Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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first close attempt withdrawn.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)

Translator's note: "douche", in French, means "shower". jp×g 22:11, 12 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 ([1] [2]). 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 [3] [4], 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)
• Support unblock I believe that editor has expressed sufficient remorse. The block etc. have been logged and are part of their wiki-record. That's enough if we ever need to revisit this; let them resume their productive activities. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:53, 15 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)

• Oppose. I've seen how "broadly constituted" topic bans can be taken to include almost everything. This one is so broad that it's effectively limits the recipient to very small part of the project. Additionally, I don't find the rationale convincing (where are the diffs?). No, if you want something so broad, take it to ArbCom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:56, 15 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 [5]. (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 [6]. — 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. [7] 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 [8]. -- 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" [9]. 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 [10]) 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)
• Comment. This would be a stronger proposal if it included diffs to problematic edits, or links to prior places such diffs were presented. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:58, 15 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)

Yes, it's time for a close--and in the light. I hope the administrator(s) involved in the closing will post a clear overview of constraints for John and for all. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• I thought we didn't do RfC/User anymore. Well what it this then. It's the job of the admin corps to decide whether to block or unblock. The admin corps has IRC or whatever people use now, let them discuss it. There's a reason we don't do RfC/User anymore. Oof people complain about how stressful an RfA is, this is so much worse. FWIW I support letting the guy edit. The Wikipedia is not a respecter of persons, but come on -- it's a website -- probably ephemeral -- and hobby. Balance that versus the life human being who's trying to get thru his pilgrimage here and contributing here is helping that a lot. Be kind. Even ExxonMobile allows for individual cases when a person has a condition. Should we be meaner and harsher than ExxonMobile.

I set up this fellow with the idea of doing a positive pledge (random narrow place to edit) as this is much easier to follow, and for other people to check, than a ban on certain topic areas. (I suggested (at random) working only in Category:Calabar which needs much expansion, but the guy chose 1921 births instead, and fine,

I'd like to see if "Restriction to only topic Y" could be a better approach than "Ban from topic Z", for difficult issues where the editor's career is on the knife-edge. I think it might be easier for the editor to stay IN someplace rather than OUT of an attractive place [for a probationary period might last even a year say]. At least it's new idea (I think) so let's try this test case and see.

I'll be spot-checking and if he edits outside 1921 births [for several months anyway and with eplicit permission], then that has to be the end and he knows that. If it happens, the Wikipedia will survive. Herostratus (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, one of the reasons RFC/U was abolished, was due to the pile on effect. I remember, as years ago, I had an RFC/U done on me. It was like trying to climb out of a hole, with the sand falling in each time you tried. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

That's news to me. Can you give me a link to the change in ANI policy? I just wasn't aware that community input didn't approach closure... Also importantly, I'm not asking for a close in the RfC sense. I'm asking for a close because the community wants to know what's gonna happen here. Is that what is meant by an RfC/user? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

"I just wasn't aware that community input didn't approach closure...". Well now you are, cos I'm telling you. It's the ANI board, not the "let's have a bunch of rando editors kick some hapless mook around" board. The admins allows non-admins that aren't party to a situation to chime in. They don't have to, but it's worthwhile more often than it's not, so they do. But here, it's not helpful.

Anyway, yes what we're seeing here is pretty much what RfC/user was. Sometimes RfC/user was useful, but it was shut down because a lot of times it wasn't and was just a lemon-squeezing party and just not an OK way to treat most editors. Still true. Herostratus (talk) 02:33, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Am I wrong in thinking your sentiment here conflicts with WP:CBAN? If not, how is CBAN different? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Shibboleth, much as these discussions can be distasteful, community banning is part of the banning policy and there has to be a mechanism for that to be executed. ANI discussion is one of those mechanisms. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Herostratus has got it completely wrong. CBAN’s, topic bans, etc etc are regularly determined by the community here (not just Admins). Indeed, that was part of the rationale for getting rid of RfC/Us - ANI was one of the fora that could take that up in lieu. DeCausa (talk) 09:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Hero, John is not the only human being who's trying to get thru his pilgrimage here. Your post makes it sound like the community just called John to the carpet and started evaluating him in a vacuum. Of course John, a human being, is more important than a website. I believe in "people over pages," but that is not the situation here. The community is not evaluating John; the community is evaluating John's interactions with other editors. And those other editors are human beings just like John. And while John is more important than a website, he is not more important than the other people who use the website. Sanctions are to prevent disruption not to the website, but to the other people who are using the website. That includes people who John accused of engaging in hate speech because they wanted to use the word "Mormon," for example. They shouldn't have to put up with that sort of thing from John or anyone else, and we should have as much sympathy for them as we do for John. I support John editing here, too, but I also support a TBAN to protect others from John's behavior, and that doesn't make this an RFC/U, and it doesn't make me meaner and harsher than ExxonMobile. Given that this isn't a new issue but one that's been going on for years, it's actually downright nice that the community isn't just throwing John out, but is instead investing significant time and effort into coming to consensus on some compromise that allows John to continue editing. Give credit where credit is due. This thread is a testament to how much the community cares about John, because if it didn't, he'd be indef'd already and no one would be talking about it. Levivich 04:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I tried to stay away from the discussion as much as possible over the last week because, well, I've made my opinions known, they haven't changed and to have someone constantly repeating their position would be grating for everyone. I'm sure Hero and I agree on a lot of things and we probably disagree on a lot of things. I am not going to pretend that everyone that commented on this case likes John or wants the best for him. Its not like they wish harm or anything either. I think several are apathetic to anything related to him or really anyone else. I'm sure quite a few think the community should have globally blocked John by now. There might even be some that think I have no business here either. We all have opinions and when you have someone that has been before ANI so often over the last few years its bound to come up. The fact is his disruptions have affected other human beings and that should be acknowledged. We can acknowledge that while also acknowledging that John is human and is affected differently than a lot of people here when it comes to confrontation. But John is intelligent and he can figure out how to respond in a different manner and he can take instruction and learn from it as almost every other human being is capable of doing. The approach may be different and I think that's where the divide is going forward. I have never advocated against a TBAN. I think the subjects of the LDS, Mormonism and probably Catholicism but especially those articles related to Catholic bishops should be off limits to John. They have been red button topics for him and have directly resulted in the AN/I cases in which he is the subject.

Many don't feel it is the community's responsibility to find a remedy in which John is able to edit here and the community is safe from any of his potential disruptions. That's a fair observation. I've heard it time and time again. We don't matter. All that matters is the encyclopedia. If that's what someone believes then I expect them to look at this discussion and the evidence and say John should have been long gone by now. My views may be different but I can respect that. I also believe, as pointed out by Levivich, that the very fact that we are still discussing it and working through a solution is testament that not everyone here holds that view and they do want John to continue editing and they do see the value in his positive additions while criticizing his disruptions. Hopefully John is watching this discussion even though he has heeded advice not to comment here. If he is then I hope he recognizes what we have just pointed out. The community, even those advocating for a full TBAN on "religion", still values his positive contributions. What can not continue is the disruption. I also hope he recognizes that the people he affected with his disruptions and aspersions are human beings and though I have advocated for him, I have also advocated for them. I believe his apologies are sincere and I believe this particular case has been eye-opening for him. As a member of this community I, like others among us, have decided to try and help John, through dialogue, but also hold him accountable for his actions.

We don't have to argue amongst ourselves. We don't have to think the worst of anyone here in this discussion. All points that have been brought up are valid. That's why we are still here discussing them. We are a community trying to find the best solution among many options and its very difficult to find that solution sometimes. The one thing we can not do is give up our faith in the guiding principles of this community. True civility is not found when we agree on something. True civility, one of the pillars of this community, is found when we not only disagree but do so passionately and emphatically. --ARoseWolf 12:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• I have avoided commenting on the substantive issue here (rather than in this meta-discussion subsection) because more than enough people have done so without my involvement. Surely its best for everyone involved (John, his targets and the rest) that this should be closed as promptly as possible. And, for the record, I must be going soft in my old age, because I agree with User:Levivich. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:04, 14 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:

• [11] 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:
• [12]

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.

• [13]
• [14]
• [15]
• [16]
• [17]

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:

• [18]

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.

• [19]

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 [20] 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 [21] 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)

I'm not even remotely interested in wrestling but the situation here is one user who is clueless about sourcing and being abusive to anyone who reaches out to correct him. It really could do with admin intervention and a WP:BOOMERANG for the OP. WCM_email 16:49, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, here's my reading of the situation. The intial edit was fine. Per WP:TWEET, "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". Addicted4517 should not have reverted that edit. But, since they did, per WP:BRD the onus is on SkylerLovefist to take it to the talk page and argue their case for inclusion. -- Mike 🗩 12:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Not quite. The OP's initial edit wasn't fine, it was sourced to a Twitter video [22], in which the OP believed they identified a person and from that inferred they had signed a contract ie WP:OR and WP:SYN on a WP:BLP. The second just links to a Twitter feed not an announcement of a name change [23]. Someone tried to explain WP:TWEET as you correctly referred to it but they firmly grasped the wrong end of the stick and decided they were right all along. Addicted4517 correctly reverted the dubious sourcing on a BLP and tried to explain the importance of sourcing and was met with personal abuse. After this the OP created this ANI entry, this being related to wrestling it seems that bad behaviour isn't of much concern so the expected WP:BOOMERANG hasn't occurred. WCM_email 13:11, 13 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[24]. 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)

• FWIW, I clicked on them and discovered they were already on my watchlist, which means at some point, they did something cringeworthy that caught my attention. I endorse Miniapolis's good move by blocking, furthermore I am in agreement with Fram that Autopatral be removed until they can prove that they are competent enough to hold the perm. Celestina007 (talk) 23:13, 12 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)

Oh, no, I don't want to send you off to look at racist shit. I wouldn't even know how to find this fandom page. My only comment (which should probably be ignored, so this can be put to bed) is that based on comments here, it seems clear KM and V4th are the same person, and if it is true that V4th was leaving racist comments on other people's walls on some other project, and importing that fight into WP, that both accounts should be blocked indef. But meh. I'll add User:KnowledgeMastermind's talk page to my watchlist, and indef them if they do anything like that here. Or tell any more obvious lies. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

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

• N1TH Music (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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 [25] and other editors [26] [27] 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 [28]. 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 [29] [30] 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 [31]).

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)

I've just redirected Leslie Railway (2 earlier aFC rejections of a draft were seeminginly not taken on board and a fork created), still WP:TROUTing myself for dePRODing Railway Driving Motor Car (though there may be something useful related but possibly under different titles), and examined Ardvar which does not seem to meet Wikipedia:UKVILLAGES (Is this one, two or three cottages). Went to talk page to issue warning ANI was likely if behaviour continued but it seems we are already rightfully here. The likes and actions on N1TH Music's is a possible but not definite indicator of an editor who may be here to disrupt. I think MjRoot's suggestion of AfC restriction is a good way forward; and strongly recommend it is implemented if N1TH Music fails to appear at this discussion and that the discussion is not left to drift into archival with no action. I'd also ideally want an indicator that if the editor should then swtitches to systemic minor problematic edits across multiple article that would simply result in a likely #indef block for WP:NOTHERE. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm here I've made it to the discussion N1TH Music (talk) 07:34, 13 September 2021 (UTC) I'm sorry I didn't come earlier but I thought it was a discussion about me not one where I try to justify myself. I want to make it clear that I absolutely have not here to disrupt anything, ever since I started editing all of my edits were with the intent to help others by adding information or creating something new, it was a hobby to be honest back when I made Ardvar, Unapool, Inverlael etc. and same thing with the individual locomotive articles. It may seem to you that I was directly ignoring advice or instructions but no, I had already made 12 new articles about individual locomotives and the one about Railway Driving Motor car over the span of 2 days and none of them were proposed for deletion with the exception of my class 02 locomotive articles where I thought the problem was a lack of information not the fact that I could just rewrite everything in the existing space. Once I was told to stop I immediately did and did what I don't remember who it was but it's in y talk page suggested, expanding the current articles. So I added details to British Rail Class 01 and British rail class 02, the latter of which was unfinished. British Rail Class 01's edit was completely removed while class 02 only the sources where taken out because something I did not know at the time, Flickr is not a reliable source due to people being able to just write whatever they want under that caption of an image. So I never did it again. But as for my edit of British Rail Class 314 I still don't know why it was removed, unlike my edits to 02 and 01 they didn't go into excessive detail at all, it was a simple table saying Unit number, Livery, Withdrawl date, and disposition for each of the 16 units. And I sourced it with 1 clean reliable source. If that's too much information than how come List of British Rail Class 91 locomotives isn't, it is the same thing except it's a dedicated article that goes into far more detail. As for my old villages that apparently don't comply with Wikipedia:UKVILLAGES well they were all reviewed when I made them like months ago I think. I thought reviewed meant accepted so I kept making more, such as Allnabad. And as for Loch Dionard, Loch Urigull and the 58m tall mountain, I was on an article about Sutherland and there were so many places with links all of which were red so I thought I'd create pages from these red links. But Apparently they're to skin deep too. I finally understand that now, I don't need to be blocked or temporarily blocked, I was just experimenting earlier because I didn't know better, I understand what's wrong with everything except my British Rail Class 314 edit, if someone could please explain to me, I'll start talking about more notable topics in future or better I should probably clarify with someone (ideally one of you 2) if an article is worth creating before creating it. N1TH Music (talk) 07:34, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@N1TH Music: that's an encouraging post. We were all new once, and we've all made mistakes along the way. Doing so is fine as long as we learn from our mistakes. Issues with indiviual articles need to be discussed with the editor concerned, or on the article's talk page, or at Wikiproject level. Am happy to provide assistance / guidance on future article creation. As it's Sutherland you're interested in, there's a prime candidate for an article mentioned at WT:UKT. Mjroots (talk) 13:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@N1TH Music: I concur with Mjroots and WP:AGF your post seems sincere. To state the obvious: should a pattern of systemic problematic edits or edits that are WP:UNDUE occur then you back here, perhaps in very short order and the outcome would likely not be as lenient. I'd also recommend any new articles are submitted via AfC, and listening to any advice given. But lets concentrate on the positive, I think you would be most welcome back if you are making what the community would regard as useful contributions. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:48, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@N1TH Music: I appreciate you coming here and engaging with us in good faith. Wikipedia is not easy to learn. I started myself 2 months ago and made plenty of mistakes while I was first learning. As I said when I posted this initially, I believe you are acting in good faith and that with time and experience you can become a valuable contributor to Wikipedia. I strongly recommend you take the advice and help that Mjroots and Djm-leighpark have offered. I'm willing to help as well, but UK railways are not my area of expertise (I'm in the U.S.). I recommend we leave this open for a few days, and if N1TH Music turns their words here into actions, this be closed without any sort of sanction. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I understand everything all 3 of you have said and I greatly appriciate what you are doing to help me, I've already been told by one of you that I should make an article about the wester pipe railway if I wish to make more railbased articles but Trainsandotherthings I'm not sure how I can turn the words into actions, do I make an article on something worthy of an article, or what, I'm confused and I definitely want this closed without any sanctions done to me so I hope you could elaborate on what I need to do to prove myself a good editor but even after that, there's one more thing that I'm concerened of N1TH Music (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@N1TH Music: Suggest you work up the Wester pipe railway article at User:N1TH Music/Wester pipe railway. It's not a formal AFC there, but doing it that way will leave you to work the article up in relative peace and those interested in giving you advice and assistance will be able to do that. When the article is ready for mainspace it can be moved. Mjroots (talk) 05:26, 15 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 [32] 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 [33] 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 [34] 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 [35] 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 [36] 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 [37]. 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 [38]). 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 [39] — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I still think this is premature, there's simply not enough to justify any sanction yet, but Kingsif seem intent on pushing this towards a level where it does require sanction. Kingsif has decided to remove a reply to the talk page discussion [40]. While the reply they removed seems unhelpful since it doesn't relate to improving the article so is something that should be dealt with on Kingsif talk page or not at all. (Kingsif doesn't seem to want any more comments from Domdeparis on their talk page but Domdeparis had already warned Kingsif about these issues so the simple solution was to drop it until it arose to a level that did require some sort of sanction and then open an ANI. They could explain why they didn't try to address it further with Kingsif when their early efforts were rebuffed when opening the thread.) But anyway, I'm not convinced the comment by Domdeparis requires removal and even if it does Kingsif clearly shouldn't be the one to do it given it was a reply to them and their reply before that did the same thing. Kingsif then tried to archive the discussion yet again [41] despite the fact others clearly felt it premature. They are free to ignore the discussion if they feel it is over, if no one else responds it will be archived in a few weeks or whatever, there's no reason it needs to be archived, especially not by a highly involved editor. IMO if there's any more nonsense like this Kingsif should be blocked from the article talk page and article at a minimum. (While they've stopped edit warring in the article, we cannot allow them to edit it if they can't be trusted with the talk page.) Nil Einne (talk) 08:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• I was given a talk page notification about this discussion, I'm just a minor player in this drama. I've made handful of edits to the article and talk, all of which were met with an aggressive response from Kingsif in either talk or edit summary. Not pleasant, but I'm an experienced editor and this isn't something that perturbs me at this stage. This is the sort of behaviour I know en:wiki tolerates, though I personally wish it didn't. --LukeSurl ^t c 08:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

OK I probably should have asked for an admin just to come and give a hand rather than open a thread on ANI. But it was the kind of behaviour from Kingsif that was one of the reasons I stepped back from editing, the edit warring and aggressiveness was getting pretty unpleasant. As I said I had tried to engage with Kingsif twice on his talk page, several times on mine and also on the article talk page and every single time any kind of discussion was rejected and met with aggressiveness that is why I couldn't address the subject with Kingsif. If someone could find a single moment where he showed any kind of desire to enter into a civil discussion with me I'd be very interested to see that as I must have missed it. Like I said I think that Kingsif has got too involved in this article and did not appreciate the modifications I brought in to his additions and was aggressive right from the start. I'm not looking for a sanction but a simple warning because this kind of behaviour drives away editors and sours the WP experience for all. --Dom from Paris (talk) 09:50, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Just as a reminder I believe it is difficult to discuss with an editor who reverts any attempts to do so and follows up with this "friendly" message on article talk pages I’ll ask for an IBAN on you next time you dump bullshit on my talk page, something I asked you not to do twice before when things escalate very quickly to this level dispute resolution becomes very difficult indeed. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@Kingsif: I just read on a thread on your talk page in which I was mentioned that you claim not to have been informed of this ANI discussion. Just as a reminder I did inform you as is required immediately it was opened [42] and you undid my edit with this comment ‎you fucking deaf Dom?. I did also mention you in the initial comment so you should have also got a notification for that too. But just in case I'm pinging you to make sure I don't get accused of not notifying you. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:53, 14 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.[43] 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."[44] 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.[45] Brazilian Ambassador Pedro Borio said the same thing in 2016.[46] 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".[47] 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: [48]
• Aug 2021 at Netflix: [49]
• Aug 2021 at Computer History Museum: [50]
• Aug 2021 at Silicon Valley University: [51]
• Aug 2021 at Googleplex: [52]
• Aug 2021at David and Lucile Packard Foundation Headquarters: [53]
• Aug 2021 at Harker School: [54]
• Aug 2021 at Adobe World Headquarters: [55]
• Aug 2021 at San Jose Chamber of Commerce: [56]
• May 2021 at Kaiser San Jose Medical Center: [57]
• Apr 2021 at San Jose City College: [58]
• Apr 2021 at Santa Clara University: [59][60]
• Apr 2021 at Bloomingdale's: [61]
• Apr 2021 at Diamara Planell: [62]
• Apr 2021 at University of Silicon Valley: [63]
• Mar 2021 at Zoom Video Communications: [64]
• Mar 2021 at BlueJeans: [65]
• Mar 2021 at St. Patrick's School: [66]
• Mar 2021 at James Lick High School: [67]
• Mar 2021 at San Jose Convention Center: [68]
• Mar 2021 at Saint Leo the Great School (San Jose): [69]
• Mar 2021 at Saint Patrick School (San Jose, California): [70]
• Mar 2021 at Team San Jose: [71]
• Mar 2021 at San Jose Public Library: [72]
• Mar 2021 at Evergreen Valley College: [73]
• Feb 2021 at Iris Chang: [74]
• Jan 2021 at Berryessa, San Jose: [75]
• Dec 2020 at Willow Glen, San Jose: [76]
• May 2020 at Our Lady of Peace Shrine: [77]
• Dec 2018 at Romina Gupta: [78]
• Nov 2018 at Madrone, Morgan Hill, California: [79]
• Nov 2018 at East San Jose: [80]
• Nov 2018 at Santa Teresa, San Jose: [81]
• Nov 2018 at Morgan Hill Unified School District: [82]
• Jun 2018 at Westfield Valley Fair: [83]
• Jun 2018 at Plaza de César Chávez: [84]
• Jun 2018 at Stevens Creek Boulevard: [85]
• Nov 2017 at Template:Neighborhoods of San Jose: [86]
• Nov 2017 at San Jose Municipal Rose Garden: [87]
• May 2016 at Helder Antunes: [88]

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)

Yeah, mentioning SV when tied to technology companies or aspects 100% is valid, but like the inclusion on town, schools or other businesses or places in the area is inappropriate unless there is a clear technology tie (like Sunnyvale being one of the key places many SV companies set up HQ or offices). --Masem (t) 23:08, 12 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)

I am not involved with this dispute (and haven't looked at the diffs), but referring to the area as Silicon Valley doesn't seem prima facie nuts to me. For what it's worth, in cities on the south side of San Francisco Bay, lots of them have signage referring to Silicon Valley as a place name, and it's used in an official capacity pretty often as well (for example, the subway expansion to San Jose is officially called the Silicon Valley Extension Program). That said, User:Dicklyon has lived here much longer than me, and probably has a more nuanced opinion, but as far as I can tell it falls somewhere between "right" and "wrong but arguable either way", not "ANI-worthily wrong". jp×g 22:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: This ANI report is about the behavior, not the content, and if Cristiano Tomás is repeatedly doing this against consensus, then that is a problem and needs to be stopped somehow. We could institute a TBAN on SV, or on adding SV to sentences referring to city or county names, or etc. (PS: My opinion on content: SV can mean whatever the speaker or writer wants it to -- it can even refer to Big Tech or tech in general, regardless of location.) Softlavender (talk) 23:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment by Cristiano Tomás: Hello all, I apologize for my delayed response to this ANI, my weekend has been occupied by family events. I hope to take this opportunity to make my case that, A) my actions concerning the addition of "Silicon Valley" as a place name in articles were done in good faith, and that B) my actions concerning the recent RfC and reversions in regards to Binksternet were done because I believed it to be counter-productive for Binksernet to go around in a single day, changing all of the references to Silicon Valley as a geographic place across Wiki (including references added by myself but also other editors), when an ongoing discussion was being had on the SV talk page (which Binksternet opened) and which has yet to reach consensus.

Point A): My additions to references to Silicon Valley as a place name over the past however many years have been done in good faith. I say this because, being a local (no matter how anecdotal that may be) I have first hand experience knowing the term to refer the region (beyond just referring to it's tech industry) and because there is a significant amount of evidence to support the term's use to mean a specific geography (much of which I have shown in my arguments here, but this ANI is not about the actual topic of Silicon Valley's usage but of course on my actions). But anyway, I believed what I was doing was a benefit to all the geographic place articles (such as the cities or neighborhoods shown above in Binksternet's argument) because the fact is that Silicon Valley undoubtedly has more recognition than many of the individual cities and neighborhoods within it; ergo I thought (and still think) that mentioning their location within Silicon Valley is relevant and helpful to the reader. I do not refute the absolutely popular usage of the term as a metonym for the tech industry, much like Hollywood for the entertainment industry (but like Silicon Valley, Hollywood is also a real place; I wholly believe their articles can cover both their metonymical usage and their real-world, geographic places, but I digress). The fact is that I was not going against any established consensus on the matter, especially given that the Silicon Valley article and the terms usage as a geographic place was already existent in different articles across Wiki before my edits. I fully welcome that we are now trying to establish a consensus on the matter (no matter what the outcome be), but I have never acted against consensus.

Point B) My actions in the rapid reversions of Binksternet's unilateral, mass removal of all references to Silicon Valley as a geographic locale in articles across Wiki, were done because I believed it to be not in the spirit of good discussion and consensus-building to execute mass removals when Binksternet had just opened a discussion on the matter. At the time that Binksternet began the first (18:08, 10 September 2021) in their long list of removals of references to Silicon Valley as a place, the discussion ongoing at Talk:Silicon Valley ([of talk when Binksternet began a long series of removals]) was far from near consensus (and certainly not in favor of Binksternet's proposals). I had not continued to add references to SV as a place during the discussion, because the fact is that we are still in the process of establishing a consensus (I ask you all please to see the discussion on the talk to see that we are not agreed on any basis yet). My actions in reverting his removals (which were always explained in my edit summaries, as compared to Binksternet's which never responded to mine) were done because actions were done prematurely while a community discussion was being had. I understand that Binskternet believed my previous additions of SV as a place name over the past 5 years have been unwarranted (but I contend that additions over 5 years done in good faith are different from a rapid removal of all references while consensus is being sought), however he started a discussion on the matter, which I and other editors are participating in, and still Binksternet has taken to making sweeping changes to articles based on his side of the discussion. My reversion was to move the pages back to their Wikipedia:Stable version, as the discussion was on going. Binksternet nonetheless persisted in removing more references to SV as a place on more articles and did not engage in a discussion with me until he opened this ANI. (here is an example of: removing a reasonable reference to SV as a place name; followed by by reversion and edit summary where I ask him to stop his removals while we seek consensus on the discussion that he himself opened on the SV talk page; followed by Binkster reverting my reversion with no edit summary. I hate that this has been brought to an ANI, as I don't believe it was necessary, but the reality is that it was Binksternet who was acting against goodfaith and wiki policies, by opening a discussion to the community and still taking it upon himself to impose his view in the meanwhile.

In the end, I would like to say I am very open to all outcomes of the ongoing discussion, but I will stand strongly by my point that it is not ethical to start a discussion seeking community input on an apparently contentious topic and then promoting your viewpoint across articles at the very same time. Nonetheless, I hope Binksternet and I can find a reasonable meeting in the middle, because I truly believe in the spirit of WP:Compromise, but that is a two-way street. In response to Binksternet saying: "I would like to see Cristiano Tomás acknowledge that "Silicon Valley" is a nickname, not an official place name", I have never claimed its an official name or that it is the name of any geopolitical organization, which for some reason Binksternet continues to accuse me of. However, a nickname isn't what I would call it either, it's a name, just that. But anyway, that discussion isn't for here but for Talk:Silicon Valley. I have ceased reverting Binksternet's edits as I see no benefit it once he reverted my initial reversions (I, in no way, wish to WP:edit war). All I have done is ask that we respect the discussion and not cary out edits relevant to its results before they are achieved. Best, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 04:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Cristiano Tomás, yes, it is "ethical" to revert BOLD edits per WP:BRD, which Binksternet did. Since Silicon Valley is not an official place name, your edits over the years were BOLD. You must now await consensus (of the RFC) before attempting to reinstate your bold edits. That's how BRD works. Softlavender (talk) 04:44, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't have characterized them as bold (based on the rationale I gave above), so I guess that's where a point of confusion arose for me. But as I already said above, I will not attempt to reinstate my previous edits while the discussion is ongoing. I genuinely apologize to the misunderstanding, my only goal has been, like I said, to await consensus. I have taken a step back from reinstating these edits since Binksternet's first revert of my revert, I have no interest in creating conflict. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 05:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Just for clarification, every edit is WP:BOLD unless you get consensus first.-- Mike 🗩 15:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@Darth Mike:, To be honest I had never thought of it that way, but I certainly will from now on. Thank you, I appreciate the clarification. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 16:55, 14 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: [89] [90]
• Replacing the flag of Hong Kong with the flag of china in a list of universities, next to the university of Hong Kong: [91] [92] [93]
• Systematically whitewashing articles to remove all mention of the Special Administrative Region status of Hong Kong: [94] [95]
• Sorting a huge number of articles on various things in Hong Kong into "China foo" categories: [96] [97] [98]
• Recategorising people from Hong Kong into the categories for mainland china: [99] [100]
• 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: [101] [102] [103] [104]
• Changing a huge number of "Hong Kong Foo" categories from being "Foo by nationality" categories to being subcategories of "China Foo": [105] [106] [107] [108] ][109]
• Describing the flag of Macau as a "regional flag": [110]
• Modifying the location of Macau to imply it's uncontroversialy a part of mainland china: [111]
• 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: [112] [113]

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 [114] with WenningHehn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Support I think it seems pretty clear here this is blatent POV pushing with no regard for building a legit encyclopedia. indef ban seems appropriate if not a broad china-relate topic ban. Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

User:D.P Talukdar persisting with disruptive edits

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

---

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)

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

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)

I can understand deleting redirects if an article has been deleted by AFD on the basis of lack of notability and there being no better place to send the redirects to. I don't understand why redirects would be deleted when an article on a notable topic is deleted (or better stubbified) for copyvio. Deleting redirects is like delinking - a statement that this is not just a cooyvio issue, this subject does not merit an article. ϢereSpielChequers 11:37, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

These redirect pages showed up on AnomieBOT III's broken redirects list. As far as I knew, this article was deleted as a copyright violation. Admins and editors regularly patrol AnomieBOT III's lists which update every 6 hours and broken redirects are tagged for deletion unless the redirect has occurred because of a bad page move and then the redirect is corrected. It's best for admins to review AnomeBOT III's list because otherwise, the bot will simply delete them all as a matter of its regular duties. When I saw that the deletion was questioned here, I came here and offered to restore the redirects once it was clear that the deletion was a mistake but another admin restored them before the copyright violation question was cleared up, at least to me. If you want a different procedure for handling broken redirects, that's a conversation that should probably involve Anomie because we rely on his bot to report them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:32, 15 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, [115] and [116]. 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)

I didn't delete this lightly, and I checked, I thought, that the deleted page post-dated the copied page. Looking again, I may have misread the data, if that's the case, my apologies for the confusion. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I also though i checked.....all good now....my bad.--Moxy- 12:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Mark Parken - persistent introduction of unsourced material

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

---

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)

• As somebody who's warned this editor, the fact that they still haven't responded and still persist in adding unsourced information after a year and a half is something that would make me support blocking them. These editors are a dime a dozen on music articles: they do hit-and-run unsourced edits, never respond, and continue until they're stopped with a block. Unfortunately I don't see that they've contributed anything of worth to the site that we'd be losing if they were blocked. Ss112 07:36, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU - every one of his edits is tagged Mobile edit Mobile app edit iOS app edit. Cabayi (talk) 08:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Cabayi: So then how do we get through to iOS users? Do we just allow them to continually make unsourced edits because they apparently don't know it's wrong to add unsourced material and don't know they have talk page messages? Also, I note that they used to be an Android user, and were given an welcome (which includes links to the requisite policies) on their talk page before they evidently switched to iOS. Ss112 09:33, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

  We dont. The WMF are aware of the issue with the various mobile problems etc. So until their tech teams stop working on things that no-one wants and focus creating solutions for actual broken things the only way to get through is to block them in the hope they might try and work out why they can no longer edit. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

  So then how do we get through to WMF? --Someone

  We don't. --Someone Else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EEng (talk • contribs) 12:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Having said all that, would any administrator be kind enough to address this? --Muhandes (talk) 15:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

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

AvinashCabral

I happened to notice how AvinashCabral created an article about the historical minor colonization actions of the Republic of Ragusa in India, but it seems they were quite overzealous, and their description of Ragusan trade with India was fraught with original research exaggerations, starting from the wrong title "Croatian India", a concept that simply doesn't exist in literature.

Some anonymous users noticed this originally and had tried to clean it up, but unfortunately JavaHurricane, Serols and Firefangledfeathers saw the large removals and just reverted it all as vandalism (I didn't examine all of these, so there may have been merit to that as well, but it's apparent that no actual proper discussion was had). The anonymous user(s) seem to have tried to explain their case on the talk page, but were ignored.

The original author then returned and did some manual reverting, like here. Another user, BananaBork, seems to have then noticed the issue and done some cleaning up, and then I also noticed it and did more, and in turn pinged the original author on the same talk page explicitly. I also had to clean up a bit on other related articles where these kinds of claims were spread by AvinashCabral, and noticed that they also moved the article about the Austrian colonization of the Nicobar Islands to be overly generic as well, which I undid because it likewise didn't seem to be based in sources and was a deviation from the earlier organic consensus of that article.

Unfortunately, this did not lead to anything productive - afterwards, AvinashCabral returned again just to reinstate more of their fringe claims, like:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Colonial_India&diff=prev&oldid=1043837217
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gandaulim_fort&diff=prev&oldid=1043836657
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ragusan_trade_with_India&diff=1043836279&oldid=1043526616

This is an unacceptable level of WP:IDHT, and if I was an uninvolved admin, at this point I'd have reacted by blocking this user who refuses to engage in collaborative editing based on reliable sources. I'd appreciate if some other admin could assess the situation and intervene. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Please post at WT:INB, as well? TrangaBellam (talk) 13:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:29, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Block for NPA

Proposal: AvinashCabral is indefinitely blocked for multiple violations of NPA including prejudiced commentary against Hinduism.

• Support - 1, 2 and 3. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support a block of some kind based on the provided diffs. (and the behavior described in the section above) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support not only for the PAs but also for the disruptive, POINTY edits they've recently been making, which are indications that they are WP:NOTHERE. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• I have no idea what you're talking about, this is a separate topic, that you should probably explain better instead of just proposing such a harsh sanction right off the bat? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:56, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

  I would say: examine the diffs provided. They're pretty egregious. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see them in the first comment above now. Yeah, that's beyond the pale. We're deep in WP:NOTHERE territory here. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• If blocks are being handed out for NPAs, then a reviewing admin should probably have a gander at the whole conversation at User talk:AvinashCabral#Anti-Hindu bias in your edits and personal attacks!. Looks like Avinash had a willing dance partner. Regardless who initiated the situation, personal attacks are unacceptable, retaliatory or not. – ².O.^Boxing 15:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

  I agree. But they have been already blocked (indefinitely) for unrelated causes. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:29, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• We don't need to start voting right off the bat. At least, wait for one uninvolved admin to show up and say they're not comfortable acting without consensus. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely for harassment. Also, tried finding the purported "orgy"/"porn" alluded to, but there were too many images to go through, then I got bored. El_C 18:50, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Bored? Searching for...porn? Are you sure you're feeling okay over there, El_C? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, major revdels (from July on). I don't think that I've seen such insulting expressions of religious intolerance from non-throwaway accounts in all my years on the project. Shocking, truly. El_C 19:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Changing "Denmark" to "Ragusa" was certainly a bit of a stretch (by about 2,000 km (1,200 mi)). Narky Blert (talk) 21:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Polemic user page

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

---

As many of you know MjolnirPants has decided to retired and scramble his password. Before doing so though he left a rather lengthy essay on his user page which I believe violates WP:POLEMIC as well as possibly WP:SOAPBOX and WP:HOST. I replaced the content with our retired banner[117] but was reverted by Shibbolethink.[118] I still believe such a thing has no place on Wikipedia but I have no desire to edit war over this. So I am hoping to get broader input on the matter. PackMecEng (talk) 12:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm with Shibbolethink, on this one. This is not "Very divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing". Silencing dissent is a bad look for a free and open encyclopedia. Kleuske (talk) 13:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

From SOAPBOX: Non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be made on user pages and within the Wikipedia: namespace, as they are relevant to the current and future operation of the project. From POLEMIC: Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities.

This user is anonymously describing their own actions in relation to others, and why they left Wikipedia. Is it long? Yes. Is it about Wikipedia? Yes. Does it have a disclaimer? Yes.

I honestly do not feel particularly strongly about this either. I just engaged in BRD. It was a bold removal of a statement from M Pants, so I reverted it because I did not agree with the rationale. IMO, if we want to reduce the impact of this statement on wikipedia, we should just collapse it and put it below a retired banner. But removing it feels wrong, as it is indeed an essay about wikipedia on a user page (where they belong), and I've seen longer. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• I could see removing it for the personal attacks. In skimming their rant they say they've been civil, but I guess they decided to tell us what they really think on their way out the door and let loose. 331dot (talk) 13:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• I think removing that essay from view illustrates perfectly the point Pants was making. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 13:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Some key quotes from his post.
  • Dishonesty runs rampant among a large percentage of editors, yet lying and misrepresentation are rarely responded to. Conniving, conspiratorial behavior is frequent and common, yet it, too is almost always permitted. False accusations of wrongdoing are expressly prohibited, yet they fly fast and free across this project.
  • Worse yet, when that same behavior is engaged in by someone an editor is friends with, or who belongs to the same clique or has a history of holding similar views, that editor will rarely hesitate to jump in to support them. And when it's engaged in by those with whom they disagree, well, then it's time to dig through that person's edits looking for the violations of etiquette that they might get them blocked for.
  • Pile-ons of motivated bad-faith editors aren't just permitted, they're actively encouraged. This is a project where an editor can engage without the slightest hint of good faith, for the self-admitted purpose of pushing their own preferred narrative onto it with no regard for the truth, and so long as they do so while adhering to a system of etiquette that resembles those enforced closely enough, will never face consequences for their behavior.
  • I've been accused of it a few times, by idiots too stupid to recognize that there's a record of me maintaining their precious etiquette far more often than not right in front of their faces as they write that crap.
  • Some of the editors here are good people, engaged in a worthwhile activity, and doing it as best as can be expected. But not all. Not even most. Most of the editors here, good intentions or not, don't give a shit about the core principles of this project. They care about fulfilling their own needs to participate in an orderly and structured system, to win arguments and feel smart, and they don't give a shit what happens beyond their own experience. And those among them with the bit are self-absorbed and un-self-aware enough to have to audacity to say they'd be willing to clamp down on bad-faith actors actively trying to undermine the goals of this project if I'd just be nicer to those same folk.
  • I can expect and get more maturity from my 7yo son than I can get from most of the editors we've chosen to enforce maturity on this project.
  • He and his brother are mature in ways that far too many editors here can't grasp, and childish in ways that would benefit even more editors here if they'd just pull their own heads out of their asses long enough to catch a breath.
  • And to the one who's been defending the complete lack of support from the admins here: This shit absolutely applies to you, and don't think for one second that I feel obligated to keep all the personal shit you said to me to myself. I meant what I said in my message to you at my talk page yesterday. You're one of the worst of the whole lot, and the only reason I haven't outed you here is because I said I wouldn't, yesterday. But go on and beg my email address off someone else, and see how quick I make a new account just to post your little secrets where everyone can see them.
• I think that last one is probably the biggest issue here. Threatening to out someone is not so good. PackMecEng (talk) 13:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• Or we could just leave well enough alone on a user page that would stop popping up on people's watchlists and most would quickly enough forget about if people stopped editing it and stopped opening ANI threads about it. Maybe it's time to write a WP:GoDoLiterallyAnythingElseInstead. GMG^talk 13:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• I avoided commenting until now because I absolutely don't want to grave-dance, but I'll take this opportunity to say that I did feel very uncomfortable about the outing threats the only reason I haven't outed you here is because I said I wouldn't, yesterday. But go on and beg my email address off someone else, and see how quick I make a new account just to post your little secrets where everyone can see them. [119] (cf. [120]). I guess that there's nothing we can do to stop that from happening, and I just hope that it won't happen (another reason why I didn't comment until now). Maybe collapsing was justified for this reason. Apart from that, I concur with GMG that the best course of action here is to leave Mpant's user and talk alone, and to try and forget about this harrowing episode. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• There's just enough stakes in the ground that while no specific editors are named, nor any named at the time of these issues around MPants' issues described, "everyone" knows what's being talked about to the point that there's that outing issue, coupled with the isue raised by PackMecEng of the threat to out further. The rest seems like a valid rant we'd allow at an AN or ARBCOM (ignoring length) so I don't see that being a problem, but whether the outing aspects can be separated cleanly, its not obvious. --Masem (t) 13:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

  I just wanted to add, while I sympathize with M Pants' concerns here, I literally have zero idea who MP was talking about. I might be clueless or not a wikiholic enough to know (doubtful, lol) but I think unless you were involved in any of these disputes, it's pretty hard to tell. I'd have to dig deep into MPants' contribs to find these disputes probably. And I could do that regardless of whether this statement were here. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

  Not everyone knows, I agree, but enough editors know what happened and who else was involved that this is an issue. This is not like where a situation where, without any on-wiki discussion, Arbcom took action against individuals due to evidence provided offline/privately to Arbcom, and the editor then talked about outing their unnamed opponent, where we'd all have no clue who that was, in their retirement message. --Masem (t) 14:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• I would say that it should either be left alone or removed; collapsing it seems to me that it would trigger a Streisand effect. 331dot (talk) 13:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

  Personally, I think the streisand effect is metered by just how darn long the thing is. As they say, ain't nobody got time for that. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Remove it. I didn't read the whole thing but the end attacks and threatens other editors. Levivich 13:50, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• (ec) There's a clear threat to out other editors, which should be removed at least. And possibly we need to think about what we do if MjolnirPants comes back.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:53, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

  Redacting that while keeping the rest would be an acceptable compromise to me. My guess is that whoever this was directed at has already seen it, anyway. So the damage is done. But if you want to redact it, I wouldn't protest too loudly. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Well, I read the whole thing and I'm against removal at this time. But it does feel like the final tenth of the piece in many ways undoes the preceding 90 percent of it, though I suppose that's neither here nor there. But there was a tonal clash there and it did make me feel uneasy.

As for the outing threat component of it, I found it vague if not difficult to parse. Something about trying to find MPants' email address against their will? I'm fine with redacting that part of it by someone who is more clued to what's happening. To that: I admit that I couldn't even connect one single individual (hopefully, not myself) out of the entire critique.

Parroting, Shibbolethink, I'm sure if I were to go through MPants' contributions for an hour, some of it would become more clear. Also, looked to see if I've ever corresponded with MPants by email, but found nothing. To sum up, I see no pressing imperative for wholesale removal right now, but again, that's with missing a ton of key details. So FWIW. El_C 14:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• As someone unaware of whatever situation led up to this, and who has no idea which editors are being referred to, I do not think the material violates WP:POLEMIC. It seems concerned with two primary topics, 1) the civility policy, and 2) admin (in)action. Neither of these are novel areas of disagreement. Of the issues pointed to above, the only one I find concerning is the outing threat (something the essay itself acknowledges as relating to a "writ-in-stone rule"). In normal circumstances I would expect that would generate some admin action, but in this particular case the editor has blocked themselves, so not much to do on that. It is not an actual outing, so no revdels or other suppression is needed. However, if the threat itself is considered quite concerning, simply removing that penultimate paragraph would deal with that issue without having an impact on the message of the rest of the essay. CMD (talk) 14:31, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• Isn't MFD the correct venue for this? Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• Whatever the correct venue is, this is all a waste of everyone's time given the editor's situation. There's a fair bit of leeway for userspace essays, so unless there's something particularly egregious, there's no particularly good reason to make any further fuss about it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:42, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• Sheesh! This is embarrassing. The grave-dancing and this thread are what triggers the Streisand effect. Only a few interested parties may ever look at it, and those with thin skin whom it describes should take a look in the mirror and change their ways rather than trying to delete it. Such attempts just draw more attention to their own issues.

Shibbolethink did the right thing by restoring and then collapsing it. The collapsing works just fine. -- Valjean (talk) 15:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Isn't the way the trigger warning was phrased a bit hard on him?--Berig (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Berig, that's in the original. El_C 15:53, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oh, I see. Thanks!--Berig (talk) 16:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• This thread is ridiculous and and an embarrassment to the community. Are we really that against any criticism of ourselves? ––FormalDude talk 17:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • This isn't an editor criticizing other editors. This is a non-editor (although former editor) using Wikipedia server space to criticize the remaining editors. If anything it belongs off-wiki. 19:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️
• I have removed the hatting. If the rant is going to be hatted, it will be done so with far more neutral, non-grave-dancing language. Personally, I think wanting to hide it is a coward's solution.--Jorm (talk) 17:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Jorm: I think you may have misunderstood the hatting language. I simply used the exact wording M Pants himself put at the top of the essay. I would be happy to change it to something else, but I defaulted to the original phrasing. No grave dancing intended. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Shibbolethink, but in a roundabout way, I think Jorm still made the right call. Because that intro was in small text in the original, whereas in the collapsed version, that's all you see pre-uncollapsing. El_C 17:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

  That's a good point I hadn't considered. I don't really mind either way. We could make the collapse header small. Or just leave it uncollapsed. The only reason any user would go to that user page from now on would be to read the essay anyway. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:56, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

We can come up with better language, I think, and we don't have to use quotes from the rant. As it is now, it looks like someone else is referring to the text in a negative light, and it's better to not include that impression. Jorm (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I would be happy with something like "Wondering why MjolnirPants retired? See below" — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• I would leave it up. I don’t really think its over the line unless you squint at it and he makes a number of very solid points about the community and the platform, in the long term I imagine that MjolnirPants will be back at some point to take it down or amend it. I would note that the missiles and loitering munitions thrown in anger on their way out of the door did as much damage to their own glass house (for instance when I read "False accusations of wrongdoing are expressly prohibited, yet they fly fast and free across this project.” its hard not to remember that MjolnirPants was not free of the sins he rightly pointed out in the rest of us) as to the collective glass house. You get the messiah you deserve not the one you want and all that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

NOTE: This analysis has been corrected to reflect the fact that the volley launched consisted not just of missiles but also loitering munitions[121]. This analyst apologizes for the error and offers that in their defense the line between cruise missiles and loitering munitions is a blurry one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• I'd leave it up as well. The one part that could lead to an identifiable editor, well, that's an editor we don't need here anyway. As for the parts that point out a large number of people are here for political and/or other bigoted ends ... well, they're hardly wrong on that one. Black Kite (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Black Kite So, in your view, it's OK to attack and threaten to out an editor as long as we don't like them? Paul August ☎ 18:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I think it's really important to say, the actual essay does not threaten to doxx the user, which is explicitly against the rules. What it says is that M Pants would post all the personal secrets the user has sent them over email unsolicited [122]. Presumably stuff like "I also hate X Y Z thing but I don't enforce that on wiki as an admin for A B C reason". AFAIK, posting that is not actually against the rules. Correct me if I'm wrong. If it includes the user's real name or address or something, that would be different, of course. M Pants is smart enough, imo, to know that such content would be immediately oversighted and it would be meaningless... — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Its all hypothetical as they didn’t in fact do any of it but sending personal information (such as would reasonably be contained in forwarded emails such as address etc) to another editor off-wiki based on a request to do so on wiki would appear to run afoul of both the letter and spirit of our doxxing restrictions whereas just posting the content on their talk page without personally identifiable information would only violate the spirit. I don’t think its unreasonable to read it as an outing threat though, it is very clearly meant as a threat and there isn’t much deterrent value to that threat without at least the implied threat of doxxing. I think we can all be thankful they did’t do it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Paul August Eh? What outing? My point was that there was an editor that was possibly identifiable (as in - their Wikipedia username could be worked out) in the talkpage rant (and even then only if you knew the history of the "Nazi" issue that MP was talking about). There was no issue of outing . Black Kite (talk) 18:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@Black Kite: The outing threat is addressed at an admin [123] if you want it to get easier, then get off your ass and do your job the way you damn well agreed to when you had your RfA. That's hardly what you could have meant with "an editor we don't need here anyway"? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, that can't possibly be. We all know admins are far, far beyond reproach. Dumuzid (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about that, I was talking about the "Nazi" editor mentioned earlier. Black Kite (talk) 18:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. I just wished that people defending and even supporting this 'essay' would think a bit more about those on the receiving end of the threats and attacks in it. It's easy to imagine them all to be editors we don't need (and God knows there are a lot of those indeed), but this just isn't the case. I'd be surprised if the admin targeted would be such an editor, and I know that I'm not one either. So yeah, I think it's concerning, though I'd still prefer for us all to ignore it and to move on. I think there's a consensus here to leave it up, so let's just do that and close this thread. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the user page violates WP:POLEMIC. I think the content which is in violation of that policy should be removed. Specifically, any references to active editors being incompetent, pov-pushing, etc and any profanity used in reference to active editors. 19:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️

Well, now he is indefinitely blocked, so I guess this ends his saga on WP.--Berig (talk) 19:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

The next step is to unprotect the user page in order to remove the WP:POLEMIC content. 19:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️

Why not just leave it alone and move on to something useful? It's not as if anyone is likely to read the page unless they actively seek it out. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Given TOA's extensive history with this user, I think it would be fair to characterize their responses in this thread (and stated future intent) as just a bit of casual grave dancing. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Another case of WP:NOTHERE

• Lion and Son (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Visited my talk page to leave me this comment:

1. "For my Son of Bitch Aragon Luis!" [124]
2. "Urmia is a part of greater Kurdistan you and other enemies of Kurdish people will never be able to destroy the culture and originility of powerful Kurdish people"[125]

History:

1. Already blocked in the recent past on three occassions for tendentious editing.[126]
2. ~ 15 edits in total[127]

Safe to say that he/she is WP:NOTHERE to build this encyclopaedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely for harassment. Urmia Semi-protected indefinitely. Logged AE action (WP:AA2). El_C 15:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, or should it have been WP:KURDS, instead? Oh well. El_C 16:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Urmia overlaps with both WP:AA2 and WP:KURDS. Either one suffices. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:29, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Right, I meant the disruption looks like it's KURDS rather than AA2, but indeed, doesn't really matter. El_C 18:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Yep! - LouisAragon (talk) 19:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

R. Martiello

R. Martiello (talk · contribs) has demonstrated that is not editing Wikipedia to make it better but to promote their view on certain topics. The first issue arrived at Latino (et al) where Martiello demonstrated dissatisfaction with Wikipedia's election of "Latino" as a synonym of Hispanic and the exclusion of Latins ("Latino" in Italian, their native language). After several comments at Talk:Latino (demonym)#Origins and Talk:Latino#Latin Europe etc., Martiello managed to get blocked from several Latin(o)-related pages after a short ANI discussion. Five months later, Martinello is at it again, now at Talk:United States, where the user has once again started to use the page as a forum to express their views, but now on "America" redirecting there. The user provided "evidence" that the redirection of America is US-centric and that it should, instead, be pointed out to the Americas (the evidence is just a bunch of other Wikipedias doing what other Wikipedias are free to do). With comments like "I've told the truth on this talk page. Which is something others are certainly intimidated by", "Is this message "patronizing" enough for your bendy Anglo-American mentality? I hope it is!" and "You're the one who still fails to understand that disrespect is disrespect. Inflammatory false definitions in the English language are just plain obnoxious and wrong", we can all agree that the user is WP:NOTHERE to work appropriately, but to promote a personal agenda that we don't have nor need to follow. As the US article falls into Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2, I suggest an indef block this time. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I concur on the need for an indef block, clearly not here to help. --Golbez (talk) 05:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

IP keeps removing sandbox heading

An IP keeps removing the Sandbox heading and adding a nobots template to prevent it from being readded. Can someone stop this IP before new users are unable to know what the Sandbox is for? 2600:1003:B8D8:F0F3:DC30:65B3:42F4:49AA (talk) 20:23, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Diffs please? Stifle (talk) 08:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I see one such edit[128] - there may be others I don’t see - but the IP concerned ceased editing over 12 hours ago so the behaviour appears to be no longer ongoing. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

User:IMW1974 Continued personal attacks

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

---

IMW1974 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who recently received a 31-hour block for personal attacks, is back at it. It's over another record chart issue, but at Wish You Were Here (Pink Floyd album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs):

• The source that was used for the article states "In America, the album hit number one in its second week on the Billboard charts; in Britain—where it went directly to the top on the strength of a quarter-million's advance sales ..." [Schaffner Delta printing p. 206], which was paraphrased in the article as "In Britain, with 250,000 advance sales, the album went straight to number one ..."[129].
• IMW1974 changed it to "In Britain, with 250,000 advance sales, the album entered the UK album chart at # 3 and went to number one on its second week on the chart" with no new source added or explanation.
• I started a discussion on the article talk page, quoted the source and advised "Any changes need to provide a new reliable source".[130]
• I reverted their edit with the edit summary "rv as per WP:BRD: see talk "UK chart debut" section, not in source prrovided, needs a new reliable source".[131]
• IMW1974 restored their edit, again without a source or edit summary.
• IMW1974 added a rant on my talk page, with a website, but no link.[132] I copied it to the article talk page,[133] didn't find the info.
• I reverted their restored edit, with the edit summary "doesn't follow BRD, discuss on talk page rather than edit war".[134]
• IMW1974 added more to my talk page, including "I WILL RE EDIT ANY TIME YOU DECIDE TO WRONGLY CORRECT MY RIGHTFUL CORRECTIONS. MY KNOWLEDGE IS VASTLY GREATER THAN YOURS IN EVERY FIELD IMAGINABLE ..."[135]
• IMW1974 restored and added to their article edit, again without an inline citation or edit summary.[136]
• I didn't see the point of reverting again or attempting to discuss further.

As I explained last time, I haven't had any prior dealings with this editor that I know of. Their outbursts are completely uncalled for and suggest a deeper problem. I agree with Cullen328's previous comment that IMW1974's pattern of personal attacks call for more than a short block.

—Ojorojo (talk) 20:23, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for one month. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:36, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Block extended to indefinite and talk page access revoked after a homophobic hate diatribe. Will an uninvolved administrator please decide whether revision deletion is appropriate for their screed? Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Good block. I revdel'ed the rant against you. De728631 (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, De728631. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

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

User page of User:The owner of all

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

---

Some editors believe that a portion of the content at User:The owner of all is WP:GRAVEDANCING.

The content in question is primarily:

Ding-Dong! The Witch Is Dead

— Munchkins, Glinda, Dorothy, in The Wizard of Oz, lyrics by Yip Harburg

I find myself agreeing that it is distasteful at best, given the history between this user and MjolnirPants.

This has been attempted to be dealt with by:

• Tamzin nominating the user page for deletion.

• Tryptofish removing the content (revert obvious trolling) earlier today.

• The owner of all reverted this (User fails to AGF regarding my edits. Thus I do not permit them to edit my user page.).

I have asked the editor to remove the content to save the drama, but they have refused my request.

So now we must discuss this and probably come to the conclusion that, yes, it is distasteful and, yes, it needs to be removed. This is exhausting, isn't it? ~TNT (she/they • talk) 21:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• I am willing to edit my user page to comply with policy and guidelines. However, I believe there should be guidance as to how a user can add a quote to their user page without it being treated as referencing some event that they had nothing to do with. I have explained that most of my recent article-space editing has not involved interaction with MjolnirPants, and thus I was not aware that they had chosen to retire when I added the quote. And as I explained, I believe I am entitled to privacy in my real life and thus I will not explain the real-life events that caused me to add the quote.

• I generally disagree with the idea of sanctioning users for violations of essays (due to essays not having consensus) and WP:GRAVEDANCING is an essay. However I am willing to edit my user page to avoid being sanctioned.

21:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️

• @The owner of all: I am quite tired of everyone choosing the maximum drama when either creating issues or dealing with them. The right thing to do on this project would have been to just remove the disputed part from your user page. That's really easy to do. Instead, you've chosen to see what you can just about get away with. So given that my low-drama way of dealing with your gravedancing, which is just another word for harassment, did not work I am going to try the tried-and-tested high-drama method. Indefinitely blocked ~TNT (she/they • talk) 21:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

---

Gravedancing

• The owner of all (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ding-Dong! The Witch Is Dead

I'm pinging Moneytrees, who has already had administrative experience in this matter, and Tamzin, who asked me for a ping.

Well, no sooner did #Polemic user page close, just above, than a closely-related problem has to be opened. As can be seen, the now indeffed (sigh) MPants has had an ongoing and troubled dispute with The owner of all (TOA):

• Talk:Snopes#Lede section issues, where I think it may (?) have started.
• Hijiri88 Arbitration request
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1076#Unblock
• User talk:MjolnirPants#Sorry, but this is a warning
• User talk:Tryptofish#Request (TOA), added for full disclosure.

As noted in the above thread, MPants retired a few days ago. Within 24 hours of that, TOA, who by now should be well-aware of the need to steer clear of further escalation, posted a pointed invocation of the Wizard of Oz song about "Ding-dong! The wicked witch is dead!": [137]. I queried about it: [138]. TOA's pseudo-legalistic replies were clearly evasive. It would have been very easy to explain how it was a reference to something else, but aside from simply saying that it was unrelated, no credible explanation was given. After, TOA added something else about the song: [139], which doesn't really explain anything, but sounds like deflection.

Another editor, noting the problem, started Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:The owner of all. I attempted to simply revert the material: [140]. TOA reverted my revert: [141]. An administrator asked TOA to remove it voluntarily: [142]. TOA declined: [143]. With this doubling down, it's not going to go away without the community demanding it.

It insults the intelligence of everyone here to suggest that the wicked witch stuff is about anything other than MPants' leaving WP. It is deplorable WP:Gravedancing, and should be dealt with as such. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

---

• As soon as I saved this edit, I saw that There's No Time had started a similar thread, so I changed the header level of this one. I think that removing the material is proper, but also insufficient. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Parallel filings combined. (Think that's the first time I ever got two ANI pings at once.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• Y'know what, I've seriously almost fucking had it ~TNT (she/they • talk) 21:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Take a number. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Newyorkbrad has deleted the userpage. Thanks, Brad. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Noting that I started reviewing the MfD discussion and closed the MfD before learning of these ANI threads. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

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

User:548641810B keeps adding incorrect legal information to Pornography laws by region

This user keeps blatantly misinterpreting current laws or citing outdated court cases, legislation etc. to claim pornography is mostly or completely illegal in the US and UK. They largely focus on this one article and not much else. Do they need to be blocked? If not, how can I get them to stop? Dronebogus (talk) 21:33, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Sock of impersonating account User:Dronebogus1. Blocked and tagged.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

User 246:4502:1B40:7525:549E:45E5:3BEB has just made it clear that they have no intention of behaving appropriately

Their very first edit was calling me the R-word, and their second was trying to justify it by claiming I was incredibly stupid or something for making the suggestion that most WW2 vets probably won’t be around in 15 years. I think this user has made it clear how they plan on behaving and should probably be blocked before they do anything else unpleasant. Dronebogus (talk) 02:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

You're missing some numbers there. The IP address you want is 2601:246:4502:1B40:7525:549E:45E5:3BEB (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 192.76.8.74 (talk) 02:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Suspicious Rugrats Editor

I noticed Special:Contributions/2001:8003:378C:2B00:94D2:9173:D752:9ECA was editing two pages for Tommy Pickles and Angelica Pickles from the tv show Rugrats talking about Dil having a twin sister, named Trixie II, while what happened was in the 1998 Rugrats Movie Dil was believed to be female and was originally supposed to be named "Trixie" (named after Stu's mom) but it was a boy that they named Dil (after Didi's cousin) and I think he's just being disruptive Thomasthedarkenguine (talk) 03:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

There does seem to be an editor bouncing around the /48 vandalising articles with made up nonsense, allways using the character name/show name as an edit summary - see Special:Contributions/2001:8003:378C:0:0:0:0:0/48 someone with more skill than me should be able to figure out the exact range they're editing from. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 03:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

User repeatedly posting advertising

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

---

User:Asif4455 has repeatedly been posting advertising for taxis on taxi-related pages, despite warnings. Can you please block them? Bellowhead678 (talk) 09:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

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

SPA Promo Possible Undisclosed Paid Editing By Itspoojkins

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

To appreciate the magnitude of this, it’s important to note that X'treme GH and Mac Nuru are one and the same person as both refer to the same musician. Below is a timeline of events.

• In February 22, 2015, Worldbruce correctly declined an article titled “X'treme GH” created by Itspoojkins at AFC see here.
• Itspoojkins recreates the article again on April 2015 and it was declined once again by Oo7565 see here
• The article is quickly resubmitted on April 6(the following day) and yet again declined by BenLinus1214 see here
• It is yet again aggressively submitted on April 7(the next day) and once more it is declined by Wiae see here
• There is a short break, but once again it is submitted on July 24 2015 and was correctly declined by Sulfurboy see here.

Note that this is 5 times the article has been declined under the name of “X’treme GH”

Under The Name Of Nuru (rapper)

Perhaps in order to evade scrutiny they stopped using the previous name of the artist X’treme GH and begin to use other names

• Under this new incarnation the article is sent to AFD and is deleted
• It is recreated and correctly slammed with a G4 by Lemongirl942, see here.
• At this point they are beginning to really become disruptive and Praxidicae asks them if they engage in UPE see here and they deny this.

Under The Name Of Mac Nuru

• The article is created once again but on July 30 DMySon correctly moves the article to draft see here
• They change the name of the article to Mac Nuru (Musician) I moved the article to their draft see here
• They once again change the name of the article and move it back to mainspace as Mac Nuru (singer).

In all this is 9 times they have intentionally attempted to game the system, they have shown they aren’t here to build an encyclopedia and it’s important to note this begun since 2015. I am proposing an indefinite block altogether. Their TP alone clearly shows they aren’t necessarily here to build an encyclopedia. The disruption is getting exponentially worse. Celestina007 (talk) 15:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Noo, mobile diffs, one weakness, etc. El_C 15:28, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@El_C, I’ve removed the mobile format. Could you check it now? Celestina007 (talk) 18:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Instantly  Done. El_C 18:45, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this editor currently has Draft:Mac Nuru, Draft:Mac Nuru (musician) and Draft:Mac Nuru (singer), all about the same person you mention above. I've found that it isn't uncommon for some editors to start new versions of articles when a previous version is moved to Draft space which results in duplicate articles but I haven't run into three existing versions before. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I also found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mac Nuru so it's been deleted in two AFD discussions. I've asked on their talk page for them to come and engage in this discussion but I'm not sure how frequently they edit here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:28, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I've already blocked indef, but then got edit conflicted by Liz, and you know I hold grudges! Anyway: User_talk:Itspoojkins#Indefinite_block. El_C 18:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll stress that I'm more concerned with seeing the same kind of copyvios as 2016 now repeating in 2021. So they'll need to provide some assurances for that. As well, the WP:PROMO issues will also need to be addressed (WP:PAID and/or otherwise WP:COI). El_C 18:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@Liz @El_C, you two. 😂. Celestina007 (talk) 21:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

A clear case of UPE and COI. Repeatedly re-created, The subject title and its alternatives must be blocked. DMySon (talk) 05:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Pritam kumar roni das, complete lack of communication

Pritam kumar roni das (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made 1083 edits at en.wiki since registering in February 2020, but not a single edit to Talk or User talk space: Edit counter info. User talk:Pritam kumar roni das has a large number of warnings about uploading non-free files. They received a short block for copyright infringement, because of their file uploads, on 3 June this year. Their file upload log shows that after that block, they have uploaded at least a dozen files that have since been deleted.

They also keep creating articles that are very far from ready for mainspace. Several of their articles have been draftified and/or improved by other editors, but here are some examples of what Pritam kumar roni das placed in mainspace, before other people edited or moved the articles: 31 May, 13 August, today. They also managed to create Mon Phagun five times in 9 days, a few weeks ago – Mon Phagun was salted after that.

Several people have tried to communicate with Pritam kumar roni das. Most of their user talk page is automated notices/warnings, but there are a number of other messages as well. On 21 August, I posted this to their user talk page. They have made more than a hundred edits since, but not responded to that request, or reacted in any other way.

Since they are still uploading non-free files and creating articles with no sources and very little actual content, it is problematic that they are not reacting to any of their talk page notices. I'm not sure they know they have a user talk page at all. Maybe a longer block would get their attention, and they should not be creating articles at all until they understand sourcing. --bonadea contributions talk 18:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Another WP:COPYVIO indef (as above), somehow. Okay. El_C 19:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

So yet another user who edits on a mobile device has had to be blocked because of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. Of course they had to be blocked, but isn't it about time the underlying issue was fixed? And if it can't be fixed quickly (i.e. a lot faster than WMF timescales) shouldn't we disallow all editing from mobile devices until it is? This has long passed the point where it was simply an embarrassment. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

The issue with disallowing editing from mobile devices is that some editors edit constructively from mobile devices. I wonder if anyone has proposed fixing this at WP:VP/P Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 19:29, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Many people have pointed out the problem, and the WMF have promised to fix it, but there seems to be very little sense of urgency from their side. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:34, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Like. Preach it, brother! El_C 19:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I wish there was some way we could convince WMF that this is something that needs to be fixed urgently, but it appears we will have to wait until the year 2587 for them to fix it (In case it wasn't obvious this is extreme exaggeration). Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 19:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

It's been brought up and discussed QUITE at length here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Of course if it is possible to edit in some way it is possible to do so constructively. The problem is that it is also possible to do so non-constructively. And the way things are now there is virtually no way to interact with these editors to determine if the non-constructive editing is through ignorance or malice. So we assume malice and react accordingly. We block editors who do not know that they are doing wrong and leave them unlikely to return. Unless and until we can reliably interact with mobile editors, no one should be allowed to edit that way no matter how "good" or "constructive" of an editor they are. --Khajidha (talk) 19:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, in this case at least, ignorance or malice (and everything in between) is kind of irrelevant. There's persistent copyvios, so an unblock would be contingent on us being assured that this will stop. El_C 20:27, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Why are people assuming this is because of THEYCANTHEARYOU? This is a mobile web edit with an account not an IP or Android or worse iOS app edit. I occasionally edit with the mobile site and I always know when I've got an alert the red icon is hard to miss for me. Yes maybe the notification could be clearer that it's a newer talk page message but again this isn't like an edit from an IP or from an iOS device where there's no way to know.

Frankly even on a desktop I tend to notice the red notification more than new talk page IMO. It's not like we don't have plenty of people editing from desktop browsers who do the same thing, or there aren't people with desktop browsers who take ages to find their talk pages (I mean once who say this happened with I AGF is the case, obviously when someone just doesn't respond we have no idea if they don't know or they're just ignoring it).

BTW I would vehemently oppose any attempts to block editing from the mobile site and think anyone who supports the idea should be unwelcome here and definitely should not be an admin. Just because something works for you doesn't mean you're entitled to demand others follow you. A lot of the time whatever method the editor is using to edit, we have no idea if something is malicious. We take action to protect Wikipedia as we should. If an editor doesn't realise and leaves because of it, that's unfortunate but while we should do what we can to avoid it, ultimately it's always going to happen.

Telling editors to fuck off because they aren't like us and can't afford or don't want to use our devices or use the like some editors like to use them is far, far more harmful. The editor doesn't know about internal WMF-community politics. All they know is they've been told to fuck off completely even when they really did absolutely nothing wrong because Khajidha feels they are entitled to tell all such editors to fuck off.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Nil Einne, Khajidha is not an admin. Also, maybe one tinsy paragraph break for readability...? El_C 06:26, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I couldn't remember and decided it didn't matter since the admin bit was intended as a more general comment since I'm fairly sure I've seen similar comments from admins in previous discussions. Apologies about the paragraph breaks thing I've fixed it now also withdrew a statement I decided was inaccurate on testing.

As I think my comment made clear, this is the sort of thing I find incredibly annoying to the extent I want to leave Wikipedia and never come back when I read responses like that from Khajidha.

Again I don't know if this applies to any particular editor, but from comments I've read before, I get the feeling many editors including admins don't appreciate how significant a step disabling the web editor (and to some extent app editing) and importantly that not everyone is like them and uses devices like they do, with access to the same sort of devices etc. I've even seen some people suggest killing the app since it's unnecessary ignoring how many people seem to find it useful for reading.

People seem to forget because you don't like it and don't use it doesn't mean this applies to others, and there's no reason to think just because some editors prefer the desktop editor on mobile devices this is going to apply to everyone, no matter how much and how long some editors may use the desktop editor on their mobile devices. To be clear this doesn't excuse the problems which the WMF does urgently need to fix and I'm not disagreeing we should make talk page messages clearer even with the mobile web editor since I also recognise that not everyone is like me so yes plenty of people are going to not notice or will ignore the red icon.

Of course some people will ignore anything which was also a point I'm getting at. We aren't mind readers so unless someone has commented, it's very hard to guess why someone did something. Maybe the editor concerned ignored or missed the red box, maybe they saw their messages but ignored them. If the former, maybe if we had an orange box they would have seen it, maybe not. For mobile and app IP edits, we have a far greater degree of confidence. Also I think iOS? Android is probably something in between. I'd add that for any account, we also have to consider if they have email when guessing since new talk page messages are sent to email by default which could be ignored, disabled or sent to a span folder automatically or via filtering, or simply never seen if the email is rarely or never used; but ultimately this has to affect our confidence in any guess or why something is happening.

Note the situation with mobile web/app IP edits is bad enough that I specifically excluded from my comment but I think we still have to seriously considering the effect disabling them from editing compared to just dealing with those who become a problem whatever the reason. Especially if we cannot convince the WMF to at least allow us to send an explanation something like 'sorry editing from IPs from the mobile website is disabled because of flaws.....' As if we can't then it's very unclear to me that blocking all will be less likely to cause confusion than block when it's necessary. (Again please don't make suggestions like it's fine since they can just use the desktop editor which I prefer.)

Android account app edits is a sort of in between from my (very limited) experience with them. So while I wouldn't complete oppose banning then, I think it's even more of a case that unless we can convince the WMF to allow these editors to be redirected either automatically or with a message to editing from a browser I'm very unconvinced it's better. Even if we could convince the WMF, I'm unsure if it's definitely better since I wonder whether even mobile web editing might be problematic for a significant chunk of app editors. Because this isn't me I have no idea so I cannot give a particularly informed opinion.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:07, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Vanebbe

Vanebbe (talk · contribs) is very likely another reincarnation of the indefinitely blocked user User:Zerolandteam385. The editing behaviour is identical, and I have already added the Vanebbe account to the ongoing sockpuppet investigation page (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zerolandteam385). This doesn't seem to bother the person editing with this account (which is typical Zerolandteam385 behaviour). Virtually every edit done by this editor is disruptive and has been reverted, I actually believe that the editor fails WP:CIR. @User:Sandstein, User:Mr.choppers, User:Druschba 4. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 19:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Support for discipline: Vanebbe has recently created two articles about truck models belonging to The Autocar Company, namely Autocar A and Autocar 64 which are riddled with incorrect information. Speaking as an expert on this topic, I couldn't even begin to edit them. They should be deleted entirely.Sedimentary (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Support sanctions - an indefinite block would not be out of line. Vanebbe has made only one user talk page edit and (effectively) one article talk page edit; in the latter case, showing complete indifference to the gravity of a copyright violation. The user does not show any indication of heeding the concerns that multiple editors have raised regarding their editing.

I'm not certain that Vanebbe is a sockpuppet of Zerolandteam385, as the editing does seem somewhat more sophisticated. I would've opened an SPI long ago if I had confidence of sockpuppetry being involved here. But, in any case, this is probably a CIR issue as mentioned above.

Additionally, per Sedimentary, all of the articles created by Vanebbe are suspect and deletion should be considered. --Sable232 (talk) 23:03, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Support This seems like an easy case for sanctions to me. Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Support I am very much assuming that the account is a sock puppet. The editing behavior has remained the same in its basics, even if it has changed slightly here and there over time. I've been following the whole thing for several months, especially because of the many, very poor quality new articles on Russian vehicles. As an expert in this field, I would have liked to have many if not all of them deleted, unfortunately my time and my expertise in the en.WP are not enough. Regards, --Druschba 4 (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Support I've been paying attention to this user for a while as their articles often end up in the new pages feed and usually have little to no citations and are usually copyvios or made up unsourced material. I thought I would spare them and not bring them up here because they had potential to improve, but it's just disruptive at this point as the user doesn't communicate with other let alone even acknowledge the messages on their page. Waddles 🗩 🖉 01:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

In Citer

In Citer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an infrequently active account with less than 500 edits since their account creation in 2009 who has mostly been a SPA regarding the names of Jesus and Yahweh, particularly on the Yahshua article. I have serious concerns regarding their motivations editing the topic area and considered them to be WP:NOTHERE. In a crazed rant on the talk page of Yahweh from 2016 diff In Citer declared You Jews make me sick, which is why I assume that they were blocked on the same day for distruptive editing. Their motivation in this topic area seems to be based on religious dogmatism and not on scholarly evidence, which does not support their claims. I suggest an indef block or a topic ban. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. Indefinite. Feel free to change. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 23:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather: Works for me. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

user:AyodeleA1

AyodeleA1 (talk · contribs) is already indeffed, and looking at the edit history of a template, I've suspected that AyodeleA2 (talk · contribs) and Aa372798 (talk · contribs) are the same user too. It turned out that the user pages of all three accounts clearly state that this is indeed the same person. And given the rule that "sanctions apply to individual editors as people, not to accounts" (WP:SOCK), I wonder if the two other accounts should be blocked as well. — Mike Novikoff 23:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@Mike Novikoff: You failed to notify the three accounts. It's required.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I've notified them, sorry for a slight delay. My hardware is "suboptimal", so to speak. — Mike Novikoff 23:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• I've blocked the two unblocked accounts and tagged all three accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2600:8801:A002:3700:0:0:0:0/64

• 2600:8801:A002:3700:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I noticed this IP range persistently adding unsourced information to random baseball articles, mostly pertaining to the San Diego Padres, whose local market the range is Geolocated. They continue to do this despite multiple warnings sent to various IP talk pages in the range. This recent string of edits started with disruptive removal of redirects to Geometry Dash. Their continued unsourced editing pattern is starting to turn disruptive and may need administrator action. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Persistent issues from user 47.157.129.133

I was about to state this in Administrator intervention against vandalism but decided to explain here instead.

First, the user has been constantly adding poorly sourced or unsourced information and making unconstructive or disruptive edits. If you see the user talk page (and the edit reasons for the reversions of the user's edits in the respective article histories) you can see that the user has been told (and warned) many times and even got blocked a month ago. Some of these also verge into edit warring. One of the more recent examples was trying to repeatedly add something about Palpatine from Star Wars in self-coup article, and then trying to justify with a faux Wikipedia policy ("WP:ZFSRQP-31"), before finally getting locked out of the article when it became protected.

The user also has a habit of inserting discussions into talk page archives instead of using the talk page proper. Despite being told more than once through edit reason, this keeps occurring.

If you check the user's entire contribution history since June, almost all of the user's edits have been summarily reverted because they fall under these cases, and the user is clearly not listening after multiple advices and warnings. 2603:8000:A501:9B00:4425:751C:D9BD:7885 (talk) 04:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with contributing star wars content to Wikipedia, on the other hand your entire post history consists of harassing and spamming other user's talk pages IP. Why don't you focus on contributing to Wikipedia instead of harassing other people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.157.129.133 (talk • contribs)

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks. Noting that 47.157.129.133 first block was for on Aug 25 for 72 hours. El_C 05:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Icecreamland and disruptive unsourced editing

• Icecreamland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Viacom18 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm starting to find this user's habit of edit warring when their edits are contested highly disruptive. All edits do not contain a source, and when contested the user just says "check your sources" citing sources directly connected to the subject rather than third-party sources. None of their sources are cited directly, and the user does not link directly to the source. Now they've gone as far as accusing me of making destructive edits to the article in question. Their entire history is disruptive in nature, deleted edits included following an RFD on Colors Telugu. I'm close to assuming this has gone into WP:NOTHERE territory. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I completely disagree with these allegations.

As I was new to wikipedia editing, I was unaware that I was supposed link sources which support my edit.

Moreover, I do not understand in what way my editing is disruptive.

I believe that Jalen Folf must respect a fellow editor's opinion regarding his edit, and try to rectify what's wrong.

Icecreamland (talk) 06:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@Icecreamland: There is a formidable collection of warning messages from editors on your talk page since you started editing on 25 August. You started out with edits like this where you edited the headings of a table. It does not seem like the kind of edit that a new editor would do. Did you have an account before this one?-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@Toddy1: No, this is my first account. As that was my first edit I had no idea what I was doing, I accidentally deleted the table and didn't know what to do. So, I thought I had to create the whole table again. But now I'm getting the hang of it. Moreover, I would like to know how my editing is disruptive. Even in my first edit I didn't change anything, I just ended up creating the whole table again.

Here are some sources that prove the existence of Colors Telugu.

Colors Telugu

Colors Telugu

Colors Telugu

Icecreamland (talk) 08:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that you cannot understand why any of the following edits to the table in the article on Viacom18 were regarded as disruptive and were reverted by other editors?

1. [144] this was reverted by ClueBot NG
2. [145] this was reverted by AdhiOK
3. [146] eventually reverted by JalenFolf

Different people kept changing the article back to how it was before you edited and kept posting messages on your talk page. That told you nothing? It never occurred to you that they all thought you were messing up the table formatting? Competence is required! I am not sure which is worse: that you had no idea that your edits were disruptive and so kept on making them? Or, that you did not care that your edits were disruptive? -- Toddy1 (talk) 09:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@Toddy1: They reverted my edits, but i was never told for what reason they were reverted. They never mentioned what was disruptive in my edit, they only mentioned that it was disruptive. Moreover i didn't even know what a talk page was for the first few days, so i never checked them. Also, kindly check the sources which i attached.

Editing is new to me, so please try to encourage me rather than calling me and my editing WORSE. No offense Icecreamland (talk) 10:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the issue of Colors Telugu - it is hard for other users to understand unless they read: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 4#Colors Telugu.
@Icecreamland: It would really help a lot if you would discuss your points on article talk pages. Try to explain (a) what changes you want to make, and (b) why you think other users should accept them. Read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You need to be willing to listen to other editor's concerns. Make an effort to understand them. If there are wikilinks to policies, etc. in their posts, click on the wikilinks and read the policy and try to see how it is relevant to what they are saying. Also use edit summaries, and do not mark your edits as "minor edits" - you do not have the competence to know when your edit is a minor edit.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

If someone reverts an edit, and you do not understand why – post a message on the article talk page asking why. Do not repeat the edit until you understand why it was reverted.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@Toddy1: I wanted to discuss regarding Colors Telugu but by the time i got to know, the discussion was closed. I requested them to reopen the discussion but they didn't. I asked Jalen Folf why he reverted my edits, he said that when a fellow editor reverts your edits you must try to rectify what's wrong with the article, but he never mentioned the reason in particular. Also AdhiOK never posted anything on my talk page and Cluebot is a robot. So, it was only Jalen Folf who kept reverting my edits. Icecreamland (talk) 11:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icecreamland (talk • contribs) 10:26, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Your first edits were on 25 August, and your contribution history shows that you were posting on both article talk pages and user talk pages on 27 August. Your responses here are in fluent English. So if you had wanted to, you could have asked why your edits were disruptive.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@Toddy1: As i said, i asked Jalen Folf in what way they were disruptive, but he didn't mention what exactly was disruptive in my edit. Icecreamland (talk) 11:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Icecreamland, where and when did you ask Jalen Folf about that? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123 and Toddy1, I did not have Icecreamland's Talk page on my watchlist so I was unable to see the messages until it was too late. Beginning around the closure of the Colors Telugu RFD, I had removed the TV Channels section in the article as the entire section had no sources describing the Colors channels' connections to the collective. There were a few things disruptive here: the first being that every time the section was restored, every editor, including Icecreamland, restored without the requested sources, hence why the page was protected in the first place. Second, and this includes the most recent attempt, was that every time Icecreamland would restore, they would also remove the protection template as well (a sign of manual revision reversion). I don't know if they were aware they were doing this while trying to restore.

As participants of the recent RFD that contributed to the redirect's deletion, I will also courtesy ping Susmuffin and Jay to this discussion. Jalen Folf (talk) 14:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Sources are needed to support our articles. This is what separates us from the massive sea of blogs that seems to stretch on forever. Since no reliable source has confirmed that Colors Telugu exists, this material should not be restored to the article. Furthermore, it is clear that the editor in question is aware of our policies. Their continued restoration of uncited material is disruptive. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 15:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@Susmuffin: Are these sources not reliable enough to confirm the existence of Colors Telugu.

Colors Telugu

Colors Telugu

Colors Telugu

Icecreamland (talk) 05:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• Looking at the edits it appears to me that we are, in fact, dealing with a new editor that has jumped into editing with both feet, so to speak, and little knowledge or understanding of how deep it is. I want to caution my esteemed and experienced fellow editors to not bite them too hard while keeping them accountable for edits that may appear disruptive. I know it's frustrating. I know it's aggravating but a little kindness goes a long way. Icecreamland, please take some time and review others editing. Visit the Teahouse and see if questions you may have are already answered. Ask questions, ask questions, ask questions! I am sure there are some here who would let you see how they edit and it could offer you some guidance. Proper editing is one of the hardest and most important things you could do here next to article creation itself. Please take the time to learn the nuances and study all you can on editing here before continuing to do so. We are to assume good faith and I am doing that. If your intentions are to be disruptive you wont be here long. If it is just that you are new then please take the advice given. --ARoseWolf 15:57, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
• Colors Telugu (an RfD I participated in): I do not see much of a problem on this page where the additions and reverts happened across 4 days. Icecreamland did ask on his talk page on why his edits were being considered disruptive, but did not get a response from either Code Pending or JalenFolf (for which he has provided an explanation). After Liz suggested him to stop the following day and take his concerns to the teahouse, he did stop and asked for help at the teahouse which was promptly answered.

Viacom18: From Aug 25 to Sep 13, none of the editors (except for ClueBot!) who reverted Icecreamland, cautioned him on his talk page regarding his edits at Viacom18. Fault also lies with Icecreamland, who despite commenting on Talk:Viacom18#Colors Telugu initially, failed to acknowledge or question Jalen Folf's suggestion made there. Icecreamland enquired on the talk page of 101.109.205.14 on August 27, so he was familiar with talk pages from then on, but did not attempt to talk to other editors. I understand the teahouse response wasn't very helpful, but he could have clicked on disruptive editing link and tried to read this pretty simple and straightforward guideline. Jalen Folf is justified in listing the incident here because of Icecreamland's tone of reverse accusing Jalen Folf of destructive editing. As ARoseWolf has said above, hope Icecreamland takes time and starts with smaller edits, and reviews others. Jay ^(Talk) 20:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Jay, thank you for the added context. I think this is just another example that everyone can learn and grow from. I gain insight almost every time I read these discussions. --ARoseWolf 21:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to all my fellow editors for believing in me and giving me a second chance. Icecreamland (talk) 05:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Icecreamland, You're very welcome. Good luck editing, and please consider the advice we have given you. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

JalenFolf, I believe the sources which i attached confirm the existence of Colors Telugu. So, why am i not allowed to create a page for it. Icecreamland (talk) 06:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Icecreamland You're actually allowed to make the page for it. I gave you this advice already over at Rosguill's Talk page. Jalen Folf (talk) 06:37, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Suggest this thread is now closed by any admin. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Need help undoing unilateral page splits/page moves

I don't know if this is the right noticeboard for this since, but a new user (Rakeem Abdiel Gunawan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)) has decided to move History of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi to Socialist people’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. After this, they moved the newly created Socialist people’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to History under Muammar Gaddafi. After discussing this with the user on their talk page, this appears to have been a good-faith mistake in the procedure of splitting an article. However, since I am not an admin nor a page mover, I can't undo the page moves to restore the article to its original title. I also can't delete articles spuriously created by the user for apparent copy-paste moves (such as Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (2001-present) and Afghanistan). If anybody with proper permissions do that, it would be helpful; the redirect web is a bit of a mess. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:07, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, the technical problem I am running into is moving History under Muammar Gaddafi back to History of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 06:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

El C, looks like you missed the talk pages? I was able to move the talk page back by first moving Talk:History under Muammar Gaddafi back to Talk:Socialist people’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, and then back to Talk:History of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi. Some of the leftover redirects could probably be deleted now? By the way Mikehawk10, in the future, this kind of moves over redirects can usually be handled at WP:RM/TR. --rchard2scout (talk) 07:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

 Donezo. I always forget about the talk pages. One day, it'll be done automagically (truly), and the COD gunners shall rejoice. El_C 13:09, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@Rchard2scout: Thank you for the tip! I will keep that noticeboard in mind if I encounter things like this again. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Antoniotorreskingdomwealth‎ continuing legal threats

Antoniotorreskingdomwealth‎ (talk · contribs) continues to make legal threats on his talk page after being permanently blocked for disruptive editing. Maybe time to remove talk page access? 10mmsocket (talk) 06:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 06:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Shivajitheking

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

Hi, this user has been extremely disruptive in the last few days. They are WP:NOTHERE and only here to edit Umesh Kaushik, which I believe to be the subject themselves, it is up for AfD but they keep removing the tag and have also gamed the system by moving it across Draft & Wikipedia spaces, which causes the AfD to procedurally stop anyway. Please can an admin revert the significant damage that they have caused in the last few hours with the page moves? If you have the time, please could you review their behaviour in general? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Editor is now going around adding patent nonsense to random articles; see here and here Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

yes, noticed the ANI notice when I was about to give them standard vandalism warning. Not sure what’s going on with this user. They seem to be making some strange page moves Umesh Kaushik → Kaushik Umesh (now reverted). DeCausa (talk) 10:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Also saw this spamming. I think they are just trying to boost their edit count so they gain some user rights? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked. Could be related to Lovetogether (talk · contribs). Who knows. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Sadly, I think that you're right there. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

They can't hear me!

• Cianshe3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor is currently on some kind of Irish/Catholic crusade, adding "Catholic" or "Irish" to BLPs without providing sources while also removing sourced content such as this. I've reverted a few and left a warning template on their userpage, but they're editing from a mobile device and are still cracking on. I'm bored of reverting them now. I think a block to get their attention might be needed. – ².O.^Boxing 10:07, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I initially didn't notify them because, well what's the point if they don't see notifications. But in anticipation of the typical "you're a dumbass, big red notice, NOTIFY!" comments, I've done so now. – ².O.^Boxing 10:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I support this request. Their editing appears to be based on an agenda - e.g., removing cited content that supports mixed descent, and making large claims, without citation on the "importance" of Ireland. QuiteUnusual (talk) 10:30, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Their edits are tagged "mobile web edit," so it looks like they're using the mobile version of the Wikipedia website and not the iOS or Android apps (someone please correct me if I'm wrong). According to WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU, logged-in users using the mobile version of the site should be getting notifications when someone posts to their talk page. Aoi (青い) (talk) 11:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I thought the issue was with mobile devices in general. If that's the case, a stern warning from a scary admin would probably be more appropriate. – ².O.^Boxing 11:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Some ridiculous edits by someone with an agenda. I've threatened a topic ban on anything to do with the Irish if they don't respond here. Doug Weller talk 12:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree. They remind me of someone else, who would keep putting Catholic on articles and insisting Halloween was Irish. Let me see if I can dig them out. Mind you I watch so many Irish articles and see so many POV pushers in those areas it's hard to keep them all straight. Canterbury Tail talk 15:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Hallowe'en is essentially a modern/American version of Samhain, which is a Celtic/Irish festival, so hardly an outlandish claim CiphriusKane (talk) 19:38, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

But it is an outlandish claim, because Halloween isn't Irish. – ².O.^Boxing 21:09, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

User:2001:BB6:76AA:F758:31B9:3D67:E4D0:8C87 and its IP variations

This IP user has been harassing me on my Talk page because of my stance against the inclusion of minor entertainment figures on the Deaths section of the 2021 page, specifically Michael K. Williams - though this report is *not* calling for a mediation of any debate relating to this. On my talk page, this user has made comments to me such as:

• "I've looked over your history and its apprent you like gate keeping"[147]
• "Why are so you against it? Have you even watched the wire? Like I get that there's a meme about wikipedia editors being souless and joyless beings but you are really going out of your way to make that seem true. PUT MICHAEL. K WILLIAMS ON THE SEPTEMBER 2021 DEATH PAGE. THIS IS THE ONLY WAY THIS WILL END"[148].
• "I HAVE NOT FORGOTTEN. YOU WILL REGRET NOT PUTTING MICHAEL. K WILLIANS IN THE SEPTEMBER 2021 DEATH PAGE. I WILL HOUND YOU! I WILL ANNOY YOU! I WILL AROUSE YOU! I WILL SCARE YOU! I WILL MAKE YOU CRY UNTIL YOU DO AS I SAY. YOU ONLY DON'T WANT WANT A BLACK MAN IN THAT PAGE CAUSE YOU HATE BLACK PEOPLE! RASCIST"[149].

He left me these messages and various accusations of bad faith about my motives on the 2021 page, all while refusing to read through the discussions on Talk:2021 and blatantly misinterpreting the page's edit history and assigning the lion's share of the actions to me.

Additionally, he created an account named User:IhateScrubby (which has already been permanently banned), on which he removed Mikis Theodorakis and Jean-Paul Belmondo with an edit summary that said "I dunno Scrubby said there's too many entertainment figures and what not. Lads we can't include people just because they appeared in a few flims or wrote a few songs 😉"[150]. He also said on the Talk:2021 page "Srubby you need to stop listen to the cartoon people in your head who will take away all of wikipedia's money and have you sent to prison for "including too many pop culture and entertainment figures". Stop listening to the cartoons in your head and listen to the real people who god forbid may actually feel represented if someone from their country gets included here"[151].

I think his behaviour speaks for itself, and I've not dignified most of his comments with a response. Thescrubbythug (talk) 12:56, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks (/64) with TPA disabled. Will scrub the harassment momentarily. El_C 13:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I WILL AROUSE YOU!...just incase anybody missed that part lol – ².O.^Boxing 13:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I did. Yay! El_C 13:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

El_C, such a beautiful and vibrant soul. I kinda like your responses. Awwww, can I keep listening to the cartoons in my head? --ARoseWolf 16:37, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

ARoseWolf, funny you cartoon-say that. I'm watching Elliott from Earth right now (11-min episodes, I'm at ep 5 "Idiosyncratic Induction"), which is super-adorable and fun! El_C 16:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

El_C, Awww, I love cartoons. Never watched any growing up but I have watched a few with my daughter. Enjoy! --ARoseWolf 17:25, 14 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

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

---

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)

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

Request for closure

Note that this was moved into the archives without any action, so I'm asking for someone to cross all the Ts and dot the lower-case Js. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Well the user in question states they've permanently retired and hasn't edited since making that statement on the 17th May of this year. So this actually seems irrelevant right now. Canterbury Tail talk 15:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail: They edit under two accounts:

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

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

You're quite right, the former hasn't been used since May, but the latter has been used in the past few days. I wouldn't give too much in the way of good-faith via their "permanently retired" get-out clause. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay that's even more concerning then, especially since it looks like the editing on both accounts overlap. Canterbury Tail talk 16:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• Closed. I notified the known accounts and logged the restriction at WP:RESTRICT. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:56, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
• Of note; the editor has marked both accounts as retired, and posted what appears to be a final message under the second account with this diff. Regardless, the ban stands. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Hammers. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

User page as an attack page.

• Prunesqualer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has posted this on their user page [[152]]. It is an attack on fellow editors which has caused some consternation at [[153]].

Can it be removed please, and maybe the user warned?Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Good grief. There's a similar discussion just up the page. Just let it go. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Additional good grief. This is like the third user-policing rubbish I've seen in as many days. If you dont like something. DONT GO LOOKING AT IT. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

It's probably polemical and it's not nice, but I think this is not an ANI matter. I do not think it rises to the level of WP:G10. User has not responded to Slatersteven's (rather brusque) expression of concern. If this is not actioned here, I would suggest WP:MFD. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, please drop this and move on. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 21:37, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

There is no denying that there are indeed polemic concerns, that is true, but for real though just drop it. Celestina007 (talk) 22:22, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

TO be clear I raised it here as the talk page is not the right place (as was said) to raise it. But if you are happy to let it stand fine, I'll drop it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:10, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Edit-warring at Catacombs of Rome

Veverve (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) has now reverted 3 times in 24 hours to include his favoured content at Catacombs of Rome after two different editors (myself and Diannaa) reverted his inclusion of a lengthy block quote that did not include attribution.

This is the original edit which is a direct copy-paste from this PBS article. Initially included without attribution, it was a clear copyright violation, though it was undone with the suggestion it be converted into prose.

That was reverted here (1).

I restored the article to the version that resulted from Diannaa's revert (there was some minor vandalism by an IP in between) and that was reverted here (2).

I undid that second revert and encouraged engagement on the article talk page per WP:BRD. Without waiting for other editors to consider his proposed edits, that was reverted here (3).

That last revert re-added the block quote (again without attribution) and Veverve then went back and added attribution (and some minor rewording) after the fact. His original addition remains a copyright violation (within the edit history). That may need to be dealt with via REVDEL (though its arguably less copyvio as it currently appears) and Veverve's edit-warring needs to be dealt with also. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I added a long quote. It was then removed because the quote was too long, and not for any other reason which I am aware of. I agree, the quote was too long.

I added back the paragraph, and paraphrased part of it. To me, this fixed the previous problem.

Stalwart then said it was OR and vandalism, and removed it. This action is something I do not really understand, as I told the user. At best, the paragraph is missing the attibution of the opinion expressed and of the quotes.

Stalwart came to my talk page and said: Either its a quote from you (original research) or from someone else (without attribution). Either way its not appropriate. Please take it to the article talk page. This made me feel the problem was the attribution of the quotes, i.e. I had not stated who was the person who said those words within the body of the article.

I tried to understand why Stalwart undid my edit. It appears it was to no avail, as I still currently do not understand what I was reproached at the time. I thought the user wanted me to state to whom the quote belonged, as he/she also said on the talk page: I'm the second person who has taken issue with your use of block quotes without attribution and you have blindly reverted both times, contrary to WP:BRD. Paraphrase properly and rewrite the paragraph with proper citations and your edits likely won't be reverted.

I then reverted, violating 3R as I thought the misunderstanding was cleared, that the dispute I had with Stalwart was over (WP:NOTBURO). I added back the mildly paraphrased paragraph, then paraphrased it even more and added whose opinion it was and to whom the quotes belonged, with now most of it being paraphrased. My goal was not to edit war.

Now, Stalwart has accused me of copyvio. He/she also stated I am still trying to insert the same block quote without attribution despite the fact I have put a source everytime I put those information, that I changed the format of the paragraph everytime, and that I gave a clear attribution in my third edit. So, I still do not know what I am blamed for when it comes to editing, as it ranged from OR to failure of attribution to copyvio.

I feel this situation is due to a failure to communicate on Stalwart's part.

Veverve (talk) 01:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Veverve, are you familiar with the Wikipedia maxim of WP:ONUS? Anyway, as an historian who has been on Wikipedia since 2004, your addition reads awkwardly to me. I don't know a lot about the content to comment on that aspect, but it isn't just the overquoting. Much of it reads like an argumentative essay rather than an encyclopedia entry ("indeed," etc.). Something I've struggled with in my early days here, btw. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect for you to collaborate with others on the article talk page to get a refined version that meets general approval. Does that make sense? El_C 02:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@El C: I had included the information, due to the clear reference to the Christian historiography at the name Catacomb Church, where I had put a hatnote to redirect to the catacombs article. The information Christian used those catacombs to hide can also be found here and here, and its debunk here. I was not aware of the ONUS policy, thanks for telling me.

I would have gladly worked on the talk page with others to improve this paragraph, but I was never given clear direction as to why my inclusion was bad after the first revert. At not point did Stalwart say clearly: "The quote is too long", "The paraphrases are too close to the original", "You must name your source in the body of the article", "This information does not improve the article", or "Such a long quote is copyvio". Instead, I got the impression - maybe falsely - that I was disdainfully given a riddle to solve with minimum information. I always try to be as clear, to the point and complete when someone requests some explanations from me, even if it means being verbose sometimes (e.g. here and here); so, I expect the same from other contributors as well. Veverve (talk) 03:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Veverve, I understand, but when disputants edit war, that's bad, m’kay? Anyway, hopefully, this can now be remedied by working toward a version that everybody's happy with — or at least, least unhappy with. El_C 03:27, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@El C: understood. @Stalwart111: I have reverted my edits, so hopefully we can work on implementing this paragraph in a way which suits both of us, throught clear and and relaxed discussion which do not beat around the bush. Veverve (talk) 03:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Certainly happy to do that. My reasons (and I imagine Diannaa was the same) were multiple, and my edit summary was not exhaustive. My not listing every problem with your multi-problem edit is not a "failure to communicate" on my part. There were many problems with that paragraph, made worse by your unwillingness to discuss it. There's no riddle; its bad editorial practice, underwhelming content, a copyright violation, a quote without attribution, an addition without consensus, being edit-warred into an article. You're an experienced editor, I shouldn't have to explain these things to you. And I shouldn't have to bring something like that here for you to finally take note of WP:BRD. *shakes head*. That said, it's been self-reverted now so there's probably no need for a bright-line 3RR block, and we'll have a chat about it on the talk page. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Stalwart111, RE: has now reverted 3 times in 24 hours [...] it's been self-reverted now so there's probably no need for a bright-line 3RR block — from the benefit of my experience, a WP:3RR violation involves a minimum of 4 reverts per 24 hours, not 3. Further, even if it were 4, one would never (ever) be a blocked after they have self reverted. No probably about it. El_C 05:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Good, I'm glad. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

HelloColdRenegade WP:NOTHERE

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

[154] [155] [156] Pretty self-explanatory; this editor has only made three edits, and all three completely flagrant BLP violations. Editor is clearly WP:NOTHERE. Curbon7 (talk) 03:08, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Curbon7: Already reported at AIV, and combined with the edits appearing in the edit filter log, I'm not sure it's necessary to bring it up here. This editor will be blocked as soon as someone can get to it. General Ization ^Talk 03:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

And has now been blocked indef by El C. General Ization ^Talk 03:15, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely and scrubbed. I was just about to say the same thing, but then got edit conflcited, then got edit conflicted, again. And and you know I hold grudges, still! . Anyway, yeah, for future reference, this is standard AIV fare rather than what ANI is generally for. El_C 03:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Yet another Nazi (again)

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

This IP editor was blocked by RickinBaltimore, later lengthened by Drmies, as a result of "Yet another Nazi", an ANI thread from May. They appear to back to their antisemitic ways, pushing a racist 9/11 conspiracy theory at September 11 intelligence before the attacks (diff). Looking at just their reverted contribs, there's also abhorrent nonsense here and here. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 6 months. El_C 03:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I think I was able to scrub the worst of it, but possibly missed a few dog whistle gems. El_C 03:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

El C hard at work scrubbing away the filth Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Far be it from me to be seen on the side of anti-semitic Nazis but I do think that every editor who receives a block should get a talk page notice, informing them of why they are blocked and how long the block will be. Yeah, I know AGF isn't a suicide pact but I just like to see consistency, even when dealing with conspiracy kooks. Of course, I deal more with wannabe Instagram models than Nazis. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:RBI (see number three specifically) and WP:DFTT are the best ways to deal with these. Do you think they don't know what they are doing or why they received the block? MarnetteD|Talk 04:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Liz, I previewed the following message: {{subst:uw-blocknotalk|time=6 months|reason=[[WP:DE|disruptive editing]]. Specifically, racist provocations, still}} — but then I closed the window. I'm content with that decision. El_C 04:25, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

BTW, I'm reminded how a few years ago, with a similar DENY block, Debresser asked me something to the effect of: aren't you required to post a block notice in all instances? I replied with: no, there is no such requirement. El_C 04:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Username006 closing own page move discussion & general competence issues

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

---

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 [[157]] 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 [158]. 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)
• Note: I've restored this from the archive, as this needs closure and either action or formal no action at this point depending on what an uninvolved admin reads as the consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 10:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Moved from my talk page

Courtesy ping @Hotwiki and WayKurat:

• Russel641 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

IP report from my talk page

A high-threat vandal user named Russel641 has been disruptively damaging all the Wiki articles related to Philippine television (including all the drama series and TV programs aired on ABS-CBN, GMA, and TV5), as well as editing IBC shows too. The user Russel641 is stealth active since late April 2021. Russel is refactoring (editing) talk page comments and warning contents, as well as ignoring all the warning messages from several admins and other users. Currently, I also see that all the articles of ABS-CBN dramas have been edited by Russel641 by adding the "and was replaced by (*name of program*)" signs. I can't instantly revert all of over 150+ edit contributions of Russel641, so I hope that someone would report that user with perfection and extreme caution. -136.158.42.180 (talk) 08:59, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I haven't taken the time to look into this properly; (nor do I figure why the IP picked 3 non-admins to report this to); but taking a sample look stuff like [159], beyond the unnecessary WP:NOTBROKEN changes to links, there also appears to be the addition of unsourced information such as reported by the IP. There's a litany of talk page warnings, however the user seems quite adept at not getting noticed too much so likely somebody needs to get the mop on this and give them a block; and rollback their edits if I miss something. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• Addendum': on the other hand, most of those TV shows likely are not notable judging by what the articles look like so I've abandoned the rollback project and moved on to something else. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:27, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
• Based on a brief run through their contribs I would say a block may get their attention. If they are editing by mobile then they may not be getting notifications but there is no excuse for not checking your talk page, especially after your contribs are being reverted. You would think they would be curious though. --ARoseWolf 12:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

  (Non-administrator comment) Based occasionally using the mobile site, there's usually a bright red indicator at the top of any page that you have notifications, so it would take some dedicated tunnel vision to not notice them. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 12:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

  See WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. Narky Blert (talk) 12:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

When I first started on Wikipedia I only had a tablet and it used the mobile version and rarely received notifications. I quickly moved to our desktop and that was my preferred choice until I was admitted in the hospital. I knew I would need something more portable so I bought a laptop. That's my preferred option going forward. I would so get chastised by my parents for spending money "unnecessarily" rather than saving it. lol Anyway, I haven't used the mobile version in a long time so I can't say how its been improved but I know some people still complain about it. --ARoseWolf 13:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

They check their talk page, they refactor comments left their by others and remove negative ones. My comment was not the only one refactored, they did it to Mcmatter as well see [160] and CruzRamiss2002 had to clean it up[161]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: just to let you know that there's one more to 122.53.222.9, see [162] (which I also clean it up). CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 14:48, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• I came here to open an ANI for Russel, here is what I was going say: Russel641’s disruption in the filipino television space has become unmanageable and they are ignoring all warnings. The kicker for me is that they refactored a disruptive editing notice into “Please continue your disruptive editing. If you continue to add editing of all networks including ABS-CBN, PTV, TV5, GMA, RPN/CNN Philippines, A2Z, IBC, SBN/ETC, S+A (formerly Studio 23), Net 25, GTV (formerly GMA News TV), RJTV, BEAM TV, Light TV, CLTV, UNTV, SMNI and One Sports (formerly AksyonTV and 5 Plus), you may be not blocked from editing and removed redirect of Philippine television programming. Russel641 (talk) 23:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)”[163] The sheer volume of OR edits also make mechanical cleanup of their edits daunting so its time to show them the door. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
• I will also note that Russell claims to be an admin "I also have an admin account that I seldom use. I do not use that account for normal editing due to security concerns, for privacy reasons and also to prevent any possibility of my using admin tools inappropriately on articles in which I may be considered to be involved. I have sent details of my alternate account to the Arbitration Committee. I am willing to provide details by mail to any admin who requests it.”[164] which seems far fetched but should be run down per AGF. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

51.6.138.48

51.6.138.48 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) had originally brought up DagosNavy at RFCN for having a potentially insulting username, which is fine, but much of the IP's behavior throughout the discussion has been very disruptive. Apart from bludgeoning the discussion, the IP:

• implied that all who interacted with DagosNavy without reporting their username were racists (and the choice of "as well" seems to be a personal attack by calling DagosNavy a racist)
• cried "personal attack" without substantiating the claims
• continued crying "personal attack" after I had requested them to substantiate their previous claim
• and again

I'm not going to pretend to be neutral to the discussion, but I think it's clear that 51.6.138.48's behavior has been nothing short of disruptive. - ZLEA _T\^C 13:48, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

You are welcome to disagree with my arguments on that page; plenty of people have, and that is not a problem, obviously. When a user calls me "disgusting", "dumb" and "manipulative", though, that is not acceptable. I certainly do consider that a personal attack. Meanwhile, this noticeboard is supposed to be for "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems". I don't think you had any valid reason to post about this here. What is your desired outcome, exactly? 51.6.138.48 (talk) 14:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Calling your actions "disgusting", "dumb", and "manipulative" is not the same thing as calling you those things. Those adjectives are describing actions, not a person. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:08, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Reporting Disruptive user

InNeed95 (talk · contribs) Hi, this user was blocked by the admin @EdJohnston: for racist insults against Serb minority and againts other users[165]. 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, gaming and impose his nationalistic 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. [166]. This is a absurd vandalism
    • [167] 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
    • [168] The long disruptive and vandalism edits
    • [169] He revert me without any explanation, and he got reverted by another user.
    • [170] 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[171], this is unnaceptable
    • [172] Another example of vandalism that resulted a block
    • [173] another POV
    • [174] 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.
    • [175] this user blanks his talk page just to be unnoticed by the administrators.
    • [176] Here his block by admin.
    • [177]
    • [178]
    • [179]
    • [180]

He was notified about edit warring, but doesnt care [181]

Aquinasthomes1 (talk) 14:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Both users have been blocked for two weeks for edit warring. I'm quite frankly so tired of the ongoing conflict between these two editors. At this point, I would highly recommend a two-way interaction ban. Curbon7 (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)