but your representation of the issues are a bit misleading. You cited a post I made on Neutrality's page but as I clarify here [138] there were no personal attacks and the admin that had blocked me Acroterion explained further on the reasoning behind my block which was charges of battleground aggression [139] which I still do not believe but the block has been done yada yada yada. The second diff you bring up was one where I was almost accused of legal threats [140] but I was completely ignorant to how my words could've been construed in a legal context as I only use the words slander and defame in non-legal contexts and have almost never seen them used in legal contexts other than the dictionary. The third diff you provide [141] is me correctly removing that smear because the Globe and mail did not even provide a single example of where Chinese state media has said all of Zenz' findings are false and I cannot find them personally either so I removed it because it was an unsubstantiated smear like I said. Then you bring up my interpretation of the Grayzone blacklisting campaign which is like... I don't get the point ??? that doesn't sound like a violation of Wikipedia policy to voice your opinion and then you cited me [142] talking about how Adrian Zenz is not the victim when he was being sanctioned by the Chinese government which doesn't necessarily equate to my motivation of editing Adrian Zenz' page ??? the motivation I had was to only put in place confirmed and accurate information then the last diff you cited was me correcting Acroterion when they had forgotten maybe that they did not block me over personal attacks using our own conversations and their replies [143] and no that was not me denying my wrongdoing I already admitted to it in my apology (in one of the previous diffs). Your reply is a collage of irrelevant or misrepresented comments from me but I appreciate the effort thank you. ButterSlipper (talk) 03:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• can someone else please go to their talk page and tell them how to avoid a block, its clear my choice of words is not working.Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

  Slatersteven, I have tried to do just this. No response yet. They may be off for the day or maybe they don't want my help. It's there if they want it. --ARoseWolf 21:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

  Looking at their edit history they seem to be active in the morning (GMT).Slatersteven (talk) 08:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support Despite this editor’s youth they’ve had to be warned to stop making personal attacks a half dozen times already and have had to had it explained to them that they did in fact make personal attacks a dozen times more. They *still* don’t concede that any of their edits were personal attacks... If they can’t put at least one foot on the right side of the line themselves I don’t think we can beat them into being a good editor through TBANs and bootcamp... Also @ButterSlipper: if I’m wrong and you do now accept that all the personal attacks you’ve made have been personal attacks let me know, I would probably reconsider. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• Well, everything here spells NOTHERE, that much is clear. Just to take one example: "they are building an indefinite blocking campaign". "They" are not, and it's not a campaign; what's happening at ANI is nothing out of the ordinary when an editor exhibits highly questionable behavior. The claim is a violation of AGF, and while it would be silly to block them because of that comment, it is emblematic of their editing: it is repeated in this thread, and elsewhere (as Mikehawk10 noted) they're seeing organized campaigns against their POV and the things they support. In the diff I just cited they also say "please explain how I am wrong"--well, that has happened a time or two already, so IDIDNOTHEARTHAT is writ large all over the user's edits. Support indefinite block. Drmies (talk) 14:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support A "new" account whose primary purpose appears to be arguing, maligning other editors, and wasting time. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support Even a casual scroll through their talkpage reveals that this isn't some sort of poor reaction from a new editor who doesn't understand our policies. Grandpallama (talk) 14:56, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support I first noticed this editor 3 days ago when I posted to their talk page about an attack on another editor. None of the above has done anything but reinforce my conclusion then that this editor was not going to be a benefit but was likely to be a timesink. I also doubt that this is their first account. Doug Weller talk 15:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support - They're just not getting it.--WaltCip-(talk) 16:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• I'm often accused of AGFing too much, but I always call bullshit when someone keeps making every effort to stay adjacent to drama. It's hard not to read in snickers with all the "but what do you mean?" sealioning in this thread. If they're not trolling, then they lack the necessary social skills to edit, so one way or another, support. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 16:57, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support When I placed their block, it was for such a remarkable amount of hostility directed at Neutrality I gave it a longer-than-usual term because of the overt antagonism of their attacks on Neutrality, broad assumption of bad faith, and an overall demand that other editors cater to their expectations. Such a block is intended to induce a serious adjustment in behavior. Their initial response was denial of all misconduct, with demands that they be explicitly shown the problematic behavior, mirrored at greater length in this ANI thread. Subsequently, after their initial denials were rejected, the adjustment took the form of momentary contrition after they'd been confronted, repeating as necessary, followed by renewed probing of what might be an acceptable boundary. We then had what amounted to a doxxing aimed at Bobfrombrockley, with predictable denials of wrongdoing when confronted, and a general attitude of unconcern. The probing and contrition cycle recurred. Now we have this thread, which appears to be an application of the best defense as a good offense. I'm done with patient and unproductive discussion with this editor. Acroterion (talk) 17:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support Per Tamzin, even if we WP:AGF, that leads to a conclusion of WP:CIR. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support I held off commenting given ButterSlipper time to demonstrate some understanding of the problems with their editing. They've completely failed to do that, as IMO well emphasised above by their ridiculous assertion above that Zenz's fluency in Mandarin isn't highly related to the Uyghur genocide subject matter; but also with the majority of their replies in this ANI thread. I'm fine with a topic ban as well, but frankly the editor's behaviour is bad enough I'm not convinced it's worth trying. Edit: I probably should make the obvious comment that I simply don't see how a topic ban would work since even if we put in place a broadly construed topic ban on the Uyghur genocide or maybe even anything to do with modern day China, they're probably going to think it's okay for them to edit in relation to Zenz's fluency in Mandarin. Either because it's not under the purview of such a topic ban, or under WP:BANEX since changing text saying he is fluent into the Telegraph said he is fluent is required under BLP. Nil Einne (talk) 19:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support NOTHERE, as I do not believe that this is a new editor making new editor mistakes. Even were I to still have any AGF left, this would be a CIR case, as has been pointed out. Meters (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support as per everyone above - They haven't even been here a month and already they're causing arguements with everyone. Textbook case of NOTHERE. –Davey2010^Talk 20:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support Sadly, I am not seeing anything Wikipedia-redeemable here. If there were any inkling that this person wanted to improve and work within the community's bounds, I would oppose. But it seems eminently clear that this person does not desire that. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block of a POV-pusher and timesink. Miniapolis 22:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Call for close

Support, 23; Oppose, 5; Neutral/Abstain, 1

I count the currently tally as 25 !votes with 19 in support of an indef block, 5 opposed, and 1 abstention. ––FormalDude talk 21:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not saying I agree with this policy, but it seems like a community vote to indef block someone is functionally equivalent to a community ban... which now requires 24 hours minimum duration (or 48, I forget). To avoid having to restart the discussion because of Teh Rulz, I'd suggest just letting the clock run all the way out. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes. And there might be a groundswell of opposes. No need to close hastily. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

OK, so I did the research: Wikipedia:Banning policy#Community bans and restrictions says 72 hrs for a CBAN unless the result is obvious (which seems to be the case here), in which case it is 24 hrs. To be clear, I'm not going to complain if this is closed early, but someone might. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

After 10 hours I'm not exactly holding my breath for any response whatsoever to my suggestion for a demonstration of good faith. Alas, my abstention is teetering towards "Derek Bum" and his Toilet Grenade. But, you never know, the clock has yet to strike. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

If the editor resumes disruptively editing during the remaining hours, then an admin could just use their ordinary blocking power to temporarily block them until the requisite time has passed for this discussion to be closed. I agree that the result here is currently obvious, but there's no need to rush closer than 24 hours; we wouldn't want to spend unnecessary time dealing with whether or not this block was procedurally correct. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

There's no rush. I'll keep an eye on things this evening w/r/t ordinary admin interventions, since I'm familiar with them, and somebody in a time zone farther west should look after things after 04:00 or so, since they seem to be most active in some version of Pacific time. Acroterion (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I hear it's cocktail hour over in Leningrad. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

A show of good faith and seemingly sincere interest in learning was made by the editor at my talk page. I don't want to copy a talk page message here so left the link. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Well maybe. To me it looks more like a desperate search for support. But I meant actual edits in non-controversial article main space. When they write "... if this complication sizzles over I will go on to less controversial, stale pages" it looks to me like "I will await the result of this before do anything." Martinevans123 (talk) 08:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Let it go 72 hours. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

No need for 72 hours. When the outcome is obvious letting it run that long is just a pile-on. That is why policy says to close after 24 hours when outcome is clear. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:09, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• The full 72 seems called for because, as anywhere else on such discussion Wikipedia, the number of votes shouldn't matter but the points made by "sides". This editor is passionate and interested in becoming a long-term editor. Give them a topic ban and let them hone their skills and learn more of the ropes on non-controversial pages. Rather than purging a potentially very good editor give them a chance to learn and enjoy the site without all of this intruding. As a new editor they've run the gauntlet, now let them take any lessons learned in these few weeks and include them in an enhanced and safer Wikipedia experience. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• Let it go 72 hours. We had an RfC about this. There are opposes. Levivich 01:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I also object to posting a vote tally in the middle of a siteban discussion. This is not a soccer match, we don't need an update on the score. Let the admins close this when/how they want; they can count. Levivich 04:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
    • I also don't tend to like vote tallies being posted, especially as this sort of stuff is not a vote. It seems a bit improper. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:56, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

      When there is over twenty votes, it's convenient to have the count listed. WP:NOTAVOTE doesn't mean the votes are not still important information to consider in the context of the discussion. ––FormalDude talk 05:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• Given that we are all involved in this discussion I think we should leave it to the uninvolved closer to decide this. Both 24 and 72 hours are consistent with policy, assuming the outcome is still obvious after 24 hours. They have heard our say on the matter and can make that judgement. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 02:32, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I am not involved in this discussion and have not voted on the site ban. Editors should be allowed to sleep on it if they want to. There's no need to limit discussion to 24 hours. It's just rude to other editors who may want to participate but may not be online on the one particular day that you chose (by making a proposal) to have this discussion. Friday was a day when you had time for this, but some folks might have worked all day Friday, they should be allowed to participate too. Otherwise instead of consensus, it's the tyranny of whoever is online at the moment. Levivich 04:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Sounds like you want to propose a change at Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy. I would be interested in such a discussion. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 04:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
• Sorry for the disruption I'll just leave Wikipedia. Maybe it isn't for me. You can indef block me now. ButterSlipper (talk) 03:42, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

If you're choosing to retire? A 'retirement template' should be placed on your userpage. GoodDay (talk) 03:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

There is no such policy.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:44, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Yah, and it should not be placed during a discussion like this. It just magnifies the drama and can be perceived badly by the Community. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• I say let it ride. Let's not close the polls early. Let all with an opinion draw nigh and be heard. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

This is their response to an offer to helo [[144]], more sealioning.Slatersteven (talk) 08:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

😱 Is this a Breaching experiment? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:27, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I was starting to wonder that in fact. Is this some kind of experiment in "intelligent trolling", seeing just how disruptive you can be go without getting a block.Slatersteven (talk) 08:32, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, if he writes a paper, I hope he spells my name right. We get these psych students from time to time-- poking and prodding, and measuring our responses. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:39, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the entire gestalt of his time here fits. Gradually increasing the stimuli until something twitches. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Breaching! Breaching! Breaching! Breaching! Breaching! Breaching! Breaching! Breaching! //dodging spampponents. El_C 12:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Post close note: the above spam was added pre re-review, so it, in itself, should not be read as any kind of WP:NOTLAB endorsement. El_C 13:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

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

ComicsAreJustAllRight ‎- persistent personal attacks and abusive conduct

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

---

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

The above user has engaged in a persistent course of personal attacks, harassment, and bizarre behavior targeted at both me and Horse Eye's Back (witnessed by a few others, including RenatUK).

16:59, September 9, 2021 - in this article-talk page edit, ComicsAreJustAllRight falsely (and baselessly) made a direct accusation of sockpuppetry

ComicsAreJustAllRight was warned three times and asked directly to withdraw his false personal attack:

• 17:07, September 9, 2021, on article talk
• 16:53, September 9, 2021, on user talk
• 18:27, September 9, 2021, again at user talk

ComicsAreJustAllRight refused to retract, and instead responded by removing the request without a response and making the same personal attack twice in edit summaries:

• 00:41, September 10, 2021 (personal attack in edit summary)
• 00:41, September 10, 2021 (personal attack in edit summary)

ComicsAreJustAllRight combined these personal attacks with edit-warring in the main namespace:

• 16:27, September 9, 2021 - Restoring challenged material with non-substantive edit summary (violating our policy)
• 16:46, September 9, 2021 - Repeating sockpuppetry lie in edit summary with attempting to edit-war in challenged conduct
• 16:49, September 9, 2021 - Again restoring challenged conduct while incorrectly claiming that the new material is "stable version"

In perhaps the most bizarre episode, ComicsAreJustAllRight has copied-and-pasted text and barnstars from my own userpage on his/her own userpage:

• 16:24, September 9, 2021
• 16:32, September 9, 2021

I have no idea why this user did this—whether it's a strange impersonation attempt, a bid to try to unnerve me, or something else. I asked the user to please explain; he refused to do so.

ComicsAreJustAllRight is not a new editor. This user created an account in 2014. This kind of toxic behavior is not tolerable on the project. It is the kind of thing that chills other editors from freely contributing, and drives users off the project. Neutrality^talk 14:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposal for a block of ComicsAreJustAllRight

• In light of the evidence I set forth above, I propose that ComicsAreJustAllRight be indefinitely blocked. At the very least this account should not be unblocked until this user: (1) retracts the personal attacks made; (2) commits to following our no personal attacks and civility policies in the future (specifically including the prohibition on baseless accusations of sockpuppetry); and (3) adequately explains the strange user-page impersonation. I would also ask that an admin remove the edit summaries that contained the personal attacks. Neutrality^talk 14:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• This was so bizarre its honestly hard to get mad at the personal attacks, I’ve never seen an editor behave like that before and more than anything else I would like an explanation. If none is forthcoming I support the proposal to indef. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I would note that when it was created back at the end of 2014 the account was surprisingly precocious and was apparently already accusing people of things they didn’t do as early as July 2015[145] when they accused Michig of vandalism. I will also note that the more I explore their early edit history the more I get whiffs of someone’s sock drawer. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support unconditional indef. The impersonation of other users by forging barnstars is a big no-go, in my opinion, and there's clearly no rational purpose for it. In addition to that, I share Neutrality's concern about aspersions being cast on the topic of sockpuppetry. If the user genuinely believes that Neutrality is using socks, then the user should go to an appropriate noticeboard (such as WP:SPI) and start an investigation, but making baseless allegations without doing so is a sign of malice and incivility. For an editor with as many edits as they do, they know better than to do this, and there's no excuse for the behavior. Altogether, this is a recipe for a clear indef. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 14:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I am also marginally concerned about this being a potential account compromise, given the sudden shift in behavior. Is there a way for a checkuser to check on this? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 14:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support Indef. The edit warning. The odd thing with the barnstars, and not going to the right noticeboard. Leads me to support an indef block, unless of course, its a compromised account. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 16:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

  Still should be blocked if compromised, just until control can be regained. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 16:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support Indef Along with stealing people's barnstars and also making personal attacks and refusing to retract them and instead making more personal attacks leads me to believe that they are not here to contribute constructively. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 16:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I've seen other editors copy another editor's userpage because they like it before, and this has included the barnstars and stuff. I'm willing to AGF they mean no harm with it. In this case, it's a little more troubling since it looks like the only thing copied was the barnstars, so I'd like some explanation of what they were doing. Nil Einne (talk) 19:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• Blocked. So, ComicsAreJustAllRight copied the content of Neutrality's userpage, and when Neutrality complained about it, they neither replied nor fixed their userpage, but instead removed Neutrality's complaint (along with other well-grounded warnings) with the edit summary "rvt WP:SOCK harassment". That's enough for me in itself, and I see there's more. I have blocked the user indefinitely per WP:NOTHERE. Bishonen | tålk 20:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC).

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

User:Spokane Ball yt and fake referencing

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

---

User:Spokane Ball yt has recently been creating a number of stubs about geographic locations but is using a number of referencing that are clearly irrelevant to support these stubs. Aerin17 warned them about irrelevant sources on September 5, but they have not responded on their talk page or the numerous AFDs for their articles. Togo, Democratic Republic of the Congo is supported by a spreadsheet that doesn't seem to mention this and a source about Finnish orchestra. Several Turkmenistan articles including Modar, Turkmenistan and Sansy, Turkmenistan cite an opera, and Kirpichli, Turkmenistan is supported entirely by an opera and a source about villages in China. Hadjer Sini, Chad is sourced to a book about music and a source about places in France. Mandela, Mali is sourced to a general source about mosques, a general source about schools, and a deadlink. There are a number of other instances of suspicious referencing that cannot be confirmed due to paywalls. While these places may all be real, I am concerned that this use may lack the competence to properly write articles. Hog Farm _Talk 14:47, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Block user for CIR and nuke their creations. dudhhr_Contribs 15:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't pretend to know what's going on here, but yeah--either tremendous competency issues or deliberate sabotage. As a wise woman once said, nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. Cheers and happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Maybe they'll respond to my pings at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Togo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modar, Turkmenistan, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadjer Sini, Chad, but I'd also like to see everything they've made nuked since they're obviously not putting any quality into these articles even if real villages. Just a few days ago they created Buckhorn, Washington with such nonsense as "The average lifespan in Buckhorn is 58.6." and "Buckhorn's population is 5395", which is actually the population of the entire Orcas Island. While there is a neighborhood around Buckhorn Road, I don't think it's notable and this user reverted my redirection of this without comment or correction. Block for lack of competence is a good idea. Reywas92^Talk 15:57, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment I almost feel like asking- 'What's the big deal?' False referencing is something I have been harping on for a long time. Take for instance this[146], which I think was done in order to promote a article to good status, and it was later removed with a consensus that it wasn't valid. I have made note of bogus/bad referencing, here[147] and here[148] at least. Some of the people very high on the all time edits list do this form of referencing....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Block user for CIR; agreeing with Dudhhr. This appears to be a younger user who hasn't thoroughly read any Wikipedia guidelines and is trying to get a large article creation number amount for some reason, but most of their articles are for nonexistent communities. The articles are usually not even about the place, just other places around it, like [subject] is located near [a], [b], [c], etc, and that accounts for the vast majority of the content. They obviously don't know how to use references, but that's among some other things they don't know how to do, such as using proper pushpin maps and looking at their talk page messages (unless they're just ignoring them).

Back when I was a new user, and a very young one in fact (13 years old), I was dumbfounded by the technicality of some things on Wikipedia. I did often upload copyrighted files, and create articles with weird formats, but I learned and was able to go back and fix them. I'm still a quite young user at age 16, but I am way more experienced than I was back then. This is evidence that young users really can help out at Wikipedia and make great contributions, however that doesn't seem to be the case for this user, judging by their lack of communication and general compitence. In the future, they're way more than welcome to help contribute, but, since they aren't communicating at all, they should wait until they learn in few years as unfortunately nobody can teach them. Waddles 🗩 🖉 16:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• User blocked indefinitely for NOTHERE, incompetence, and creating worthless pages.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Bbb23: What should we do with the articles that aren't already AFD'd? dudhhr_Contribs 16:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

It depends. You can use any valid, applicable deletion process.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm late to the discussion, but I wanted to thank Bbb23 for the block. I was, honestly, expecting this outcome since I encountered them the first time. Good to know it's been dealt with. Aerin17 (t • c) 22:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

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

2a00:23c7:5884:5a01:358c:3157:3bcc:b83b/44

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

---

I was wondering if someone can block this IP-range. The user is persistently targeting several ancient and medieval biographies, with edits ranging from inserting/changing dates, adding purely speculative family relationships, or other personal deductions, all devoid of reliable sources and/or in clear disagreement with already existing ones. You may find that reaching the warning limit is pretty useless with such a plethora of IPs.
User was already blocked for a month (by Favonian if I remember correctly) and during the block he admitted his mistakes and begged to be unblocked. Once the block expired naturally, they started over as if nothing had happened. Lone-078 (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you Favonian. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
  • No problem. I had already reverted their latest uselessness and was getting in the mood for yet another block. Favonian (talk) 15:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Nalanidil

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

User:Nalanidil talk

Hello. Thanks for taking the time to help. While Nalanidil has many fine contributions on a relatively neglected topic, specifically, the Romani people, they had also added many unsourced statements, contradicted what sources say despite not providing reliable sources of their own, as well as at times adding statements that purportedly are from the provided source, but cannot actually be found. I believe that they're knowledgeable on the topic they're editing, however, these actions are simply against the basic policy of verifiable sourcing. They have already received a uw-3 warning for disruptive editing on July 30 2021. One can see in their contributions that the behavior is still consistently present. Looking at the edit history of their talk page, it seems that this has been a case for a long time, and without further action, is not going to change. They have already been blocked once in 2015 and once in 2017, beforehand. Dege31 (talk) 18:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I too have encountered similar problems with this user, and have left them four warnings but they did not change. The disruptive behavior has been ongoing for a long time. Below are a few (not all) diffs from the past couple weeks. It would be great if an admin could have a look.

DIFFS: Referring to others as "gadjos". I do not know if this is a slur, but editors should not second-guess others ethnicity or heritage. [149]. Adding unsourced material [150], [151], [152], [153]. Adding unsourced material in front of an existing source [154]. Moving articles and renaming them without a discussion first [155]. Removal of maintenance tags without resolving issues [156]. Changing genres “Romani People” to “Muslim Roma” [157], [158]. Netherzone (talk) 16:56, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Don't tell lies about me! @Netherzone !!! What did i do wrong? I only corrected the term in the articles: for example: Gurbeti are a subgroup of the Muslim Roma, and Muslim Roma can be described as cultural Muslims. Why am I not allowed to correct it and should I leave the romani people name behind? So what ? You have no idea about the Muslim Balkan Roma. You may only have knowledge about the culture of the Vlax Roma from romania. However, the majority of the roma in the world are not vlax roma from romania. You throw all the roma in one pot, without knowing the differences between the individual groups. many roma groups do not refer to themselves as roma. As an example: Arliye, Gurbeti, Gachar etc.

Write what you want, we Roma know our history and we know the difference between the individual groups. And Gadjo means non-Roma in Romanes language, read it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadjo_(non-Romani)

--Nalanidil (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I have been lucky enough to know some Roma people (as well as a non-Roma can!), and I can say from my anecdotal experience that "Gadjo" is not exactly a slur, but it's not exactly neutral, either. Nalanidil, I would suggest, if you feel the need to refer to ethnicity this way, to use "non-Roma" rather than "gadjo" as it will enhance both understanding and respect. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Aman bre, @Dumuzid, Romanes canesa? Did you speak Romanes? Gadjo is not a slur, we in our Sepečides dialect used this word for a Non Roma person. Read it self https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadjo_(non-Romani)

So leave me away, enough with you all.

Nalanidil (talk) 18:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Nalanidil -- I do not speak Romanes, and you'll note I said it is not a slur. I've made a suggestion, and you're welcome to ignore it if you like. I will warn you that being combative is not likely to lead to your desired outcomes. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Dumuzid, This is not about the word Gadjo at all. Rather, I am attacked by users, although I only want to explain the differences between the individual Roma groups. And ALMOST EVERYTHING that is given here of sources was written by NON-ROMA People, who make absolutely no distinction between the different Roma groups. Their knowledge is based only on one group, namely the Vlax Roma from Romania. But their way of life and originmyths etc., cannot be transferred to all roma groups. Oh, if the Admins want to block me, no problem. I don't feel like explaining anything here, they don't want to be understand. There is an image of the Roma in their minds, of a single Roma group. Let them believe what they want.

Nalanidil (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Nalanidil -- I absolutely think your contributions are valuable, as you bring knowledge and a viewpoint that I don't think is particularly common among Wikipedia editors. To that degree, I agree with you. But the complaints seem to be about a lack of sourcing, and this is definitely an issue that can occur here. Even if you know something to be true, we need to be able to point to an independent reliable source for this fact. I know how frustrating this can be, but given the nature of Wikipedia, if we took your Roma status as enough to change an article, we'd have 100 anonymous editors within an hour also claiming to be Roma. Now, I also understand that sources are going to be extra difficult here, but I would encourage you to keep trying. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

The problems are: adding unsourced material, removing sourced material just because you disagree with it, moving/renaming pages without discussing with the community and gaining consensus, removing maintenance tags without fixing the underlying problems. The above Diffs are just from the past two weeks, yet this behavior that has gone on for a long time. Wikipedia has guidelines and policies for things like "No original research" WP:OR, "Reliable sources" WP:RS, and "Citing sources" WP:CITE, and "Verifiability WP:V, "Neutral point of view" WP:NPOV, "Ownership of articles" WP:OWN and basic things like common courtesy, WP:CIVIL, no personal attacks WP:NPA and others. I know that is a lot of links to read, however I really recommend that you learn more about how things work here on wikipedia. If you do so, I think your time here will feel less frustrating. Netherzone (talk) 19:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

just it's about the sources, the majority was written by non-Roma who make no distinction between the different Roma groups. Unfortunately I don't know much sources that were written by Roma of different groups themselves, and If it is a Rom, then only from the Vlax Roma group. But the majority of the world's Roma are not onl Vlax Roma, that's why I want to make this clear, because a wrong picture is given to the reader. They are big differences between the individual Roma groups. Especially Christian and Muslim Roma are different due to religion, culture, music, dance, food, lifestyle, traditions, languages, countries of origin in which the Roma have lived for centuries, play a big role because totally different ways of life have developed.

But I think it's pointless, I'm not suitable for Wikipedia.

Nalanidil (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE, harassment

Recently people have been treating my talk page as a place to contact regarding matters unrelated to Wikipedia. The first message came from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:KnowledgeMastermind https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CAMERAwMUSTACHE&diff=1043148864&oldid=1039200960 claiming to be acting on the behalf of someone else. Message was civil enough and I removed it without incident. Now the person they claim to be acting on behalf of (maybe it's the same person IDK) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Violette4th is leaving me more messages https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACAMERAwMUSTACHE&type=revision&diff=1043552865&oldid=1043155824 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CAMERAwMUSTACHE&diff=next&oldid=1043555308 that are getting increasingly more rude and unlike the last account this one looks created specifically to bother me. I don't even work for Fandom so I have no idea what they expect me to do. They need to contact staff on Fandom, not stalk me to another site. CAMERAwMUSTACHE (talk) 18:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeesh, that second user went one hour from promising to behave to making threats.Citing (talk) 19:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

User:KnowledgeMastermind gets a one-week block for socking and trolling; the sock is CU-blocked. Drmies (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Hmmmm.... if I'm reading this right, KnowledgeMastermind is Violette4th, right? Someone who apparently left a racist message on some other wiki? If that's the case, combined with the socking and trolling, isn't the solution to make this indef? Is Drmies getting soft in his old age? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Floqsterix, I went to the farmers market this morning and the Wild Yeast lady had all the pastries, including Kouign-amann, so yeah I'm feeling pretty good. Whether I'm really getting soft--I'm getting ready for my 14-yr evaluation and don't want to appear too harsh. Also, I did NOT look at what all they posted elsewhere, but sure, send me off to read some more racist shit... Drmies (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Floq, I can't see what happened on that other wiki, which is a flashing nightmare to navigate, and so I can't do anything based on that. I did look at pretty much all their edits here and reverted a bunch of them. I cannot say they are a net positive here, but let's give it a week. Drmies (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive posts by editor(s) at featured article review of Koh Tao Murders

Two different accounts have made lengthy and invective-filled posts at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Koh Tao murders/archive1, claiming that the article is biased and insulting the nominator, ProcrastinatingReader. The first two [159] [160] were made by an account called "JusticeforDavidMiller," one of the victims of the murders. The third [161], which was removed by FA coordinator Ian Rose, was by an account called "RoyalThaiPolice". Neither account has made any edits whatsoever other than to this FA review. The comment from the RoyalThaiPolice account begins with: "Gosh! Wow! I see now that this article's nominator, DefecatingReader, wont respond to my comments until I learn "basic collegiality." In making this comment, the person has admitted that both accounts are controlled by the same person. As using two accounts in a dispute is a violation of WP:Sockpuppetry, and as the person is clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia, I propose that both accounts be indefinitely blocked, and a block imposed on the IP address to prevent the creation of any new accounts. Display name 99 (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• The accounts are confirmed and blocked. Drmies (talk) 20:15, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Drmies I considered removing their comments entirely, but given ProcrastinatingReader responded to some of them, I went for hatting it instead. They're clearly unhelpful rants... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Thanks all. Yes the initial comments, though inflammatory, were just within the pale but hatting is entirely appropriate now. The last comment OTOH fit my non-Admin's definition of "grossly insulting" so I deleted it on sight -- whether it should be removed from the page history as well I leave to the Admins. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Easy partial block request

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

---

Could someone place a partial block on 2A02:587:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) from the articles Adèle Exarchopoulos and John Stamos? An IP hopper within that range has the habit of showing up every couple of days and inserting the Greek pronunciation of the subjects' names into the lede, which several people have explained (in edit summaries and on the talk page) is inappropriate as these two people are only remotely of Greek ancestry. – Uanfala (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Done. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Page blanking escalating to legal threat

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

---

Domaniqs appears to want to delete LGBT-free zone and has attempted to blank it a few times but this was reverted every time. On their talk page it was explained to them that the article was already sent to AfD in the past and consensus was for keep. So now they replied "I am determined to straighten this up, if needed, I will go to the court." I have not been involved in the blankings or discussion I merely happened upon it. Notfrompedro (talk) 21:51, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I gave them an NLT warning. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Why? The user should be blocked. The threat is unequivocal.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

FWIW I agree with Bbb23....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• I've indeffed the user for the legal threat. Even after Deepfriedokra's warning, the user insists they've done nothing wrong. There are obvious independent reasons for blocking the user anyway; they are agenda-driven and not an asset to the project.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• @Bbb23: They've made another legal threat in their unblock request. TPA seems to be in order. dudhhr_Contribs 22:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• That's a threat to go to the press, not to take legal action.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I asked them to spell my user name correctly. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I always give them a chance to withdraw the legal threat. Lot of good it did. They really need to read the messages instead of blustering. Also, not an asset anyway. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

You'll likely have to 'block' his user-talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Talk page access removed. They're a timesink, they're never going to listen to you. I do want to say, though, that I for one appreciate DFO issuing a warning first, I think with a less ... driven ... person, that might have worked, and wish we'd do that more often, even for obvious legal threats. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Continued creation of non-notable articles by User:N1TH Music

This user has a long history of creating articles in mainspace that are consistently PRODed, speedily deleted, moved to draftspace, or AfD'd. While they have been somewhat responsive to users attempting to explain to them not to create large numbers of articles on non-notable subjects, they have nevertheless continued making more, most recently Ceathramh Garbh. Other examples include Railway Driving Motor Car, British rail Locomotive 02 001, and Allnabad. Myself [162] and other editors [163] [164] have asked them to cease making articles on things that do not meet WP:GNG, but they seem to be refusing to hear the message [165]. The most telling example is Loch Urigull, which upon being PRODed the user updated to say "Please delete this, it was a mistake." (this article has since been deleted). Making one mistake is not a big deal, but a look at User talk:N1TH Music shows just how many times their articles have been deleted or proposed for deletion by a variety of editors, showing how big the issue is.

In addition, they have repeatedly added excessive detail to articles, despite being asked to stop [166] [167] with little regard for Wikipedia's policies regarding reliable, verifiable, and independent sources (on one article, they added no less than 40 references, all to photographs on Flickr [168]).

I have no reason not to believe this user is acting in good faith, and I do not think they deserve to be blocked or banned. However, I believe it would be appropriate to restrict them from creating new articles until they are better able to understand the difference between notable and non-notable subjects. Multiple users have tried to advise them about notability and proper references, but they have continued to violate Wikipedia's policies on these. I do not see any other remedy besides a ban on creating new articles, at least for a few weeks. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - in similar cases, editors have been restricted to using the AfC process. This may be an appropriate solution here, with maybe a restriction on no more than, say, three articles at AFC at a time. It may be that over time N1TH Music can demonstrate that they have grasped WP:N, WP:RS etc. and the restriction can be lifted. Mjroots (talk) 06:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this would be a good solution to the issue. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:57, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

DaydreamButera

DaydreamButera is attempting to hide all negative reviews in Thalaivii and moving all negative reviews to bottom and postive reviews at to top.[169][170] Also again moved all negative reviews to bottom and postive to top, thus falsely showing the film is positive and added content not verifiable from citations about positive reviews with a totally untrue edit summary "some correction and added more sources"[171]

Admin help needed. 157.46.73.105 (talk) 05:50, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute to me. I will notify of thread. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:05, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Range block request

Elf Sternberg has been protected twice in the past two months, in fact it still is, but nothing seems to be stopping vandalism with it. Is it possible to find a range which will block the IPs? Though several different vandalistic edits have been made, the content they are most frequently trying to add is to change his name to "Elf Mamzer Sternberg", which word (mamzer) seems to mean something along the lines of "bastard" or "of corrupt birth"; clearly not something to add randomly.

The IPs i have found most recently are:
2600:1700:1EF0:3EE0:3877:3DC:3557:442B
2600:1700:1EF0:3EE0:8106:127D:9734:131D
2600:1700:1EF0:3EE0:34D7:292C:A4D7:EA2F
2600:1700:1EF0:3EE0:45EC:9862:48C7:D3A6
2600:1008:B12C:BD94:C55D:7417:B90F:F807
2600:1008:B126:A339:1991:4B31:1E02:5C66
2600:1008:B10C:107F:BCEF:9254:F5BE:4D1A
2600:1008:B104:81D2:A950:7B0B:338D:6459
2600:1008:B145:B6F9:EC83:4194:4F15:3A41
2600:1008:B168:C26D:586:BA7E:DB49:2231
2600:1008:B147:6473:BC7C:E3C4:70B2:DFB2
107.212.84.162
2600:1700:1EF0:3EE0:ED61:1BA3:F32:DF14
2600:1700:1EF0:3EE0:255F:BE8F:F173:151A
2600:1700:1EF0:3EE0:ADFF:239F:9C2D:EA1A
2600:1700:1EF0:3EE0:A4F9:593F:1F4C:8BAF
2600:1700:1EF0:3EE0:64DD:584C:206F:C040
2600:1700:1EF0:3EE0:1B1:BB16:D51:3A96
2600:1700:1ef0:3ee0:585b:fc03:87b4:8b9e
2600:1700:432d:9470:a5a2:852b:7225:5ab6
2600:1700:1ef0:3ee0:9de1:5ce8:8e17:9561
2600:1700:1ef0:3ee0:7cd0:90cb:d41:381b

This list goes back to the middle of May, so this isn't an especially recent target. Though i suspect it's pointless, i'll notify the most recent IP address of this report. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 08:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

blocked /64 for a week. let me know if that doesn't stop 'em. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Justice Beech-Jones and Spaniard4140

Robert Beech-Jones has recently been appointed the Chief Judge at Common Law in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Australia. Spaniard4140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has recently created an article for Beech-Jones, including the uncited text There is speculation that his parents are of Spanish descent, having been dissenters during the dictatorial regime of Francisco Franco. It is said that they fled Spain in the mid-1900s and settled in Tasmania, where, for anonymity they adopted the surname 'Beech-Jones', an anglicisation of the traditional Spanish surname 'Béchjoñez'. Unsurprisingly, I can find no trace of such a Spanish surname. The swearing-in speech for Beech-Jones, which is cited in the article, says that his parents migrated from Wales. I have removed the text from the article, but I am concerned that the user account Spaniard4140 might have been created just to perpetrate a hoax about Beech-Jones' Spanish ancestry.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Warned and queried. El_C 12:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Persistant personal attacks, refusal to discuss content issues and editing that is not in accordance with WP:BLP by Kingsif

I carried out some cleaning up of Winston Marshall a BLP article that had several WP:OR WP:SYNTH and WP:BLPSPS issues notably concerning his religion and family history. The problems were

• Unsourced claims that he was part of an aristocratic family "de Balkany" whereas no source mentioned this and another source in Italien I found stated that his great grandfather had added this to his name when emigrating to France from Hungary. I included information from this source and removed the reference to the family being aristocratic.
• A claim that he did not identify as Jewish whereas the source used to support this [172] says It involved condoms and being Jewish.” Are you Jewish? “Ish,” he says in a fit of laughter. As this is ambiguous and rather than remove the reference altogether I modified the article to include the quote to avoid a WP:SYNTH. In other source the subject has mentioned spending time in a Catholic church and spoke about his faith without ever defining it.
• The article mentioned that "One of his grandmothers was a Holocaust survivor", the source use for this was a self-published piece written by the subject himself to defend himself about accusations of being a fascist where he wrote "Nothing could be further from the truth. Thirteen members of my family were murdered in the concentration camps of the Holocaust. My Grandma, unlike her cousins, aunts and uncles, survived. She and I were close. My family knows the evils of fascism painfully well. To say the least. To call me “fascist” was ludicrous beyond belief." This may be true but as it was a WP:BLPSPS I modified the text to read "Marshall has said that thirteen members of his family died in the Holocaust and that one of his grandmothers was a survivor." I could have simply removed it but as it was in the section about his family it could be considered relevant.

My edit on the not considering himself Jewish was reverted by the User:Kingsif [173] with a rather sarcastic and agressive edit summary

what? It is literally what he said, you don’t need to quote when you can summarize and it reads better. (And FYI, it’s rich to claim that no sources describe the family as aristocratic when the source you added literally says it in the title ugh.

He obviously had not bothered reading the source I added as the title actually talks about "Balkanized aristocracy" and it goes on to explain that it is not aristocratic. I tried to initiate a discussion on his talk page here [174] where I admit I was a little pedantic about his incorrect use of the word "literally" twice. He immediately reverted my edit with this comment

nothing to discuss if you have basic reading comprehension

When I realised that he refused to discuss the matter I once again edited out the OR with an edit summary saying

Removing WP:OR. The quote in the source is too vague to conclude he does not identify as Jewish. Please discuss before reinstating.

Kingsif undid my edit with this comment

removal is unwarranted, request to discuss insane. When the subject is asked “are you Jewish” and responds with a synonym of “not really”, there is no vagueness at all. Quit being a quote hound.

I made a final edit of the OR opened a discussion on the talk page and left him a message on his talk page asking him to participate and politely reminding him that he was getting close to the 3RR limit as it was the 3rd time he'd reverted me and twice in less than 24h [175] He reverted this saying

quite hound also just a hounder. What a surprise

He eventually participated in the discussion but only to basically insult me and poorly justify his edits. He then reverted another editor who removed more tendentious information and I finally templated him for OR I could have done it for editwarring. He has carried out personal attacks on me on both the article's talk page and mine threatening me with an IBAN. I tried to offer an olive branch here [176] this was ignored and the personal attacks continued. When another editor go involved in his editing and I reminded him there was now consensus he left another personal attack and immediately archived the discussion [177]. The other editor reverted this archiving and the personal attacks continued.

I fully understand that this page was the subject of a large number of contentious editing and Kingsif was working hard against this but because of this he seems to have become very invested in the article and agressive with anyone who edits against his personal vision. He asked me to stay away from his talk page so after his last attack on me I left a warning message here on the article's talk page that his editing was becoming disruptive. Finally I have decided not to wait for the next attack as he has had enough chances to discuss and find consensus. He has been consistently WP:UNCIVIL despite my asking him not to, his editing seems like editwarring maybe because he feels he WP:OWNS the article. He has consistently refused to discuss the issues right from the start. A good deal of his additions to the article here involved WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and non reliable sources (a blog that Kingsif synthes that makes assumptions about the subjects religious beliefs [178]). I have tried to engage with him and offered an olive branche but this has been met with insults threats and disdain. I recognise having been a little pedantic about the word "literally" and that he may have been hurt by my saying that I considered some of his edits as not meeting WP standards but this does not IMHO merit his reaction. I would therefore like an admin to have a look a this and try and resolve the issue as I believe that there are more serious issues than someone being a bit crotchety. --Dom from Paris (talk) 14:51, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Just as a side note he has accused me of hounding his every edit, I would just like to point out that with the exception of the above article I do not believe that I have ever encountered him and from what I can gather he is a productive and useful editor who has created a large number of good quality articles. This is also one of the reasons I am having trouble understanding this behaviour and I hope it is not me overreacting. --Dom from Paris (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

It's very unclear what you're expecting here. Maybe behaviour was imperfect, but it seems very far from anything requiring administrative attention. Just use some form of WP:dispute resolution to handle the content dispute and ignore any imperfections in behaviour. Nil Einne (talk) 15:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I tried discussion with the editor and each attempt was reverted or met with insults and threats. There is behaviour from the editor that is way out of line with normal editing behaviour, edit warring, incivility, OR, SYNTH, BPLSPS on this particular article, threatening to get me IBANned. If you do not believe that there is anything wrong with this behaviour or rather it is simply "imperfect" and that it is for me to ignore it completely without any kind of remark from an admin then I'm more than a bit surprised. I am not looking for perfection in behaviour that would be stupid but I expect a minimum of respect and when that is refused I would expect an admin to remind the editor of the normal behaviour expected. --Dom from Paris (talk) 15:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

yeah that's probably WP:ASPERSIONS, and WP:BATTLEGROUND, but I would say it only rises to the level of a warning at this point. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

There's no reason an admin needs to remind the editor of what behaviour is expected. Anyone can do that including yourself. Unless you feel sanction may be justified, there's no reason to open an thread. As it stands, the content dispute seems to remain unresolved, so why don't you work out resolving it? Regardless of whether the editor refuses to initially discuss, they did eventually discuss as is obvious from the thread on the article talk page. It seems clear the two of you aren't going to come to an agreement, so again, why don't you try some form of dispute resolution? Also while I don't think Kingsif should have archived that article talk page discussion so fast, I don't see any evidence they ever removed any discussion from the article talk page otherwise. So I'm not sure what you mean by "each attempt was reverted". If you're trying to discuss content disputes on an editor's talk page and they don't welcome it, then stop wasting your time and take it to the article talk page like you should. Nil Einne (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Actually reading the discussion and looking at the history more carefully, I think Kingsif has agreed to allow the version preferred by you and LukeSurl to stand and that's why they archived. I still don't think they should have archived it and also they could have come to that agreement with less sniping and edit warring, but you were also sniping in that thread and ultimately this thread still doesn't seem necessary. Nil Einne (talk) 16:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Just gonna leave this here [179] — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Reporting a Vandal, POV pusher, Stalker and Disruptive user

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

---

InNeed95 (talk · contribs) Hi, this user was blocked by the admin @EdJohnston: for racist insults against Serb minority and againts other users[180]. He has since his founding violating 3RV rule, he constant provokes edit wars, vandalizing and POV Pushing. He is absurd disruptive and visibly reverses everything Serb(ian), and tries to Kosovarize/albanize articles that have nothing to do with it. He doesnt learn nothing with his previous block, he is a legit vandal. He spam wrong edits summary, etc. This user is a tyrant and stalker who goes out of his way to destroy any user who opposes his POV absurdity. His edits are unacceptable on wikipedia. He clearly is not here to contribute to wikipedia, just gaming and impose his anti-serb bias. I request an administration to investigate this user's account of constant vandalism.

• • • Just look at this:
    • He removed an important church in kosovo (in UNESCO) in cristianity of kosovo just because its serbian orthodox. [181]. This is a absurd vandalism
    • [182] This user falsified the source, novak djokvic, a serbian tennis player, does not recognise kosovo, only the Kosovo and Metohia (An Serbian province under UN), and he removes without any explanation the Republika Srpska, a Serb Majority Federation in Bosnia, falsificating the source. This is high POV , Vandalism and violation of BLP policy
    • [183] The long disruptive and vandalism edits
    • [184] He revert me without any explanation, and he got reverted by another user.
    • [185] He revert me with a spam summary, and if he had read what he was reverting, he wouldn't revert me.
    • This user is hides the occupation of nazist albania renaming the name, in an article about a serb(ian) orthodox church[186], this is unnaceptable
    • [187] Another example of vandalism that resulted a block
    • [188] another POV
    • [189] Holy See doesn't recoginises the republic of kosovo(see Holy See–Serbia relations), and the user put POV and unsourced claim, literaly denyng Holy-See Position, a basis of article.
    • [190] this user blanks his talk page just to be unnoticed by the administrators.
    • [191] Here his block by admin.
    • [192]
    • [193]
    • [194]
    • [195]

Aquinasthomes1 (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Aquinasthomes1: You must notify InNeed95 of this report as required when you post to ANI. I also suggest that your calling the user a neo-Nazi racist vandal might result in you being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

How to notify?Aquinasthomes1 (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Every time you edit this page, it tells you what to do. It also tells you at the top of this page.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

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

A request of help for possible boycotting and wrong judgment on notability, on my Wikipedia page draft on ERO (Dominique Philbert). A question of the historical ownership of the artist pseudonym ‘ERO’.

A request of help for possible boycotting and wrong judgment on notability, on my Wikipedia page draft on ERO (Dominique Philbert) a graffiti artist. A question of the historical ownership of the artist pseudonym ‘ERO’.

ERO (Dominique Philbert) 1967-2011 was the first artist to use the pseudonym, the art name, ‘ERO’, published since 1983, as demonstrated in my draft, and attested on magazines selling millions copies (i.e. People mag., Newsweek) which I quoted in my article. He is in several public and private collections since mid 1980's.

There are some other artists and pseudo artist, worldwide, that took his same pseudonym, as I wrote on my draft: ‘Several years and decades after the 'ERO' tag was chosen, in 1982, [published in 1983] ''by Dominique Philbert, and after his death in 2011, other graffiti writers, from Italy, Australia, Ukraine, Spain, France, [just found another in Israel] took the aka 'ERO'. Some, as a tribute to him, others by chance [or ignorance]. To avoid confusion about correct attribution and authenticity, artworks with the tag 'ERO' must be verified.’

I suspect that behind the difficulties to post a Wikipedia page on him, there could be one or more of those ‘post’ or pseudo-ERO, or their supporters and ‘technicians’, pretending they should be the one and the first ERO (no evidence at all, just hackers and boycotting)

It’s a matter of fact that somebody has even cut out the title of my draft, from ‘ERO (Dominique Philbert)’ to ‘Dominique Philbert’. Now, ‘cui prodest’ that action? To whom that ‘cutting’ could have been useful? Isn't it a boycotting?

Theroadislong and Hoary, declined my draft with a wrong premise, that prevented me to talk with them, as I’m afraid it would have been a useless ‘ping-pong’, seriously doubting of their competence: they wrote that ERO (Dominique Philbert) artist, don’t have notability. I had proven it widely in my draft.* The comment by Theroadislong was a strong proof of superficiality (at best) ’struggling to find anything but a passing mention of him in the sources let alone in-depth significant coverage? Theroadislong (talk) 07:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)’ and of lack of respect for my research. Unfortunately, Hoary, though more gentle, approved him.

Web pillory: Their negative comments have been published on the bot Worddisk, giving publicity on the web to ERO (Dominique Philbert) as a non important artist, with not notability. Killing that notable artist, who died at 43 y.o., a second time.

I surely made some mistakes, I am probably, somehow, handicapped, but disposable to corrections. Though I have my own a certain relevance (all that you find on google at my name for art and music is about me, plus many other things as a thesis on me at the University of Firenze -don’t worry I’m not interested to do a wiki page on myself- a few articles I wrote are on Academia.org and Researchgate.net, etc., etc.).

I’m very sorry to say that what happened is scaring me, that in Wikipedia there could be a wild underworld of ‘scalp hunters’, killing whoever they need to make ‘power points’ for their climbing to became Wikipedia authorities, no matters if the victim was really deserving elimination or not.

I’m particularly scared because Theroadislong and Hoary, from what I see on their profiles, look like they already are some kind of Wikipedia’s authorities. Am I wrong? How could it have been possible, they become judges, while being so superficial if not worst, like they have been on my page on ERO? Was it just an incident? A lack of attention?

Should I give up and cancel the page on ERO? Will it be in the interest of Wikipedia’s knowledge mission? At the advantage of the others graffiti artists or pseudo artists that wrongly took that pseudonym many years after?

After Hoary wrote that the page on ERO was too ‘wordy’, I canceled, among other things the chapter titled “ERO’s Work and the Acceptance of Graffiti as a Form of Art - A 'Blow Up' on 'The Afro American' newspaper” where I noticed, with very interesting links to the newspaper, that ERO was a turning point in the consideration of the Afro-American community of graffiti art. Actually, strangely, I wonder why the old editing, are no more visible: all the rendering listed at the dates of the old editing show the same, more recent text, therefor I copy the above-mentioned chapter text below **

• …” ERO's notability was confirmed in one of the major and oldest American Museums, the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston where it was included in the important exhibition "Writing the Future - Basquiat and the Hip Hop Generation" (3 April 2020 - 25 July 2021, originally planned to travel also to Perez Museum in Miami, second venue canceled due to 'covid' pandemia), with a monumental painting he did in 1984 (reproduced double page on the related catalog, where ERO is mentioned on 14 pages included his biography), and where he was exhibited among two pilasters painted by K.Haring and next room to a very big double portrait Basquiat painted depicting ERO, as a sign of esteem and, there is to say, 'notability'. 
 ERO’s historical relevance is also attested in exhibitions and in articles by popular magazines, in Graffiti's crucial years 1983 and 1984, where ERO’s tag and name, as well as photos of his works, were published with emblematic titles such as

“Graffiti on Canvas”,.[2], “When Graffiti Paintings Sell for Thousands - The Art World Sees the Writing on the Wall” [3], "5 Artists Take Graffiti from the Streets to the Galleries” [4], “Graffiti Artists Rise to Acceptance in Museum” [5], “From Subways to Fame”[6]. ….” on important magazines and newspaper of 1980s

• • ‘ERO’s Work and the Acceptance of Graffiti as a Form of Art - A 'Blow Up' on 'The Afro American' newspaper’

Besides having been one of the protagonists, in the most crucial years 1983-84-85, when Graffiti brake a sort of art apartheid of Afro-Americans and Latinx outsiders, previously cut out from art galleries and museums -An historical fact that gives further importance to Graffiti Art in terms of social and political relevance, given also the worldwide spread of that form of art, for decades, and still ongoing to the Now.- 
 ERO also became one of the instruments of a historical transition, when, for the first time, graffiti was taken into good consideration, also in a large part of the Afro-American community, as an analysis of their oldest newspaper, the ‘Afro-American’ (founded 1892) reveal (E). K. Monteyne[20] 'Hip-Hop on Film', mentions how the approach to graffiti art of black American press, like "Afro-American" and "Chicago Defender", who in 1972 and 1973, called the graffiti a "disease" and “vandalism", changed when in the 24 March 1984 issue of the 'Afro-American'[5] published a photo of ERO in front of one of his paintings with the title "From Subways to Fame”, and the long caption “Graffiti artist Dominique Philbert as Ero, displays one of his paintings recently outside the Fun Gallery in Greenwich Village, N.Y. He has moved from subway graffiti to his works being shown in Zurich, Berlin, Amsterdam, Milan, and Tokyo.” ERO's photo and the caption are on the newspaper's third page, above at right, significantly in between the article "Black woman refused to form DAR unit because it's racist" and " 'Buy black' said key wealth". The same newspaper, a little less than three months later, the 16 June 1984 at page 11, confirmed that the change had taken place, publishing, in the column ‘Showtime’, a ‘Hip Hop Glossary’, in where the definition "Graffiti Writer" is described as "an artist who works in the spray can paint medium, creating works of art on public surfaces, such as walls and subway cars (and sometimes canvas)” [21]. In the same newspaper, the 3 March 1984, three weeks before the issue with ERO, the article "Graffiti writers 'off the wall'"[22], at page 14, writes of the surrender of a group of Philadelphia graffiti writers to their town's mayor and the anti-graffiti authority, with whom they "administer[ed] an oath" to not be prosecuted, and in exchange to some, promised, legal creative activities (the article is of April 3, but by mistake, it has been archived on the April 10 issue) (P) 16:50, 11 September 2021 (UTC) The letter among parentheses was a system I conceived to better specify bibliography, But then I canceled them accepting the critic of Hoary, as, in this case, possibly acceptable, to make the text references more simple (though less rich) - Thanks, by Tetide

Hello, Tetide. Theroadislong and Hoary have done absolutely nothing wrong and attacking them is counterproductive. You need to learn how to write concisely and get to the point, both here and in your draft. Please read WP:TLDR. Perhaps this person is notable enough for a concise, neutral, tightly written, well-referenced article. But your draft is a bloated, almost unreadable monstrosity that should be trimmed ruthlessly, or it will never have any hope of becoming an acceptable encyclopedia article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Five years of pushing for Silicon Valley as an official place name

• Cristiano Tomás (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Silicon Valley
• Talk:Silicon Valley#RfC: Inclusion criteria of Silicon Valley, Santa Clara Valley and Santa Clara County, California

Cristiano Tomás does great work in Lusophone topic areas and in California history.

However, Cristiano Tomás has been very busy in the last five years pushing the concept of Silicon Valley as an official place name rather than the high-tech business phenomenon that it is. Cristiano Tomás focuses mostly on promoting San Jose as the center of Silicon Valley or the first on the list of Silicon Valley cities, but also adds "Silicon Valley" to articles in other cities. Cristiano Tomás often writes in articles that the location of something is in "San Jose, California, in Silicon Valley" or "Cupertino, California, in Silicon Valley." Of course, anything in these places is in Santa Clara Valley, or Santa Clara County, California, or the San Francisco Bay Area, but these are of no concern to Cristiano Tomás, who is intent on making our readers think that "Silicon Valley" is the default designation for the region, rather than a popular nickname. Cristiano Tomás is trying to turn Silicon Valley into a metropolitian region much like Greater Los Angeles or Metro Detroit, with San Jose at its center. Before Cristiano Tomás started making these changes, the metro region was acknowledged as Santa Clara County.

(A note about Silicon Valley: the name was coined in 1971 by newspaperman Don Hoefler. The idea put forward by Hoefler was that Stanford University's Frederick Terman and the high-tech industries of the area were helping each other to succeed, creating a hotbed of technological advances. "Silicon Valley" is an idea that serves as an overlay to the normal geopolitical place names. High-tech marketer Regis McKenna famously wrote in 2001 that "Silicon Valley Isn't a Place as Much as It Is an Attitude", which could be "replicated" in other places.[196] New York Times's John Markoff parroted this in 2009, writing Silicon Valley "is as much a state of mind as it is a physical place."[197] YouTube co-founder Brent Hurley said in 2013 that "Silicon Valley is more of a state of mind, it's a mentality among entrepreneurs" which could be established anywhere, not unique to Santa Clara County.[198] Brazilian Ambassador Pedro Borio said the same thing in 2016.[199] Venture capitalist Fred Wilson said "Silicon Valley is most certainly a mindset". PC inventor Lee Felsenstein said, "Silicon Valley is a state of mind in a generalized physical area".[200] All of these people and more have written about how Silicon Valley is an idea that started on the San Francisco Peninsula and grew to include San Jose. It's not purely a place, and certainly not your normal metropolitan region.)

Cristiano Tomás started adding "Silicon Valley" as an official place name in 2016, as far as I can tell. Here is a list of affected articles:

• Aug 2021 at Apple Park: [201]
• Aug 2021 at Netflix: [202]
• Aug 2021 at Computer History Museum: [203]
• Aug 2021 at Silicon Valley University: [204]
• Aug 2021 at Googleplex: [205]
• Aug 2021at David and Lucile Packard Foundation Headquarters: [206]
• Aug 2021 at Harker School: [207]
• Aug 2021 at Adobe World Headquarters: [208]
• Aug 2021 at San Jose Chamber of Commerce: [209]
• May 2021 at Kaiser San Jose Medical Center: [210]
• Apr 2021 at San Jose City College: [211]
• Apr 2021 at Santa Clara University: [212][213]
• Apr 2021 at Bloomingdale's: [214]
• Apr 2021 at Diamara Planell: [215]
• Apr 2021 at University of Silicon Valley: [216]
• Mar 2021 at Zoom Video Communications: [217]
• Mar 2021 at BlueJeans: [218]
• Mar 2021 at St. Patrick's School: [219]
• Mar 2021 at James Lick High School: [220]
• Mar 2021 at San Jose Convention Center: [221]
• Mar 2021 at Saint Leo the Great School (San Jose): [222]
• Mar 2021 at Saint Patrick School (San Jose, California): [223]
• Mar 2021 at Team San Jose: [224]
• Mar 2021 at San Jose Public Library: [225]
• Mar 2021 at Evergreen Valley College: [226]
• Feb 2021 at Iris Chang: [227]
• Jan 2021 at Berryessa, San Jose: [228]
• Dec 2020 at Willow Glen, San Jose: [229]
• May 2020 at Our Lady of Peace Shrine: [230]
• Dec 2018 at Romina Gupta: [231]
• Nov 2018 at Madrone, Morgan Hill, California: [232]
• Nov 2018 at East San Jose: [233]
• Nov 2018 at Santa Teresa, San Jose: [234]
• Nov 2018 at Morgan Hill Unified School District: [235]
• Jun 2018 at Westfield Valley Fair: [236]
• Jun 2018 at Plaza de César Chávez: [237]
• Jun 2018 at Stevens Creek Boulevard: [238]
• Nov 2017 at Template:Neighborhoods of San Jose: [239]
• Nov 2017 at San Jose Municipal Rose Garden: [240]
• May 2016 at Helder Antunes: [241]

The list shows that in March and August 2021, Cristiano Tomás kicked the effort into high gear. Three days ago, Cristiano Tomás moved the center of Silicon Valley from Sunnyvale to San Jose. For me, this was the final straw. I pushed back against the five years of skewed historic record, and began a Request for Comment at Talk:Silicon Valley#RfC: Inclusion criteria of Silicon Valley, Santa Clara Valley and Santa Clara County, California. Cristiano Tomás argued to keep doing what he has been doing, that Silicon Valley is the name of the metro area. This is highly disruptive.

I would like to see Cristiano Tomás acknowledge that "Silicon Valley" is a nickname, not an official place name, and that Santa Clara County, California is the proper metro name for the great majority of these cases. Binksternet (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I would agree that SV is not an official place name - though there are times to additionally identify these places as being within Silicon Valley in an history sense (particularly for tech companies in the 1970s and 1980s), as long as it is fully clear that SV is not being used as an official place name but simply to designate that this is common non-official geographic name for the region. For example (because I know this is where I have included it), I think the mention of SV in Atari, Inc. in two places (after identifying Sunnyvale first, and then stating in the broad region for many of its facilities) is completely appropriate in the context because its not treating it as an official geographic name. --Masem (t) 18:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Certainly Atari and any other article related to the high-tech growth of Silicon Valley should describe the Silicon Valley connection for the reader. I shifted some words to make that happen at the Computer History Museum article. For other such articles, all it takes is some digging to find sources describing the connection. Binksternet (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree completely with Binksternet and hope that Cristiano Tomás will voluntarily agree to desist. If not, an editing restriction may be necessary. That could possibly be a restriction on adding "Silicon Valley" to articles, leaving the editor free to make the case on article talk pages. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Also concur that this a general concept relating to the industry of the region, not a physical location that streets and schools unrelated to the metaphor are located in. It can be used to describe the socioeconomics of the article when relevant, not as a routine geographic listing for the introduction. Reywas92^Talk 00:52, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm unclear on why this content dispute ended up at AN/I already, but I agree with Binksternet that Cristiano has been pushing his idea too far too fast recently. Looking at his most recent contribs, I see he appears to be stalking and reverting Binksternet's removal of Silicon Valley from places where it's clearly ridiculous, as he did here today (on an article he hadn't edited before, it appears); and he reverted a lot more that I didn't check. So, yet, Cristiano, you need to slow down and maybe defer to the judgement of long-time editors in long-stable articles, until you can show a consensus for doing things differently. Dicklyon (talk) 04:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Comtinued disruptive editing and POV pushing by HypVol

 Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1077 § Multiple IPs making possible unconstructive edits (second round)

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

I previously reported this user's disruptive editing in the thread linked above, where they were attempting to get some IP users that were reverting their edits blocked. User:Shibbolethink responded saying that they found the edits troubling, but ultimately no action was taken. Following this they seem to have developed a case of the ANI flu and vanished for a couple of weeks so I didn't press the issue further, but now they're back, re-inserting their disputed edits into a number of categories, articles and templates.

A review of this editors contributions will show a distinct pattern of disruption and POV pushing with regards to Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan that demonstrate that they are WP:NOTHERE to build a neutral encyclopaedia with regards to those topics. For convenience here's a small sample of some of the problematic edits this user has made (partially copied from the previous report, now updated with extra diffs):

• Replacing neutrally worded 'see also' notes with ridiculous 'Hong Kong belongs to China' POV pushing in templates: [242] [243]
• Replacing the flag of Hong Kong with the flag of china in a list of universities, next to the university of Hong Kong: [244] [245] [246]
• Systematically whitewashing articles to remove all mention of the Special Administrative Region status of Hong Kong: [247] [248]
• Sorting a huge number of articles on various things in Hong Kong into "China foo" categories: [249] [250] [251]
• Recategorising people from Hong Kong into the categories for mainland china: [252] [253]
• Across a huge number of templates removing all mentions of Hong Kong being a SAR and merging their topics into the sections on mainland china: [254] [255] [256] [257]
• Changing a huge number of "Hong Kong Foo" categories from being "Foo by nationality" categories to being subcategories of "China Foo": [258] [259] [260] [261] ][262]
• Describing the flag of Macau as a "regional flag": [263]
• Modifying the location of Macau to imply it's uncontroversialy a part of mainland china: [264]
• Adding some rather POV-pushy leads to a couple of articles on Taiwan's international relations, stating how country X does not recognise Taiwan, it's part of china: [265] [266]

While individually some of these edits may be acceptable taken as a whole they demonstrate a distinct pattern of POV pushing with regards to these topics, at the minimum I think a topic ban from china related topics is required, but a straight up block may also be suitable. I also find this editor's use of their user page to construct a "hit list" of IP's that have been reverting them to be inappropriate. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd fully support an indef. Shilling for Winnie the Pooh and his buddies is an especially unpalatable way to be a POV pusher here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the shitlist from their user page per WP:POLEMIC. – ².O.^Boxing 19:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

There is also a concerning post left on their talk page by another account whose only activity is reporting IPs to look out for to HypVol. Slywriter (talk) 22:42, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: INDEF HypVol

Block for disruptive editing and POV pushing as described above. As far as I can tell, this user is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. They are here to remove any mention of HK as an autonomous entity from Wikipedia. They also appear to be (possibly) socking or meat puppeting [267] with WenningHehn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

User:D.P Talukdar persisting with disruptive edits

I previously started a discussion here about D.P Talukdar's disruptive edits which mainly consisted of repeatedly creating and recreating CSD A7 articles. They've ignored all of the messages that were left on their talk page, which were left as a result of their previous ANI discussion. Since then the user has persisted with two more articles and got involved with some conflict with another user. I believe that, by now, it seems everyone has had enough and warning them one more time won't do the trick. This appears to be a competence issue and a lack of understanding how to use Wikipedia, what the guidelines are, and how to communicate with others. Waddles 🗩 🖉 21:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

No, this doesn't look like a competence issue, but simply a case of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Phil is likely correct, as these all appear to be mobile edits. Curbon7 (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• I've indeffed the user as NOTHERE. I can't see anything they do as constructive. The pages they continue to create are crap, and they continue to disrupt articles. The number of entries they put in lists is amazing. I just tried to wipe many of them out of one article, and it was so tedious I stopped.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:JS1 PRN

JS1 PRN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user was previously reported by User:HistoryofIran on 22 May. The report can be found at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1068#JS1 PRN. No action was taken (as nobody responded).

JS1 PRN seems to have an obsession with adding unsourced or improperly sourced ethnicity info to articles about Afghanistan's provinces. They were warned/informed twice about their edits in May (some diffs of problematic April/May edits: [268][269]. After being reported, this user made a few more edits (the first edit I checked while preparing this report, diff, incorrectly changed the height of an Afghan athlete) before resuming ethnicity edits on 2 August.

Since then, JS1 PRN has made several unsourced or improperly sourced edits involving ethnicity (diffs: [270][271][272][273][274]). Those diffs are the edits that I cautioned/warned them about on their talk page or brought up with them in a separate section on their talk. They received four cautions/warnings including a level 4 warning in August. The user only responded once (to the level 4 warning), to which I replied. Then, earlier today, they made another such edit (diff: [275]) which is why I'm coming here. I'm requesting that JS1 PRN be indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 21:21, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@JS1 PRN: At Parwan Province, this edit changed the reference to https://nps.edu/web/ccs/parwan and added many precise percentages, such as "65% Tajiks and 35% Pashtuns" for Bagram. Please explain where the reference verifies those numbers. Johnuniq (talk) 05:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Strange deletion of Non-Aligned Movement

The article Non-Aligned Movement, which has existed since at least 2017 and on a definitely notable topic, was suddenly deleted earlier today as copyright infringement. Stranger still, the deletion log message by Jimfbleak doesn't cite what the page was infringing, and instead simply links to Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which obviously can't show what the details of the infringement were since the page is now deleted.

Can someone take a look and verify whether the article was actually infringing, and if it was, whether there are any older revisions that can be restored without the infringing content? (Since, again, this is a pretty notable/important topic to post-World War II policics, and is even categorized as a level 5 vital article per the talk page.)

Thanks, Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 21:26, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I think someone might be going to the village stocks... dudhhr_Contribs 21:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I was honestly very much shocked to see the article gone. As I mentioned on article's talk page (which is still available), even if there is a proven copyright infringement, I think that part should be removed (as long as it's possible). Otherwise we can create a perfect Achilles' heel on Wikipedia where any spoiler actor can import some irregular material and by that ruin the hard work of other volunteers. In this case it is particularly sensitive as this is the topic which may attract interest and collaboration among editors from 'beyond global centers' communities which are less involved in Wikipedia knowledge production.--MirkoS18 (talk) 22:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Moxy: was the one who originally tagged it as a copyvio and for CSD. Maybe they can be of assistance. Canterbury Tail talk 22:39, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Yet again this demonstrates that far too many people here don't care about copyvio. It is entirely appropriate to remove copyvios and delete if necessary. The hosting of copyvios and the community's contempt for attempts to deal with it are an existential threat against Wikipedia. We should be praising people like Jimfbleak and Moxy who are attempting to deal with it, not attacking them because "its a notable topic". The backlogs at CCI and the like are so large that deletion should be expected. Those who think that it's OK to for us to ignore copyvio have no place on WikipediaNigel Ish (talk) 23:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Nigel Ish: We should not praise people for deleting important and thorough articles due to their misuse of copyright violation assessment tools. We should, in fact, criticize them, and demand they do better going forward. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

It is clear that anyone who edits in the copyright field will get no protection from the community, as you continue your attacks against attempts to fix it. There appears to be no point in attempting to help out in areas like CCI as people like you will just undermine and attack.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

If nobody restores the page in the next 10 minutes, I will re-create a stub; that may create some history cleanup later but this is an article that must exist. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:42, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

A page now exists again at that name. There are certainly many redirects (such as Secretary-General of the Non-Aligned Movement) that need to be restored or recreated as well. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

When this page is restored beyond a stub, I will be happy to restore all of the redirects. That won't be hard to do. I just want to see the outcome of this discussion first. I was surprised to see the article deleted rather than the copyright violation simply removed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I am 100% certain the result of the discussion will include an article existing at that title. Was there any discussion of copyvios? I see nothing on the (not-deleted) talk page. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, it looks like Explicit has already restored all of the redirects for you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:58, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

While I can appreciate people wanting to help with copyright, you have to be careful not to be overzealous and double check especially if it's a very old article. This one in question showed two major "violations" on earwig, [276] and [277]. In both instances, the websites copied wikipedia, not the other way around. I have restored the article and will be tagging the talk page with the backwards copyvio tool. (edit: It's not letting me restore all the edits so it's going to be a process) Wizardman 23:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

With 2,747 edits in the page history, these restorations can take a while. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Eyes, please

Gross image vandalism of September 11 attacks and United Airlines Flight 93 from an account with ECP. Both articles are now fully protected against ECP sleepers for now. Account blocked, badimages updated, revdel'd too. Commons deletions would be extremely helpful, and a global block. Please watch out on peripheral articles and nuke from orbit. Acroterion (talk) 22:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Ultima the Hedgehog is very likely compromised, along with Chiphilla. We had a couple this morning too. Global locks requested ~TNT (she/they • talk) 23:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@TheresNoTime: It would probably be a good idea to tag these accounts with {{compromised account}}. I've just seen a thread on reddit where someone was threatening to track down the "vandal" based on the information on their user page. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 23:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Good idea, I've done that and revision deleted the information - I've noted this at WP:AN for admin review, as its not really a valid revdel reason ~TNT (she/they • talk) 23:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

All right, I'm going to back it down to ECP again. Acroterion (talk) 23:39, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Could someone stick |confirmed=checkuser onto the end of the template on Ultima the Hedgehog's user page, just for the complete avoidance of doubt? thanks. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 04:37, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Mark Parken - persistent introduction of unsourced material

Mark Parken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Has been warned more than enough about introduction of unsourced material, but keeps introducing such material e.g., here and here. They also fail to communicate over all this period. --Muhandes (talk) 07:23, 12 September 2021 (UTC)