Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting a complaint about a user on this page: Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility Consider first discussing the issue on the user's talk page Or try dispute resolution. Want to skip the drama? Check the Recently Active Admins list for admins who may be able to help directly. Include diffs demonstrating the problem and be brief; concise reports get faster responses. If you cannot edit this page because it is protected, click here. Do not report breaches of privacy, outing, etc. on this highly visible page – instead click here. Please consider using the help navigation page before posting the issue here. The administrator incident noticeboard should only be used as a last resort. Sign your post by adding 4 tildes (~~~~) at the end. Closed discussions should not usually be 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. (archives, search) When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Click here to start a new discussion

Venkat TL mass page moves

Since the last topic ban from DYK on 5 May, [1], Venkat TL has been doing mass page moves despite a couple of warnings to stop it. The first warning was mild and another warning was final. However, none of these warnings helped Venkat TL to stop.

In just 1 month, Venkat TL has made over 16,000 such page moves that are nothing but WP:DE because his page moves have no basis other than a "proposed" convention over which multiple editors have disagreed with Venkat TL.[2]

The participants of the last ANI thread assumed that this user's disruption won't stop with just a topic ban from DYK.[3] I agree they were correct. Srijanx22 (talk) 16:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

• Context thread: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indian_politics#Constituency_titles
• This was debated for 7 months at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/India-related articles.
• Another 4 months of debate occurred at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indian_politics#Constituency_titles
• This proposal came out after above debates and discussions at WikiProject India and WikiProject Indian politics. Please refer to the Proposal thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian politics#Proposal_:_Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_Indian_constituencies
• The proposal was advertised as advised by the the debate participants of that time at WP:Noticeboard for India#Assembly_constituencies_article_title, |WP:Noticeboard for India# Proposal : Wikipedia:Naming conventions Indian constituencies. Along with Wikiproject talk pages of all Indian states and major cities, like WikiProject Delhi#Proposal : Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_Indian_constituencies [4] [5] and so on.
• A previous discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/India-related articles where this discussion had occurred in past was also notified duly. At that time 'all places where I could think of, and others could think of, were notified.
• After 2 months of voting on the proposal there was a Consensus with 7 supports and one oppose. After the discussion had petered out with clear consensus, The proposal was implemented accordingly. --Venkat TL (talk) 17:15, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

But still none of this fulfilled the actual requirement you were told about some 11 days ago[6] which you recognized[7] but you are still continuing your page moves without fulfilling the requirement. Srijanx22 (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

• On different occasions, by different editors, Venkat TL was reminded that propsal is not formally closed, and it is not a policy yet. They were also asked to stop moving pages. They should have stopped. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
• Further context: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposal for new article title naming convention - RfC or local consensus, Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 189#Wikipedia:Naming Conventions, and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Indian constituencies) — especially the two RMs. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:30, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
  • After your !Vote I, put the implementation on hold, stopped moving new pages and focused on fixing the disambiguation pages. There was no votes in those threads for another 10 days, so I re-started the moves yesterday.
  • I also noticed that you were admin shopping 12 days ago and have older axes to grind. Venkat TL (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

    @Venkat TL no votes doesn't mean it is ok to just go ahead and do whatever you think it is ok. let someone close the discussions and move on from there. You were jumping the gun. – robertsky (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

    Look, the proposal had been open for 2 months and had clear consensus, which is why I proceeded. In my opinion 2 months is a good long time for an open discussion to judge the consensus. that said, I have no problem to wait for another 2 months. I will not make any more moves. Venkat TL (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Venkat TL: you still havent answered why you started moving pages again. You were very well aware that the proposal was contested. There is difference between not badgering, and going unresponsive/avoiding scrutiny. It is looking like you are doing the latter. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  My openening comment in that thread was "Hi. If there is an RfC regarding a policy change, and it is tainted, what will be the appropriate venue to ask for a procedural close? Given the editor who started it is retired. AN, or ANRFC? —usernamekiran (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC) I was asking for next appropriate step. That is not admin shopping at all. I didn't even mention you, or the RfC. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

• Venkat TL Can you explain the moves from, for example, Chittorgarh (Lok Sabha constituency) to Chittorgarh Lok Sabha constituency. Because the former looks natural to me. If you can supply reliable sources that show that the latter is the well known form, then everything is OK. If you can't, then we have a major problem. Black Kite (talk) 18:30, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

• Black Kite, you are asking to discuss content dispute here. It would be off topic, but since you have asked, here you go. Please look at the quotes below from reliable sources. Please refer to the explanation of WP:NATURAL that I have made on the proposal page (link). These quotes below show how the constituency is commonly referred to in mainstream reliable sources.

• If a Rajput candidate is fielded in the adjoining Chittorgarh Lok Sabha constituency, chances are a Brahmin would be fielded here and vice-versa. Mar 17, Geetha Sunil Pillai / TNN /. "Rajsamand seat too complicated for caste equations | Jaipur News - Times of India". The Times of India. Retrieved 23 May 2022.

• Chittorgarh Lok Sabha constituency comprises of following Vidhan Sabha (legislative assembly) segments. "Chittorgarh Lok Sabha Constituency, Rajasthan: Current MP, Candidates, Polling Date and Election Results". Newsd.in. Retrieved 23 May 2022.

• Ladpura and Ramganj Mandi Assembly seats were added from Chittorgarh Lok Sabha seat in 2008. "Lok Sabha Election 2019, Rajasthan profile: With BJP having all seats, Congress faces tough fight ahead; Bikaner, Dausa key seats-Politics News , Firstpost". Firstpost. 4 April 2019. Retrieved 23 May 2022.

• Vallabhnagar and Mavli Assembly seats were moved to Chittorgarh Lok Sabha constituencyin 2008. "Lok Sabha Election 2019, Phase 4 today: State-wise guide to constituencies going to polls and election schedule-Politics News , Firstpost". Firstpost. 29 April 2019. Retrieved 23 May 2022.

Venkat TL (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

• Black Kite I may have not pinged correctly in my reply. Venkat TL (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
• Chittorgarh is the name of a geographical entity (a settlement). "Chittorgarh Lok Sabha constituency" is the name of the entity related to elections. The border of the geographical entity is never the same as the Lok Sabha constituency, though they may have some overlap. The bit "Lok Sabha constituency" is not just an attribute, it is an essential part of the name. When you just say "Place" for example Chittorgarh, it will be understood as the geographical entity (city), Never as constituency unless you mention it clearly. One has to mandatorily state the full name Chittorgarh Lok Sabha constituency if they are talking about the constituency. The examples from the reliable sources above show this. Wikipedia disambiguation guideline WP:NATURAL says According to the above-mentioned precision criterion, when a more detailed title is necessary to distinguish an article topic from another, use only as much additional detail as necessary... Natural disambiguation: Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title...Comma-separated disambiguation. With place names, if the disambiguating term is a higher-level administrative division, it is often separated using a comma instead of parentheses. The suffix "Lok Sabha constituency" or "Assembly constituency" serve as WP:NATURAL disambiguation from the city name, so they do not need to be inside brackets. The parenthesis also add an overhead of extra work to add the piped links whenever using the constituency name in prose. The piping issue due to disambiguation bracket is huge. there are close to 4120 Indian assembly constituencies and 545 Lok Sabha constituencies. Each of them gets linked on an average 100 times on Wikipedia. That is 5,00,000 unnecessary piped links. This is exponential damage and waste of efforts which can be saved by dropping the unnecessary bracket. I face this issue everyday while working on constituency and biography articles. Venkat TL (talk) 07:21, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

erm... So you decided to move thousands of pages while multiple editors had asked you to stop it — because you found the current naming system a little out of your comfort zone during article editing, while knowing it (the moves) will mean editing around 500,000 links? Actually, it is your page moves that are "exponential damage and waste of efforts". This is nothing but WT:DYK incident all over again: proposing changes to policy because you dont like it, not listening to other editors, casting aspersions, battleground behaviour, and now moving thousands of pages even when told to stop. Thats nothing but disruptive behaviour. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

That's my take too. This is simple disruption and unless I see a genuine reason for editing 500,000 links here apart from WP:ILIKEIT, I don't see any other option here but to prevent Venkat TL from causing any more damage. Black Kite (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I think they have already moved almost all the pages of that field. —usernamekiran (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Other than wikipedia and its mirrors, very few sources use brackets (I chose a constituency that has received more coverage). I haven't gone through every category in Category:Constituencies_by_country, but even on Wikipedia, a lot of constituency articles do not use brackets (see for eg, US, Mexico, France, Australia, Srilanka, Philippines) Hemantha (talk) 04:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@Hemantha: Hello. "appropriate title" is not the main point here. The proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian politics#Proposal : Wikipedia:Naming conventions Indian constituencies was disputed at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Indian constituencies)#Proposal state, Venkat TL was aware of that (they participated in the latter discussion), later DaxServer expressed their concerns about the process of the proposal at Proposal for new article title naming convention - RfC or local consensus|village pump - policy. In that discussion there were only four participants including Venkat TL, and three of them were in favour of a fresh RfC. Venkat TL was reminded a few times that the "proposal" was not formally closed yet, a fresh RfC was required, and the proposal wa not accepted/converted as policy yet. Still, Venkat TL performed mass moves, which were being discussed/disputed, that is simply put - not listening to fellow editors (WP:IDHT?), and disruptive. For someone who quotes/brings up policies, guidelines, and essays so often, saying "I did it because there was no participation in a long time" is not acceptable. —usernamekiran (talk) 08:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes I think enforcing edits without consensus, ignoring warnings, doing mass moves while ignoring complaints on talk page and denying any wrongdoing even after the complaint here is disruptive and does not guarantee any assurance since enough damage has been already done. Srijanx22 (talk) 04:22, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I see Venkat TL was provided with page mover user right on 15 April 2022 by Swarm. I think this user right should be removed because of the abuse documented in this report. Srijanx22 (talk) 15:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

accountability/communication is a very important thing on wikipedia. Not responding here even after a ping shows lack of it. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:10, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

• Hm, as best as I can tell, per WP:RFCEND Venkat should have formally closed the discussion, but involved users are explicitly allowed to implement a clear consensus themselves in an RfC. I do think that this was the case here. So I don't see the discussion not being closed to be an issue. That leaves the matter of whether the proposal was sufficiently exposed to the community, per WP:AT and WP:PROPOSAL. While the proposal was not advertised at village pump, it was extensively advertised to the community, and that's a pretty strong consideration as well. Mass changes are almost always contentious to some extent, and it's good to have community oversight in these situations. But I do find Venkat's defense here reasonable. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with you on the first part. But when the proposal was disputed, and there were suggestions for starting a fresh RfC, at that time Venkat TL should have listned to fellow editors, and should have stopped moving pages. —usernamekiran (talk) 05:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  It all boils down to whether the objections were legitimate in the first place, i.e. whether the fact that this wasn't posted to village pump is enough to consider the discussion illegitimate, in spite of extensive community notification efforts. I would say the letter of the law was violated, but the spirit of the law was satisfied. Is that enough? According to WP:NOTBUREAU, WP:5P5, and WP:IAR...yes, actually. This is a complicated situation, Venkat failed to follow the proper procedure of advertising the RfC, he failed to close the RfC and initiated an involved mass move (which, again, is allowed, but a bad look altogether), then didn't stop when objections were raised. On my first reading, I was on the same page as the other outraged admins. I considered immediately revoking PM, even procedurally prior to looking into it, and then I strongly considered blocking. However, after actually vetting Venkat's argument against policy requirements as objectively as possible, everything seems to check out. Venkat TL should implement the formal close since he's already de facto formalized it, but his doing so, in my reading, was allowed.

  I'm not saying the dispute should be considered resolved. Let me be clear, there is never anything preventing you from immediately starting your own RfC with whatever proposal you want, you can do it right now. If a new RfC is needed, then hold a new RfC, and make sure the proper procedures are followed to avoid future drama. The naming dispute clearly is just as alive as ever and I doubt we're going to solve that here. But this is just my response to a ping with a request that Vinkat's PM user rights be revoked. In response to that request, I conclude there is no violation. But this is a community noticeboard, anyone is free to disagree with me. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 23:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with you on the first part. What I am saying is they should have stopped when multiple editors had asked them to, no matter the reason. As they said above themselves, they stopped for a while, and then resumed it. And then there is their overall attitude. —usernamekiran (talk) 04:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

  a closure is requested. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Mass deletion of Tuvalu footballers (violation of WP:BEFORE)

Moving a discussion from the village pump here. User:Sportsfan 1234 has nominated every Tuvaluan footballer except three (50+ in total, two of the remaining are also runners) for deletion in quick succession. Based on the speed of the nominations, it seems very clear WP:BEFORE was not done, and this is a bad faith attempt to remove good content on tenuous technical grounds (I'm speaking of Mau Penisula, Alopua Petoa, and Vaisua Liva especially). It also seems the same handful people are voting Delete on every AfD discussion in rapid succession, which cannot possibly be in good faith (and raises concerns of sockpuppetry). This is especially dangerous because we are setting a precedent of essentially wiping out a whole nation's sporting history just because they are small and underdeveloped and so don't have much internet presence. 172.58.176.152 (talk) 23:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

• The purpose of Wikipedia is not to serve as a promotional site for Tuvalan sport. Based on the speed of your objections to the nominations, it seems very clear that you did not trouble with WP:BEFORE yourself. Indeed, considering that you have only made a single mainspace edit to Wikipedia, there certainly appears to be a good bit more upon which to question your good faith than the other way around. (And beyond that, good grief: to claim that removing a handful of sub-stubs without independent sourcing is "essentially wiping out a whole nation's sporting history" isn't productive; it's hysteria.) Ravenswing 00:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

  A handful of sub-stubs? I just provided three articles with lots of good, well-sourced content. What you are saying is factually not even true. 172.58.160.64 (talk) 01:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

  Cleary you do not have an understanding of WP:GNG. NONE of those three remotely come close to passing what's listed on WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

  Well, I'm looking at the contribution lists for the anon IP addresses you're using, and seeing nothing. So if you are claiming to have added any content whatsoever, provide us with the diffs right here (and if they are under an actual registered account, perhaps you'll be so kind as to use that account in this discussion). Ravenswing 10:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Per the notice at the top of this page, you have to notify editors you start discussions about, which I have done for you. Anyway, the issue seems to stem from the IP's viewpoint that a proper WP:BEFORE would be to go to Tuvalu’s museums, libraries, etc.[8], which has no backing in the actual text of WP:BEFORE (The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects; it doesn't really take much time to click those four links and see that there's more or less nothing) Also, "raising concerns of" two long-standing administrators being sockpuppets just for !voting the same way in a set of very similar AfDs is patently silly. eviolite (talk) 00:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Anyone who actually wants to write about the whole nation's sporting history is free to edit the Sport in Tuvalu article, which is very unlikely to be nominated for deletion. CMD (talk) 00:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Moving this over here: I do my research on a MASS basis first (if I know a lot of articles in a particular topic are leaning towards delete), then proceed with the nominations. With the BOTS doing most of the work, its no surprise 10 AFD's were done in 17 minutes. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Note that mass nominations are not always good for the community. Sure, it might make your life easier to get the noms done in one go, but look at this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Polynesia/Article alerts#AfD. Each AfD has a time frame on it, and you are are now asking the community to weigh in on 52 separate discussions in a seven-day window (not all 52 are in the same 7-day window, but the nominations came over the course of five days). If someone actually has access to some print sources, you have just buried them under a mountain with a time-limit to get out from under it... If someone looks at all that, they might throw their hands up in the air thinking it's hopeless. It's probably better practice to nominate as you find each article to better space them out. Also, an attempt at constructive criticism, a simple "Fails GNG" statement doesn't give very a lot of information to help others that might not want to duplicate your efforts. -2pou (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, that's the same excuse the inclusionists usually drag out upon seeing a mass nomination, and I'd be more sympathetic to it if their reaction to it wasn't invariably paired with an utter lack of any attempt to find adequate sourcing for ANY entries on it. (Or, come to that, if they had had any objection to the mass creation of such articles, often in very short timeframes and without critical examination as to whether each one could stand as an independent article.)

And it's much the same here. So rather than the mass "redirect" responses you put into the AfDs, one after another, would you be amenable to sourcing some of the articles properly? Some of them? Any of them? Ravenswing 21:54, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Ah, a nice long weekend! Other parts of this thread seem to have gone in an entirely different direction that I think I will steer clear of.
I'm happy to explain the process that I went through, though! For each of my !votes, I do my own BEFORE process to search out any additional finds just in case the nom or prior participants did not catch something. (In this particular subject matter, since I believe your inquiry is specific to it) I also searched out any potential availability from List of newspapers in Tuvalu, which was slightly fruitful in that I found an obscure archive of only seven issues, and a smattering of others randomly hosted on SquareSpace, that I can't decipher the actual host site from (all still from 2015 still from 2015, oddly enough). Unfortunately the coverage did not include much football news to choose from. Next, I searched the Fenui Facebook site for postings as well as this Tuvalu news site. This has led me to the same conclusion that you seem to have reached in several cases, that an independent article is not necessary. As AfD stats will show, "Redirect" and "Delete" votes/results are considered equivalent.
I tend not to stop there with a delete decision, though, as my next step is to see if there is any place that would end up pointing the average searcher to any tidbit of information. You'll notice that I did initially !vote to delete one article when I thought there was no suitable redirect target. I later learned of what I consider a suitable target, so I updated to a Redirect. It seems to me that several players already have existing entries on one of two pages, so the next step is to make sure the player's name is actually entered on one of those pages. If not, then I would !vote delte, if so, redirect. Although there is some copy/paste involved, there is never an automatic !vote without ensuring one of the targets is truly valid. I did not weigh in on all 52 mentioned discussions yet, as I hadn't gotten to several.
Regarding the mass creation of such articles... I actually do agree that such articles should not be created if not following guidelines. These seem to be older than then NPP and therefore grandfathered in or created when NFOOTY was more lax, so I don't find these nominations objectionable in and of themselves; cleanup is cleanup. What would I expect NPP to do when coming across these if created today? Probably redirect somewhere if there is a suitable target known to the patroller, as that's the easiest solution. Would I object to the mass creation of players as redirects? Absolutely not, since there is no notability requirement for one. Otherwise, (only because it is as a recent example and fresh in my mind) I wouldn't try to fix redirects from the name of a reality show contestants to the actual anchor of the show they had appeared on, I'd send to RfD.
Now, this is just my personal disposition. You appear to find redirects unhelpful, whereas I find them cheap, unharmful, and just maybe there's a chance to be useful. (Gahaha! Always great!) That's fine, no two people have to agree. You seemed offended by one of my comments, which was in no way my intent. I apologize for that. Maybe I should resume my quest to ensure that every plushie on the List of Sanrio characters has an incoming redirect! (My son: "Daddy... are you joking? ... I don't like your joking.") All the best to your own future editing endeavors! -2pou (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Since you seem to have a reasonable approach AfDs and actually put effort into finding sources, would you care to reevaluate the Sepetaio discussion now that the single alleged source of SIGCOV (40 words...) has been shown to be an unattributed press release rather than independent coverage? If there's a fair redirect target that's also an option. JoelleJay (talk) 22:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Sure can. -2pou (talk) 17:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, it's good to know there are more AfD participants willing to do thorough analyses of sources rather than just blindly !voting. JoelleJay (talk) 00:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be an issue here. The nominations appear to be appropriate, and they spread them out over a few days. If they had prodded the articles first, then I wouldn't even expect them to spread the nominations out - the issue in those circumstances would be editors removing the WP:PROD without demonstrating notability, rather than with a large number of nominations on the same day. BilledMammal (talk) 04:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

• If you want to accuse people of sock puppetry, sockpuppet investigations is the place to go. Note though that it isn't for unfounded fishing expeditions. Reyk _YO! 05:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to raise my own concerns on this user. I am aware that a lot of the deletion nominations may be "fair" by Wikipedia standards, but I find the pattern of these nominations to be rather sinister. Having gone through their recent activity, a lot of the deletion nominations have been for athletes from smaller, "less-developed" nations, including a couple of women footballers (who meet GNG), who we struggle to get representation for on Wikipedia in the first place.

This, this and this edit are page blanking with no discussion beforehand. I don't know what Wikipedia says about this exactly, but I am certain this goes against standards somewhere.

Also, as a side note, there was a situation in 2007 whereby Tuvalu could have technically qualified for the FIFA World Cup. They even had a goalscorer in World Cup qualification, Viliamu Sekifu, whose page is currently nominated for deletion. Sekifu is probably the most notable Tuvaluan footballer for the goal scored, and undoubtedly received coverage at the time in local Tuvaluan news sources. I just find it very frustrating that, just because the information is not readily available, common sense isn't used. If they had qualified for the World Cup, there would have of course been notability garnered internationally - but would there have been any local Tuvaluan sources covering individuals? I highly doubt it. Some nations just do not have much, if any, online news. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 04:16, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Please remain WP:CIVIL and assume good faith. These articles were all nominated because they do not meet GNG. As for the three articles I redirected, they all fail WP:GNG and I redirected them to the article discussing their participation at the Olympics (all three were the only participants for their country. Wikipedia is also not a speculation device. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

• If you think that there are sources for that footballer, divulge them. But c'mon. A key facet of notability guidelines is that they set forth criteria that subjects actually meet, not that they might have met. (Not that this was possible to happen, because whatever the local federation's take on things was, Tuvalu was not then and is not now a FIFA member, and as such, could not have taken part in actual World Cup matches.)

  I recognize that there is a longstanding fringe theory that if there is some putative excuse for a subject not to have received the significant coverage in independent, reliable third-party sources the GNG requires -- and so very many excuses have been proffered, over the years -- then the GNG, WP:V, WP:N and any other applicable criteria are waived in its favor. This curious theory, however, has no factual basis in Wikipedia policy or guideline. To claim there is something "sinister" in seeking to correctly apply extant notability criteria is an unwarranted, unfounded and reprehensible personal attack. You would be far better off turning your energies to finding sources for these articles you are so invested in saving than in taking swings at those who feel that those criteria apply to all subjects across the board ... or, as we see below, descending into hyperbole-choked hysteria. Ravenswing 15:21, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  "This curious theory, however, has no factual basis in Wikipedia policy or guideline." This simply isn't true. As fellow user John Pack Lambert stated in this edit: "We have a long precedent of keeping articles on every member of a state legislature we can verrify [sic] existed.". The bar for politicians is so low that the only thing required is verification that they existed? Yet for people who have represented their nation in international sporting events, we need 50 independent biographies written, 100 newspaper articles from 20 separate countries and access to the personal diary they kept as a child? Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 17:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  Oh, and here's another from notorious delete voter John Pack Lambert, in which he states that "Those who hold cabinet level in a first level subdivision in a federal government (that is states in the US, Germany, Mexico, Brazil, India, and a few other countries) are default notable.". Default notable??? So we just throw GNG out the window when it comes to politicians, but not for international sporting representatives?

  This website has articles on obscure lakes from Lithuania, but people who represent their nation are clearly not notable, right? Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  In addition to WP:GNG, there are specific additional ways a subject can be presumed notable. WP:NPOL addresses first-level subdivisions in federal governments as mentioned by John Pack Lambert. There are specific additional ways an athlete can be notable. See WP:NSPORT. Do any of those criteria apply? If not, then WP:GNG must be applied. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  I was also under the impression that there are specific additional ways an athlete can be notable. I know that the criteria for football has changed recently, but I cannot see anything specific on WP:NSPORT regarding association football. One of WP:SPORTBASIC's criteria is that "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources.", which some (but not all) of the nominated articles do. Yet they are still being flagged for deletion as they are athletes from a nation seemingly deemed not worthy of articles. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Davidlofgren1996 which articles have SIGCOV? JoelleJay (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  And there are no additional ways an athlete can be notable. This has been the case for a very long time now. JoelleJay (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  From the masses that SportsFan 1234 has nominated, I found Sumithra Kamaraj, Anju Tamang, Indrit Cullhaj and Leah Parry. There may be more, there probably are, they have nominated a lot of articles.

  And I believe presumed notability still applies to athletes who competed before the internet existed, as it applies to non-athletes in the same boat. Please correct me if I am wrong. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 19:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  Ok, what is the SIGCOV source in each of those articles? Kamaraj has a handful of sentences on her by an anonymous author in what seems to be a clear non-RS. Tamang received routine transaction news and coverage by SPS, non-independent (e.g. the KHELNOW article written by the AIFF), and other unreliable sources. Cullhaj has some interviews and routine transaction news. Leah Parry has coverage in some anonymous wikimirror-like content farm.

  When has NSPORT ever presumed notability for pre-internet athletes? At most it has suggested more temporal leeway be given for finding sources on very old subjects, which doesn't apply here. JoelleJay (talk) 20:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  Also note the solutions mentioned in WP:FAILN, such as Topics that do not meet this criterion are not retained as separate articles. Non-notable topics with closely related notable articles or lists are often merged into those pages.. See, for example, Tuvalu_national_football_team. This is a way to retain information about the players without them having to meet individual notability requirements. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:56, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  Davidlofgren1996 is certainly jacking the hysteria up to 11. No, we don't require 50 biographies or personal diaries. We require multiple (=2) independent, third-party reliable sources which provide significant coverage to the subjects involved, and which in the case of athletes doesn't involve casual mentions in routine match coverage. And you can't bring yourself to do even that much work for a single one of the AfDs you're complaining about. You are being routinely wrong about your assumptions, routinely wrong in these AfDs, and it's well past time that someone who's created as many articles as you have has a handle on the damn notability criteria that governs your work. What the hell, man? We shouldn't need "correct me if I'm wrong" answers. For all the football sub-stubs you're creating, you need to be right in the first place. Ravenswing 22:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  Stop pinging me. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  (bemused look) Look, man, if you want to stick your thumbs in your ears and cry out "Lalalalala I'm Not Listening You Can't Make Me," well, indeed, neither I nor anyone else can make you. But since I've yet to ping you, the request is moot. (If what you're asking me instead is not to respond to your public statements in public discussion pages, I would treat THAT request with exactly as much consideration as it merits.) Ravenswing 14:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

  Using the wikilink [[User:Davidlofgren1996]] pings them. It's one of the ways to ping someone as outlined in Help:Notifications. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

  You missed the second sentence of that paragraph, which says Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article. Articles that meet that requirement are probably not suitable for prod, but if additional sources can't be found then they should be deleted at AFD. BilledMammal (talk) 11:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Just now, there was an AIV report on an account named LuK3 (other account), which is blocked by Tamzin (thank you) for impersonation. The blocked account has closed an AfD on a Tuvaluan footballer as "delete". Thank you. NotReallySoroka (talk) 06:31, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, some new LTA. (I guess that's an oxymoron, but you know what I mean.) They've been doing this with a number of AfDs while impersonating admins. Both of their closes had already been reverted by the time I blocked. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 06:36, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry that you were impersonated. NotReallySoroka (talk) 06:54, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Creating a list of Tuvalu footballers would have been more efficient, the articles for each player, I can completely understand their nomination. I can't see much else to say here, than this conversation should probably be closed down. Govvy (talk) 22:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Rhiabethmas

Rhiabethmas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User has been making unusual content forks of UK radio station pages, conducting other vandalism, and even slapped an insult on me. Has received two 4im warnings in the last 30 days but no block has followed. Took this to AIV and was told it belonged at ANI.

Examples of their work:

• Moved Dream 100 FM to Greatest Hits Radio Essex without explanation, in contravention of a 2020 RM/RfC on this and other similar stations, and made it an odd fork of Greatest Hits Radio East.
• Other UK content forks have been deleted. In one case, I got a message from an IP about a CSD I made (see below)
• Created redirects including Rebeib nutsuj (CSD R3)
• Vandalized Liam Butcher, reverted here
• Vandalized Capital Cymru including a page move to claim it had been moved to the Heart radio network, see this diff of cleanup

This may also be an SPI case, as I suspect by their edits Special:Contributions/147.148.185.186 and especially Special:Contributions/2A00:23C8:4307:3400:A913:F9CD:D921:D995 who told me to "stop ruining my life" on Rhiabethmas's talk page when all I did was send one of their content forks to CSD. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I will add to Sammi Brie's report above that yesterday I declined a speedy (A1 and A7) on a page Rhiabethmas created - Hexham Radio. I moved it to draft as it was not suitable for mainspace. I left a talk page message explaining what needed to change for it to return to mainspace. They have moved it back to mainspace with no changes except for removing the cleanup tags and changing some capitalization. Note their edit summary in that move diff - it seems to be the same whenever they move a page. They also don't seem to use talk pages. I wonder if a competence block is in order? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I would support this. Clearly, Rhia does not know quite what they are doing. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Textbook WP:IDHT. casualdejekyll 18:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the WP:CIR concerns Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I was unaware of this thread when I CSD'ed Hexham radio again. It was deleted this time. Other than that, I have had no interaction with this user but note that a relatively large percentage of their edit have been reverted. There definitely are concerns here. MB 15:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

• A third 4im was just put on their page by User:HughPugh2. Can we please get a block? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  I have implemented a partial block to stop them from editing mainspace, and encourage them to come here and engage with this discussion. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you. Their failure to even venture toward this ANI discussion is not encouraging. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

  @ONUnicorn They stopped editing but they haven't visited ANI yet after 48+ hours. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

  If they resume editing without visiting ANI, let me know. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:38, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Dawn PScLim's continuing template disruption.

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

---

Dawn PScLim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

 Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1099#Disruptive template edits by Dawn PScLim

There was a discussion about Dawn PScLim's template space disruption a few days ago which was allowed to archive with no action. This editor does not appear to have listened to any of the comments in the previous discussion and the are continuing to disrupt template space with pointless and disruptive wording tweaks to cleanup and policy templates. Since they are unwilling or unable to address the issues themselves I feel that the proposed partial block from the template namespace is required.

A few examples of more disruption from after the prior ANI thread was started:

• Meaningless addition to a cleanup template [9]. What on earth is "and shows the intended information clearly" supposed to mean when applied to citations? The extra addition to the list is also ungrammatical.
• Changing the wording of a template to be plural for no explained reason [10].
• In the words of Spicy Unnecessary and ungrammatical addition to a template [11]
• Innapropriate addition of "unreliable sources" to a template about partisan sources [12]
• Incomprehensible addition a template's documentation page [13]

Their remaining edits mainly consist of bloating up the wording of templates with unnecessary and redundant words that add nothing of value to the message. Instead of "talk page discussion" Dawn PScLim insists we write "relevant talk page discussion". instead of "verifiable information" they insist we write "verifiable and relevant information" etc. [14] [15] [16].

A newbie with 300 total edits and a not very good grasp of either wikipedia policy or the English language should not be attempting to re-write major policy and cleanup templates. Their continuing contributions in this namespace are simply a timesink for everyone else. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 14:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

This is slow-motion disruption that is serious because of the ubiquity of the templates he is editing. Will someone do something? This is the second round at ANI. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

It's unusual to see a person with 300 edits changing the text of templates, but these aren't necessarily "ubiquitous". The first is Template:Page numbers improve, which is used in just 16 articles right now. Template:Contradicts others is used in just 9 articles. Template:Over-coverage appears in 108 articles. Template:Partisan sources is in 47 articles. Contrast that with, say, Template:Unreferenced, which appears in many tens of thousands of articles.

In general, I think we're pretty good at applying page protection to high-use templates. If someone is able to edit a template, it's probably not a template that will be seen by very many people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi protection is applied on pages with up to 2,500 transculusions, extended confirmed is used on pages with up to 5,000.

The fact that they can disrupt lots of pages at once by editing templates is a secondary issue, the big problem is that a huge proportion of their edits are wrong, either because they completely misunderstand and misrepresent policy or because they mangle the wording of the template into nonsense. Here: [17] they update the partisan sources template to say that they are unreliable, this is incorrect - a partisan source can be 100% reliable for certain types of information, like attributed opinion or a political parties stated policies. Here they update the self-references template to add the word "excessive" [18] - this is again wrong. The policy this template links to has no mention of anything related to "number of uses" because whether a self reference is appropriate or not depends on the context, not the number of times it is used. Here they mangle a template into nonsense with poor copyediting [19]. What is explain the said fiction more clearly supposed to mean? Why is it necessary to add the redundant explanation that a non-fictional perspective is also real world? The use of "point of view" is also potentially confusing here, given the common usage on wikipedia is related to neutrality, rather than the observation point of the writer. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 00:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Two more disruptive edits today. In this edit here [20] the first addition is ungrammatical (This article was considered for deletion, and is kept), and it is completely unnecessary, "it was kept" is obvious from the fact it still exists; the second addition is pointless bloat that doesn't improve the template wording. This addition [21] completely misrepresents WP:V, that do not verify the text cited has the policy back to front, citations should verify the text of the article, not the text of the citation. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 12:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

They’ve been warned and asked to participate here, and have deleted the warning/request from their user page, so it appears they are going to ignore our concerns. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 14:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:CIR block requested A bunch of us have to follow Dawn PScLim around and undo his template edits as he is mangling the verbiage and changing meanings inappropriately. E.g., Special:Diff/1090735243 Special:Diff/1090420852. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Their edits outside template space are equally troubling. Here they changed "conditions on area lakes" to the ungrammatical "conditions on area around lakes" which at best means something different. I reverted and explained that that's not what "area lakes" means. They then changed it again to "areas with lakes". I reverted and explained that that is still not a correct replacement for "area lakes". They then changed it a third time, to "conditions on the affected area", removing mention of lakes. This is perhaps partly a result of limited Engish proficiency.

As in template space, they frequently expand text in a way that changes its meaning, sometimes subtly, sometimes not. Here they change a definition that the source defines as "not entirely due to surface-based obscuring phenomena" to "not mostly or entirely due...", without a reason. Here, where the source definition is "an accumulation of freezing water droplets on a vessel" and which our article accurately restated, they change to "rapid accumulation and icing of freezing water droplets". Here they change "wave heights" to "severe wave heights", the meaning of which is unclear, and change the statement that tall waves can threaten vessels to the claim that they threaten "vessels and vehicles". Then there's weird stuff like this, where they added an obviously incorrect unit conversion. I reverted and then added a Convert template to do the conversion. For some reason they reverted this and added a hardcoded conversion, which at least was arithmetically correct, but they gave no reason for preferring this to the Convert template. Very few of their edits seem to me to be obvious improvements. CodeTalker (talk) 00:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• uninvolved editorSUPPORT PBLOCK that allows user to discuss on any talk page, and otherwise prohibits edits to anything other than articles. The PBLOCK should remain active until user successfully demonstrates competence engaging in constructive WP:CONSENSUS, by making a request at the admins' noticeboard. This is based on the following chronology of behavior.

13:02, 29 March 2022 I am currently still learning more advanced english in school ...

__:__ 18 April 2022 Oldest userpage for this ed that we can see. In it, they state their intent to be a "template editor"

14:37, May 11, 2022 Ed now says they intend to be an "edit filter helper", too. (As of 12:46 3 June 2022, they had not made a request at the WP:EFN)

13:54, May 17, 2022 Deleting a disruption warning related to template editing, this ed promises "I'll stop"... (Each of the diffs in the reporting ed's opening comment occurred later)

14:02, May 17, 2022 Eight minutes later, they edit a template to inject a reason to argue (by inserting "usually") and tacked on a redundant phrase "before making changes" when the sentence already says "first".

23:18, 18 May 2022 (Full thread)] First ANI starts

03:17, May 26, 2022‎ (Same full thread as above) First ANI archived with no action

14:04, 27 May 2022 (full thread) Second ANI started

After promising to stop, they didn't stop.... as of this writing this user has made at least 29 later edits to the template space, with ZERO discussion in ANY namespace (see for yourself). I didn't review them all, but the six random ones I looked at were all appropriately reverted. Notice that when the first ANI fired up, this user really did stop, but for only three days. Seeing no admin action, they fired right back up and have been at it ever since. The problem is highlighted by review of [all UserTalk for this ed since May 1. There are only five diffs. Four are dismissive (but permitted) deletions of warnings about mucking up templates. And in the fifth? This user sent a warm welcome to an IP [22], whose only contrib was to simply blank an existing template sandbox.[23].

Since Dawn PScLim is only now learning "advanced English in school", shows zero responsiveness to discussion, and has demonstrated defiance even when ANI proceedings are underway, their access to all the pages of Wikipedia should be severely curtailed because they appear to be WP:NOTHERE and unable to engage in WP:CONSENSUS. A PBlock that allows them access to article main space and any discussion page anywhere will allow this user to show they want to build content, and are able to engage with others in constructive consensus-building. This isn't meant to be punative but to prevent their disruption from spreading. After all, they say on their user page they intend to take the show on to the world of edit filters. Let's not go there, just yet.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

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

CutePeach disrupting COVID-19 discussions

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

---

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive291 states CutePeach is indefinitely topic banned from the Origins of COVID-19, broadly construed. If the disruption moves to another sub-topic of COVID-19, this topic ban can be extended to the full topic area by any univolved administrator.

CutePeach is disrupting (and has been for a while) COVID-19 topics in a number of ways. Most notably, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/COVID-19_vaccine_side_effects. I'd give you diffs if it were hard to find it, but as you see much of the discussion is CutePeach bludgeoning and sealioning. Also, note that CutePeach was specifically warned about this not only in the deletion thread but also at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive343#Requesting_admin_close_of_COVID-19_vaccine_side_effects_AFD where CutePeach was reminded of the TBan.

Note also that CutePeach has written WP:MEDRSNOT, which seems to be an attempt to disrupt the guidance given in WP:MEDRS. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I've nominated the essay for G5 as a violation (or at least, skirting way too close on the edge of it, see WP:SANCTIONGAMING no. 3) of the topic ban. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Looking at CutePeach talk page as of 2022-5-27T17:57 I see a number of COVID-19 related edit warnings: edit warring and other issues. I propose extending the topic ban to stop this disruption. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

And now Special:Contributions/Gimiv (already previously warned for personal attacks in this area) has taken the opportunity to engage in more WP:ASPERSIONS on the talk page of the essay... colour me surprised. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Notice Since the CSD was hastily removed by Gimiv, I've now nominated the essay at MfD so we can get broader input on that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

As the original AN/E submitter resulting in the TBAN, I do believe the pattern of behavior that resulted in sanctions is continuing outside the narrow TBAN, for both other COVID topics and editing on medical/political topics overall. I had hoped the result would an ability to collaborate effectively, but the diffs below suggest this isn't the case. Rather, I'd suggest it looks a lot less like learning to collaborate effectively, and lot more like WP:IDHT, with an inability to stay away from other highly contentious areas.

1. Less than a month after the TBAN which came with an explicit warning against continued disruption in any area, she moved to another contentious topic area under DS with the following DS alert
2. Voting in redirect discussion about the CCP Virus page, directly referencing its use in the lab origin theory. Self reverted after being reminded on talk page that WP:BMB, despite having been informed by admins originally, indicating a clear lack of care to abiding the TBAN.
3. Edit warring with five reverts on the Chinese government response to COVID-19 article, for which a 48h ban was given. The last edit was made after she responded to the report at AN/EW about her behavior (similar behavior to the AN/E resulting in the TBAN, where she continued editing in Talk space after asking for time to respond to AN, repeat diff explaining).
4. Created a page titled COVID-19 vaccine side effects, yet discussing exclusively severe side effects. Consistent arguing in the AfD discussion WP:SNOW, even after changing her vote from Keep. Despite agreement on path forward, a continuation to argue was exhibited. [24][25][26][27][28]
5. Created a supplement (moved to essay space by others) to further argue against MEDRS requirements, including the suggestion that editors who seek a strict compliance to MEDRS engage in TE. To wit: complaining about her opponents gish galloping, while she herself gish gallops.
6. Here's two diffs indicating she'd like to file at AN/E/ARBCOM about me (and MEDRS in general), provided here for convenience to whoever seeks a WP:BOOMERANG.
7. At least one admin has avoided enforcement over potential edging on the TBAN due to their past experience of hassle involved.

Existing sanctions haven't resolved the problematic editing by now, with continued WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior that has appeared to result in admins being hesitant to increase sanctions despite the evidence of continued problem behavior. Behavior has not improved, it will continue if action isn't taken. User can not drop the WP:STICK, it's up to Admins to enforce. Bakkster Man (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man: please can you put your post in the right chronological order and use numbering instead of bulleting so that I can respond to each one. For example, I would like to respond to your diff about me creating an essay in projectspace with the supplement label, as I didn't even realize it had to first pass consensus for that, and I posted it in WP:VPP as soon as I did. It would be easier for administrators and arbitrators to see your accusations and my rebuttals side by side. CutePeach (talk) 08:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

They're numbered now. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:47, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh look, a report without diffs. This is (yet another) attempt to discredit and delete CutePeach's WP:MEDRSNOT essay and lobby administrators to ban a longtime critic of WP:MEDRS abuse on Wikipedia. It sure didn't take long for RandomCanadian, CP's longtime adversary and avid MEDRS deletionist, to show up here to pile it on and "speedily delete" the essay, and now he's accusing me of engaging in WP:ASPERSIONS for contesting his deletion on the basis of MEDRS abuse. CP posted her MEDRS essay on VPP to get feedback [29], just like MarshallKe did about the abuse of WP:FRINGE last year [30], and its always these same editors showing up to pour acid on complaints about their own malfeasance. In the VPP discussion, Alexbrn is intransigently claiming that Havana syndrome is a "conspiracy theory" [31], deleting political allegations as if they are biomedical claims [32], and claiming the CIA-convened panel isn't a WP:MEDORG [33] when WaPo says it is made up of an independent panel of experts [34]. This is an abuse of MEDRS.

CP's TBAN was very narrowly focused on COVID-19 origins and she was given the chance to contribute in the wider COVID-19 topic area, which was pointed the last time the MEDRS crew tried stringing her up [35]. Rsjaffe doesn't seem to be part of that group, but he was dared into it by two editors who most certainly are [36] [37], and I wouldn't be surprised if this has to do with skeptic coordinated editing [38]. RoySmith's warning of CP [39], like EvergreenFir's January block, was a mistake [40]. I have been watching the Chinese government COVID-19 undercounting dispute since January, waiting for it to blow up into a full ArbCom case to expose the hypocrisy. Alexbrn is insisting there that only medical sources can be used for his POV [41], but doesn't seem to care that preprints are being used for the CCP's POV [42] [43]. This is a blatant abuse of MEDRS and WP:PREPRINT.

On the content dispute. CP created an article on COVID-19 vaccine side effects, and Bakkster Man accused her of WP:GAMING for allegedly using a MEDRS source as cover for a BMI claim. She provided him with a WHO source listing tinnitus as a COVID-19 vaccine side-effect, but fails to reply. What WhatamIdoing is doing in the AfD is classic WP:SEALIONING, making ten different arguments about why the claim is UNDUE there. CP changed her !vote to delete the side-effects article and asked WAID how to move it to the vaccine article, providing several review articles to answer the WP:NOTEVERYTHING concerns, but WAID just comes back at her with irrelevant philosophical ideas. I don't believe these editors even knew these sources existed when they decided to pick on CP. They dared not file this frivolous report themselves. Gimiv (talk) 19:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I can't post a diff of the talk page edit cause it was a page creation. As for the rest, the above has such a strong stench of WP:BATTLEGROUND, including wide-ranging accusations of misbehaviour which are exactly WP:ASPERSIONS (including but not limited to blatant lack of good faith - I haven't interacted with CP in months [in fact I've stayed mostly away from COVID, being kept busy with other matters], and I wasn't even the one that reported this here; accusations that an AfD is sealioning, ...); I'm going to ignore it. If somebody else wants to propose sanctions on Gimiv, be my guest.

I'm just going to note that CP's edit outside of the narrow origins area don't seem that much more productive, unless one willfully ignores such evidence as the litany of additional edit warring notices on their talk page since, the block for edit warring back at the end of March (on a COVID-related topic); and now the creation of an essay which is very borderline WP:SANCTIONGAMING; as well as the creation of an obvious WP:POVFORK, which thankfully looks like it's headed for deletion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

What's going on with the times here? Bakkster Man posts at 23:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC) with many diffs. Next, in line, (visually) a post by Gimiv 19:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC) complaining about a report with no diffs. Last, a post by RandomCanadian at 22:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC).

Why are times skipping around...23:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC), next 19:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC), next 22:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC). I have no connection with any of these editors, but it's very confusing, shouldn't our "software" organize this chronologically? Seems to make editors look as if they haven't read, or are mis-replying to posts. Will duck back into my turtle shell, but color me confused. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 08:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

the times skip because the conversation is threaded. Gimiv is replying to the original post, not the indented thread above him that contains Bakkster's diffs. That's how it should be. By convention new replies to the same comment are indented one level further then the comment they're replying to and usually added chronologically, but discussions down that tree will remain together. It's perfectly reasonable to follow, and the mediawiki software should in no way refactor user comments to be chronological. It would destroy the ability to know who is replying to who. -WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 12:39, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Tribe of TigerI think it's the new reply feature. Editors using it are going to have their post put under the person they are replying to, others will not. Doug Weller talk 13:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

It isn't chronological because, as Doug points out, posts go under those they are replying to (WP:TPG). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to all for explaining, in a helpful, kind and AGF-polite manner. Respectfully, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 22:29, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian agreed. CP is rarely constructive anywhere and needs at least a Covid-wide TBAN. Doug Weller talk 14:05, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Hard to disagree with Doug Weller's comments at 14:05, 28 May 2022. I would agree to extend the CP TBAN towards all topics Covid (and perhaps all subjects MEDRS). It is not for me to parse the reasons why CP continues to edit (in my opinion) in a disruptive manner, but it is clear the envelope of the original TBAN has been pushed well past reasonableness. BusterD (talk) 14:15, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

• The first sentence of this report, quoting Guerillero's closing statement at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive291 § CutePeach, says all that needs to be said: If the disruption moves to another sub-topic of COVID-19, this topic ban can be extended to the full topic area. Even CutePeach seems to acknowledge that they are coming into conflict with a large number of other users right now; I'm sure they wouldn't see that as disruptive on their part, but having the clue to recognize "It's not everyone else who's driving the wrong way" is critical in a sensitive topic area like COVID. If they're at the point of seeing the enforcers of WP:MEDRS as the villains, then it's in their best interests, those of other editors, and those of our readers that CutePeach not be editing on that topic. In not being fully TBANned from COVID initially, they were given a second chance to show that they can edit constructively in this area, and in their continuing battleground approach has shown a full ban to be in fact necessary. As authorized by WP:COVIDDS, CutePeach is indefinitely banned from the topic of COVID-19, broadly construed. I will notify them and log this sanction at WP:DSLOG momentarily. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 14:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for dealing with this. I hope that it will not be necessary to expand "the topic of COVID-19" to "the topic of medicine" in the future. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:22, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

  CutePeach got railroaded at AE by an experienced groups of white male editors including a sock puppet and it went straight to a topic ban instead of a warning, unlike some recent cases we’ve seen where warnings are given to experienced editors who should know better. In this comment where you are sanctioning you don’t even bother to link to any diffs. I wish you would examine the context and history here, as the tag team has showed up again to push the same POV. This is not the way things should be handled here. CutePeach identifies as a woman editor from a minority represented country on En wiki and is entitled to compassionate guidance instead of cold sanctions. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  CutePeach got railroaded at AE by an experienced groups of white male editors... CutePeach identifies as a woman editor from a minority represented country on En wiki and is entitled to compassionate guidance instead of cold sanctions.

  What the fuck does this have to do with anything? JoelleJay (talk) 03:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  Saying that a group of uninvolved AE admins was tricked by a group of editors is a bit conspiracy theorist, don't you think? I would hope our admins are a bit harder to manipulate than that. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  Seriously? What is with the recent trend in throwing around baseless racism and now sexism claims in ANI? Is there some expectation the community will back off just because magic words are invoked? As it's use earlier this is horribly bad faith and an attempt to chill the community by making editors fearful of specific good-faith actions lest they be accused and face an inquisition.Slywriter (talk) 04:13, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  Such attempts at playing the race card (or the sexism card) are borderline insulting. If you're going to be blatantly casting WP:ASPERSIONS like that, you ought to back yourself up with solid evidence. That, or not profess such nonsense. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

• The comment that "CP is rarely constructive anywhere" is correct. I had a review of their last dozens of edits and I only see back-to-back bickering which I also saw this month with regards to their edit warring to restore blatant WP:BLP violation at Vladimir Putin. They made an unconvincing argument on Talk:Vladimir Putin and they got a warning from Cullen238 to stop it.[44] Instead of getting over it, they brought the discussion to WP:BLPN clearly for finding someone who may agree with them,[45] and here they were initially told by an experienced editor that "It'll likely be better if we just topic ban you from all people covered by BLP", and the same editor also left a warning on their talk page.[46] All of these efforts failed to stop CutePeach from edit warring to restore BLP violation, as days later they were back to falsely claiming a "consensus on BLPN" to retain their BLP violation.[47] Similar CIR issues were also pointed elsewhere this month.[48] Now that we already know that these topic bans fail to create any positive impact on CutePeach, and instead they would simply move to disrupt another subject, then why do we have to allow them to disrupt Wiki any further? Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 04:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@Aman.kumar.goel: thanks for joining this pile-on and demonstrating the personal prejudice against me. As a reminder, there was a consensus on BLPN that the paedophilia claims should be added to Vladimir Putin#Poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko, and it is no more a BLP violation than my alleged MEDRS violations here. If we cover the allegation that Putin poisoned Litvinenko, then it only makes sense to say what Litvinenko accused him of four months priod, which multiple secondary sources say are linked. CutePeach (talk) 10:30, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

No such consensus was reached at BLPN. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I've just read through the whole thread at BLPN and I cannot see how that could be construed as a consensus in any way. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: there was at least a WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS and you yourself said in the TP that you were still thinking about the exact wording for inclusion [49], so I see you on the side of those who don't think it is a BLP violation, as Aman here claims. To say Putin allegedly killed someone but to leave out the reason why, per WP:BLP, is based on a misunderstanding of the policy. One can argue it may not be WP:DUE, but as discussed, there were many secondary sources putting Litvinenko's paedophilia allegation four months prior as one of the main reasons for Putin's hand in his poisoning. ActivelyDisinterested, please participate in the TP discussion, of which there were a few [50] [51]. CutePeach (talk) 13:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry Cite peach I don't see any consensus, not even a rough one, and I'm not interested in getting into the content discussion. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

That is utter BS. If there was any consensus to include the evidence-free 'pedeophilia' claims in the Putin biography, it would have been included. It wasn't, and at no point did I support including it - I argued the exact opposite, as anyone reading the discussions can clearly see. This seems to be part of a recurring pattern with CutePeach, who seem to have difficulty reading other peoples' comments regarding disputed content without either misrepresenting them or treating them as personal attacks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

This is the diff CP probably meant to link and I will add this one where you argue against including the allegation per WP:WEIGHT but seem amenable to including something similar to CP's second try​​ [52]. Perhaps an RFC on the Vladimir Putin page is necessary to fulfil the "exact wording" promise you made. The pedophilia allegations were prominently reported as the alleged motivation behind the Putin linked Litvinenko's murder. Gimiv (talk) 02:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Proposed site ban

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

---

This is why I think CutePeach should be site banned because this back-to-back bickering and disruptive editing will continue no matter how many topic bans have been imposed. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 14:33, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree. With this[53] promise to write a new essay on "scientific uncertainty" (what could this be an allusion to?) and attempt at an arbcom case, I think the Project should be spared the inevitable useless drama that will follow. Alexbrn (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support site ban The post below was the WP:FINALSTRAW. It includes a number of baseless claims included that "almost all the editors" who participated here "were involved in some kind of dispute with me" and such "participation here can be considered WP:HOUNDING and is highly inappropriate". This claims are being made without evidence and it shows that CutePeach is not here to accept any input and is set to cause further disruption. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 16:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support Sadly I don't see a way around this. CutePeach seems unable to listen to others, and that is critical for a collaborative environment. Instead they seem to double down and cast aspersions at other editors. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support. As can be seen in the 'appeal' section below, CutePeach seems incapable of reacting to criticism without responding in a manner which makes things worse. As Black Kite says, 'a massive time sink'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I'm willing to cooperate in any investigation into the WP:MEAT allegation made against me below, anticipating it will result in stronger WP:BOOMERANG sanctions. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support mostly because of the below, which gets a rather low reading on the "has got a clue"-meter. Wikipedia is a project built on collaboration and being able to resolve arguments through constructive dialogue. CP has shown themself, multiple times, to not be able or willing to engage in such dialogue with the right kind of attitude. An editor who, despite all warnings, keeps insisting that they are right and everybody else is wrong, repeatedly makes bad faith attacks, and keeps engaging in tendentious time-sinking editing, clearly isn't compatible with this project. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support This editor is a tendentious axe-grinder who appears temperamentally unsuited to a collaborative project. Cullen328 (talk) 23:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support based wholly on their "rebuttal" below. They're not defending their actions so much as they are trying to relitigate the same issues that got them topic-banned in the first place. You can only do so much when a person is unwilling to take responsibility for their actions. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 23:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support, the rebuttal below did not help things either. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support per Cullen328. ––FormalDude talk 00:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support as they do not have the required competence (and no, I'm not talking about gender or race as alluded to in these threads) to edit in a sensitive area. Combative and the disruption will just move elsewhere at the edges of the topic ban. This should have been done when it was first breached. Star Mississippi 01:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia is a global movement. We need diverse voices like CutePeach. Diversity is a strength, to be nurtured and encouraged instead of stamped out. There appear to be a bunch of white men who are seeking sanctions against a minority woman. This doesn’t sit well with me. There’s been no attempts at mentoring, so going straight to a site ban for a viewpoint we need more of is not an improvement for the project. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:54, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, how do you know who is or isn't a 'white man' here? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

The ones who identify as white men are the ones I consider to be white men. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I have an idea. How about if people stop identifying themselves and just create and improve articles? EEng 05:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. How else will editors know they must put on their lady-gloves when interacting with me? JoelleJay (talk) 06:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Why play the race card, if your intent wasn't to derail the discussion? We're not supporting banning her because she's a minority or a woman, we're supporting banning her because she refuses to take responsibility for her vehemence and blames everyone else for her own behaviour. We've gotten rid of white men for less aggressive IDHT. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 02:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per Ernie. This looks like a pile-on by everyone with a bone to pick with CP. Good thing Wikimedia's Trust and Safety team made a new appeals process for victims of harassment. An appeal to WP:ARBCOM might not be fruitful, but it may still be necessary to show Wikimedia that the community is unable to get its shit together.Gimiv (talk) 02:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Your link to the T & S appeals process is a complete red herring, given that said process relates only to appeals made against decisions made as "Trust & Safety office actions". As for ArbCom, they don't normally get involved while active discussions at WP:AN/WP:ANI are taking place. Accordingly, I suggest you stick to actually discussing the matter at hand. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

You know that making comments like the above and the one at the MfD - MEDRS and FRINGE zealots pushing their POV in medical and political topics ([54]) - only lends more weight to the idea that you, like CP, are treating this as some form of BATTLEGROUND, and are unwilling to abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and instead try attacking editors who do. I'd suggest you tread very carefully. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: Whilst I am wary of getting involved in the discussion I have been wondering if a topic ban from anything broadly related to medicine and medical research would be the best way forward as it would allow them to work on areas not under the purview of WP:MEDRS which they appear to have concerns about. Gusfriend (talk) 02:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Gusfriend: See above. They are even more disruptive at Russian and Ukrainian topics. Even if they are topic banned from these subjects they will just disrupt a new topic. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 03:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Not seeing any disruption in Russia and Ukraine, only a dispute with you and your Wikifriends about the Litvinenko's pedophelia claims about Putin, which seems to be the only reason y'all came here with pitchforks. It's a bad look. Gimiv (talk) 18:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

You're not any better than CP if you keep making disruptive comments like that. Wikipedia is not a battleground. If you can't collaborate constructively with people, or if your proposed changes keep getting rejected, then the issue might be you, not the others. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

• support clearly disruptive timesink who will not learn from a catalog of mistakes. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 03:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is not yet necessary. The disruption/timesink is primarily limited to a specific topic area, and CP should be allowed the opportunity to demonstrate that she can edit constructively outside of that area after this ANI discussion/her TBAN, before she is banned from the whole site. A look at her Xtools page shows that List of Filipino singers is her most edited article, and she should be given the chance to demonstrate she is capable of improving articles like that before she is banned from the whole site. I agree with Ernie that it appears there has been a bit of a pile on from people who disagree with her views, but Wikipedia is a global project, and we should welcome and encourage editors with a diverse range of backgrounds and viewpoints (which, yes, does include people other than nerdy Western white men, who are the bulk of Wikipedia's editors). Endwise (talk) 04:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Endwise: A few comments on this analysis.

  First, I'd suggest that the number of edits should not be the only metric used. Of those 200 edits to List of Filipino singers, all but one are under 100 characters, with the exception being 661 characters to create the page with the first three names. Multiple small edits is a completely valid editing style (especially for a mobile user like CP), but it does mean we need to take that into context for determining the most substantially edited article. While adding 4,184 bytes to this list is good productive editing, the 7,458 bytes added to COVID-19 Lab Leak Theory are significantly more substantial. Fewer edits on COVID-19 related topics, but those edits are frequently thousands of bytes long.

  Secondly, and relevant to the topic of the goal of the TBAN, CP's last edit on that list according to Xtools was made a month prior to her original TBAN. The goal was to create an opportunity for you to edit about non-contentious in the topic area, but this non-contentious article went unedited (most likely because the list was more or less completed prior to the TBAN). While I agree this list article shows that CP can make productive edits to non-contentious articles, this article doesn't demonstrate that she used the original TBAN time to actually do so. Perhaps an alternate example can be found, but my impression is that the majority of edits since the TBAN have been in some way contentious.

  And third, I'd suggest the majority of the editing found to be contentious by others happens outside of article space. In other namespaces, CP's most edited pages are Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19, User:CutePeach/YESLABLEAK, Wikipedia talk:Biomedical information, and Draft:Criticism of the World Health Organization. The 52,984 bytes from 93 talk page edits dwarfs the 3,107 bytes from 18 edits to Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. While this isn't by itself an issue (I have a similar talk to article ratio on that article, as one would expect from a contentious topic from editor aiming to avoid an edit war), the primary concerns are of WP:TE outside of article space. So to be clear, diff counts aren't necessarily indicative of a problem, but the contentious editing mostly happens in Talk space, so a raw diff analysis of article space alone is perhaps besides the point. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support per especially RandomCanadian and Cullen328. This user appears unsuited to a collaborative project of this kind. As others have noted, the disruption is not limited to just the Covid-19 topic area, and the WP:NOTTHEM attitude on display below is indeed troubling. Generalrelative (talk) 05:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support They are drawn towards editing (creating) topics of controversy where they seem to enjoy the battleground disruption they cause. They are consistently a timesink on other editors having to explain how policy restricts and shapes what we can write. They abuse talk pages to discuss their political views rather than to discuss the article text. They frequently push fringe and conspiracy views, which brings them into conflict with our policy and guidelines on these areas. Rather than listen to what other are saying, they dig in and now start writing essays (Wikipedia:What MEDRS is not) and draft guideline (Draft:WP:UNCERTAIN). I don't think specific topic bans are working and they will continue to be drawn into areas where there is conflict and political conspiracy.

Btw, I find Mr Ernie and Gimiv's comments unacceptable. We are here to discuss CutePeach's participation on the project, not to accuse good faith editors of being racist and sexist. I am surprised that such personal attacks are permitted. -- Colin°^Talk 09:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I find your gaslighting unacceptable and I see you have been written up for incivility before [55]. There is no consensus that the COVID-19 lab leak theory is a conspiracy theory . The poor communication of scientific uncertainty on COVID-19 origins is a blight to the project. Gimiv (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The article doesn't say it is a conspiracy theory - parts of it are (as evidenced in reliable sources which have been quoted ad nauseam and which I don't want to waste my time over again). If you think none of it is, then your problem is with reality, not with Wikipedia. Also, groundlessly accusing other editors is very much an unacceptable WP:PA. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support - I and others have tried to work with this user to collaborate and incorporate their changes while also paying attention to policies and guidelines. It has failed, every time it has been tried. They incorporate a number of conspiracy theories into their chosen topic spaces, including the lab leak, the wuhan urns conspiracy (that millions more were dying in China than were being reported, based on how many unused funeral urns were shown in photos of a crematorium), the Hunter Biden's laptop was a hoax argument, supporting a number of unproven COVID vaccine side effects... the list goes on. This user is very adept at using sealion tactics to get these points across, and regularly engages in long and fraught discussions pushing POV points past their natural conclusion. If one point is exchanged, they switch to another tactic without skipping a beat, or truly admitting anyone else was ever right. It's exhausting. They are a drain on the project of time, effort, and poorly written policy drafts and redirects. They are not simply a misguided editor at this point. They are long past misguided, and very much in the category of "gleefully obstructionist." For these reasons, a site ban is unfortunately the only effective way to resolve this. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 09:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose this is too much for right now. I think the topic ban on COVID-19 related topics put in by Tamzin was good enough based on the evidence we have now. It's astonishing to me to see such support for a site topic ban with no evidence of substantial disruption outside of the COVID-19 area. CutePeach is a relatively new editor here and some leniency should be given to them, maybe a firm warning on WP:CIVILITY. It's pretty normal to see new editors be a little more passionate and uncivil because they are still getting a feel for the discussion process and for WP guideline and policies. I've seen people get off with warnings here for a lot worse and persistent behavior. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

  To explain what astonishes you: There is evidence (a re-ban that was discussed in the "Appeal" section below) of substantial disruption outside of an area the user had previously been banned from. This makes a site-ban a logical step, as banning the user from a specific area apparently just makes them find another disruption honeypot. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

  There is no evidence of substantial disruption in, or out the banned topic area. The mega RFC at Azov Battalion was just closed with CP's draft as the winning option, and that entire trainwreck could have been avoided had her WP:BOLD edit [56] not been reverted. CP's article Hunter Biden laptop controversy was deleted as a POVFORK of Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory, but brought back soon after [57], just like the COVID-19 lab leak theory, which some editors here claimed was a POVFORK of COVID-19 misinformation. CP's COVID-19 vaccine side effects was deleted last week as a POVFORK of COVID-19 vaccine, but it too will make a comeback as COVID-19 vaccine safety when COVID-19_vaccine#Adverse_events bursts its banks. CP is just on the cutting edge, and that might mean bumping up against ideologues, like most of the editors here voting to ban her. Gimiv (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

  That is, very literally, the drop that spilled the glass. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

  Gimiv, are you really sure you want to characterise (what appears to be) intentional disruption in multiple topic areas under discretionary sanctions as being "on the cutting edge"? Because if so, I'd strongly reconsider your position. These topic areas are the ones where the "cutting edge" is least needed due to the built-in hyperpartisanship; they're powderkegs. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 00:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  Gimiv, see WP:CRYSTAL, and perhaps also WP:NOTNEWS, for an explanation of why being “cutting edge” might be a problem. Brunton (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support This is a runofthemill WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS editor, who will only be a time sink here and never provide value. ValarianB (talk) 12:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Please take note of the canvassing here, and the pinging of editors they feel are sympathetic to their cause. ValarianB (talk) 15:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  An editor who has been topic banned around alleged scientific uncertainties really should not be trying to write an advice page like Draft:WP:UNCERTAIN. WhatamIdoing (talk) 13:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. After quickly looking, it seems that main issue is CutePeach not respecting their TBAN. This is normally handled by blocks of increasing duration. Another issue might be wasting time of other contributors through forum shopping. If that's the case (I am not sure), then a ban from participating in any noticeboards could be in order. Quickly looking at other editing by CutePeach, I am not convinced it is so outrageous to deserve a site ban. My very best wishes (talk) 15:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

  @My very best wishes, I would urge you to reconsider and look at the recent expansion of CP's WP:CPUSH activity. It is a wide variety of users from various corners of this site that are now concerned about this behavior. And therein lies the biggest issue. I would also urge you to consider their canvassing attempts described above, and "gaming" behavior to circumvent bans and restrictions. All of these are not productive in keeping a good encyclopedia running, as they drain editor time and resources. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Admittedly, I do not have a lot of time to look at this. This is just a comment, not a vote. I am not convinced mostly because I interacted with CutePeach on several occasins, and she/he looked to me as a well intended although a highly opinionated contributor, unlike some other really problematic (in my opinion) contributors who still edit around. My very best wishes (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support due to their inability to collaborate, their focus on pushing conspiracy theories, and the timesink they have become for other editors. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per MVBW and Gimiv. The evidence of CutePeach's "substantial disruption" is very weak, and primarily driven by the ongoing COVID-19 origins controversy. Many of the editors here, including ToBeFree, got caught up in the scandal and had to unblock and apologize to the editors they had wrongfully blocked (including me). There is still a lot of scientific doubt about COVID-19's origins, and we should encourage any efforts by Wikipedia editors to better convey this. Francesco espo (talk) 13:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

  Except that's not the issue here (fwiw; there is doubt (when exactly did it jump over into humans? from which animal reservoir exactly?), but not in the direction CP has been pushing). CP's BATTLEGROUND attitude, their disruptive essays, and their seemingly disruption-magnet attraction to controversial topics, show they're WP:NOTHERE. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Sorry, been watching CP's poor behavior light up my watchlist for over a year. I feel the topic areas I edit in would be improved without CP's civil POV pushing, forum shopping, bludgeoning, etc. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

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

Proposed sanctions against Gimiv

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

---

Given their persistent accusations and incivility against other editors in this thread; their persistent lack of good faith, and given their otherwise WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude here and elsewhere (ex. [58]); Gimiv is blocked for a period of 1 week as per the WP:CIVIL policy, which is not optional. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support Gimiv has less than 100 edits and is frequently insulting other editors. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 23:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
• Do we really need to do this? Any admin should be able to see we're in WP:NOTHERE territory and take action. A single-purpose battleground account -- what's a week going to do? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose in favour of formally alerting Gimiv to the discretionary sanctions regimes he's defending CutePeach on and taking any further disruption/IDHT on this front to WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. If he continues to be disruptive after being formally alerted, he has nobody to blame but himself. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 00:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
• Alerted, and oppose per Jéské. starship.paint (exalt) 06:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support I wasn't going to take part but happened upon the "gaslighting" accusation ironically linked to a civility complaint. This has gone to far. Fine, the DS alert should have been given, but that doesn't excuse the behaviour. Doug Weller talk 08:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Gimiv should be warned, not just of D/S matters but also on WP:CIVIL and WP:BATTLEGROUND. However unless they continue, I don't believe action is required at this point. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support It is just a tag-team account for CutePeach, provides no content. ValarianB (talk) 12:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: If this proposal acts as a sufficient ‘shot across the bows’, perhaps the sanction itself won’t be necessary. I’ll see what happens before !voting. Brunton (talk) 16:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure what Jéské Couriano, Starship.paint and ActivelyDisinterested are saying. WP:CIVIL is a basic conduct policy and a user does not require D/S alert to abide by it. Gimiv has been warned over incivility since October 2021 and had a DS alert (about BLP) in November 2021. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 18:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

They also had already been given a COVID DS warning back in May 2021 ([59]). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:48, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Alerts are only good for a year. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 20:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to be clear I would like to see Gimiv formally warned about WP:CIVIL and WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, in one last chance situation. Ignore the D/S part I misread a different comment. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. The user has quite the harsh introduction to Wikipedia, having been previously blocked after false accusations of being a sock last year. And, once again, there's been weak behavioral evidence and no technical evidence of socking here—I'm almost certain that this isn't just a tag-team account for CutePeach as one editor said above. What the user could use is a formal warning and a mentor who can offer tough love with the goal of making them a productive editor, but the block comes off as being intended to punish rather than being narrowly tailored to prevent future disruption. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  Hence my favouring alerting to the same DS regimes that CutePeach is disrupting (COVID, AP2, EE). It'll give him a chance to demonstrate he can be less of a time sink and demonstrate good judgment about what hills are worth dying on. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 19:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support. It appears Gimiv has already received most of the relevant D/S alerts, and the PAs and battleground behavior do not need prior alerts for sanctioning. JoelleJay (talk) 20:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per MHawk10. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose 1 week block, support a COVID TBAN, a formal warning, and/or a swift future AE filing for any future disruption, without much kvetching. I feel situations like this are best handled by technical postings at AE, whereas ANI is very very forgiving. I think this user could use an overall warning, showing them this behavior is not tolerated. if they continue, I would recommend AE, as a TBAN is likely to be very productive of preventing disruption as opposed to punitive. They would still be able to contribute to less controversial areas of this site. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is an administrator noticeboard to report incidents, so it was entirely appropriate for Gimiv to report Colin's uncivil remarks. CP never promoted any conspiracy theories, and claiming that she did is gaslighting, plain and simple. Administrators should look into Gimiv's report and take the appropriate action. Francesco espo (talk) 14:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

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

Appeal

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

---

@Tamzin: please can you withdraw the TBAN here and give me a day or two to defend myself with rebuttals to the diffs submitted by Bakkster Man above? I was recently in contact with Barkeep49 of the arbitration committee about my COVID-19 origins TBAN that was placed on me at WP:AE, where a list of diffs similar to the one above was thrown up, and administrators passed judgement without even reading if they were as claimed, and hear what I had to say in my own defense. Barkeep49 admitted in the off wiki email that administrators do sometimes miss reading diffs at WP:ANI and WP:AE, but that WP:ARBCOM would read them much more carefully if/when put to them. Bakkster Man, who first brought the WP:AE case against me and who I have long suspected as a WP:MEAT puppet of a certain other editor active in the topic area based on evidence [60], was likely preempting the ARBCOM case I said I would request to reign in MEDRS abuse [61]. Alexbrn is now trying to get me site banned before I get to make the request.

Look at BM's diff #4. There they claim I was continuing to argue, when in fact I was clarifying that there are MEDRS in teh form of review articles about the hearing loss and tinnitus side effects, and that they were also listed by a MEDORG as a side effect of the JNJ vaccine. That was in response to WAID advising against adding tinnitus to the COVID-19 vaccine article without review articles as sources [62]. Besides for the hearing loss and tinnitus, which are related, the entire list of side effects in the COVID-19 vaccine side effects I created was imported from the Vaccine article. If this was continuation to argue as BM alleges, then can you say what is wrong with that and would you have cited that diff in your decision? While it was welcomed by some, to others it may look like your decision was rushed.

Almost all the editors here, including AndyTheGrump, Aman.kumar.goel, RandomCanadian, Novem Linguae and even administrator Doug Weller were involved in some kind of dispute with me in the not so recent past [63]. Their participation here can be considered WP:HOUNDING and is highly inappropriate. CutePeach (talk) 16:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

• This shows a spectacularly tone deaf failure to understand the issues that have been discussed, instead switching round to WP:NOTTHEM. Frankly I think the topic ban was actully quite lenient, because you have been a massive time sink on this topic. I am unsurprised that a site ban has been suggested above. Black Kite (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  Presumably CutePeach will argue that the tone-deafness is a side-effect of the vaccine. EEng 21:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

• What Black Kite says. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
• @CutePeach: This does not address the reasons for which I imposed the ban, namely that you are editing disruptively in an area you had already been sanctioned in, and if anything adds evidence to that assessment: Almost all the editors here, including AndyTheGrump, Aman.kumar.goel, RandomCanadian, Novem Linguae and even administrator Doug Weller were involved in some kind of dispute with me in the not so recent past. There's a reason I alluded to the old joke about the person who says everyone else is driving the wrong way.
  Now, regarding the pings I got at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:What MEDRS is not, I think it's acceptable for you to continue discussing that essay as long as your comments don't pertain to COVID-19, broadly construed. Note that "acceptable" does not mean "advisable". As I said on your talk page, I would strongly recommend taking this TBAN as an opportunity to move away from controversial topics.
  On a procedural note, AN/I doesn't have jurisdiction to overturn a DS sanction. Rather, WP:AE, WP:AN, and WP:ARCA do. As such, I will take this as having been an appeal to me individually, and will decline that appeal. I would suggest someone close this subsection. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 19:59, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Alansohn - Repeated Violation of IBAN

User:Alansohn has been banned from interacting with me as a result of this 2018 disscussion. The ban which was initially to alst for six months was extended indefinately later that same year. As recently as a year ago, Alansohn unsucesfully tried to have the IBAN lifted. In that discussion it was noted that he had actually violated his IBAN since the last time he requested it be terminated.

The terms of Alan Sohn's IBAN allow him an exemption to respond in a deletion discussion if it is an article that either he created or made a significant contribution to.

That brings us to now. I recently brought three article to AfD, see discussions [64], [65], [66]. Please note that two of the articles, Mayor of Long Branch, New Jersey and Mayor of East Newark, New Jersey Alansohn never contributed to. The third aricle, Mayors of Ramsey, New Jersey, he made a single contribution that I doubt anyone would considered significant. The exemption should not apply to these articles.

Therefore, Alansohn has violated his IBAN with these three edits:

• 1
• 2
• 3

There have been no other recent interactions between us and I clearly have not baited him into this. Since the IBAN was imposed he has violated it multiple times and thinks he can disregard it. Further sanctions are clearly warranted here, but I will leave it to the community to decide what exactly those should be.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

• For a period of years, during which I made many tens of thousands of edits, I had been systematically watching every single edit I made to ensure that there was no interaction with this editor. After a period of time of checking my watchlist and potential edits for possible interactions, it became apparent to me that this editor was either not editing or was certainly not editing articles where there was overlap and at some point, due to the absence of any editing by this editor, I stopped checking. After all, there is no rational reason to waste my time checking to see if I am interacting with an editor who is not editing. And now that this notice has been posted, it seems that in the past nine months, I can see that this editor has made under a hundred edits. The edits where there was interaction here were a sequence of votes at AfD for articles related to New Jersey, where I have a lengthy involvement in articles, even ones I never edited before; I did not notice and had had no reason to believe that this editor had come back to life. It's time to end this IBAN once and for all, as the only purpose seems to be a reason to create ANI notices. There is no purpose served by the perpetuation of this IBAN. Alansohn (talk) 13:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
  • As per usual, Alansohn takes no responsibility. Look at the previous threads where he violated his IBAN, he uses the same excuses time after time. He instead blames me for not editing enough. there is no rational reason to waste my time checking to see if I am interacting with an editor who is not editing. And just how much of his precious time is wasted to actually read the opening statement at the AfD to see which editor nominated it? (you don't even have to look at the edit history for that, my signature is right there in front of you) The edits where there was interaction here were a sequence of votes at AfD for articles related to New Jersey, where I have a lengthy involvement in articles, even ones I never edited before; Now, we get to the real issue for Alansohn, if the article has anything to do with New Jersey, he owns it, doesn't matter whether he edited it before or not. Alansohn behavior is the textbook example of WP:OWNERSHIP. had no reason to believe that this editor had come back to life I'm not dead. It's time to end this IBAN once and for all, as the only purpose seems to be a reason to create ANI notices. There is no purpose served by the perpetuation of this IBAN. The purpose of the IBAN is to have a check against Alansohn's OWNERSHIP behavior and arrogance which is display in his above response.--Rusf10 (talk) 14:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
    • But do these keep !votes really bother you? Why not let him !vote keep on everything New Jersey, even if you're the nom? (I mean a lot of people do that for various topics...) I don't find his reasoning persuasive but on the other hand, who cares if he !votes? (And isn't bludgeoning, canvassing, making personal attacks, etc.) Levivich 14:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
      • @Levivich: You'll have to go back and look at the history in the previous discussions (linked above) to fully understand the issue with his behavior, but I will say that it is precisely at these types of AfDs where the problem originated. If you lift all restrictions on his voting at AfDs, then we will go back to bludgeoning, canvassing, and making personal attacks.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
  • @Alansohn: Although you did not notice, now you are aware, but you haven't self-reverted or deleted/struck your edits to those pages, even though they violate the IBAN? Violating a sanction is usually not an effective way to convince the community to remove the sanction. Levivich 17:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
    • Levivich, now that I realized that there was an inadvertent good faith vote, and now that I've been asked to do so, I have self reverted; in the past even self reverts for inadvertent edits accomplished nothing. I have been doing everything possible to avoid any contact with anything that this editor has touched and after having disappeared for several months I now realize that this editor has very much returned, necessitating that every single edit I make be scrutinized for possible overlap with the editor in question.
      I will ask again to have the IBAN removed. As stated at WP:IBAN, "The purpose of an interaction ban (IBAN) is to stop a conflict between individuals." There is no conflict here, certainly not on my part. If any editor believes that anything I have edited on Wikipedia is an example of bludgeoning, canvassing, personal attack, edit warring, ownership, etc., now or at any time in the future, then block away. A week, a month, a year, a decade or permanent, but I plead to end this purposeless IBAN once and for all, which accomplishes absolutely nothing. Alansohn (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
      • There is no conflict here, certainly not on my part.That says it all, Alansohn does not now, nor has he ever taken any responsibility for the conflict. And that is why I will always oppose lifting this IBAN. If any editor believes that anything I have edited on Wikipedia is an example of bludgeoning, canvassing, personal attack, edit warring, ownership, etc....My response: Please refer to the previous ANI discussions.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

        He qualified that statement with "now, or at any time in the future", which does not speak to the validity of any past sanction, and the qualification seems relevant. Mackensen (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Alansohn my problem with your explanation is that, as I read it, you're telling us that you did not notice which editor had nominated the articles for deletion. I find that difficult to accept. That's going to be the first thing I notice, either from the edit on my watchlist, or from the signature at the top of the deletion discussion. Rusf10's relative level of activity shouldn't affect that behavior. Mackensen (talk) 00:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  AGFing that voters read the entire nomination statement before voting, it's not really credible to claim to have read every word of the nomination statement except "Rusf", and to have done that three times. Levivich 00:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  Mackensen and Levivich, the assumption that everyone does things the way you do is called projection, and I clearly edit differently from how you do. After seeing a new AfD, I clicked on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/New_Jersey, scrolled down to the bottom and worked my way up, while lots of other people go top down. I don't claim to have rad every word of the nomination, because I don't; it's the article itself that is of primary importance. I know that it's the article that's up for deletion, so I click on and read the article before passing judgment. Look at the order of the AfDs in that file and then at how I participated. I can assure you that I didn't pay attention to who submitted the deletion, nor do I see why I should. Alansohn (talk) 12:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  You have an active interaction ban with someone and have previously come into conflict with them over New Jersey-related deletion discussions. The specific question of violating the IBAN by participating in a deletion discussion that Rusf10 started was raised in 2021, when you asked for the ban to be lifted (you did not engage when asked about this), and when the ban was extended in 2018. If you can't see why, given that history, you should at least look at who started an AfD, then I'm not sure what to tell you. Mackensen (talk) 12:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  I'd say even aside from the IBAN, you shouldn't be voting on AFDs without reading the nomination statement. That's a problem in and of itself. Levivich 13:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Additional Sanctions for Alansohn

When I posted this here, it was my intention to have the community propose additional sanctions, but so far that has not happened. Based on his above responses above and the fact he has violated this sanction three times now, Alansohn clearly does not take it seriously. The last two times he violated this IBAN, he was blocked for 48 hours and 1 week respectively. Further actions are necessary. Therefore, I made the following proposals:

• Sanction #1: Alansohn is blocked for two weeks
• Sanction #2 Alansohn is TBANed from deletion discussions.

I will explain my reasoning below.@Levivich and Mackensen: would like your input.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support #1 & #2 As proposer. #1 is appropriate here as an escalating block, maybe it will give him so time to think about this. #2 will relieve Alansohn of the burden of reading AfD nominations (which he has admitted that he does not do anyway). He will no longer have to worry about who nominated the article. His attitude and disregard for the rules is what brought this on. I see no other way forward.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Alansohn's last block was almost 4 years ago (August 2018). I cannot see any justification for a 2 week block at this time - it seems like overkill to me. Since there is no ongoing disruption, and Alansohn has reverted (albeit under pressure), a block would appear to be punitive. Nor do I think that Alansohn's behavior indicates that a TBAN from XfD in general is warranted - as far as I can see AS's problem is with Rusf10, and not with deletion discussions overall -- at least, no evidence of such has been presented.. I do think that an extended ban from requesting his IBAN be lifted, or simply commenting on the IBAN, could be justified, as Alansohn appears to have a blind spot regarding the need for it, which seems to me to have been fully justifiable at the time, and has continued to show justification since. Should Alansohn continue to violate his IBAN with Rusf10 on an ongoing basis, the entire matter can be reconsidered and other sanctions proposed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
  • In all fairness I should add that Alansohn and I have been involved in conflicts in the past. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. Blocks are preventative, not punitive, and as Beyond My Ken rightly notes Alansohn did (begrudgingly) revert himself. I'm not persuaded at this point that a TBAN from AfD would benefit the project, but I had considered it as an option. As much as I dislike warnings as a remedy, I think we need one here. We can't be back here at ANI with another mistaken AfD participation on the books. That be at least three times. It's not as though Alansohn is participating in AfD every day; it is not too much to ask that he look at who the nominator is. Mackensen (talk) 11:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with Mac and BMK. A clear violation of the terms of their sanction? Yes. But blocks are preventative, not punitive, and for a TBAN, I'd want to see evidence of broader disruption than three IBAN vios, and the problem seems to be with Rus and not with AFD in general (I might be wrong about that, I just haven't seen diffs to that effect). An extended ban from appealing the IBAN makes sense, but this thread will serve that purpose anyway. It will now be at least another 12 months before it would be considered, I'd expect. So I'd be in favor of a logged final warning as a resolution of this thread. This is one of those rare situations where I think logging the final warning at WP:EDR makes sense, so if this happens again, we'll have an easy reference. Levivich 14:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose and end IBAN In September 2021, the editor had ZERO edits. In October 2021, ZERO. In November 2021, again ZERO. There were TWO edits in December 2021. The New Year 2022 started in January with ZERO edits. Another ZERO in February 2022. Yet again, ZERO in March 2022 and a final ZERO in April 2022. After eight months with a grand total of two edits, the editor resumed editing. For years, I had been checking every single edit to see if there was an overlap with the editor in question. But after several months with little to no editing, I let my guard down. I stopped checking. I ran through a series of AfDs and made the mistake of not reading the ID of the editor who initiated the AfD. That was my mistake, but it was entirely inadvertent. I didn't look, because my guard was down and I had gotten entirely out of the habit of checking. That was my mistake and I accept full responsibility for it. But I am not in any sort of conflict with this editor. I hope to see the IBAN overturned. I will avoid any conflict with this editor and hope that none occurs, as has been the case for years. If there is any conflict with this editor, I propose that there be a snap back to a block of months to years and impose TBANs. I hope that we can get past this and that we can each edit without any problems. Alansohn (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  But after several months with little to no editing, I let my guard down. How did you know that Rusf had gone several months with little to no editing? Levivich 23:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  It seems quite clear that If Alansohn cannot avoid interaction with Rusf10 when there is an IBAN in place, he would be even more incapable of doing so if the IBAN is removed. Their comment above is an example of why I believe a ban -- say for a year -- on commenting on the IBAN or requesting its removal would appear to be justified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

• I see no good reason for a punitive block, or for the sledgehammer of a total TBAN on AfDs. I still find it pretty much incomprehensible that Alansohn wouldn't have seen the name, but such draconian measures go too far. Drmies (talk) 23:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Writerfrom 1984 and Belinda's nationality

Writerfrom 1984 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing various pages related to Belinda Peregrín's songs in order to assert that she's Spanish, or to change "Mexican" or "Spanish-Mexican" to "Spanish". This seems to be unsourced agenda-pushing and goes against the consensus on the main page for Belinda Peregrín. Erinius (talk) 06:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

This seems to me like a content dispute and should be taken to WP:DRN Oz\^InterAct 13:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree with Erinius. This is not a content dispute. This is a BLP violation. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

To expand a bit, in the past there have been multiple sock puppets of Spanish users who only edit to promote a nationalism or just to over exalt it. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not like they're just discussing this in talk page of Belinda's article, all they did there was make a single edit request. Instead they're just changing things with no consensus in other articles. Erinius (talk) 01:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

All right. I have blocked the editor for 36 hours since they are still at it and it does no good. Let's see if that will get their attention. Oz\^InterAct 09:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer: prods and AfDs

I am starting this ANI discussion regarding TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs). I am raising concerns about:

1. the large number of proposed deletions and AfDs,
2. the quality and accuracy of AfD nominations, and
3. canvassing

Numerous proposed deletions and AfDs

According to TenPoundHammer's last 5,000 contributions, between 12 May 2022 and 30 May 2022, TenPoundHammer nominated 637 articles for proposed deletion (based on a search of "Notification: proposed deletion"). In the same time period, TenPoundHammer brought 188 articles to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (based on a search of "Creating deletion discussion page"). In the last 18 days, TenPoundHammer has averaged 35 proposed deletions a day and 10 AfD nominations a day. This is at too fast a rate. I am unable to keep up with finding sources for the numerous deletion discussions listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television as most of these deletion nominations are for the work he is doing at User:TenPoundHammer/TV cleanup. I have had several articles I have wanted to write but have not written. In the past month, I have instead spent a significant portion of my time participating in the large number of television AfD discussions to find sources so that articles about notable television series are not deleted. This is a list of 24 television AfDs nominated by TenPoundHammer in late April and early May where I found sources and supported retention. This 1 May 2022 permanent link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television can be used to find the outcomes of each of these AfDs. In the 30 days since, TenPoundHammer has created many more AfD nominations and proposed deletions.

Quality of AfD nominations

I have concerns about the quality and accuracy of the AfD nominations. In this AfD, his deletion nomination called MSNBC "a network nobody watches". In this AfD, TenPoundHammer called an Associated Press article "a press release" and said, "The network it's on doesn't even have an article, and neither does the host. There are literally no links inbound for this page. How much less notable can you get?" and "There is literally no other page to link to it. Do you suggest I just plop it onto some random page just to de-orphan it? I know, let's link it from Main Page!" Whether the article can be de-orphaned is irrelevant to notability and whether this article should be kept. In this AfD, he again called an Associated Press article a press release. Artw (talk · contribs) commented here and here about inaccurate AfD nomination statements such as "Deprodded without comment" even though the deprod was with a comment. In this AfD, he wrote "No sourcing found despite the show lasting three seasons" even though the deprodder had added a source.

Canvassing

I have concerns about canvassing. In a television AfD, TenPoundHammer pinged an editor who had previously supported deletion in other television AfDs but did not ping the editor who had removed the proposed deletion. In a large number of AfD nominations for "List of people on the postage stamps of" such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people on the postage stamps of Jordan, TenPoundHammer pinged two editors who had previously supported deletion of "List of people on the postage stamps" articles but who had had no prior involvement in the "List of people on the postage stamps of Jordan" article. TenPoundHammer did not ping or notify the editor who had removed the proposed deletion he had added. TenPoundHammer did not ping the editors from this related AfD who had worked on improving the "List of people on the postage stamps of the Faroe Islands" article.

Multiple editors have asked for a slowdown in deletion nominations

In late April and early May, multiple editors asked multiple times for TenPoundHammer to slow down the number of deletion nominations. More recently, another editor asked TenPoundHammer on 24 May 2022 to slow down the number of proposed deletions but he did not reply. On 30 May 2022, I asked TenPoundHammer to significantly slow down the number of nominations he is making. I suggested seven proposed deletions per week and seven AfD nominations per week would be more reasonable numbers. He replied to another post on his talk page and made seven more proposed deletions in the three hours after I posted on his talk page but did not reply to the concerns I raised. I am therefore bringing this to the community for review.

Previous discussions

These discussions related to TenPoundHammer's AfD topic ban and unban are copied from this comment in this discussion:

1. 2012 understanding
2. 2018 topic ban
3. 2018 topic ban query
4. 2018 topic ban appeal
5. 2019 uncivil remark
6. 2019 topic ban appeal: "Consensus is to lift the topic ban. However, the community seems unlikely to offer another chance after this."

Cunard (talk) 07:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC) Modified to add "Previous discussions" section. Cunard (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• That quantity of prods and AfDs risks overwhelming the community's ability to respond to them. It would definitely be helpful if TPH would agree to cut back. We don't have enough AfD regulars to deal with those numbers any more; it's too resource-intensive for one editor to make this many nominations.—S Marshall T/C 08:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
• I have skepticism that it is humanly possible for TenPoundHammer to be doing sufficient WP:BEFORE checks on the AFDs and WP:PRODNOM checks on the PRODs at their current rate of editing. (Note that PRODNOM requires evaluating WP:DEL-REASON, and the only appropriate reason in these TV article cases appears to be #7, Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed [emphasis mine].) However, nomination statements like here, here and here do at least indicate that they understand BEFORE and are completing some sort of checks. So the unresponsiveness to feedback is perhaps the most concerning aspect of this.
  I initially thought that a topic ban from AFD/PROD may be necessary at least in the short term, but TenPoundHammer's choices of PROD/AFD targets and rationales do seem valuable. Perhaps a rate limit of x AFDs and y PRODs per day (still enforced through a topic ban) is appropriate, since many editors have expressed concern that AFD and PROD processes are being overwhelmed, with the small number of active volunteers we have in these venues. — Bilorv (talk) 08:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
• I'm also finding this to be a problem. Many of TenPoundHammer's deletion nominations are notable, but due to their age finding sources takes time. There are not enough patrolling editors or time in the day to improve all of these articles at the rate they are nominated. TenPoundHammer needs to do a proper WP:BEFORE and provide better deletion rationales instead of nominating articles because they are "unlikely to be sourced" or "tagged for notability". SailingInABathTub (talk) 11:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
• I don't edit in his usual areas, but his Afd comments and noms have been at best sloppy for years, and he is rarely responsive to feedback. It is also concerning that he does (per his talk page) non-admin closes. Personally I think only a period topic ban is likely to solve the problem. Johnbod (talk) 11:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
• In the parlance of deletion discussions, this seems to be little more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It isn't the fault of the nominator that there are scads of unsourced cruft within the Wikipedia project, it is the fault of the people who carelessly created such things over the years. If a deletion discussion is lightly-attended, that is why WP:SOFTDELETE exists. Zaathras (talk) 11:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
• I'm afraid I disagree completely with Zaathras on this; WP:IDONTLIKEIT shouldn't be used to undermine the concept that we delete for a reason, not just willy-nilly. AfD exists so that deletions are carried out after debate, not just because one user is on a delete-spree. If we're going to allow so many nominations that no one has time to look at them, then we may as well abandon the concept of AfD, and allow willy-nilly deletion on the grounds that Wikipedia is full of stuff that needs deleting. That's too drastic for my taste.

Perhaps a limit on everyone's rate of AfD/PROD nominations would be helpful, if it's technically possible? I contribute regularly to AfD, and read it more. I'm increasingly worried by early-20th-C deletions where the sources were paper and obscure, possibly non-English, and those in favour of deletion are following a "Google-search-turned-up-nothing" argument, with a dollop of "only references are a newspaper article and an obscure book I haven't read". I'm uncomfortable about deletions where none of the pro-delete editors have actually looked at any of the sources. It's hard work doing this, and it also often requires particular expertise. For instance here's one that really needed someone who could read Greek and access Greek sources; there had been a serious suggestion that sources were available as on the Greek Wikipedia, but no one turned up to verify them, so deletion was inevitable [67]. When AfD is an enormous list, and some AfD-users are just drive-by endorsing anything, without actually doing any work, then we're going to get incorrect deletions. I used to get frustrated with Uncle G for posting complex comments at AfD where he discussed sourcing and notability in depth, but didn't actually give a !vote. I'm now realising that we need more people like that, and more time for them to do the foot-work. I hope you'll forgive me, UncleG!

Unrelated: I'm also curious as to whether some people at AfD are motivated by a desire to improve their record in order to be accepted as new page reviewers at AfC. The trouble is, if you're the sort of person who goes looking for sources to rescue nominated articles, or who enters into debate on the complicated cases, you're more likely to have a poor record of agreement with the final outcome than if you simply endorse anything that has already got a string of keeps or deletes. And yet it's those who are prepared to discuss the borderline cases, the poorly-sourced-but-could-be-improved, who are making the more useful contribution to the encyclopaedia. Elemimele (talk) 12:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I think that applying a limit to everyone would be an excellent idea especially as there have been a handful of ANI reports recently due to people submitting a large number of deletion proposals. The best thing would be for someone who spends some time in the AfD neck of the woods to create a proposal at the Village Pump (WP:VPR) and then let people here and a couple of others know about it. Gusfriend (talk) 12:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I would also support such a limit. We have other processes for handling potentially harmful content and hoaxes and thus I don't see any need for an individual to nominate articles for deletion at such a fast rate. NemesisAT (talk) 13:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for saying this. It is clear to see the pattern of people quick to support any delete only for careful people to come along later and point out sources. I wish there was some sort of competency test, or if people whose entire contribution to AfD is one liners that are 99% endorsing deletes, they could be less prominent than the careful people who so WP:BEFORE type work before commenting. CT55555 (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• I too have noticed issues with Ten Pound Hammer's deletion nominations. A recent one I participated in is this one, for Marble Blast Gold. Using a quick search the creator of the article provided three links to molbygames's database of reviews, showing dozens of pieces of coverage of the game. Ten Pound Hammer then came back to question if molbygames was a reliable source, apparently completely misunderstanding what had been linked to, suggesting to me that they hadn't even looked at the links the creator provided. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 12:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
• Until the recent success of their serial deletion nominations of various "lists of people on postage stamps of countryx", the success rate of their nominations was well under 50 percent. They seems either to have a lack of understanding about what notability is, a refusal to believe that WP:BEFORE applies to them, or a belief that their opinions override Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I hate ANI, but I was considering bringing this here myself. It seems as if they prod huge numbers of articles, and when the prod is removed just flip it to AfD without any research. This huge flow of nominations is so overwhelming that it has become disruptive. Please, please show some self-control and throttle it down. Perhaps you could perform BEFORE and fix the more notable articles? That way we could all add more value instead of just trying to hold on to notable articles that have been started. Jacona (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
• I can't speak to the years in the interim (maybe things changed and issues have crept back up recently, I'm not sure), but concerns with TenPoundHammer and XfD go back at least as far as his seventh RfA back in 2009, when I myself said "Behavior at various XfDs leaves a lot to be desired." JPG-GR (talk) 12:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
• I've also been frustrated at the rate of PRODs and AfDs from TenPoundHammer. They also redirected an article with the summary "unless someone wants to add sources" after their PROD was contested and their AfD closed as no consensus. From this and other actions (I can't find them now due to the sheer volume of TenPoundHammer's edits), it appears TenPoundHammer believes it is up to AfD participants to improve the article. This is the wrong way round, the nominator should carry out a full WP:BEFORE search and attempt to improve the article before considering nominating it for deletion. There is a high risk of notable subjects being erased from Wikipedia if TenPoundHammer is allowed to continue with their spree of deletion nominations and PRODs. NemesisAT (talk) 13:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
• As a comment, while what TPH is targeting do seem like good targets to remove the page about them, several of those on TV series would maje for excellent redirects (to the network page or list of original content from those networks) rather than deletion. These shows existed so they are likely search terms, and it would be better to handle them this way than the more complicated process of AFD. --Masem (t) 18:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  Again, literally every time I make a redirect, someone undoes it seconds later. What am I doing wrong there? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  You are redirecting things that have 3+ sources listed. You seem to judge them to be irrelevant or not meeting your standards and you redirect them, which is a way to circumvent the PROD/AfD process. If it has citations, don't redirect without a discussion. And, what happened to your statement below "My hope is to establish a more measured approach by relying more on the list. Maybe sticking to the list will get me in the habit of slowing down." DonaldD23 talk to me 18:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• These nominations have become overwhelming on the daily AfD log, and despite asking them to pursue other means of resolving issues (redirects to network programming lists), along with this nom where they furiously dismiss everything brought up as not meeting unknown and imaginary standards, it feels like trying to get an article to an acceptable state to withdraw is insurmountable even as N has been proven. Then there's this nom, where the redirect decision was basically killed by a later unnotified PROD nomination, along with TeenNick Top 10, where I was a constant contributor to and received no notification whatsoever to try to RESCUE the article, as advised by PROD guidelines. Also, many of these articles were created by editors no longer here, so for TPH, PROD has become 'silent SPEEDY' for them because they only notify the original contributor, even if they disappeared in the mid-2000s. Nate • (chatter) 19:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• It's worth noting prior discussion at User talk:Andrew Davidson#Jealousy in art, which itself lists a number of earlier discussions. (Perhaps the people involved in that discussion should be pinged?) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
• I would like to point to a few recent examples. Everyone else in an AFD says to keep, he arguing nonstop with them, then gives up and closes the AFD as "whatever". [68] Then at [69] everyone else says Keep to his deletion nomination, that the coverage found proved it was notable, he arguing nonstop about that. If people show up to notice what's going on and look for sources, then his bad nomination are stopped, otherwise perfectly valid articles get deleted. At another article he nominated for deletion, he went through and removed dozens of links to it from other articles [70] with the message (Removing link(s) to "Search Engine Watch": unlikely to be saved.). The AFD for the article ended in Keep. [71]. Then there was a massive number of perfectly valid television episode articles he just went through and turned into redirects. I undid him in a number of places, pointing out that two reliable sources had reviewed the episodes, and they listed in the article already. [72] [73] [74] and many others. Other television articles he sent to AFD ended without everyone else saying Keep. [75] [76] The point is if someone is around to notice, perfectly valid articles get deleted. I don't have time to write down how many times this has happened right now, but the same day I reverted him for some of those bad examples, I did others, and then again days before or after that. Dream Focus 19:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  [77] He says in his edit summary (not notable). I say in my revert (Undid revision 1086104042 by TenPoundHammer (talk) 9.34 million people watched it, so of course it got reviewed. Two reliable sources are listed as having given it significant coverage).

  I reverted him at [78] and he then redirected it again and I reverted him again [79] he then sent it AFD where it ended as Keep. [80] Note that the article reads "On the episode's original airdate, Heroes attracted 16.97 million viewers." and has reliable sources reviewing it already.

  Just some of the times I reverted him, and he then sent it to AFD. I'm not going to waste time digging through more edit contributions, this takes long, and I think I've made my point. He is determined to argue with everyone and keep trying to get what he wants, and just far too many redirects, prods, and AFD nominations at a time for anyone to sort through. Dream Focus 20:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I am active at AfD and have also seen the same problem of very high volume of nominations and, importantly, that TPH seems to get it wrong the majority of the time. From the editor's last 200 participations at AfD:

• Voted delete 99.5% of times and never once voted keep. Imagine that, never once thinking an article was worth keeping. Never once having your mind changed in that direction
• Got it wrong 55.8% of the time. That does suggest a competency issue.

I have raised what my perceptions about competency with the user here and got no reply. In that AfD the TPH has renominated an article a few weeks after it was speedy kept/withdrawn, and argued with people that a peer reviewed academic source wasn't a considered reliable, and/or missed the fact it was raised in the AfD. The user seems to miss basic stuff, despite being maybe the most prolific nominators of articles for deletion. Of course I note the regular requests for them to slow down and agreements to do so which do not seem to be honoured.

Debating with this editor feels like debating a brick wall that will never listen. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Led_Zeppelin_songs_written_or_inspired_by_others_(2nd_nomination) Can TPH show us any recent examples of them being convinced to keep something that they originally proposed to delete?

It seems to me that someone with this much experience ought to be at least able to correctly identify articles for deletion and get it right most of the time, probably more like 75% of the time or 90%. CT55555 (talk) 20:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• Note that even during this discussion about his problem, he is still doing the same thing! [81] He prods an article, the editor Lurking shadow removes his prod with an edit summary pointing out there is sourcing, he then replaces the article with a redirect. A redirect should not be a chance to try to delete an article again after a prod fails! If the community agrees to limit his prods and AFDs please limit redirects as well that he uses for the same purposes. Dream Focus 21:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  Again. Why is it literally every time I redirect something in good faith, someone else undoes it literally SECONDS later? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  The other editor rejected your prod, then three minutes later you redirected the article so they noticed and reverted you. How is that "good faith"? Dream Focus 22:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT applies. Which states: "Removing all content in a problematic article and replacing it with a redirect is common practice, known as blank-and-redirect. If other editors disagree with this blanking, its contents can be recovered from page history, as the article has not been deleted. If editors cannot agree, the content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used, such as restoring the article and nominating the article for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion."

  Obviously other editors disagree with your redirect. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  How is a one-sentence stub worth preserving? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  When there are sources available that can be used to expand the stub. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• Recommend TPH, promise to stay away from prodding articles & nominating articles for deletion, for up to six months. It would help get him out of the fire & show that he's capable of restraint. That would be better then any type of community enforced restriction. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Proposal

Ten Pound Hammer is restricted to one PROD and one AfD nomination per day (defining a "day" as a rolling 24 hour period).—S Marshall T/C 12:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose If we don't have limits on everyone's page creations, which vastly outstrip our ability to monitor and discuss them, I can't really gin up that much concern about one editor devoting their time to AfDs and Prods. I would advise Ten Pound Hammer that if they slow their rate they're likelier to get proportionately more people involved in the AfDs and get more meaningful outcomes, but I don't see any policy-based reason to sanction them. There's no evidence of bad faith editing here. As has been discussed before with other editors, if the community wants to get together and decide that you can't participate in AfDs pr need to be sanctioned if your win% is ≤ arbitrary threshold, then this can be revisited. (And if their rationales are spurious, that's something the closing admin using their brain can take into account, the same way they are free to not weigh poor keep arguments.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 12:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
  • This proposal is meant as a flood defence, not a punishment. To an extent it does represent a sanction on TPH, and I regret that and would prefer something that didn't. The sanction element is an undesirable side-effect. If there was a wish to avoid any appearance of sanction at all, then we could potentially make it a rule that nobody could make more than one AfD nomination a day. Only a very small number of users would be affected.—S Marshall T/C 13:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
    • Only if no one can create more than one article per day... We have way too many problematic articles (new ones and very old ones) for such a rule to be acceptable. If there aren't enough people working AfD, then recruit more people, but don't make proposals that boil down to accepting more problem articles to remain. If I am doing my bit of new page patrolling, and I notice Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Byzantine Reconquisita, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O Beto de Cascais, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aliyaanwar, then I'm not going to choose between these three which one needs deletion the most. Fram (talk) 14:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
      • Outside of hotbutton topics is "too many articles are being created" an actual problem that exist in wikipedia in 2020? And are targeted deletion sprees like the one addressed here actually a solution here? Mainly it appears to be TV shows of the 90s that are being mass deleted right now, I very much doubt there's a mass creation problem relating to them. Artw (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
        • I replied to S. Marshall who made a general comment about a rule applying to all editors, for all topics. And there are still many unacceptable articles being created (though considerably less than before the article creation restrictions were finally implemented), and there are many problematic older articles as well (which may not be draftified, where tagging them for speedy is heavily frowned upon except for the most egregious BLP or copyvio issues, and where Prods are dependent on the whims of deprodders). A one AfD per day limit for everyone, because of one editor, is the wrong solution. Fram (talk) 14:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
          • "Recruit more editors", says Fram, exactly as if that were easy or straightforward. Editor numbers are in a slow but long-term and entrenched decline, and processes like AfD assume that we have an infinite amount of volunteer time to spend on detail. With the resources we actually have, the options are: (1) allow an unrestricted number of AfDs and accept that many will be of very poor quality even after multiple relists, or (2) put in some kind of throttle to help us focus. Having said that, there clearly are editors who should be allowed to start an uncapped number of AfDs.—S Marshall T/C 15:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
          • Would agree that one a day is too low, would strongly disagree that it's just one editor or that the problem AfDers in any way restrict themselves to problem articles, or even hold truly problematic articles as a concern outside of as a stick to beat other users. Artw (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support From their past actions it is clear that TenPoundHammer isn't willing to limit their PRODs and AfD nominations to a reasonable amount by themselves. Many of their nominations are being closed as "keep" and thus if allowed to continue, there is a high risk of notable subjects being deleted from Wikipedia. TenPoundHammer ought to focus on article improvement instead. NemesisAT (talk) 13:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  Have you ever heard the expression "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"? Your behaviour at AFD is far from exemplary and in many cases is just as disruptive, the only difference is that your disruption is from an "keep everything" perspective. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  My actions do not carry the risk of notable content being deleted from Wikipedia. Your comment is nonsense. NemesisAT (talk) 17:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  Voting "keep" on every nomination you come across regardless of the merits of the article or the sourcing available is disruptive. Of the 532 AFD's you have participated in you have expressed an opinion that an article should be deleted twice eight times. Only around 50% of the discussions you participate vote keep in in actually close with a consensus to keep. Looking through your comments it is trivially easy to find examples of you making non arguments that have no basis in policy, e.g. vague assertions that sources must exist but which provide no evidence of them actually existing [82] [83], acknowledgments that pages don't meet notability policy but votes that they should be kept anyway [84], voting to keep spam articles sourced to press releases, paid coverage and database entries [85], claims that blogs are usable sources because they have more than one contributor [86], supporting keeping an article on a marginally notable person on the basis of an interview after the subject had requested deletion (WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE) [87] and on and on it goes. Do these kind of votes and those statistics look like the contributions of someone who has a good understanding of policy and is carefully and considerately weighing up policy and the available sourcing before arriving at a conclusion of whether an article should be kept, or do they look like someone trying to find any justification to keep any article on the basis of their ideological views? 192.76.8.78 (talk) 18:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  You really should try and be truthful when accusing other editors of being disruptive, the numbers you shared above are false. I stand by my previous comments. NemesisAT (talk) 18:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  Fixed, yes, that 2 should have been an 8, and "participate in" should have been "vote keep in". 192.76.8.78 (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  IP 192, if you have issues with @NemesisAT's conduct at AfD, please raise a thread. Otherwise I think it's time to move on from this subthread. Star Mississippi 20:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• Hold on, please. I share many of the concerns raised, and may post some additional diffs later, but TenPoundHammer is entitled to a reasonable opportunity to respond to this thread before we start !voting on proposals. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC) Striking as TenPoundHammer has now responded. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
• Amen. It is way too early for this proposal. Jacona (talk) 13:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
• We all need to encourage the habit of uninvolved editors waiting to comment on a thread until after the involved editors have commented. Levivich 13:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I concur with Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs that it's incomparable that pages can be created in bulk but cannot be deleted or often discussed in bulk. If this is just meant as a flood defense, 1/day cuts that to a trickle and is perhaps too low (btw calendar days may be easier to comply with than rolling 24h periods). Reywas92^Talk 14:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
• Comment FWIW this user is far from the only mass deleted exhibiting signs of sloppiness in AFDs, and will at least correct them when called on it instead of doubling down. Would suggest a less target solution that encompasses them over one that restricts them but leaves others free to behave worse. Artw (talk) 14:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Feel free to bring these other editors to ANI (of at the very least, if that hasn't happened yet, discuss the issues with them on their user talk page). But arguing for broader restrictions without providing any evidence is not really how things work here. Fram (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
    • Suspect dragging the most recent offender into someone else's AN/I would be considered rude and likely to rebound. Nethertheless I can assure you I have dropped a note into their talk and I will probably be bringing them up here soon enough. Light monitoring of AfD in general should be more than enough to find others doing the same thing. Artw (talk) 15:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose As I would prefer this to go to the village pump for a wider discussion. Part of the issue is the number of AfDs in any one area overwhelming editors interested in that topic so perhaps limits per area would be something worth considering. As an aside, at least when it comes to the AfC process it is relatively rare for an individual to submit more than a handful of articles per day and the flood of new pages that come through AfC are 80ish% biography articles (or at least it feels that way). I suspect that the numbers coming through that are deleted later on are through the autoconfirmed people creating pages but a new page patroller would be better placed to answer that. Gusfriend (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia is full of unimportant cruft, and 10lb hammer needs help finding and outing more bad articles. I have trouble finding sympathy for "we just need more time to find sources" when we are discussing 12 year old articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C3:57F:3F80:2CF6:872A:911D:531B (talk) 14:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  Many of the articles they nominate have been found to be notable. It is clear they're nominating the wrong articles. NemesisAT (talk) 17:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  The way you say "we just need more time to find sources" suggests that the people arguing to keep notable articles are 12 years into their efforts. That's not what is happening. It's not the original authors who dominate the discussions, but people who keep an eye on AfD to try and make sure encyclopaedic content isn't deleted. CT55555 (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - One AFD per day is too restrictive even if there are problems with the AFD nominations. Not commenting at this time on whether some other restriction would be in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, there's no evidence that this was intentionally disruptive, I think the TenPoundHammer's acknowledgement of the issue and commitment to moderate deletion nominations in the future is sufficient. SailingInABathTub (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as overly restrictive, I mentioned above that I had issues with a couple of their deletion nominations above but 1 AFD a day is unworkably few for large scale cleanup. I might be willing to support some other restriction. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support something, the battleground attitude is exhausting, as I commented on here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taking On Tyson when he was assuming that no one would do the leg work. If sources exist, it should not be at AfD and TPH's BEFORE are decidedly lacking, which there has been relative consensus for. Often, TPH is the only one arguing with sources presented. AfD participants and patrollers (and probably true for PROD) cannot keep up with the volume, which is more of the issue than the battleground. I don't know if one AfD/day is the answer, but something less then the current volume is needed. Similar to there being no deadline for creation, there is no rush to delete these articles. If an article is truly awful, it will be handled. Too many TV shows? Not a crisis. Star Mississippi 17:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  Can we do something to break the chain of

  1. Article nominated for deletion
  2. Several people in AFD say "keep, I found sources"
  3. AFD closed as keep
  4. No one adds sources to the article, meaning they suffer from link rot and the article is still an unsourced stub 15 years later
  5. Lather rinse repeat

  This endless loop of everyone expecting everyone else to do something, and nothing happening as a result, needs to stop. It absolutely infuriates me every time I see it. What else can I do to break this chain? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  add the sources yourself? I don't mean it to sound glib, but if sources have been proven to exist (c.f. @Cunard's input) it's just as easy for you to add them and help create more well-rounded articles. Star Mississippi 17:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  There are times when I feel like I am literally the only person on all of Wikipedia who knows how to add a source to an article, which just makes things even more frustrating. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  You and I have been here a very long time. If there are fewer nominations, people have more time to focus on providing input. A forced seven day "deadline" is directly against AfD not being for clean up, which is what you're doing whether you like it or not. MSNBC not being a watched network? You know better than that. You're fried, which is coming through in your noms. I suggest a break (and am not advocating a block - to be clear) for your own time to breathe. Star Mississippi 17:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with SM above. If you think an article needs to be improved, go ahead and improve it. But also, as someone whose frequently engaged in discussions with you at AfD, I spend more time improving articles at AfD as I do discussing them, often adding sources before I enter the discussion, so the suggestion that nobody does this shows that you are not paying attention. CT55555 (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  TPH has shown in this discussion that they cannot or will not stop themselves from nominations. Therefore anything short of a technical solution seems unlikely to work. Star Mississippi 22:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  Lather rinse repeat - This isn't a step. If no one adds them to the article, you're in that "no one", too. If you really want them added, as with anything else, you can fix it.

• Oppose as written. I have communicated some thoughts to this editor about employing alternatives to deletion, to which they seem receptive, though somewhat dissuaded by experience. We do have far too many long-unsourced stubs on topics of questionable utility to an encyclopedia. It seems counterintuitive to penalize efforts to address that. BD2412 T 17:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
• I liked most of the nominations by Ten Pound Hammer and it is true that they could have committed mistakes sometimes. I am not sure what will be the right action here. Azuredivay (talk) 19:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support Per above and their issues with PROD notifications and creating new self-N guidelines on a whim. Nate • (chatter) 19:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, nominations should not be based on whether there's enough participants, that's looking at the issue the wrong way. Instead others should be encouraged to participate or flush out articles. They're not acting in bad faith or being intentionally disruptive, they're trying to help clear out cruft articles. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  Many of these "cruft" articles are about notable subjects. Per WP:BEFORE, If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD. NemesisAT (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support His long term behavior shows he isn't likely to stop his massive number of redirects, prods, and AFD nominations, no matter how many times he makes a mistake. Dream Focus 19:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• TPH has long been focused on deletion discussions, I think we all know that. It's a thankless job but it's one that should be done to help sort the wheat from the chaff around here, and one where we need more editors working - AFD is a ghost town lately, with many discussions being relisted two or three times before enough opinions trickle in for a closure. I suspect those delays, a lack of editors interested in working on these borderline articles, and general stress from being kicked frequently are playing in to TPH getting burned out, as evidenced by his overall tone recently. I have always felt that TPH is a great editor; I would support something encouraging him to take a breather and give the deletion space some room for a while, but I don't think quotas are the best way to do it. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, but support alternative (#2) below. 1 per day is too few. — Bilorv (talk) 21:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support I've not been impressed with the quality of TPH proposals and nominations and I am overrun by the quantity. I read here that this has been brought here before and now it has come up again so clearly there needs to be stronger action this time. I additionally propose that all current TPH PRODs and AfDs be closed so we can more quickly get out from under this and get back to improving articles. ~Kvng (talk) 22:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

:Weak Support One per day is fair. I'd support anything on a Zero to Two per day envelope. But also feel it is too early to propose solutions until others have had a chance to comment. CT55555 (talk) 21:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC) Sorry, weak oppose now that I read previous topic ban, appeal, years into this problem and even after the topic ban is continuing, even in the context of the appeal saying it as their last chance and TPH's comments here that they are "trying" to control their behaviour. CT55555 (talk) 21:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose No actual wrongdoing to be had here, just a system that can't deal with the own weight of its bad article volume. Not the fault of the user. Zaathras (talk) 02:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - we need an iron clad commitment for the user to do a proper WP:BEFORE check on any article they nominate, and I would suggest they perhaps work with Cunard (if Cunard wishes to do so) on improving articles before nominating them. A second opinion from someone else may also help, I do not mean canvassing, I mean a genuine attempt to see if another editor would themselves consider the article unsourced (this being the main ground TPH tends to nominate on). I have already spoken with Cunard myself to get some advice on finding references outside Google, and I will be using their resources before nominating anything again after my recent nom was kept due to resources being found I did not. This really is about care, and realising that there is no timeframe to get rid of the chaff, as an open source encyclopaedia run by volunteers we can only do what we can do. The main priority is ridding Wikipedia of vandalism, copyright infringements, defamatory statements, spam, and confirming verifiability on controversial topics. Getting rid of non-notable content is certainly important, but we should not risk the deletion of good articles in a hurry. MaxnaCarter (talk) 02:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support: The two instances I've met TPH during a deletion discussion gave me the inclination to agree that he should not be PRODing and be restricted in starting AfD discussions (Speedy deletions, which are used to prevent blatant vandalism and are first vetted by admins, are not included). During the first case I debated with him, (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lick), he clearly was not willing to engage in thoughtful discussion or adherence to Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines, even after multiple editors told him that certain sources were valid. Half the discussion is him arguing that a peer-reviewed doctoral dissertation is the same as a high school paper. In another case, (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Punk jazz), he kept incorrectly citing certain essays incorrectly, even after I presented a handful of sources (this also leads me to believe he does not do proper BEFORE searches, as others have mentioned). Other editors have mentioned that TPH responds to criticism. Judging by the fact that this is a recurring issue, I don't believe he fully does. Why? I Ask (talk) 03:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as written but some action is warranted I believe there have been a few times I've experienced TPH's PRODs and AfDs. The one that sticks out is The Bronx Is Burning, a 2007 ESPN miniseries about the big events of 1977 in NYC, with a focus on the Yankees, plus Son of Sam and the blackout, played by a cast including John Turturro and Oliver Platt, who are well known actors. His PROD rationale said Sourced entirely to press releases, nothing better found. That's not accurate on its face because you can see that, while there are four press releases as external links, the only inline citation is to the New York Post. Their news coverage is often disprovable right-wing propaganda, but their sports page is top notch. That's the Murdochs for you. I remember that show getting press at the time it was released, so I dePROD'd it almost instantly. I was on my phone at a pool on vacation (Wikiholic score high) and still found in-depth reviews on Google before finding more on Newspapers.com. He made another edit to the page adding some sources, and with the edit summary forgot to check proquest, oops. If you nominate that many articles, you're bound to get sloppy at times. I oppose the proposal as its written, at least in part because it seems like the backlog at AfD is all due to one editor (correct me if I'm wrong), and if that's so, individual sanctions would be a better route than overhauling everything. But I know that alot of TPH's nominations are sound, on articles that should be deleted. I think we need to have more of a quality check on his work before we do anything else. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  You can see their AfD accuracy here:

  tl;dr: it's not good CT55555 (talk) 03:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  A lot of these are good! The only problem I see is the sheer volume. I'd maybe approve a daily limit to how many articles TPH can nominate or propose for deletion, but I'm against straight cutting him off. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  I quote "Without considering "No Consensus" results, 39.6% of AfD's were matches and 60.4% of AfD's were not." i.e. the majority of times, TPH's nominations were assessed by the community to be incorrect." I'm often at AfD disagreeing with people (recently I've !voted keep 60.5% of the time) and I'm getting it right 91% of the time. That's about normal, from my analysis.

  TPH has engaged in AfD 12,627 times, voted delete 99.5% of the time in recent AfDs and is still getting it mostly wrong. Yes, there are some good ones in there, but I think I'm correct to point out that the big picture is not good. CT55555 (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, my comment from earlier today focused too much on the nominations that are sound. But, I agree that the percentage match is subpar. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose No basis for a sanction. If creating, maintaining and deprodding pages in bulk is allowed, then prodding and nominating in similar fashion is permitted too. As one IP pointed out above, wikipedia is full of unimportant cruft, so, if anything, TenPoundHammer should be commended for doing the thankless task of helping distinguish what's salvageable from what's not, whatever his actual AfD success rate. In the small chance that something for which sources exist does slip through the cracks and gets hard- rather than soft-deleted, then it can be presumed that there is no prejudice to recreation with those sources. But, unless he's clearly going after stuff that is presentable and of enough quality, there's no evidence he's a negative. Avilich (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  f anything, TenPoundHammer should be commended for doing the thankless task of helping distinguish what's salvageable from what's not, I think that's the issue. He's not. His success rate is so poor that editors are forced to spend time defending articles that should never have been nominated, never mind deleted. Star Mississippi 21:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Not being able to keep up is a made-up concern: his nominations are all on record, so anyone can look them up and find sources at their own leisure even after articles are deleted, and recreate accordingly. Any valid (meaning, about a notable topic) article which somehow slips through the cracks will presumably be undersourced and of low enough quality that its temporary removal won't be a negative. Even if TenPoundHammer had a 0% success rate, all he's doing is causing a flurry of article-improvement and source-searching which should have been done by the creators of the articles he's nominated; the latter would most likely have remained untouched forever hadn't he identified them. Unless he's trying to delete sourced content, there's no evidence he's harming the encyclopedia, and thus no valid objection. Avilich (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I truly think you're missing the point and definitely are not the arbiter of a "valid objection". For this article, he said How is a one-sentence stub worth preserving? when that was blatantly untrue about the state of the article. The number of sentences is not subjective. Not being able to keep up is absolutely a valid concern for folks trying to close the discussions and contribute. It's not the creators doing the work to save the content either especially for long-standing stubs. Star Mississippi 01:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The last time I saw a trash article up for deletion which I could improve, I just let it be deleted and started the thing again from scratch (in compliance with G4). And that was it: no wasting time in AfD or DRV, no mourning over a trash article that was temporarily deleted, no whining about anything here at ANI. I've no need for a disposable article to remain on mainspace while I'm thinking of ways to improve it. Remove that condition, and the entire necessity for "keeping up" vanishes. It's a spurious grievance.

Also, your selective quoting of him is less than convincing in trying to show he's incompetent to determine what is disposable. "one-sentence stub" is obviously not in the prod and is presumably a broad statement. Avilich (talk) 04:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I think we'll agree to disagree, but that's literally how he responded to the challenging editor on this very page. I suggest you not label people raising legit complaints as whining though. Star Mississippi 13:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Avlich, I have seen you multiple times mis-state WP:NOTPLOT in order to try and secure a deletion while ignoring content and sources that made it inapplicable. In fairness to AGF to AGF you might have just been making the same mistake multiple times and somehow not noticing when it was pointed out, but I think you have to accept uou might not be a good judge of what is "trash", and what you perceive as whining may be other users trying to do good work who are just as deserving of an assumption of good faith. Artw (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose on principle, per Avilich. People are allowed to be wrong, and no evidence this is done in bad faith has been provided. Also oppose because one is really too low a limit without such evidence, even if "most" of them are wrong. I don't find nominating an article for deletion and it being kept to be disruptive or a nuisance, particularly if it forces people to actually improve it. Given the unending saga about mass-created stubs in this or that topic area, that is in fact probably a good thing for the encyclopedia. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support absent a clear promise to voluntarily throttle rate in the future. Looking at TPH's AFD stats since 2019:

  Total noms: 498

  2019: 23

  2020: 34

  2021: 31

  Jan 2022: 8

  Feb 2022: 7

  Mar 2022: 22

  Apr 2022: 124

  May 2022: 247

  Today (June 1): 2

In terms of consensus-matching, over the last 500:

8 undetermined, 32 no consensus, and 128 not closed yet (mostly from May 22 or later)

Of the remaining 332 noms:

158 keep or speedy keep

174 delete, speedy delete, merge, redirect, or userfy

So that's a "success rate" of 52% (174/332), although that will change significantly based on how the 128 pending noms turn out. For years (2019 thru Mar 2022), TPH was fine with AFD nom rate, and then in April started nominating way too often. The match rate is basically 50/50, which is not really great, although not really terrible either. I haven't even looked at the PRODs issue but I imagine it would look about the same. Unless TPH clearly commits to reducing their rate of noms to something reasonable, I agree a sanction restricting the rate is necessary to prevent, you know, 247 noms in one month, ffs. The fact that there were 2 noms today makes me not really hopeful about the voluntary commitment thing. BTW, I don't really care if the rate restriction is 1 or 5 or whatever... whatever most editors support in terms of number, I would support, too. Levivich 22:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

So what? Do we really want to be sanctioning people for correctly nominating shitty unencyclopedic listcruft like this or non-notable TV series like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha Mom (TV series)? Even of the 158 articles that were kept; many of them were in a pitiable state before the AfD, so TPH's nominations actually did improve the encyclopedia, however you take it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

247 in a month is way too much. That's almost 60 a week, 10 a day. Like, you can't ask the community at large to please run BEFORE searches for 60 articles per week or else they will be deleted. That's demanding too much editor time, at the risk of actual harm to readers (articles being deleted because there aren't enough people to do BEFORE searches). Now if the match rate was really high, like 90%, then I'd say, well, OK, it's fine if we don't have a lot of people checking TPH's noms. But if the match rate is 50%, it's like, yeah, we need someone else to check each and every nom, or we're going to have over 100 notable topics deleted from the encyclopedia in May alone.

Combine that with not stopping after this ANI. Combine that with the PROD issues. Combine that with the past issues. Combine all that with no clear commitment to not nominate more than X articles per Y. So what? So, if TPH won't limit themselves, we should limit them to some rate that the rest of us can keep up with, because we need second set of eyes on anyone who's "hit rate" is 50%. Oh and I'll bet you that it drops below 50% when this current set of 128 is closed. Want to take that bet? :-) Levivich 23:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

The community already deals with dozens (occasionally even above a hundred) of AfDs each day. I fail to see how a few more is problematic, particularly if they all do tend to involve articles which need some form of improvement, even if they are to be kept. I also strongly object to taking AfD as some game where the point is to "score" as many points by getting the highest "hit rate" with as many "votes/nominations" with the "correct outcome". The "correct outcome" is "improving the encyclopedia". Sometime that requires deleting the article. Sometime that just requires somebody spending time improving it. Sometime it is more of a philosophical debate as to what should and should not be in the encyclopedia. No evidence, not even the slightest shred of it, has been provided that TPH has not been (at least attempting) to improve the encyclopedia, or that they have been indiscriminately nominating such an excessive amount of articles which were so obviously not appropriate that this has become disruptive beyond a few people getting fussy because of it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support per this comment which seems to be an admission that TPH cannot dial this back on his own. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - my oppose was added to the accused's statement below - apologies if doing so created any confusion. Atsme 💬 📧 00:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose; just not enough evidence that Ten Pound Hammer's nominations are actually overwhelming the system. AFD defaults to no action if there's insufficient participation, and PROD only deletes if there is nobody willing to retain an article; I strongly believe that if an article has nobody keeping an eye on it who believes it should be kept, we are always better off deleting it - we need people watching and maintaining articles to keep up Wikipedia's standards; if there are not enough people watching the articles TPH prods then that is a serious problem that goes beyond just TPH and which is at least put in a safer state when the prods go through. The idea that we're better with no article at all than a totally unwatched one is central to how PROD works, after all. I also don't particularly buy the argument that a 50% rate is that bad, especially when many of them are salvaged by total rewrites. If an article can be salvaged by total rewrites (and someone is willing to do so) that is great, but it doesn't make the original deletion invalid - per WP:TNT, nothing would have been lost if the original version was rewritten. Furthermore, above, people talk about articles that lasted 12 years with no improvement, then were nominated for deletion and "rescued" by a rewrite and the addition of sources. In a situation like that their nomination was a good thing - without it the article would have, what, remained in that state for another 12 years? --Aquillion (talk) 03:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Then of couse there is List of people on the postage stamps of Italy which has existed for over 17 years (since Nov. 4, 2004), it has 0 sources. No one has bothered editing the article at all since it was nominated for deletion. Someone may come up with some sources, but no one has actually in the deletion discussion identified any sources we can use to back the article, so I am not holding my breath that sources will be found.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

  I have seen a lot of AfDs defaulting to soft delete through lack of participation. Artw (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: Per the points by Aquillion and there being no compelling evidence that TPH's actions, taken as a cure, are any worse than the treated disease, which is the deluge of subpar material flooding the project. TPH's 50% success rate means they are clearing out a phenomenal amount of crap, and likely prompting the betterment of the other 50%. Any AFD policy changes should be global, not targeted. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:32, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose This editor has done a huge amount of good to clean out of Wikipedia a huge amount of articles that have nothing even close to adequate sourcing. We need to stop putting up blocks in the path of improvement to Wikipedia. Some of the articles he has put up for deletion have literally existed on Wikipedia for over 19 years with no sources at all. Going after such articles is a long over due and much needed action, and should not be punished.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

  Even when TPH uses redirect as a way to circumvent the process? Multiple times TPH has put articles up for PROD, only for someone to remove them. The normal action would be to send to AfD, which TPH does quite a lot. But other times TPH just simply decides to redirect the article. Case in point Secrets of the Titanic. TPH had Proposed Deletion on May 28. Today (June 4), User:Kvng removed the PROD tag with the rationale "Deletion contested, unsourced is not a reason to delete". SEVEN minutes later TPH decided to redirect the article instead of having a discussion about it. I saw that, reversed the redirect, and within 5 minutes I had 2 reliable source citations added to the article. These types of things cannot continue to be ignored. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

  Exactly where is it policy that you can't redirect a contested prod? I see nothing at WP:PROD saying so. And you wonder why I keep complaining that my redirects keep getting undone literally seconds after I make them.... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

  Also, one of the contested redirects, Shep Unplugged, is turning out to be a likely hoax. IMO that shouldn't even have been deprodded. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:23, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

  If sources are as readily available as at Secrets of the Titanic the article should never have been prodded in the first place. Following your spree of over a hundred PRODs in a day (on subjects many of which turned out to be notable) and now this, I'm not surprised that nobody trusts your judgement with redirects/PRODs. NemesisAT (talk) 21:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

  I agree. The editor probably removed the PROD because they no longer trust TPH's judgement. And, as for redirecting a PROD without a proper discussion, while it may not be explicitly prohibited right now, I will ALWAYS reverse a REDIRECT that happened after a PROD was removed without an AfD taking place. Simply because I have saved SEVERAL articles this way because of lazy BEFOREs. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

  I DEPRODded because deleting unsourced articles on potentially notable subjects is not uncontroversial and PROD is for uncontroversial deletions. ~Kvng (talk) 22:42, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

  It shouldn't be. Articles which fail WP:V are not suitable for inclusion even if they're on a notable subject; and they're usually not that good of a starting point even if they're about notable subjects. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

  @RandomCanadian: My definition of controversial is that a non-trivial discussion (or WP:SNOW keep) would occur if taken to AfD. That's what I see here but if you don't trust my judgement, go ahead and do some AfD nominations. ~Kvng (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

  I started a discussion about this at Wikipedia_talk:Redirect#redirecting_a_page_after_failing_to_delete_it_through_prod a few days ago. I had to revert him on many occasions from doing that for articles that clearly passed the notability guidelines. Dream Focus 21:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Johnpacklambert: sure, let's discuss deleting this cruft but PROD is for uncontroversial deletions, and these are not uncontroversial. Before you try to dispute that, please have a look at TPH AfD stats. We end up keeping an unacceptable number of articles he's PRODded. ~Kvng (talk) 22:26, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 June 5 where he NAC's his own nomination. Not "withdraws" mind you, but attempts to call a SNOW in 16 hours. Jclemens (talk) 02:13, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Artificial and destructive. scope_creep^Talk 02:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose; lack of useful participants at AfD is not a reason to restrict nominations. The fact is, the result of these nomination is always improvement of Wikipedia, either by having bad articles on non-notable subjects deleted or improved articles on notable subjects retained. Without these nominations, we would just be retaining more bad articles. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

  They are not always an improvement to Wikipedia, as there is a risk of notable topics being deleted as there aren't enough people to patrol all the AfDs and PRODs TenPoundHammer is making. NemesisAT (talk) 17:08, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, of course. Per my and others' arguments downthread, and per the very reasonable opposes above. JoelleJay (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Statement from nominated

I agree that my nominations have gotten out of hand. I keep forgetting that I made User:TenPoundHammer/TV cleanup for this very reason, so I could single out articles and work on them individually. While that did work for a while, things like navboxes and stub categories kept sending me down more and more rabbit holes of poorly written articles. I fully admit I act in haste way too much. I'm going to ride out everything currently nominated and start using my personal cleanup list more so I can focus on articles at a more measured pace. Instead of instantly nominating, my plan is to put questionable articles on the cleanup list. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• I'd personally be happy with that, but this keeps happening over and over again. Rather than a community restriction, could you also commit to a maximum number of open AfDs or a maximum number/period of time that would be considered getting out of hand, so if you slide back into old habits, we could remind you that it's excessive? We need your work at AfD, so long as the workload remains reasonable. Jacona (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, you stated that you are going to "ride out everything currently nominated" and "Instead of instantly nominating, my plan is to put questionable articles on the cleanup list." Yet, after you posted this statement (15:33 31 May 2022) you nominated 2 articles for deletion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal Face-Off (15:34, 31 May 2022) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gorilla and the Bird. (15:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)) Just curious, how is that riding out everything currently nominated when you literally nominated 2 articles within 3 minutes of saying you weren't? DonaldD23 talk to me 15:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  I meant that those are the last ones I was going to do. I had them lined up in another tab before writing that and forgot to hit the button. Until the queue is cleared of my deletion nominations, the only other AFDs I'm planning to make are those where I feel a prod was wrongly contested. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• To clarify: Until the current deletion queues are free of anything I nominated, the only AFDs I plan to make are those where I feel an active prod was wrongly contested. During this time span, if I feel an article is questionable, I will put it on the cleanup list. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  Also curious, will you continue to REDIRECT an article when your PROD was removed? For example, today you redirected Chasing Nature when User:Ficaia contested your PROD [[88]], which they said "the one source already included seems substantial, so a prod is inappropriate"?

  You're response was not to send to AfD, but to just redirect it because, as you stated, "redirect stub" with this edit [[89]].

  Just my opinion, but that feels like you are trying to circumvent the deletion process. DonaldD23 talk to me 16:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  This is why I don't redirect stuff. Every time I try, someone undoes it seconds later. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  And once the queue is cleaned up, will you return to nominating 30 articles a day? Or will you commit to showing some kind of restraint? Jacona (talk) 16:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  My hope is to establish a more measured approach by relying more on the list. Maybe sticking to the list will get me in the habit of slowing down. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  FWIW this one [[90]] seems to have some WP:BEFORE problems, particularly in the claim that there's nothing in Google Books, and should probably be withdrawn. Artw (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  That person only said they might have found sources. I'll see what they're able to find. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  Whatever. This time I'm not going to play some stupid game where the nominator gets to turn into The Riddler and pose cryptic challenges to every posted source, I'm just going to say you are acting in bad faith even after all of the above and should be INDEFFED, and you existing AfDs closed. Artw (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  That seems extremely incivil and overreactive. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  While an AN/I is in flight you literally just lied on an AfD request, changed the AfD so it was slightly less of a lie, then made a response quoting the new version as if it was the original in an attempt to gaslight. That seems pretty incivil to me, as well as a demonstration that you actually can't be trusted around the AfD process at all, since this is you at your most scrutinised. Artw (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  Because nobody has ever left out a word when typing before? You seem to be the only one here with any sort of hostility toward me, and your call to have be blocked is extremely tendentious. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  I believe people need to be reminded to assume good faith. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  As an update to this I have added sources to the article that I am pretty certain are sufficient to pass WP:N, a chapter of a book that comes up as one of the earliest GBook hits being particularly helpful in this. I consider the BEFORE claim, that nothing was found on Google Books, and the second edited BEFORE claim, that nothing useful was found on Google Books, or the statement "Everything I've found on GBooks appears to be a mere directory listing" all to be implausible. To my knowledge at no point has TPH acknowledged that the article might be valid or engaged with any effort to improve the article in anything other than a scornful, hostile way. ~~~ Artw (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer: when you say that your nominations have gotten out of hand, is that a quantity problem (too high a volume of nominations), a quality problem (nominating some articles where a WP:BEFORE would have shown you could instead improve them), or both? — Bilorv (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Probably both. It seems other editors such as Cunard have access to resources that I don't and are able to find sources I can't through Newspapers.com, ProQuest, and other resources provided by Wikipedia. Other times I admit I just don't dig deeply enough and other times I just automatically assume that a one-sentence article that's had an {{unreferenced}} since 2008 can't possibly be notable, otherwise someone would have done something about it by now, right? And when I find an entire category full of such articles all at once, then it's just as likely that those can't be notable because otherwise, someone would have fixed them, right? Well, if I speed through them all at once, it's sure gonna seem that way until source sleuths like Cunard jump in and unfuck things. tl;dr: it's probably both. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, TenPoundHammer, I think I'd agree with your assessment. The thing about notability is that no amount of experience can substitute research. At least, that's what I've found: with AFC and NPP and AFD skills I've encountered peaks in my areas of expertise, where I can't really optimise my process further or gain more intuition. At a certain point, you just have to be willing to do the research (which for me only works when I'm in the mood for it). I don't think we can expect that nobody will ever find sources that you don't, but you can stop yourself from making the assumptions about sub-stubs from aeons ago. A lot of times they are harder to prove non-notable than it appears—the other side of the coin is that if they were obviously non-notable then someone would have done something about it by now, right? — Bilorv (talk) 22:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer, you just said If it's not available online, then it fails WP:V. Based on what you've learned in this discussion do you understand what's wrong with that statement? I have concerns that an editor as active as you are still does not understand basic policies. Star Mississippi 13:15, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

TPH clearly hasn't read WP:PAYWALL which states "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources are not easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only through libraries. Rare historical sources may even be available only in special museum collections and archives. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf."

TPH thinks if they can't find it online then either 1. It doesn't exist or 2. It is only 1 sentence. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

• I adamantly OPPOSE any restrictions that would create more harm than good to the project, and that is exactly what some of the suggestions would do if accepted. While I can't speak to all of TPH's AfD noms/actions, I am aware that he has been very productive overall, and I share his concerns about reverted redirects and PRODs. NPP has an atrocious backlog, some of which results from reverted redirects. I'm thinking TPH is quite capable of self-pacing without any community imposition or setting of limits that impede necessary clean-up. NPP is currently discussing how best to create some form of automation that would handle a significant portion of these issues, but it's not going to happen quickly. Furthermore, we do have issues with UPEs creating noncompliant articles and stubs, and new editors creating 2 sentence stubs that are unsourced. These problems are not shrinking, rather they are growing with advancements in technology as more people globally learn the benefits of a WP article. NPP reviewers are not here to create, expand, source, and fix articles for the creators of those articles – be they UPE or newbies. At least TPH is addressing some of those issues and doing a damn good job of it. I'm of the mind that we need to respond cautiously to the criticism here, and not be too hasty. Atsme 💬 📧 02:47, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Are we being hasty, though, Atsme?
    This is an editor whose behaviour at AfD has been problematic, and specifically called out by admins as problematic, for the past fifteen years or so. The last time TPH was topic-banned from AfD lasted from 2017 to 2019. He appealed in 2019 saying: I understand why my topic-ban was imposed in the first place, and I will chalk it up to an overzealous attempt to clear out cleanup categories which led to a great deal of reckless nominations.... I think that my above-mentioned method of watchlisting articles or other content that I find suitable for deletion, and watching them for a period of time before determining whether or not to nominate, will help me take a more measured, uncontroversial approach to the isuses (sic) that led to this ban in the first place. The community decided to give him one more chance.
    Fast forward to 2022. He's making upwards of thirty AfD nominations a week with an accuracy rate of under 20%. I think those are extraordinary statistics, far outside the norm. How many more last chances do you feel we should give him?—S Marshall T/C 16:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
    • The more I pay attention, the more I wonder if we are being "played" by a player who seems to have no interest in honest discourse. There are statements like this, there's a promise to not delete any more immediately broken by deleting two more, then an excuse. When asked directly, repeatedly whether they would voluntarily show restraint to a certain number of AfDs, they've just ignored it. When their nomination success rate is under 20%, I question competence as well and question whether it is worth our time to give one more "one more chance". Jacona (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
      • There was never any sanction though. Let's at least try one, ok?Lurking shadow (talk) 17:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

        Apart from the "The last time TPH was topic-banned from AfD lasted from 2017 to 2019", mentioned by S Marshall, above. And that's before you start to look at the canvassing issue that was raised by the OP of this thread too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  • S Marshall, it's good to hear from you, & I trust all is well on your end!! My experiences over the years tell me to not give too much weight to things that happened in the past, particularly in light of my being an editor who supports the right to be forgotten. I'm not aware of any system of judgment that is flawless, especially on WP where we are dealing with anonymity. All any editor can be expected to do is honor consensus, not necessarily agree with it. No one is perfect, and I'm not seeing any evidence that convinces me this particular editor (who I neither know nor had any interactions with to my knowledge or waning recollection) is purposely nominating articles for deletion that are indisputable keeps. I am more concerned about UPEs and the problems they create, and equally as concerned about the fast pace of NPP reviewer burn-out. I'd much rather err on the side of a 15 yr. veteran editor than a UPE editor who is creating unsourced stubs using an algorithm. I'm hard pressed to believe that poorly written, and/or unsourced articles add to the credibility of WP, or that we will ever run short of articles in mainspace. I'm also of the mind that it's actually in the best interest of the project to AfD, redirect or draftify poorly written, unsourced articles that fail the key elements of GNG, V, & NOR than to leave them in mainspace with tags that too few editors have time to address. The onus is on the article creator to properly prepare their article(s) for mainspace. For us to not enforce that aspect of AfC, we are rewarding the creators of bad articles by allowing those articles to remain. Atsme 💬 📧 01:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Atsme, thank you for this. Without prejudice to the outcome of the OP's opening of this case, coming out of semi-retirement to make this post on ANI (I don't follow ANI and I came to this in a rather roundabout way), I think your comment here and your nickel's worth above are two of the most apt and intelligent I have ever read in my many years of attempting to develop AfC and NPP into serious, quality driven processes and with sufficiently vetted operatives. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for those hearty well-wishes! I reciprocate!

I absolutely agree with you that TPH is not deliberately wasting the community's time with his poorly thought through AfD noms. When he goes on one of his nomination sprees it's because he genuinely wants to improve the encyclopaedia. His motives are nothing but the best. The only problem is with his practice.

TPH nominates articles recklessly and inattentively, with no detectable attempt to comply with the deletion process. His judgment about what articles should and shouldn't be deleted is very widely different from the community norm so the success rate of those nominations is exceptionally low.

Nice bloke, works hard, tries his best, but soaks up colossal amount of volunteer time for little result. Has promised to stop and reneged. Has been topic-banned, promised to change, topic ban was lifted, problem behaviour has returned. So what to do?—S Marshall T/C 07:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

How about requiring that he attend WP:NPPSCHOOL? Atsme 💬 📧 15:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

TPH has 194,000 edits. He's been a prolific editor for 17 years. He knows what to do, he just can't do it.—S Marshall T/C 16:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Motion to close

It's clear that this discussion is going nowhere, and quite a few editors seem to be using this as a means of acting out to me in bad faith. Can we just close this and move on now that I've laid out a plan to slow down my deletion discussions? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

with all due respect, that's not remotely your call even if you were following your own plan, which you're not. There is no harm in letting the discussion play out. If people are acting in bad faith, they can be handled. Star Mississippi 18:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

You clearly haven't as multiple PRODs have been started by you since this thread opened. Also, why are you always in a rush to close things. I have seen you start an AfD, 2 or 3 people would comment on them and you would close the AfD...sometimes within an hour. What happened to a 7 day discussion? DonaldD23 talk to me 18:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, you literally nominated Blessed Art Thou for deletion 4 minutes after you saying you've "laid out a plan to slow down my deletion discussions?" Your rationale was "Doesn't seem to be a notable work. Sources are highly localized or superficial" The article cites The New York Times, a national paper. DonaldD23 talk to me 19:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

"Or superficial", as in "mentions the work in passing". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

That's exactly the kind of knee jerk response I'm trying to stop. Instant reactions are so ingrained in me Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Have I understood correctly, you are trying and failing to control your own behaviour, even during this discussion? CT55555 (talk) 21:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

2 other proposals

2.TenPoundHammer is restricted to nominating not more than 5 articles for deletion for proposed deletion or regular deletion per day, or, alternatively, one bulk deletion AFD per day. This sanction expires in one year.

3.Proposing deletion of Wikipedia articles is put under community-authorized general sanctions. Uninvolved adminstrators are allowed to restrict people from nominating articles for regular deletion, proposed deletion, and speedy deletion, down to a minimum of 1 article for regular deletion per week, 0 articles for proposed deletion per week and 1 article for speedy deletion per week.

Proposal 2 is relatively mild. But TenPoundHammer told us of having trouble with disciplining himself to limit deletion proposals. This is a solution, and I think TenPoundHammer should be used to a lower deletion speed after 1 year and the sanction should no longer be needed.

I am making proposal 3 because many people stated that this is not a problem with one individual editor.Lurking shadow (talk) 20:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I support #2. 5 per day is a reasonable limit. I hope that TenPoundHammer would understand that the bulk deletion AFD is not a get-out clause, but only for the cases where they would be using bulk delete did the restriction not apply. — Bilorv (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Support #2 in particular as a restriction for TPH. I disagree with a general restriction of 5 nominations per day, but that is being discussed in another forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Support #3, General Sanctions, with the understanding that it authorizes uninvolved administrators to impose sanctions on various sorts of disruptive behavior in AFDs, including personal attacks, removing the AFD notice, et cetera, not limited to making too many nominations. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

That is not what no. 3 is actually about. It seems to be very much about people who would be nominating, not about general participation in them. And "1 speedy deletion per week" is really nonsense. Additionally, per below, given the blatant lack of evidence this is a widespread problem (and given even the current case seems very no-consensus), the best option is to keep treating this on a case-by-case basis. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Support #2, though I would prefer a limit of 10 nominations per day. I had been involved in a case where TPH PRODded 146 TV show articles in one day, and they all got deprodded by a user concerned about their rapid-fire tagging. (Several were deleted in follow-up AfD's.) AfD stats. Their recent AfD stats show a disappointingly low score of 19.7% accuracy for the 72 nominations among the last 200 that have been closed, down from a so-so 57.6% for the previous 200. (For comparison, Sportsfan 1234 (talk · contribs), another user recently criticized for mass AfD nomination of Tuvaluan footballers, has an accuracy score of 87.8%.) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

As to #3, there are cases logged at WP:EDR where a user was subject to a sanction on a different part of the deletion process. For example, the user CAPTAIN RAJU (talk · contribs) was banned from closing or relisting AfD discussions in an ANI discussion from December 2017 following an incident where they closed or relisted several AfD nominations based solely on the number of !votes. I would thus prefer a simpler, more broad proposal:

4. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all deletion processes (XfD, PROD, CSD, RfU, and DRV) on the English Wikipedia. Administrators may also reasonably limit the rate at which a user can nominate pages for deletion through XfD, PROD, or CSD; or close or relist deletion discussions. Users may initiate deletion discussions for articles or files where proposed deletions were contested in violation of these sanctions.

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Oppose#4 Putting the entire deletion process under discretionary sanctions is a great way to bite newbies who just got their article deleted with additional awareness notices.Lurking shadow (talk) 09:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

You're right, what happens if we limit this to nomination of pages for deletion? We get #3, but a little simplified. Support #3, but formulated in terms of standard DS because in some cases, it may be appropriate to ban a user outright from initiating a deletion process, though I'm not aware of any such incidents outside of New Page Patrol. The proposed minimum is too arbitrary, and I'm not sure if it should be limited to article space. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• support #2 and oppose 3 and 4 as making excessive work and drama. TPH has done some good deletions, but more time is needed to really check for suitability of the page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support 1, but if that's too harsh, Support 2 (but 1 per day would be better, 35 per week is a lot, and with the current <20% success rate, still a huge waste of other editors time), Support 3, but there are a lot of details to be ironed out. The editor's ongoing participation shows a complete lack of impulse control, and by his own admission, "everyone" reverts his redirects within a few minutes, his prods get reverted en-masse, and his AfD nominations are being rejected far more often than they're being successful screams they just aren't able to do a good job of article deletion right now. They need to take a break, but can't do so without help. Jacona (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
• I now support 1 after seeing their original topic ban. I still support 3.Lurking shadow (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose 2 per same arguments as I opposed no. 1; Strong oppose 3 and 4 because I see not even the slightest evidence whatsoever that this is an area of the encyclopedia which has gotten so out of hand that such drastic measures would need to be imposed. If we're going that way, we should also implement a similar sanctions regime for people mass-creating stubs and database-sourced articles...; or for people repeatedly contesting prods of articles which do get deleted. Or maybe just not go ahead with such ridiculous nonsense proposals in either direction. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose all per my arguments above; there is no evidence of an actual problem here, so these are just solutions looking for a problem. Beyond that, strenuous procedural objection to 3 and 4 in strongest possible terms as far too sweeping of a suggestion to tuck away in the subsection of an ANI devoted to a single editor. People who are not interested in TPH's specific case, or who are deterred by the size of the discussion, or who see the lopsided discussion above and assume it is handled, are not going to see these sweeping proposals; this is effectively a WP:CONLOCAL situation where discussions in this subtopic cannot authorize sweeping things of this nature regardless of the level of consensus produced. If you genuinely believe those are called for, start a totally new discussion (preferably on WP:PROPOSE or the like), but they will not and cannot result from this one under any circumstances; anyone treating this as an RFC on those is wasting their time. It cannot be implemented in this way, fullstop. --Aquillion (talk) 03:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Aquillion: Could you clearly explain why you do not see evidence of a problem specifically regarding TenPoundHammer? A very low success rate for AfD's seems like strong evidence of a problem. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I explained in more detail above. First, I don't see a long-term 50% success rate as that low; there are inevitably going to be borderline cases, and we do need people willing to bring those to AFD. Punishing people based solely on success rate (especially a success rate that suggests their judgment is at least not absurd) would have a chilling effect people's willingness to bring such borderline cases to AFD. Second, per WP:TNT, it is entirely acceptable and appropriate to nominate a sufficiently bad article based on its current state, even if a better article could in theory be written on the topic; so success rate alone isn't a meaningful measure. There's plenty of people who spend time trying to salvage articles in AFD by improving and rewriting them, and more power to them if that's how they want to spend their time - but doing so does not make the original nomination wrong, certainly not sufficiently wrong as to justify sanctions. --Aquillion (talk) 08:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

My issue is not that TPH has a low success rate, it's that he consistently refuses to abide by community consensus and engage in thoughtful discussion, especially in the case of reliable sources (e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lick or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peepoodo & the Super Fuck Friends (2nd nomination)). Furthermore, he continues to go back on his promise to slow down the rate of AfD's even while under the scrutiny of an ANI. Why? I Ask (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose all the above, agree with Aquillion on all counts. nableezy - 04:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose all: Per the points by Aquillion and there being no compelling evidence that TPH's actions, taken as a cure, are any worse than the treated disease, which is the deluge of subpar material flooding the project. TPH's 50% success rate means they are clearing out a phenomenal amount of crap, and likely prompting the betterment of the other 50%. Any AFD policy changes should be global, not targeted. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:32, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Support #2 - The context above demonstrates that TPH frequently does not do the required due diligence before proposing articles for deletion, which he has been sanctioned for previously. I think this means that imposing a limit is the least that should be done. Although some of the oppose votes are motivated by the idea that allowing TPH to continue proposing articles for deletion at the current rate is necessary to remove undeserving articles from this website, imposing this sanction should ideally push him to focus on "the worst of the worst" (so to speak), which if anything should improve the efficiency of that process. Hatman31 (talk) 13:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

"No evidence there's a problem"

This argument does not survive the evidence, already presented above, that there's a problem. Let's collect and itemize it.

• 2018 AN/I leading to indefinite topic ban from AfD
• 2019 successful appeal. To quote TPH: "I understand why my topic-ban was imposed in the first place, and I will chalk it up to an overzealous attempt to clear out cleanup categories which led to a great deal of reckless nominations." Note carefully that TPH himself accepts that his problem is reckless AfD nominations. The appeal is successful but concludes that "the community is unlikely to offer another chance."
• "Statement from nominated", above. To quote TPH: "I fully admit I act in haste way too much.... instead of instantly nominating, my plan is to put questionable articles on (my) cleanup list."
• And within three minutes after posting that, he nominates a further two articles for deletion.

This is an editor who knows he has a problem with inattentive and reckless editing, and openly admits that he does, and is not able to control it.—S Marshall T/C 15:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty surprised that not everyone agrees that 100 in a week or 250 in a month is a problem in and of itself. Even TPH seems to agree it's a problem, per their comments here. Levivich 15:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

One wonders if there is any point in collecting and presenting evidence when editors can just dismiss it with a metaphorical wave of the hand and claim it isn't there. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Does seem like this AN/I with a lot of deletionists present is mirroring the frustrations of an AfD with a lot of deletionists present, yes. "I demand you provide evidence of this thing which I will then proceed to ignore", etc... etc... Artw (talk) 19:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The only thing worse is inclusionists attempting to get rid of someone who has correctly removed hundreds of unsuitable entries or caused hundreds of articles to be improved. We should similarly sanction editors who indiscriminately create hundreds of articles; or vote keep at hundreds of AfDs without much justification (insert the archetypical "Keep passes NSOMETHING" votes); ... Or, less sarcastically, people should stop trying to strong-arm a situation by resorting to the dramaboards. None of the AfDs seems to be in bad faith or so obviously wrong as to show CIR issues. There is otherwise nothing actionable here. As I said earlier, AfD is not a game where the point is getting the highest "hit rate". An AfD which results in the article being kept but massively overhauled and improved, in my books, is a correct AfD, and an improvement to the encyclopedia: I don't see why people should be sanctioned for it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Dire catastrophism about 100s of new articles if they don't get their own way also a regular feature of these discussions that we are replicating here. Wikipedia is not going to be swamped with new articles because TPM didn't get to nominate dozens of longstanding but neglected articles without doing BEFORE. Artw (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@Artw: You've missed the irony, haven't you? And AFD would not have to be (as you say) "swamped" with "100s" of nominations if people bothered doing BEFORE before creating articles in the first place... Nominating sub-par content for deletion seems like a far less objectionable thing than people insisting it should be kept and then getting all fussy at the nominator for having highlighted how the content was indeed subpar. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

And there's been a number of conversations on Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers about the impossibility of the current situation. Wikipedia is being swamped with new articles that don't have notability sourced in the article, and currently, the burden for fixing the problem rests on the new page patrollers (of whom there may be 30-60 currently active), since the burden for WP:BEFORE currently rests upon the nominator for deletion, not the author of the apparently non-compliant article. One would presume that the person drafting the article would be the better choice to find notability sources. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like signing up for that would be a much more productive use of TPMs time than what they are doing right now, perhaps they should be encouraged to go in that direction and leave established articles alone. As it is, this is NOT what they are doing and what they are doing is harmful and they should be discouraged from it. Artw (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

That's not the point of my message. One, two or even 100 new reviewers won't fix the asymmetry problem. The current setup doesn't work. There are 14,000 new pages not patrolled yet, and I'd bet many are hanging there because of this issue. The most time-consuming parts of new page review are 1) establishing lack of notability for an article that doesn't have notability evident already, and 2) investigating suspicious articles (e.g., possible UPE involvement). Of the two, #1 predominates.

Note I am not proposing any change to WP:BEFORE for articles already patrolled. Only for new contributions going forward. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The answer is to require all articles to be sourced or be PRODed, with the prod only removable if sources are added. Even requiring just 1 source would be a start (though 2 or 3 would be better). Levivich 23:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

As is already required as standard for BLPs ... yes, a practical suggestion. Maybe even a BOT to auto-PROD the sourceless. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

1000 AfDs in a week is not too many so long as those 1000 AfDs are not so obviously bad that they merited a sanction. Of the AfDs brought here I think there is one that is on the spectrum of bad to obviously bad, the rest are wholly defensible. I dont think one bad nomination merits a sanction, and I dont find the argument about overwhelming people trying to source these articles all that convincing. The material shouldnt be here without a source. Any editor is free to challenge the verifiability of any statement in an article, and absent a source is then free to remove uncited material. If you do that with these articles you are left with speedy deletion candidates (A3). So no, I dont see the effort to remove uncited material from Wikipedia to be a problem, I see the effort to add it and then retain it to be the problem. nableezy - 20:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:BEFORE, If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD. This applies even if the article has no sources. In countless AfDs nominated by this user, sourcing has been found that established notability. If the user has done a proper BEFORE, they would have found this sourcing and added it to the articles themselves NemesisAT (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

And per WP:V, any user may challenge the verifiability of any statement and remove any challenged statement that is not cited to a reliable source. And an article devoid of any sources if emptied of such statements is an A3 SD candidate. All the WP:N and WP:BEFORE references to guidelines do not trump that core policy on verifiability. Any user can add material that they have reliable sources for. Adding it without a source to begin with? Not as much. Thats the actual problem here, not the removal of such low quality "articles" from a supposed encyclopedia. nableezy - 21:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

1) Many of these articles are not unsourced.

2) Claims that BEFORE is being followed are being made.

Artw (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. What I was going to type earlier but the reply tool was too buggy on mobile. NemesisAT (talk) 08:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

1) Many of these articles are not unsourced. And how many are sourced solely to databases? Such articles are similarly not really acceptable, even if they're technically not unsourced. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

A data point: Looking back at April, before this whole business began, it seems like about 40 AfDs a day is normal. There's a few recurring names but most of the AfDs are individual entries with no users posting dozens of entries. I'm again finding it really hard to believe that the site depends on single users AfDing dozens of articles a day without care for BEFORE. Artw (talk)

• At one level Nableezy is completely, self-evidently correct. Editors are entitled to ask for sources and right to insist on high quality ones. AfD is a good place to evaluate sources. Editors should be able to use it freely, and being wrong, or at odds with community consensus, is not a crime.
  But there are other levels. AfD uses up a lot of volunteer time, so we ask for some basic diligence from nominators. They must carry out a good faith search for sources and, before nominating an article for deletion, they must come to a reasoned, defensible view that decent sources don't exist. They are not to use AfD recklessly or negligently, because volunteer time is our only limiting resource.
  The use of AfD is not a problem. Being wrong is not a problem. Editing recklessly and wasting volunteer time is a problem that needs addressing.—S Marshall T/C 23:48, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

  The only person who is wasting volunteer time here appears to not be TPH. A better candidate might be DGG, who needlessly deprodded 50 articles nominated by TPH in a series of rapid edits back on the 30th of May; thus forcing every single one of these to go to AFD (because they all, in this case, do fail the inclusion criteria). In fact, I see absolutely no grounds for a complaint against TPH here: he prodded some articles in an attempt to avoid wasting volunteer time on it. That others decided to undo this and force the waste of volunteer time is not TPH's fault. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  Ding ding ding. "Should be easy to source"? Then do that. You want a proposal that might fix things here? Change the default no consensus outcome at AfD to deletion not retention. Every other policy we have says challenged material is removed absent a consensus for it to remain. But entire articles are kept after a challenge without consensus or a source. Because it "should be easy to source". No indication that it is easy to source. No indication of any effort to find any sources. No indication of even checking if the copy-pasted at a 4x a minute clip edit summary is free of typos. But thats not the problem somehow. nableezy - 16:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  This is blame shifting. "Prods may be removed for any reason" includes "a user is mass prodding articles that seem saveable" is fully within that. ~~~ Artw (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  And users may challenge the inclusion of such articles through nominating them for deletion. Again, the problem is the users creating and then using obstructive tactics to keep unsourced garbage in our mainspace. You seem to take the position that we should have unsourced crap in our mainspace. Thats fine for you to take that position. Nobody is advocating any sanctions against you for taking it. Others, including apparently TPH, dont share that position. So they nominate such articles for deletion. And so the story of Wikipedia continues onward. nableezy - 17:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  "Again, the problem is the users creating and then using obstructive tactics to keep unsourced garbage in our mainspace." No, that is not the problem, that is the EXCUSE. An excuse that here would be based on untruths and not on the facts of the case.

  "So they nominate such articles for deletion. " - if the deletions here are based on the excuse you put forwards they are based on lies and invalid. If we assume good faith and TPM's fingers slipped and caused them to do a bunch of deletions out of incompetency then they are likewise invalid. Unless you believe that any deletion is a good one no matter what the case, which could be true but it would be shocking to see someone admit it, I don't see how you can see TPMs actions as good or helpful/ Artw (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  You can continue to believe that your position is the only possible valid one, but Ill note my disagreement once more before I take my leave. And since I do not see any evidence of disruption I still oppose any sanction here. nableezy - 19:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  if the deletions here are based on the excuse you put forwards they are based on lies and invalid - go read WP:N and WP:DELREASON instead of accusing other editors of being incompetent (which is pretty much a personal attack and not acceptable). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support 2, 3, 4 or anything else as better than the status quo. The evidence of a problem is all around. My personal proposal: everyone gets X floating AfDs, where X might be anywhere from 1-5. That is the maximum number of AfDs an individual proposer may start; nothing would prevent people from keeping lists and others from volunteering to nominate AfDs. BUT, here's the rub: If the AfD is closed as delete, redirect, merge, etc. great, nominate another. If the AfD is closed as keep and improvements (i.e. sources) are identified, the nominator must make the changes before getting that "floating AfD" back. No impact to someone who only nominates true junk and does good BEFORE work, but random nominations will sooner or later get a nominator assigned to cleanup duty. Jclemens (talk) 02:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose all We need to stop making it harder and harder to even bring articles to discussion for deletion. It is a hugely complex process to bring an article up for deletion. We should not punish those who do so just because their multiple attempts to find sourcing come up flat. Wikipedia literally has articles that have existed over 19 years without sources. People need to stop acting like deleting articles is the end of the world. I understand the importance of before, but if an article has sat 10 years or more with a notice of no sources and you make a digest attempt to find some, we should not jump down your throat because after you nominated the article for deletion someone did a search in a language you do not know and identified some articles. If the concern is someone not doing enough before research, what we should have is a proposal about that, arbitrary nomination limits are not in any way such a thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:21, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

  If it is such a hugely complex process to bring up an article for deletion, how does Ten Pound Hammer nominate dozens in a day? How does a brand new user make his first 10 edits and nominate four articles for deletion in the space of ten minutes? (see [91]). Unfortunately, the opposite is often true. Bushxingu nominated 4 articles in 4 minutes. Nominating an article is much easier than defending one. It shouldn't be, because the nominator should do their research before making a nomination. I generally (sometimes more vigorously than others, depending on the circumstances) perform my own BEFORE before even commenting on an article - which leaves my input rather sparse compared to editors who seem to automatically vote - either "keep" or "delete" on dozens of articles every day, about subjects which they have no clue, without bothering to click on "scholar" when voting to delete an academic, without reading the article, etc. Thoughtless nominations and thoughtless !votes waste countless hours of serious editors. You should consider not only not nominating, but not voting if you are not willing to put in the work to offer a carefully considered viewpoint. Ill-considered nominations and votes are a middle finger to the face of the community at large. Jacona (talk) 12:30, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

  Nominating an article is much easier than defending one. Sadly, what is even worse is that creating an unsuitable article is much easier than going through the bureaucracy to delete it. Ill-considered nominations and votes are a middle finger to the face of the community at large. Low-quality articles in all sorts of topics are an even bigger middle finger to everyone (the community, but also our readers). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

(EC)*Oppose sanctions, along the lines noted by RandomCanadian, Aquillion, Iskandar323, Rsjaffe, and nableezy. Punitive restrictions are not the answer here absent evidence these AfD noms are actually harming the encyclopedia rather than speeding up removal of unencyclopedic content and improvement of articles on actually notable subjects (which everyone here should agree needs to happen at some point). It seems based on this discussion and the other one a vocal number of editors believe the purpose of an encyclopedia is to contain as many articles as possible as quickly as possible regardless of notability or quality or even existence of sources. And anything that makes deletion of pages easier, or restricts creation of pages in any way, is an effort to destroy knowledge. But if we operate with the goal that an encyclopedia should be informative and therefore accurate and appropriately comprehensive in its coverage of each topic, it makes a lot less sense to prioritize increasing article quantity above all else. JoelleJay (talk) 04:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

• What would that evidence look like, JJ? I mean, we've linked above evidence that TPH himself admits to making reckless and ill-considered AfD noms. How could we prove to you that this is a bad thing that should stop?—S Marshall T/C 08:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

  If the result of this discussion is TPH admitting their over-zealousness and voluntarily curbing their enthusiasm then a positive outcome has been reached. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

  You want him to admit over-zealousness again and promise to voluntarily curb his enthusiasm again? How many more last chances do you feel we should give him?—S Marshall T/C 13:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

  What TPH is doing is good for the encyclopedia. You don't give ultimatums and last chances to people who actually do good stuff (as in finding low-quality or unsuitable content and doing what is really a necessary part of any serious work, quality control). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

  Only half the time though. The other half of the time he's wasting editor time nom'ing notable articles. And don't kid yourself that this other half is good because it leads to article improvement: "AfD is not cleanup" and "there is no deadline" so it's not really cool to require over 100 articles to be cleaned up in a week or be deleted. What TPH is doing is not good for the encyclopedia. Levivich 13:30, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

  Unless you have evidence that TPH has been nominating these in bad faith; this would just appear to be par-for-the-course. AfD might not be cleanup, but having unsourced (or unreliably-sourced) articles, or article which are database-entries-in-all-but-name is worse for our readers than somebody ruffling up some feathers at AfD. And ultimately Wikipedia is for its readers. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:10, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

  "Ruffling up some feathers at AfD"? What? Come on: engage seriously with what people are saying the problem is. It's not "ruffling feathers". Here's a thing to do in these arguments to help reach understanding: can you state, in your own words, what my (and others') concerns are here? It's not ruffled feathers. Can you acknowledge and validate the concerns being raised? Levivich 14:17, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

  How is it worse for the readers? If you didn't want to read an article, you are very unlikely to ever find your way there, unless you were just looking for something to complain about. Dream Focus 14:17, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

  DF, I'm gonna say the same thing to you I just said to RC. Nobody is "just looking for something to complain about". Can you say in your own words what RC's (and others') concerns are here? "How is it worse for the readers": can you answer that yourself? People have been answering this question for years -- in discussions like these that both of us have been a part of. Can you acknowledge and validate the concerns of those you disagree with? Levivich 14:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

  If readers are looking for an article about subject Y, and the only thing we have about subject Y is very superficial or not based on reliable sources; then we are effectively deceiving our readers and possibly giving them false information. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:29, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose all. Same reasoning as above. WP is ultimately being improved by these nominations, even if a very small proportion (so it would seem) are obviously bad. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok, so I'm of the opinion that, like it or not, AfDs do function as a valuable clean-up method regardless of outcome -- I feel like editor time is only really wasted when the outcome is such an "obvious" keep that no one even bothers to look for sources, and a poor-quality, undersourced article then gets kept with no improvement. Or when someone comes along early on with a ref dump of trivial or non-IRS mentions and subsequent !voters don't bother to actually check them, or infuriatingly refuse to acknowledge the sources fail to establish notability once someone does assess them.

HOWEVER, I am sympathetic to the complaints about TPH's nom rate and "accuracy". I can certainly see how an endless flood of nominations can feel overwhelming depending on how you participate at AfD; for editors who are very selective in which AfDs they decide to !vote in (e.g., I almost exclusively look at AfDs on STEM academics and sportspeople that are already controversial (or majority keep, or feature egregious misunderstandings of P&Gs), and only then do a thorough source search; I also only participate in sporadic bursts), increasing the volume of AfDs isn't really an issue since their involvement is dependent on other people's prior participation. BUT, for the intrepid few who try to hit every AfD in a particular area (and also perform their own BEFOREs -- there are a number of participants who clearly do not look beyond what is already in the article, if that, before !voting), I can imagine the exhaustion of going from 10 per day to 35 per day. And with with TPH's (real or perceived) low "success rate", editors primarily in the "keep" camp may feel more obligated to participate in all his AfDs because to them there is a greater chance a subject they believe is notable will get deleted.

So from this perspective I would recommend TPH substantially scale back his nominations with the help of a temporary limit of AfDs/PRODs to some number per day that he submits to the community for approval, alongside a justification for how that number gives him enough time to do a thorough BEFORE for each nom. Violating this would result in lowering the limit or other sanctions. JoelleJay (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

• If there is anyone who tries to participate in every single AfD, then they would be affected as you say. But it also affects the people who make well-considered AfD nominations. When you're trying to use AfD in a week when TenPoundHammer's purging some maintenance category by right-clicking to open tabs for the first twenty articles and then using Twinkle to AfD them all, then what the proper nominators will get is the usual crop of people summoned by their Wikiproject who make zero effort keep-!votes and nobody else shows up. Because we only have so many volunteers and TPH has flooded the venue. And it's those people who make the well-considered AfD noms who we're trying to protect here.

  You wrote "oppose sanctions", JJ, and I do feel you're rather missing the point. These aren't meant as sanctions, they're a flood defence.

  Your suggestion that TPH "scale back his nominations" does rather resemble the various promises he's made to do that when dragged to AN/I in the past, and the difficulty that I see with that is that TPH can't do it. Did you see the place, above, where TPH promises to stop and then nominates another three articles for deletion with his next three edits? Or the place where he admits that he can't seem to control his own behaviour? I do feel that you're suggesting the ideas that have repeatedly failed with this editor, and I ask you to consider re-reading the discussions that Cunard linked from his opening post in this thread.—S Marshall T/C 19:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

  I appreciate that sending tons of nominations to AfD dilutes the attention any individual one receives, which is why I suggested TPH justify to us why 5 or 8 or whatever number he chooses would still give him enough time for a thorough BEFORE. Maybe we should instead (or also) require that his BEFORE results be outlined in each nomination statement, too? That would limit his AfDs without actually restricting him to some magic acceptable number. JoelleJay (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

  If the community won't accept a restriction to a specific number, then the simplest and most workable thing is to reinstate his topic ban from AfD. The one that the community only lifted because he promised to stop doing this.—S Marshall T/C 19:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Quick proposal

TPH acknowledges that his nominations have gotten out of hand both in terms of high quantity and low quality. I propose we start by closing all currently outstanding TPH PRODs and AfDs. This addresses the immediate pain/damage inflicted here. We can then continue to discuss further remedies here or we can get back to work on more pleasant tasks. ~Kvng (talk) 22:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

No, because he's actively nominating during this discussion so it won't serve any purpose. Star Mississippi 13:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

And that's a bad thing? Most of the recent nominations (read: probably all, but I might have missed some) I have fallen upon are indeed blatant NOT failures. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

A concrete example, launched after ANI:

• In this AFD TPH claims “Nothing on Newspapers.com, ProQuest, or Google Books.” [92].
• A number of book entries are found and listed on the discussion page, TPH claims “Everything I've found on GBooks appears to be a mere directory listing.“ [93] - the books listed on the page, which are from the first page of the search results, are general discussions of the topic and not directories. It’s unlikely TPH missed them if they performed the search, if they did direct links have been provide.
• “I left out a word. Nothing significant found.” [94]
• The word “useful” is added. [95]
• In response to being told he falsely ruled out GBooks as an avenue of research: “"Nothing useful on Newspapers.com, ProQuest, or Google Books." Which avenue did I leave out?” [96] - note that they try to slip in the revised wording.
• In response to another editor: “The two book sources are very tangential mentions; hell, the first one isn't even a full sentence.” [97] - they are referring to this: “The second was a pilot for The Adventures of Superboy, made in 1961. Johnny Rockwell played a young Clark Kent/Superboy in a light-hearted drama set in Smallville. Bunny Henning played Laura Lang. Thirteen scripts were written, but only the twenty-five-minute pilot entitled 'Rajah's Ransom' was made, and it can also be seen on YouTube.”, which is five sentences.
• On changing the nomination text then responding as if it hadn’t changed: “Because no one in the history of Wikipedia has ever left out a word when typing before, right?” - note that the revised version is still inaccurate. [98]
• Another one of the mentioned book sources turns out to have an entire chapter on the subject [99] “Nothing on Google books” is thoroughly busted, this will never be acknowledged.
• At this point there are removing chunks of the article as “unsourced”. [100], said material has sources added after trivia effort and is readded to the article. Not technically any kind of rules violation on their part but still exhausting behavior.

So yes, TPH is still causing problems and wasting editor time, not just diligently listing a few uncontroversial NOT violations. Artw (talk) 14:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: It serves the purpose of getting us out from under the surge created by these activities. This suspends the potential damage and reduces the urgency to reach consensus on lasting remedies. ~Kvng (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@Kvng @RandomCanadian sorry I wasn't clear. It won't help unless he's topic banned or otherwise restricted because he won't stop. So we close ten and he opens twelve and... Here we go loop de loop for another fourteen years. Star Mississippi 01:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't proposing this as a final fix. You might want reset your expectations as to what the community is willing to do to remedy this. TPH has legitimate supporters in good standing. The real remedy is to give fewer fucks. ~Kvng (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh I know. I've been among his defenders in the past. I'm just utterly exhausted by his unwillingness to at least stem the flood. Because I can is a poor reason to repeat the same actions, on either side. Star Mississippi 01:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

A wider limit

Because there was some support for the idea of applying something akin to Proposal 2 (above) but to all editors, not just TenPoundHammer, I have started a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Limit on number of AfD/PROD nominations made per day. Please forgive me if it's inappropriate to advertise here! Elemimele (talk) 22:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Inspired by Elemimele, whose proposal snowball failed, I have made a second proposal that I think addresses the key aims of Elemimele and also addresses the reasons that led to its rejection.

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Competence requirement at Articles for Deletion CT55555 (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, that was about as popular as a fart in a small car. Proposal: withdrawn. CT55555 (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism?

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

---

Assuming a user is bulk nominating articles without performing proper WP:BEFORE, and that AfD is insufficiently covered to double check the WP:BEFORE on each of those articles - a certain percentage are going to get closed as delete without proper consideration, some of which are going to be good deletions just by the numbers, but some of which will be articles that would be kept if WP:BEFORE was properly followed or if AfD hadn't been too flooded examine articles properly. Should the deletion of those articles be considered a form of procedural vandalism? Artw (talk) 00:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism requires intent to harm the encyclopedia, so no it's not vandalism. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Hmm. It seems like indiscriminate deletion of valid articles would qualify as harm though, and they have to know that their actions come with the possibility of that? Artw (talk) 01:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I am a little puzzled by the number of AFDs by TPH, however there is no question that in their mind the nominations are an attempt to improve the project. While I would agree that many of the nominations have been made too fast and that more care needs to be taken, vandalism requires an intent to harm as stated already. I would not call TPHs nominations indiscriminate, that would suggest they are deleting anything and everything without a care. Clearly the articles nominated are mostly very poorly sourced when nominated and for the most part, if further sources were not able to be located they may well succeed. The issue is that the volume and speed means insufficient checks are being done for sources. It is not vandalism and I think it is important to assume good faith, particularly by an editor that has been here for 15 years and contributed good content. They aren't here to harm, they are trying to help, albeit misguidedly in my view. Not vandalism. MaxnaCarter (talk) 02:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

We should avoid using the term "vandalism" to refer to conduct that we disapprove of, except for what was clearly meant to be malicious. The sloppy use of the term "vandalism" distracts both from whatever dispute it is used in, and from real vandalism. I will comment that there are certain types of disruptive conduct about AFDs that might be considered vandalism, although even then it is better to be more precise. TPH is not a vandal. Genseric was a Vandal. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

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

Redirect should not be a substitute for the established deletion discussion process (which allows at least for discussion and review) when a deletion is disputed. He is doing by indirection that which he cannot accomplish by direction. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

7&6=thirteen, do you have any evidence to support that TPH's intention is to harm wikipedia, or is this just a difference of opinion? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I offered my opinion about the process and its effect. It exists irrespective of motive. It is disruptive a fortiori. I did not opine on Ten Pound Hammer's motives. That is your accusation and creation, not mine. 7&6=thirteen (☎) (UTC)

Since you picked the section called "vandalism" to post your complaints, of course we would come to that conclusion.
So tell me, Mr laywer, where I apparently accused TPH of vandalism? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

These were simply factual observations. It is you who chooses to characterize and accuse. You have given nothing to argue about. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:42, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous backflip.

Where do you think that I made the accusation? If something I said accidentally implies this, I would like to clear that up. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Observation

For years I've been arguing against the idea that "deletionists" and "inclusionists" are real things, and that a "deletionist" in particular only really exists as a convenient bogeyman for "people who want to delete things I want to keep". Whatever we want to call the positions, I can't help noticing just how... [partisan?] this, current thread about Lugnuts, and several similar discussions feel. There is IMO sufficient evidence to demonstrate several things in this thread -- some to TPH's credit, and some not. I don't know what sort of balance any intervention should strike, but the polarized comments which seem to treat this as the greatest of all problems or no problem at all just don't add up. I wonder what this thread would look like if we just took out comments by anyone with <10% keep votes and <10% delete votes. I know it's possible to have a great success rate and only vote one way, and that some people do good work while only really voting one way, but there's definitely an orientation about "what the problem is" in those numbers. I'm not proposing anything here, but I'm curious. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, these threads are just a proxy fight about what to do about unsourced and under sourced articles. Another front in the same battle is currently underway at the pump. There are enough people who feel strongly enough at either extremes ("delete them all" v. "every word is sacred", as I'd characterize them) but I think most people don't care much either way. Frankly I'm not sure this is even a problem that needs solving; more like containing. Let them argue about the notability of this or that, as long as it doesn't interfere with the larger encyclopedia (that's what AfD is for). When these threads come up, one can drop their !vote, but I don't hold my breath that any permanent solution will be found. Levivich 14:25, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm starting to wonder if this thread wouldn't look different if started by someone else.—S Marshall T/C 15:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive deletion

Sf123456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly deleted Monique Samuels (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) without an adequate explanation. After I specified why their reasoning was flawed, they continued. After I directed them to AFD, they continued. I also made a point about other articles for which their rationale could be true, to which they responded with a subjective explanation (that is not supported by those articles' sources). KyleJoan^talk 07:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

They're redirecting it to another article, rather than deleting it. I've advised them to take it to AfD, and that they may be blocked if they continue trying to force through their redirect. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

My mistake. Thank you, Girth Summit! KyleJoan^talk 16:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Note: You might want to add these two (diff and diff) to their list of disruptive edits. M.Bitton (talk) 01:13, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Greek Rebel (talk · contribs) and Northern Cyprus

This user is definitely a WP:NOTHERE, by his edits on Turkish language article. Here, he started with calling help You need to do something please saying we are referring at an OFFICIAL language, and here we have an UNOFFICIAL state. before. Well, I don't think we exclude de facto states from Wikipedia right? Northern Cyprus is a de facto state, however this user claims it's an UNOFFICIAL state, by denying it, and calling it the Turkish community of Cyprus (see his edit history). Here he calls me troll, and claiming I am doing propaganda by putting Northern Cyprus to the infobox and short description. His reasonings are: No brother, the northern part of the Republic of Cyprus is occupied... If you want to believe that it's a country believe it, I will choose the International Law and the historical facts.[101]. Beshogur (talk) 14:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

FYI they are clearly being disruptive but he is not wrong over Turkey being an occupier and committing neo-imperial tyranny against its neighbours. Pointing that out isn’t an actionable offence. 2A00:23C4:3E08:4001:116C:D95D:576:E62A (talk) 17:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Two edits ip? Beshogur (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@Beshogur: Even if I agree with the IP (maybe the "imperial tyranny" is a phrase that would better stand on a forum and not here but anyway), I need to inform that I have no relationship. But I need to defend myself. According official papers, the UN and the International Law, the shelf-proclaimed "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" is not an independent state and it is not recognized as a state, but as an occupied part of the Republic of Cyprus. So, what I said that it's not true? I said you are a nationalist troll and that you are making POV edits, because you don't have any logical explanation of your edits, and you have also accused me for NPOV. My edits could be found at the page, so the users and the administrators can see my edits and judge. Greek Rebel (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Huh, not your first personal attack. I suggest mods checking his summary and edit history. Beshogur (talk) 19:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@Beshogur: I would like to make a correction. I didn't mean you are a nationalist POV, but that your edits are nationalist and POV. At least in my country those claims, like that "Northern Cyprus is a state" are considered neo-Ottomanist and Turkish nationalist... Greek Rebel (talk) 19:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I butted into one of these discussions briefly. This is all about how to display Northern Cyprus in article introductions and infoboxes. Perhaps the two of you should agree on a question and two alternative forms of display, with a comment or without a comment on recognition for example, and put it up for a vote of users here? --StellarNerd (talk) 20:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@StellarNerd: It's not only about the infoboxes and introductions... For example see the latest edit of mine. The description of Turkish language is "...spoken mainly in Turkey and by the Turkish community of Cyprus" or "...spoken mainly in Turkey and in Northern Cyprus"? I don't think that here is a case that could be put up for vote, I just corrected a mistake, as Northern Cyprus is a self-proclaimed state and not a recognized state or territory. Also a vote could be dangerous, because there is a possibility of non-neutral votes, I think that administrators or users that are specialized at these kind of matters should decide. Greek Rebel (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

The article of Northern Cyprus says that it's a de facto state, it's irrelevant on the infobox of Turkish language or the short description as Greek Rebel claims it's not a state (not even de facto) but a "community". Beshogur (talk) 09:16, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@Beshogur: There are official papers and sources (I think that I have showed one of them at the discussion) that mentions that Northern Cyprus is an occupied territory... The Turkish Cypriots are officially recognized by the UN as "Turkish community of Cyprus". So, Wikipedia must chose among the version that has the support of only one UN member-state and the version that is supported by all the others. Don't you think that it is obvious? Greek Rebel (talk) 12:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't "support" anything. We rely on facts. It's a de facto state. Beshogur (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@Beshogur: With full respect to your experience and authority in the Turkish cultural sphere, Wikipedia is not a reference, and the Northern Cyprus article takes some liberties with the 'de facto state' status. This is not a universal, neutral perspective. One counter perspective is that North Cyprus has very little independence indeed and is essentially a Turkish puppet state. See: Puppet states: a growing trend of covert occupation. And this view is far from uncommon view. In a crude measure, "Northern Cyprus" + "puppet state" yields 263 Google Scholar results. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

"Puppet state" isn't "universal, neutral" perspective either. I am not citing wikipedia. "northern cyprus" "de facto" gives 6850 results. Is that even the issue here? I opened this thread due to POV pushing of Greek Rebel and his personal attacks calling me troll. Beshogur (talk) 13:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@Beshogur: Please, act logically. I am sorry for accusing you a "troll" but you need to understand that your claims could infuriate your interlocutor. I have shown official source proving that the UN consider Northern Cyprus an occupied territory. The page of Northern Cyprus, also makes clear that it is recognized as part of Cyprus. Also it's probably a de facto state, but as Iskandar323 said above, it's a puppet state. Something that also proves that it is an occupied territory... Maybe this could be added at the page of Northern Cyprus, why not? Greek Rebel (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok, apology accepted. Beshogur (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say that any terminology was universal; I said there were contrasting perspectives. Note that just because an article contains "de facto" as a term does not necessarily mean it is in support of that term. For instance, this article notes that: "the issue of status can sometimes be fudged, depending on the degree of patron state support for the de facto state and its commitment to independence." The point is that with territories such a Northern Cyprus, nothing is certain, and using terminology such as 'de facto state' as if that somehow makes the status of the territory any less disputed or contentious is a failure to recognize the range of varying and often deeply contrasting literature on the subject. But yes, perhaps that's not relevant to this thread. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Issues with MagicAllium - possible BKFIP user

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

---

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

Early today going through my Watchlist I found that user MagicAllium had removed cited information from the Navan page on the grounds of it being 'really lame trivia.' See [102] and [103]. Seeing this I reverted it and explained that 'Lameness' not a criteria used to determine information on the site.[104]

I later saw after this event on my watchpage there was further disruptive editing by MagicAllium reverting my own edit on Navan as well as removing sections from The String of Pearls and Varney the Vampire. Seeing that the reason for the Navan revert cited a Wiki policy I checked it and didn't see any of the four reasons listed as relevant to its removal.[105] As a result I reverted it again citing that lameness is not a reason to remove content. On the String of Pearls page the reason given for deleting a section of the page was it being 'extremely badly written.' [106] On the Varney page the reason offered was 'removed some trivia,' the trivia in question is related to pop culture with the two most recent examples being removed but not those preceding it.[107] (I would like to not that in addition to this they did improve the grammar on the Varney page, these edits were not reverted or changed by myself and the section edited was identical to the deleted one on the String of Pearls.) I will admit that MagicAllium also created a section on my talk page called 'Grammar' that I for the moment ignored, instead following wiki guidelines I added a level 1 disruptive editing notice to their page.

Later I saw that my reverts where reverted again and that my notice on their talk page had been deleted.[108] Seeing this I again reverted the pages and this time decided to give a level 3 warning instead of a level 2 as I felt that the deleting the level 1 warning as an act of trying to hide it. This was also deleted [109] and my edits reverted again, they also added a note to my talk page that read 'Have you understood what I wrote above?' Like last time I reverted the edits, except for Navan as that would have been in violation of the 3R's, and added a level 4 warning to their talk page. As well as this I added a response to their created section on my talk page and explained that they were free to edit grammar on the site as needed but deleting a section entirely because of that is considered disruptive, as is removing cited content based on 'lameness.' [110]

The level 4 warning was deleted[111] the String of Pearls page reverted again [112] and another user, DonQuixote, kindly @'d me on the Varney page about the issue where I explained the situation. We discussed the issue in the 'Trivia is trivia' section of its talk page and helped improve the section overall. MagicAllium continued our conversation on the issue where I pointed out that the discussion on the Varney page ended up concluding that some of the trivia they were deleting was the best of that section and that their fixing of grammar on that page is appropriate and was not reverted unlike deleting entire sections for grammar on The String of Pearls. I offered them to go and fix these issues but they did not do so and ignored my points, this conversation can be read on my talk page here. [113]

From my understanding of site rules the next step to resolve the issue is to turn here. It seems to me that MagicAllium is quite dedicated to helping improve the site but my own efforts to make clear that there deleting of content is not appropriate and is considered disruptive has failed. I am hoping that this thread may help resolve the issue. I will admit that I am unfamiliar with this format so if any of the links do not work please let me know and I will go fix it at my earliest opportunity. Thank you for your time reading this.

Dubarr18 (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I would like to update in order to say that as per guidelines MagicAllium was given a notice of this posting on their talk page. They have since deleted it.[114] Dubarr18 (talk) 18:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I think in the Navan case MagicAllium is correct. You linked to part of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. If you look at the start of the section, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Encyclopedic content it says:

"Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject.[1] Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight. Although there are debates about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, consensus is that the following are good examples of what Wikipedia is not. The examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive."

So just because it isn't listed as one of the four examples does not mean that it being a palindrome is useful to the reader. There is, in my opinion, too much trivia on Wikipedia. Others may disagree. But they are wrong. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree, I don't see any issues with the content of any of MagicAllium's, maybe the edit summaries could be better and they shouldn't edit war to maintain their edits. However the edit content is fine. Canterbury Tail talk 19:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I too agree that the banal factoid that "Navan" is a palindrome is not worth mentioning in that article. I oppose adding almost all trivia to the encyclopedia because it is . . . trivial. Cullen328 (talk) 00:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail @CambridgeBayWeather I am 99% sure that MagicAllium is the latest incarnation of WP:LTA/BKFIP. Focus on grammatical errors, edit warring and incivility, accusations of incompetence aimed at other editors, the same edit summaries as always (compare to, e.g. [115] or [116]), quoting policy at people 9 edits in, and how many genuine newbies are able to explain policy like this [117] 15 edits and 2 days after joining? 192.76.8.78 (talk) 02:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I have had the thought that they are too experienced to be a new editor and are likely someone else we've seen before, however I have had nothing to compare to to make that judgement. I'll leave it to admins who are familiar with that editor. Canterbury Tail talk 12:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Checkuser needed since we seem to be in agreement that they're probably not new let's see if a checkuser can shed any light on the situation. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I hope no-one will give any credence to this shit-stirring IP. To be accused of some kind of sock-puppetry by an obviously logged-out user is absurd. MagicAllium (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Well after that comment I certainly give it more credence. And an IP isn't obviously a logged out user, we have plenty of legitimate and rule abiding long term editors who use IPs instead of accounts. Canterbury Tail talk 19:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Confirmed and blocked.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by User:boundarylayer

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

---

A lot going on, so highlighting the most clear diffs only. User:Boundarylayer has been editing disruptive on Michael Shellenberger, The Limits to Growth, and various articles about the costs of renewables. The most disruptive are the BLP violations, which should be sanctionable on their own:

• [118] described a small group of scientist "voluntary contraction" in quality of life, "degrowth", misanthropic Club of Rome advocate-environmentalists (bolding mine), a violation of WP:BLP. The edit summary also contains the phrase of these scholars being "closer to Hitler" than to mainstream environmentalist
• [119] accusing a similar identified group of child-grooming in an edit summary

Calls editors that revert their edits vandals (f.i. [120], [121], [122]) There is further discussion of gross misrepresentation of sources (a large set of diffs [123]), that others may want to expand on. Femke (talk) 20:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Admins please don't close too fast. W/in 72 hrs I will add a request for indeffing this user. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Please close after all.... Admin Cullen (t · c · b · p · d · m · r) has indeffed BL [124] and BL's UTRS appeal was closed [125], so I will suspend work on my draft request for indef and ask someone to please close this. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

First of all, I'm after opening up a request for comment, in which both of the above editors are involved in. So just to give admins that background on why these admin proceedings clearly have begun. A conflict of interest, that they haven't been forthcoming with here.

Secondly those are quotes by the group, this is what they advocate "voluntary contraction", "degrowth" and to follow the "club of rome". Their advocacy quotes. With anyone anyway familar, with the club of rome, are aware that reliable sources state emphatically that it is a "misanthropic" and "malthusian" organization, amongst other things. Any mere look at the reliable secondary sources on Club of Rome will see. The word is there. A very much WP:COMMON supported description. Therefore not BLP. As much as saying people who advocate for PRC china policies are authoritarian. That wouldn't be controversial. Would it? For the exact same reason. On the matter of targetting children grooming similarly, with that also being in a reference to the club of rome. A look at the article again, Club of Rome has references to support that, targetting children, is one of their many activities. Social Scientists and an aerospace engineer have wrote this. Reliable sources.

With on that point, Beeson writing that the club of rome is an example of "Ecoauthoritarianism". So would you rather, I had said "closer to chairman Mao"?

So again, a common supported, by reliable references description. Not the least bit controversial, what is, by contrast controversial is promoting their views and censoring these reliable references on a WP:FRINGE group, from multiple articles including the blanking vandalism of articles Limits to Growth, which has just went through a massive case of vandalised, thorough removal, of WP:ITA relevant, notable material.

One of the above editors USER:NewsAndEventsGuy, that has similarly been engaged in WP:STALKING for a number of years, was who I recently cautioned was engaging in this Vandalism, as discussed on Talk:Limits to Growth, that was the first time doing that, cautioning, after years of their stalking, for they clearly are, making this project very uncomfortable and other editors finding too their disruptive activities in the archive of Talk:Nuclear power 3 years ago, yes that's how long this has been going on "our relationship" he calls it and what I think is going on, is they are not liking this tagging him recently as engaged in vandalism and knowing what was coming next, in an effort to silence me, before that gets brought here...and more. Such as the explosive contents, of the request for comment, I recently opened. On massed slavery. A topic that is similarly being blanked from the entire project by the above, commencers of these proceedings. WP:BOOMERANG.

Boundarylayer (talk) 23:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

So let me quote just one example of the kind of conspiracy theory nonsense you believe belongs in Wikipedia. You wrote this at Club of Rome, entirely uncited. I deleted it and you have just reinstated it so clearly you believe it not only to be true but also important: With the persistence in the genocidal lens remaining a feature, in Anglican pseudo-scholastic instruction and therefore later government right through to the 20th century, until being tempered somewhat, in some circles, by the discovery of solar photovoltaics, nuclear energy and advances in nitrogen fixation agriculture, that effectively turns air into protein, discoveries which all largely occurred outside the control and domain of the predominately Anglican empire. That pretty much speaks for itself. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Maybe, but in what language is it speaking? Martian? EEng 02:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps the Planet Earth name for that language is "LaRouchian". The comment is a weird hybrid of gibberish and nonsense. The editor's writing style is bizarre and tendentious. I have indefinitely blocked them for disruptive editing. Cullen328 (talk) 05:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

In all fairness, Boundarylayer is correct in many of his points. His "genocidal Anglican" edit was not "uncited editorialising" as claimed, it was supported by the Zubrin source. And Zubrin's claims are not without foundation in reality. The influence of Anglican "priests" like Malthus & Townsend , did indeed lead to at least hundreds of thousands (arguably tens of millions) of unnecessary deaths. Even a patriotic, traditional, jubilant, "Im English till I die" chanting Anglican like myself has to admit that. The influence of tarts like Townsend & Malthus on the response to the great famine is probably of especial resonance to an Irish editor like Boundarylayer. And it's not unreasonable to see Malthus as an important antecedent to Club of Rome. Boundary is correct that among economists, the CoR theses was largely seen as fringe or at least a minority view, though this has begun to change this last few years. Not saying Cullen's block was unwarranted, you can be largely right and still be disruptive. But I'd suggest reducing to just a 6 month block would be more reasonable, and give Boundary time to reflect on a more AGF attitudes towards editors who don't share his views. (Just to clarify I agree with CoR myself - but I'm of the opinion it remains NPOV to include strong criticism against it, even if not quite as prominently as boundary wanted.) FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I came back to say that I was wrong to declare it uncited. Boundarylayer says that the source is Robert Zubrin and the citation is given at the end of the paragraph, which is a valid citation style. But that doesn't change the fact that it is incoherent word-soup, conveys no useful information whatever, and given in Wikispeak not as a quotation. That Bl considered it worthy of inclusion perhaps explains why it is so difficult to work towards consensus with them. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 07:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@FeydHuxtable: Just a footnote since BL is presently indeffed....... this isn't a problem with BL's content, but about BL's militant inability to do BRD. Your comment presents a typical example. BL's first attempt to add "genocidal" and "Anglican" relied on a single source which contains neither the character string "genocid" nor "Anglic" so I reverted [[126]. BL restored it with a WP:NPA violation "undid WP:VANDALISM blanking"[127] and only then added the second source, the book by Zubrin [128] which BL says [129],[130] is the actual basis for his desired change. I haven't seen the book, but the quality of referencing isn't the problem. As you say, an ed can be right and still be disruptive.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for starting this threat. I've only encountered the disruptive edits of this user yesterday and wrote about it here on the talk page of WikiProject Climate Change (which the user then promptly called a "knitting club" (kind?) and "special interest group" (is every WikiProject a special interest group?)). Looking over that user's history, interactions and the debates on other articles' talk pages I see a clear pattern of waffle type language, pushing the same point(s) over and over and non-collaborative editing behaviour. This kind of user just wastes our time. The person received ample warnings about their behaviour so it's sad that they don't seem to be willing to take this on board. EMsmile (talk) 09:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and beyond whether or not BL is partly correct in discussions of Malthus, going back to Femke’s original diffs, comparing Richard Norgaard to Hitler and calling any and all Degrowth scholars “child groomers” is too far. I think that BL is most likely using similar language to Zubrin and Shellenberger wherein they charge that environmentalists are “enemies of humanity”. I won’t wade into why they’re both wrong and operating in bad faith here, but I will say that BL was going much too far with that language on BLP pages, many times after they were warned and told to stop. —Hobomok (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

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

Help needed to create Wikidata item for talk inline redirect

I'm developing a script that does many things, including posting comments and new threads (like this one). Guarapiranga requested an option to select/highlight text and have that text inserted as a quote. Sounded neat, so I'm busy with this, but we don't typically use {{Talk quote inline}}, we use its redirect {{tq}}. To obtain the name of the template (the script isn't meant to work on just enwiki), it needs to have a Wikidata item, so I created one for the redirect. But creating a sitelink on Wikidata for a redirect has unfortunately been made "intentionally difficult". Here's what needs to happen, not for the faint of heart or those with a flaky internet connection: first, ensure you're logged in on Wikidata and open d:Q112199474 in a new window or tab. Remove the redirect from Template:Tq (this would be immensely destructive if it weren't for the next steps), add Template:tq as a sitelink on d:Q112199474 and immediately revert/rollback yourself on Template:Tq to restore the redirect. Again, do not attempt with flaky internet. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

_{Or an old flaky brain. Much respect & best of fortune with your endeavors, highly intelligent person! Faint heartedly, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 08:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)}

User:Tribe of Tiger, thank you for the kind words. :-) For my request, I realized that the contents of {{tq}} could be temporarily replaced with {{subst:Talk quote inline}} to add the Wikidata sitelink. That way, even if somehow you're unable to revert your edit to {{tq}} there won't be any noticeable disruption. Also, technically a template editor could fulfill this request. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 13:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Race and intelligence and the fringe noticeboard

2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) is a range used by a long term abuser on race and intelligence topics. Based on recent postings at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, they need an addition to their list of page blocks. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gardenofaleph/Archive is relevant. MrOllie (talk) 02:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The article currently under discussion at FTN is dysgenics, not race and intelligence. The relation between race and intelligence is not mentioned anywhere in that article, nor is it mentioned in any of the sources that the 203.186.250.135 tried to add there recently. 2600:1004:B10F:3171:5095:5EFA:69DB:6C26 (talk) 02:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

It's the same old garbage from the white supremacist science crew in a very slightly different wrapper. And, of course, an opportunity to take a whack at an old opponent. MrOllie (talk) 02:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The relationship between genetics and educational attainment may not literally be "race" and "intelligence," but come on. Dumuzid (talk) 02:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Am I in fact topic banned from all human intelligence topics, including those that don't relate to race? That's a much, much broader topic area than just the relation between race and intelligence. If that's the case, that hasn't been communicated to me before. 2600:1004:B10F:3171:5095:5EFA:69DB:6C26 (talk) 02:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

You were topic banned from race and intelligence broadly construed [131]. It seems clear that a discussion which includes stuff like

Since the nineteenth century, a “race deterioration” has been repeatedly predicted as a result of the excessive multiplication of less gifted people (Galton 1869; see also Fig. 9.1). Nevertheless, the educational and qualification level of people in the industrialized countries has risen strongly. The fact that the “test intelligence” has also significantly increased (Flynn 2013) is difficult to explain for supporters of the dysgenic thesis: they suspect that the “phenotypic intelligence” has increased for environmental reasons, while the “genotypic quality” secretly decreases (Lynn 1996, p. 111). There is neither evidence nor proof for this theory.

would be covered by such a topic ban. If you can't partake in discussions concerning key parts of the article and sources, it's unlikely you can safely edit the article. If you weren't aware that a broadly construed topic ban would cover such things, that's on you. No one should need to tell you, as always it's your responsibility to learn what is covered and if you're unsure, to seek clarification 'before getting involved. There are areas of human intelligence you can safely edit but anything which comes close to race is clearly not one of them. BTW I saw in one of the previous discussions I suggested perhaps a site ban wasn't necessary since you didn't seem to have any other interests anyway. While the latter may be true perhaps my conclusion was faulty. If you're going to test the edges of the topic ban, the the normal solution is a site ban. Nil Einne (talk) 12:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Quite a few people seem, for some reason, to have difficulty understanding "broadly construed". I'm not sure what the general solution to that is, but in this case how about broadening the topic ban to anything concerned with genetics or inheritance? That would seem to cover the intent of the 2020 ban. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Upton Sinclair once said "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." I think it is unlikely there is a general solution. - MrOllie (talk) 13:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Genetics, intelligence, and race would cover it well I think. I can provide diffs if needed. I know a lot of admins and editors are already familiar with the history of disruption in these areas. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I would phrase it as genetics, intelligence, or race to avoid any possible suggestion of confusion that it covers only the intersection of those things. --Aquillion (talk) 05:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

It's been like *checks watch* almost three years of this? Why haven't we blocked this entire range yet? Is there some body of good contribs we're trying to save? Levivich 13:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@GeneralNotability: I know you said at the Dec SPI that you'd keep an eye on this /40, and I'm wondering what you think six months later? I can see the non-related positive contribs on the range; have you happened to look into the possibility of narrowing the range to reduce collateral damage (I have not)? Levivich 15:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I just looked and I'm not very good at this range stuff, but obvi the /64 is safe tho it won't be terribly effective, and it looks like the /48 has unrelated good edits on it (and doesn't seem to be catching any bad ones beyond what's in the /64). Levivich 15:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

WHOIS says the range in question is the /44, not the /40, not that that changes the collateral damage all that much, and I don't see any good options to narrow it down while still being effective. If you all trust the person behind the keyboard to abide by a broader TBAN, by all means try that. Otherwise, if this is going to turn into a long-term case of nibbling around the edges of whatever TBAN is imposed, I say just block the range and live with the collateral. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, this user has a documented history of bright-line TBAN violations, in addition to the more recent nibbling around the edges. See this and this past ANI discussions for details. I’d hate to see good faith IP editors blocked collaterally but I have no confidence at all that the LTA will suddenly begin respecting the terms of their ban. Generalrelative (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

It seems we have general agreement. Levivich 15:21, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

More disruptive editing on The Open Championship from a SPA

User:Hamishcm has continued in the footsteps of the still-blocked anon 31.121.4.10, editing The Open Championship to remove references to the phrase "British Open" despite longstanding consensus. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 02:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

They appear to be now discussing this on the article talk page though confusingly doing so in the middle of an unrelated requested move discussion. Let’s see how it plays out. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

They've now returned to the disruptive editing, twice now in the last hour and a half. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 22:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Meanwhile 31.121.4.10 is back, and its first action was to add language to U.S. Open (golf) that says that tournament is known as the North American Open – an incorrect claim that reeks of WP:POINT. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 23:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

• As they continued edit-warring after a warning, I've pblocked them from the page from one week, and have also given a DS alert for The Troubles in light of their "United Kingdom and Northern Ireland" edits. If they don't drop the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality quickly, I see this becoming an indef siteblock instead. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

  Forty minutes after Hamishcm was blocked, 31.121.4.10 made another disruptive edit to The Open Championship. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 04:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for pointing that out. While the two clearly share a POV, I'm not convinced they're the same person. The POV edits they've made have differed somewhat in form, and their tone in discussions is different. So I've hard-pblocked the IP from the page for another month, and warned them that any further POINTy edits will lead to a siteblock; feel free to ping me if that does transpire. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:13, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, this has been a consistent enough problem on this article for years that it wouldn't be too surprising for multiple people to be doing it. The timing is suspicious though. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 04:43, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

  The Open Championship is a little over a month away now, so maybe that's it? IDK. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 07:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Targeted harassment against me by multiple IPs

For the past two weeks, I've been dealing with targeted harassment against me by multiple IPs, who I assume are all the same user. Those IPs and their edits are below (some edits have been revision deleted for being extremely racist):

• 2601:248:8200:D240:9DA1:6C12:45FE:2F61
• 96.239.33.237
• 98.46.79.79
• (This one might not be related, but included for possible relevancy): 174.210.231.145

I've dealt with short-term harassment from IPs before, but never for this long or with this degree of vitriol. Has anybody dealt with this before? Any tips? Or should I just keep reporting and reverting? ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 10:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

People like that come and go, though there is a seemingly never ending supply of them. I'd recommend two essays: BRI (not RBI) and OWB (most of it in fact). Get some blocks and semi-protection when appropriate, and do as much as possible to ignore it. Don't become a focus if it bothers you. There's plenty of other editors around. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@ThadeusOfNazereth: I'm sure I'm not the only admin who has added your user talk page to their watch list, so we'll notice if there is additional harassment. —C.Fred (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Laksmi De-Neefe Suardana

HiChrisBoyleHere (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) – account is disruptively edits, unrelatable content and reliable reference removal and being used only for promotional purposes to promote Instagram Links as major references on Wiki bio of Laksmi De-Neefe Suardana, he is already warned on Talk:Laksmi De-Neefe Suardana and his own talkpage but refused to follow the guidelines and keep on reverting administrator revert edits. There has apparently been long-term massive deletion and content removals made by User:HiChrisBoyleHere on Laksmi De-Neefe Suardana page, by deleting major references and replace it with Instagram links and personal thoughts (un-reference) as a reliable reference, as he did on [132], [133], [134], [135] and more on article page history. He kept on rejecting himself to read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons guidelines before started adding Instagram links as the main source of references. That is why I have to escalate this Issue, please help me to fix the page. Thanks before...--Canny Yeohmanly (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Reverted back to before the edit war, at least two of you and possibly three, and fully protected for a week. HiChrisBoyleHere you state there is consensus on the talk page but looking at Talk:Laksmi De-Neefe Suardana#Disruptive Edits On Laksmi De-Neefe Suardana made by User:HiChrisBoyleHere there is too much non-English for other editors to judge if you reached consensus or not. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Paulmcdonald and admin 101

Some issues with admin User:Paulmcdonald.

It all started rather minor, when they removed a G11 (advertising) speedy deletion tag from Urban Fêtes because "Removing speedy tag/contested on talk page". Declining a G11 speedy because the article creator contests it seemed to me to be shirking the admin duties completely ("duties" as in, if you decide to act on a speedy, then the admin should judge whether the tag is correct, not the article creator). Some discussion on their user talk page wasn't fruitful.

Today things got worse. A new article was created, Water (Water Saigon Kick album). I tagged it for A10 as a duplicate of Water (Saigon Kick album). Paulmcdonald declined the speedy because they wanted someone to merge and then delete it. They then merged it anyway, but didn't to anything with the original article. So I redirected Water (Water Saigon Kick album) to Water (Saigon Kick album), as there was nothing left to do (perhaps a histmerge, but keeping the article active served no purpose). Which is when the problematic admin actions really started.

Pailmcdonald first used rollback to revert me[136], which is an abuse of the rollback tool. And then they nominated the page they merged for A10 speedy deletion[137], which is obviously no longer valid as there is now merged material that needs attribution and thus should not be deleted like this.

Can some people please check whether this is typical behaviour of Paulmcdonald, and make it clear that these actions are not acceptable? Fram (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• I'm glad you brought it up. I did what I thought was best with my mop and bucket. In my eyes, the Urban Fêtes article did not unquestionably meet the criteria for speedy deletion. Other avenues of deletion exist: PROD, AFD, etc. For Water (Water Saigon Kick album), I noticed that there was some content in one article that was not in the other so I proposed a merge. Rather than discuss the merge as I asked (and I think it would have gone quick), you chose to quickly blank and redirect. I suppose I could have gotten the old data from the history but I reverted to get the content to copy to the destination article, then put a speedy back on which you seemed to originally agree with. During this time, I think that editing was done quickly and some confusion likely dropped in.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Which doesn't address your use of rollback (not allowed like this) or your request for speedy deletion (which was acceptable before a merge was done, but not after, which is the difference between my tag and yours). I would in general expect admins to know these things, as they are pretty basic rules (not some obscure policy): and I would certainly expect admins to familiarize themselves with them in the unlikely event that they truly didn't know this and get dragged to ANI over it, instead of just repeating their wrong beliefs or simply ignoring the issues. Fram (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
    • I think I see now--it looks like I clicked rollback instead of revert. I apologize for my mistake.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
      • And the speedy deletion? Any insight in what you did wrong (or an explanation of why you didn't)? It's nice that you apologise for the rollback, but I still don't get any indication that you understand where you went wrong or what you would do otherwise in the future. Fram (talk) 12:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I've long noticed these problems since Paulmcdonalds return, especially as it pertains to deletions (or non-deletions) in that they decline almost any CSD tag if anyone contests it on the talk page. I have some more issues, which I'll compile and add later. PRAXIDICAE💕 14:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• • I'd welcome discussion on my User talk:Paulmcdonald for any comments and suggestions you might have.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

    Given this thread is already open, I'd rather discuss it with the community. PRAXIDICAE💕 15:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Another recent example of this admin not knowing some of the very basics (or at the very least giving nonsensical explanations for their speedy denial): declining to delete a user page "to preserve talk page history". Fram (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with you on that one. Upon further reflection, I could have made a better choice there.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
  • And what would that better choice have been? Fram (talk) 12:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
    • That's easy, that should have been speedied as originally requested.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Just a note that a few relatively minor mistakes (which isn't to say they aren't mistakes) followed by a call for other people to do the legwork of collecting diffs (Can some people please check whether this is typical behaviour) does not an ideal ANI thread make. Maybe there's something there, but to quote another Paul, "it's underproofed". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The problem isn't just the mistakes, but the trouble they seem to have in realising they were wrong, and what they did wrong (plus the frequency and the rather basic nature of them). And the request for others to check as well is because I can't see any deleted bits, which makes it harder to check many of their actions (e.g. I can't even see whether there are articles where they removed the speedy but which were deleted anyway). It took them three tries and more than an hour to see that they had indeed used rollback, they still haven't replied to the merge-and-delete issue (they don't seem to know the difference between asking for deletion of a new article, and asking for deletion of a merged article (which they just merged, so it's not some "gotcha" they weren't aware of). And I did do further research myself as well, hence my "another recent example", which they admit but without any indication of whether they know what was actually wrong with their action. Fram (talk) 16:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I am just a standard user and not up to speed on the admin side of things but I would like to note that Paul McDonald added a message about proposed merge on the Water target page and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Water_(Saigon_Kick_album)&oldid=1091225987 didn't leave a message that the merge had been completed leading someone to comment on it after it had been completed. It would also be good if they could add the (optional) {{merged from}} and {{merged to}} templates to the talk pages. Gusfriend (talk) 00:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• Feels much more like it should have been a short civil talk on Paul's talk page, not an ANI report. These are minor oversights at best, not damaging errors. Sergecross73 msg me 12:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• • Talking tried and failed. And no, these are damaging errors: trying to speedy delete pages which shouln't be speedy deleted for attribution reasons (reasons created by paulmcdonald just before adding the speedy tag) is causing damage; rejecting correct speedy deletions because on non-policy reasons (or because of a total alck of knowledge of the policies) also damages enwiki. And an admin who has these type of issues this often is a serious liability. The non-committal or vague answers here are no reassurance, and don't give the impression that further talking would have been any better. But I guess we'll have to wait and see if similar issues continue to happen or not then. Fram (talk) 13:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I mean, have you seen User talk:Paulmcdonald#Urban Fêtes. Apparently they are unable to respond meaningfully to posts which aren't formulated as a question. And sadly, their answers to questions aren't much better. Having a conversation with them turned out to be a fruitless exercise, and when I then noticed just days later that they made one error after another, I came here. Fram (talk) 13:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
    • I read it and more or less agree with Paul in his responses: you made no request and asked no question, you just, as he said, scolded him. You didn't "have a conversation" with him, not really, more like you yelled at him and then came here. If that is what you think a normal conversation looks like then, well, this is why a lot of times when you raise these issues no one really cares because even though you're right that these were mistakes, your way of handling them and raising them is frankly worse than the mistake itself. If this sounds familiar to you it's because I'm like the millionth person to say this to you and it's what framgate was all about and why you're not an admin anymore. C'mon and let's fix this part and start approaching people nicer with our complaints. And I say this as like probably the #2 top complainer about admin actions on this website, behind you. Levivich 14:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
      • Framgate was about an editor who didn't like her dreadful articles being scrutinized and enlisting WMF insider help from the very top to get me silenced, and the WMF thinking that taking out an editor with enough opponents would be an uncontroversial first power move. And then a number of disgruntled people making trumped-up accusations without much (or usually anything) in the way of evidence to support their claims, but who just felt this a good chance to get revenge for, again, having their problems exposed in the past. See e.g. the notorious deleted Signpost attack piece, and the people behind it. But it at least partially succeeded, in that people can still use it as evidence for something or other. Fram (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

      This was similar to my interpretation. The discussion comes off as awfully rude for what the situation was, and kind of moves into badgering territory from there. Sergecross73 msg me 14:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

      • To each their own I guess. When an admin decision is criticised, and no useful reply is forthcoming ("thank you" is very civil I guess, but totally useless in that discussion), then trying to get an answer is "badgering". I suppose letting situations go further out of hand until we "suddenly" have another example of an incompetent admin needing a desysop is better than trying to nip things in the bud. Oh well, I fear we'll be back here again relatively soon, but we'll see. Fram (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

        I think the thing you have to ask yourself when entering into a conversation with another user is this: is this going to be about me, or is it going to be about them? That choice informs the tone and language you use. Here, you've decided to ensure that we've all heard your criticism of Paulmcdonald, and it's on our heads if we don't see the problem as you do. This confrontational approach distracts from what should be main issue, and is in no way helpful toward resolving what may or may not be an issue with Paulmcdonald's exercise of the tools. Mackensen (talk) 04:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) If we can try to reframe this back around something constructive, and maybe not around wikipolitics of three years ago, I think there's a discussion to be had about declining speedy deletions, particularly A7. About a month ago Paulmcdonald declined an A7 that I had seen as quite straightforward and was about to action.

The content of that article, Qmamu, at time of tagging (all substantive content © Apletters; whitespace condensed for space)

{{short description|Indian search engine}} {{db-web|help=off}} '''Qmamu''' is an Indian [[search engine]] and web portal created by [https://qmamu.com/ Qmamu Technologies Private Limited]. It uses a technology created by Qmamu. <ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.apnnews.com/qmamu-is-becoming-the-most-liked-search-engine-by-users-surpassing-the-other-search-engines-with-a-big-ratio/ | title=Qmamu is becoming the most liked search engine by users surpassing the other search engines with a big ratio!}} </ref><ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.mca.gov.in/mcafoportal/companyLLPMasterData.do | title=Company/LLP Master Data of Qmamu from the postal of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA), India}}</ref> <ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.thehansindia.com/technology/tech-news/qmamu-the-winning-example-of-vocal-for-local-initiative-668931| title=Qmamu- the winning example of Vocal for Local initiative}}</ref> [[File:Logo_of_Qmamu_-_Indian_search_engine.jpeg|thumb|right|Logo of the Qmamu search engine]] == References == <references /> == External links == *[https://www.apnnews.com/qmamu-is-becoming-the-most-liked-search-engine-by-users-surpassing-the-other-search-engines-with-a-big-ratio/ APN News Page] *[https://www.mca.gov.in/mcafoportal/companyLLPMasterData.do Ministry of Corporate Affairs (India) portal] *[https://www.thehansindia.com/technology/tech-news/qmamu-the-winning-example-of-vocal-for-local-initiative-668931 The Hans India News page] *[https://qmamu.com/ Qumamu web search page] [[Category:Internet search engines]] [[Category:Internet in Slovenia]] [[Category:Indian websites]] [[Category:Indian brands]] {{searchengine-website-stub}}

• There is no CCS in the text, and the two referenced news articles are just reskins of the same press release, likewise not presenting a credible claim of significance. Paul declined with the summary Removed speedy per rationale on talk page. Apletters' rationale on the talk page had been this stub is created for the limited purpose of linking the name of Qmamu search engine while listing it under localized search engines. That rationale makes no sense. Lists of large sets of things are supposed to reflect what's notable; we don't create articles on non-notable topics in order to add things to those lists. If that were how we did it, it wouldn't make sense for WP:CSD#A7 to exist at all, since any item covered by it can surely be added to one list or another. I note that subsequently Paul added his own CSD challenge, before self-reverting and un-tagging the page instead: there is an assertion of notability and sources are provided. I don't see a website saying that it is popular, or paying someone else to say that it is popular, as a claim of significance. When the article was brought to AfD, Paul cited the two reskinned press releases as sufficient not just for a CCS but for a GNG pass. Paul and Apletters were the only users to !vote keep, and the article was deleted.
  Now, there's reasonable differences of interpretation of A7, and even when an interpretation is unreasonable, everyone's allowed to be wrong sometimes. But I do think there's room here for a discussion of whether Paulmcdonald's understanding of A7 is in line with the community's. (For what it's worth, I'm not sure I'd have actioned the G11 of Urban Fêtes either. It's puff-piece-y, but not blatantly promotional. That said, when the reason for contesting deletion doesn't address the charge of promotionality, I don't think untagging as "contested on talk page" makes sense.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Legal threats, COI and disruption by Konguhead

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

Konguhead returned to editing after five months

• Konguhead's very first edit after five months was to add the word "kshatriya" to the lead of Gounder with no sources.[138]
• Removed sourced content and added unsourced content with the edit summary "Citiations needed".[139]
• Then, goes to Kongu Vellalar to modify sourced content with no edit summary or sources.[140]
• Edit warring to add similar type of edits again in Gounder like adding unsourced content[141], adding WP:FAKE references for the word "Kshatriya"[142], removing sourced content with a false edit summary.[143] and finally added a random website as a source.[144]

I tried my best to explain about their WP:OR on their talk page and instead I get replied with more of their personal theories and replies like I think it's your personal vengeance. I can't help with your misunderstandings...[145], You're one here who can't understand the history and facts...[146]

Legal threats

Konguhead made legal threat after getting warned for legal threats.

COI

Konguhead in their second edit has declared a COI with Malai Gounder in their user page which is one of the communities of Gounder. They also seems to have a COI with "konguassociation.com" (an association of a community part of Gounder) as they had once blanked their talk page and replaced it with "Association of kongu".[147]. Used words like Our organization[148], That's why we requesting you to cooperate with us[149], we'll file legal complaint[150] - SUN EYE 1 17:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

ping ToBeFree - SUN EYE 1 18:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Please don't block the user solely for the legal threat; it's from last year and a red herring in discussing this user's disruption. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

(uninvolved ed) A quick read of User talk:Konguhead convinces me this user is determined to just ignore WP:CIRCULAR even though it (or the concept) was explicitly called to their attention more than once. A 1-day block would be a good wake up call, and establish a baseline for evaluating future WP:STONEWALLING. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• In their latest reply, Konguhead has attacked editors in his talk page and called them "dumbs".[151]- SUN EYE 1 06:42, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I notice that was after my comment above advocating a 1-day block, which I now increase to a week. I mean, if they're going to do NPAs while an ANI is underway, there's a problem. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:49, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Lugnuts at AFD

At This discussion Lugnuts is niggling at Johnpacklambert again. The root of the issue is two fold. Firstly, Lugnuts has created a lot of sub stubs that eventually lead to the community banning them from making stubs and Lugnuts seems to have an aversion from JPL working on sorting out the articles, which includes prodding and AFDing. The second issue is that Lugnuts seems to be completely incapable about resisting the urge to personalise discussion and scattering aspersions. Normally this would be part of the give and take and general nastiness of AFD but as we have discussed here so many times Lugnuts is supposed to be on their final chance and has been warned specifically to avoid personalising discussions. I have blocked them a couple of times for this and no change in behaviour has been seen. The last time I unblocked early after a discussion to start systematic editing changes to avoid this in future but here we are again. I raised this latest incident with Lugnuts but they blew me off and short of an indef I don't see any block to be likely to lead to any improvement. That leaves us back here as an intractable problem. The only solution I can think off would be a one way IBAN for Lugnuts to stop them interacting with JPL in any way but that would mean he couldn't respond to any AFD nominations or Prods JPL might make but maybe there is a better solution? Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

How many times are we gonna discuss this at ANI before something is finally done? PRAXIDICAE💕 17:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

You tell me. I have been the only admin enforcing decorum and I can't be the only one doing this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@Praxidicae I agree, something has to give. Thank you @Spartaz for bringing it here because I think it has grown beyond our respective Talks and the repeat fights in the AfDs. Unfortunately I'm not sure what the answer is yet. Star Mississippi 21:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

As a reminder, Lugnuts is not the only involved party under sanctions - as I understand it JPL is limited to one AfD per day aren't they? They are keeping to this sanction, but have a very poor "success rate" at AfD - a very quick sample suggested that recently no more than 20% of articles created by Lugnuts that JPL sends to AfD are actually deleted (and I would argue that in almost all of those 20% that redirection is a valid possibility; in some of the 80% of articles which are redirected or kept, there are clearly questions that could be asked about the need to send them to AfD, let alone whether or not they should be PRODed at all - given that this is clearly an area in which deletion is contentious and there are often obvious alternatives). In many cases there are obvious ATD, yet JPL continues to send articles to AfD, which I'm sure that if I'd created them at a time in which these sorts of articles were deemed acceptable, that I'd probably feel a little exasperated as well. I'm not entirely certain why keeping a total of articles which JPL has sent to AfD this year is particularly problematic, but there you are. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

It takes two to tango. -- Vaulter 18:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The best long-term solution would be for User:Johnpacklambert to stop nominating articles for deletion when there is an obvious redirect target. He has been told many times that there is no need for a subject to be notable to have a redirect, but merely to be verifiable. In the short term the bickering should stop, but while such deletion nominations are being made the problem will not go away. Oh, and by the way, there is no such thing as a "sub stub". Our shortest articles are stubs. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I tried redirecting articles. Lugnuts mass reverted the redirects. Others have done so as well. So he has fought tooth and nail against that solution. In many of these cases there are multiple at least as near to notable as the subject. We also get discussions like this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Otto Schröder where multiple other editos supported deletion, some of them specifically saying it was not a good redirect candidate. No one has presented a good way to remove these articles that no longer meet our inclusion criteria when attempts to redirect them have been routinely reverted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The suggestion was "The best long-term solution would be for User:Johnpacklambert to stop nominating articles for deletion when there is an obvious redirect target"--it wasn't about you redirecting things, but about you no longer nominating such articles. Drmies (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

The proposal to change "Articles for Deletion" to "Articles for Discussion" has been made several times, but has been rejected, largely because it makes six or seven million talk pages redundant and would completely overwhelm the AfD page. If a bold redirection is reverted then simply follow the WP:BRD procedure (I know that's "only" an essay but it encapsulates better than most policies and guidelines the essence of Wikipedia editing) and discuss it on the article talk page, rather than nominate for deletion something that shouldn't be deleted, but redirected, and needs no administrator to enact the outcome. And just forget the idea that redirects need to be notable, as you said in this discussion. If that was the case then we wouldn't have redirects at all, because they would all qualify to be articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I've just noticed (pardon me for being a little slow) that you are under a restriction that relates to creating AfD discussions. One advantage to you of the approach I outlined above is that article talk pages do not fall under this restriction. I would, however, advise you to make sure that you keep discussion focussed on the matter at hand. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• Involved note: I am involved, not necessarily in this specific dispute but because I proposed what became John Pack Lambert's topic ban and both editors feel I close sports AfDs against their wishes, which has led to this disagreement landing on my Talk at several occasions: (User_talk:Star_Mississippi/Archive_5#I_feel_you_have_closed_many_AfDs_in_error, User_talk:Star_Mississippi/Archive_7#ANI_as_a_way_to_bludgeon_people, User_talk:Star_Mississippi/Archive_6#Giuseepe_Fago, User_talk:Star_Mississippi/Archive_6#Poul_Nielson_AFD. As such, I'm not taking an admin position, but I will say the community's patience is exhausted both with the endless squabbling and the fight over athletes' notability. Both editors believe they're editing in good faith but are unable to do so without poking at one another because they fundamentally disagree on athletic notability. As I said to John Pack Lambert at User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Frustration, it's not reasonable to expect to be addressed as Mr. Lambert, but Lugnuts doesn't need to go out of his way to call John Pack Lambert by a name he explicitly does not want to be called.

My only potential solution to stop the disruption is a mutual interaction ban. There are many backlogs. There is no reason that John Pack Lambert has to be the one handling stubs Lugnuts is in the history for. If they're a travesty, another editor will notice. If they're not, oh well, they're mostly not BLPs and not hurting the project. Star Mississippi 19:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks SM - I'd be happy with this suggestion. I've got some things to sort out this morning (UK time), along with some c-word related stuff (cricket, of course), so I'll post a summary of my thoughts/concerns later today. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I admit, I giggled at c-word for cricket. If it ever returns to the summer games, the clash between that and Olympians might break Wikipedia in the best possible way Star Mississippi 17:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

It could happen at LA 2028. With medals for best sandwiches at the tea break. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:36, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Observations:

• Noting that half of someone's many AfD nominations are articles created by one person isn't a problem in itself. It's data, and about the mildest expression of frustration I can think of.
• When you mass create stubs, you increase the likelihood that a spate of nominations will disproportionately affect articles you created, especially not long after the notability rules for those topics changed.
• Especially when there's some bad blood, I don't agree that just going ahead and redirecting articles is a better or more diplomatic approach than giving them 7 days worth of discussion. Redirect is a perfectly valid outcome at AfD, so why not allow for discussion if there's anything controversial.
• Lugnuts could avoid all of this by just going and redirecting those that need to be redirected rather than waiting for someone else to do it.
• When we have another article that explicitly mentions someone, yes, of course a redirect is appropriate, contrary to what JPL argued in that AfD.
• No idea what's going on with the Mr. Lambert/Lambert stuff. If you're looking for an abbreviation, I've not seen Johnpacklambert object to simply "JPL". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:16, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
  • The claim that a name showing up in a sports results table is the same as explicltly mentioning them in not really a reasonable claim. Mention in a table is all we actually have at the proposed target article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
    • Of course it's reasonable. A person is mentioned on Wikipedia, and we don't have a stand-alone article for them, so we can create a redirect. Whether in a table, on a list, or in a paragraph, they're mentioned. What is lost by redirecting, which of the the reasons for deleting a redirect apply, and most importantly, why is this worth the drama when redirects are cheap? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
      • I think you are misunsing the word "mention" when you braden it to include every apparence on a table in a long article. Most people when they see "mention" assume there is something of stustance said about the individual which realky is not the case with a table. Either way, the fact that I get accused of hounding someone for legitimate deletion nomiations since the person clearly does not meet inclusion criteria is very frustrating.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
• Also many of these articles a search shows other people with the same name who are as close to being as notable or even more notable than the person the article is currently on. Also as I show above in many cases multiple other editors see this as an article that is not at all notable. I am tired of the constant claim I am singling out Lugnuts. I am in no way singling out Lugnuts. He created a huge amount of under sourced stub articles so much so he has been banned from doing so ever again. For him to treat someone trying to solve this problem he created as an attack on him to me shows he does not at all recognize how truly disruptive his activity in creating all these articles that lead to him being banned was. That not recognizing how disruptive his past actions were should be of concern to other editors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
• The main issue is I should be able to nominate articles without false and unfounded accusations that I am hounding another editor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
  • There was a decision that non-medaling Olympians are not notable for Olympic competition. These nominations are a clear attempt to bring Wikipedia in line with that policy. It is not the fault of me or other editors involved in this process that a very high percentage of such articles were all created by one editor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

No idea what's going on with the Mr. Lambert/Lambert stuff. If you're looking for an abbreviation, I've not seen Johnpacklambert object to simply "JPL". this appears to be new @Rhododendrites. He requested it at my Talk and on his own today: User_talk:Johnpacklambert#Please_refer_to_me_as_Mr._Lambert. I admit I have frequently been guilty of JPL. Star Mississippi 19:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Maybe this is just a cultural difference, but from my point of view it is egotistical to demand that other editors address him as Mr. Lambert. We are not his subordinates. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, that is really what confuses me. He can't dictate how editors call him. And it's a minor thing (at least for me). He can make a wish (like he did) but that's it. Or am i seeing that wrong? Kante4 (talk) 10:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I think I finally figured that out. At 12:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC), he complained a user was calling him by only his last name, referring to him repeatedly as "Lambert", and he found that rude. I'm happy to comply with either Mr. Lambert or his username, seems reasonable given the context. Jacona (talk) 10:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

• If you placed a ban on me from nominating for deletion any stub created by Lugnuts it would be rewarding him for his rude behavior and will reinforce his constant false claim that I am in some way hounding him. That would clearly be a case of punishing me because Lugnuts was rude to me and made false accusations against me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

  You both have active sanctions against you. Neither of you has clean hands despite believing you're acting in good faith, which you both do believe. Star Mississippi 20:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

  • So if we put this policy in place, it would ban Lugnuts from making any comments on any article I nominated for deletion. So in the rare cases there is an Olympic stbu that Lugnuts did not create, I could nominate it for deletion, and if he made any comment on the deletion discussion he would be in violation of a ban and would immediately face more severe sactions. Is that correct?John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

    You do realize that by phrasing that comment in such a fashion you are setting yourself for accusations of gaming the sanction when you inevitably start targeting Olympian articles that weren't created by Lugnuts. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 12:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose an interaction ban, at least if it will be interpreted to include every article that Lugnuts has started. That is just insane. This is a clear over reaction. What we need is something to get Lugnuts to stop claiming that people who are nominating a few of the thousands of articles he created, most of which at least at first glance lack both sources to meet GNG or meeting the current sports notability guidlines (or artist notability guidelines, he has flooded Wikipedia with sub-stubs on artist who were in the Olympic artist competition, which no one seems to want to either remove or add sources to to show they were actual notable artists, they clearly do not meet notability for Olympic contribution alone), is somehow targeting him. Many editors actually want to bring our coverage into line with the decision that Olympic competitors are not default notable for such unless they were medalists. It is taking much longer to review and search for sources on one of these competitors than Lugnuts normally put into creating articles (we know this because there were bursts of 10 minutes in which he created at least 4 articles). It is a long, trudging process that will probably take years to get to the bottom of. It does not help at all that those of us who undertake it are attacked falsely as trying to single out the work of Lugnuts. This is not a true claim. Any response to his false claim on this matter that limits the actions of other editors will amount in some way to validating his false claim.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
• Just look at Category:Athletes (track and field) at the 1928 Summer Olympics. What percentage of those articles are stubs? What percentage were created by Lugnuts. I suspect both are well in excess of 50%. This could be duplicated for a huge number of Olympic pages. Currently there are only 4 Olympic related deletion disucssions open, 2 of which were created by me. How this amounts to hounding on my part I am not sure. Why we have so few I am not sure, I believe some people who were adding toward it have become so overwhelmed by the size, they are planing some future mass nominations. Lugnuts does not have lots of articles by him nominated for deletion because people are out to get him, this happens because such a high percentage of articles on Olympic competitors, most of whom were not notable, were created by him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:04, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I suspect you've already counted and chose that category advisedly, but for the record, there's 704 articles in it; 586 are also in Category:All stub articles; Lugnuts authored the first revision of 384 of them; and 378 of the pages that Lugnuts has the first edit to are also in the stubs category. —Cryptic 01:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
• As best I can tell today was the first day in which I nominated for deletion an article started by Lugnuts since May 25th, which was 8 days ago. He still posted a post on his page accusing me of singling out articles he created for deletion. He was asked to back down but doubled down instead, so the editor who asked him to back down brought this here. So now, because he did that someone is proposing I be banned from nominating any of the thousands upon thousands of sub-stubs created by Lugnuts, a group so large he has been banned from every creating stubs again, because he was fasely accusing my of hounding him. None of this makes any sense. Especially since people tried to work out ways other than taking all these sub-stubs to AfD, but he has consistently opposed other solutions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
• I have been checking most bios of Olympians I am finding as I review Category:1901 births. It seems that about 80% of these articles were created by Lugnuts.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
  • 80% might be too low an estimate, and this in general seems to be the case for pretty much any year from 1901-1920 and maybe well beyond that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Nope, 265 out of 569. —Cryptic 01:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
• My solution to this would be profoundly unfair on both of them, but, we've been here before and we'll come here again. None of the usual administrative tools exactly fit the problem, and if we want to be fair to them both, we'd need novel and creative solutions. If we're mainly trying to end the timesinks and focus our limited resources of volunteer time on other problems, maybe consider topic-banning the pair of them from AfD? Honestly, if you look at any AfD, you can always subtract both JPL and Lugnuts' contributions from it and get a better discussion.—S Marshall T/C 09:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. It should be noted that Lugnuts aggressive and incivil behaviour has not been confined to interaction with John Pack Lambert, especially concerning their creations, and there have been suggestions here previously that Lugnuts be topic banned from AFD, perhaps just in relation to articles they have created. Maybe it's time to give that serious consideration. I don't see that John Pack Lambert's actions in relation to Lugnuts warrant any restrictive measures. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• I would suggest that I've noted a change in the ways in which Lugnuts expresses themselves, certainly at AfD. They seem to have been restricting themselves to a fairly standard response without any further comments. Don't they? Perhaps I'm wrong, but my impression is that I've seen a change in behaviour from Lugnuts. Fwiw I think I've also seen a move in response to the change in the sports notability guidelines, with Lugnuts "voting" for redirects as a response whereas in the past "votes" would have been more likely, I think, to be keep. Again, that might only be my impression and I may be wrong. But both of those suggest to me that Lugnuts has responded to changes in the ways in which things are done. I couldn't say whether JPL has changed the ways in which they behave. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  Indeed. Maybe wjemather has some diffs to back up their claim. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• Just to be certain I understand the situation correctly: Lugnuts has created a large number of very similar stubs, effectively as a WP:FAITACCOMPLI, yes? My reading is that under such circumstances is is entirely appropriate for someone to go through and review all of them -- WP:HOUND contains a specific exemption for such reviews. When someone makes a large number of very similar contributions that they believe share similar problems, we are allowed (and it is sometimes necessary) to review them all at once, and it is acceptable and appropriate to go over the edit history of the user in question for that purpose. This is necessary to prevent FAITACCOMPLI situations - mass edits need to be subject to unified review; if they could only be challenged piecemeal then they could be forced through via sheer weight of edits. If Lugnuts feels targeted, the appropriate solution is to get consensus in advance before making mass-edits in the future; it's fine to be WP:BOLD when adding a few stubs or articles, but when adding a massive number of them, proceeding without discussion tends towards recklessness. Reviewing bulk-edits (including stubs that were bulk-created) is absolutely appropriate and should not be punished or discouraged. --Aquillion (talk) 19:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Observations from Lugnuts

OK, for what it's worth, here are my thoughts. JPL has posted their frustration about my work on various users' talkpages, something I've never really bothered with. My frustration is trying hard to believe that their claim of "There is no attempt to single out articles created by you for deletion" is true. The stats I've posted, and update each day, show that for 90+ AfDs started in the past five months by JPL, almost half of them have targeted articles I started. Now if it was the other way around, and I was doing that same rate against one user, how long before someone would complain?

Everything I've ever created has been in good faith, sourced (to the best of my knowledge), and in-line with the notability requirements as they stood the very second I hit the save button. Yes, WP:NSPORT has pretty much been removed, something I personally don't like, but I'm going with the community's consensus with it. For example, I don't think I've ever challenged any asspect of the update since it went through the RfC.

I really don't have an issue on anyone nominating anything I've created for deletion. It's often a learning experience for editors on both sides of the debate, regardless of the discussion's outcome. Where I do have an issue is the feeling that it's one editor simply targetting that area of work. Their talkpage is littered with posts about articles they don't feel are notable either, but how many of them does JPL take to AfD? Very few if any. It feels very much as if they are trying to make a WP:POINT, certainly when they have said I write "junk articles" in the past (sorry, no diff for that, but they def. have).

With regards to AfDs, there seems to be little to no leway in JPL's thinking when voting for delete. This AfD (a school, so nothing to do with me), shows no hint of WP:BEFORE work, or even reconsidering their vote, despite the comment on their talkpage to kindly review the discussion. And then there's the whole PROD issue.

WP:PROD clearly states - "Proposed deletion (PROD) is a way to suggest an article or file for uncontroversial deletion", with WP:PRODNOM asking at point one "Is there a valid reason for deletion?", which links to WP:DEL-REASON. Looking through some of JPL's most recent prods, you find rationales such as This is an unsourced list in a series of unsourced or undersourced lists, This article on a race car driver does not have enough sources to meet GNG, The one listed source does not work. It has been notified as needing more sources for over a decade, The sourcing here is not enough to demonstrate notability, This is an unsourced article that has been notified as unsourced for over 7 years. That is enough time that we could expect a source to be added if anything was every going to change, The article is without sources. We need sources to have content or to show notability, and The article is without sources. We need sources to have content or to show notability. The latter one has no edit summary when the prod was done.

Now the issue with their poor PROD rationales AND the lack of edit summaries when prod'ing was previously raised at ANI (by myself), with the closing comment of "JPL has agreed to take the feedback on board and act differently, the OP has indicated they are satisfied, and there doesn't seem to be consensus for anything else to happen". So why is that still continuing nearly two years later, with that last PROD with no edit summary happening AFTER admin Liz posted this on JPL's talkpage, reminding them again about the summary.

Everything needs give and take, and I'm not as heartless as some of you think (or would like to think), so what if JPL would take a voluntary restriction of nominating Olympian/sportspeople articles for AfD to a "few times a month" (oooh vague!) instead of EVERY. OTHER. DAY. which is happening now. And that can be done without any I-BANs, one-way or two-way. I will ping JPL shortly. Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Diff on JPL's talkpage. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• This is totally not an acceptable set of comments. It broadens the attack to include more things that are not relevant to the disucssion at hand. It also does not acknowledge that that starting accusations was flase and malicious but instead doubles down on it. It does not acknoledge that the problem here is Lugnuts falsely accussing me of houding him. The net result is also a complete and total win for Lugnuts. There is no limit on the behavior of him, the false accuser, and only a limit on the behavior of me, the wrongfully accused. This is not an ANI about me, it is an ANI about Lugnuts rude and uncivil accusations against me. The fact that he is trying to turn it into a broad ANI against me shows that he is not at all understanding why his attacks against me were not acceptable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  Noticing this line The net result is also a complete and total win for Lugnuts, if I could suggest trying to reimagine this away from a battle where one side wins or doesn't. This is less of a zero sum game, and more of a group project where healthy tension is expected and collaboration and compromise is a key component. CT55555 (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  I am not the one who falsly claims someone is tagetting me in their deletion nominations. In fact, this week I have nominated as many articles created by me for deletion as I have articles created by Lugnuts for deletion. So the claim that I am targeting articles created by him really does not stand up to scrutiny.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  John, you must have made the claim that I said that you are targeting articles I created for deletion. Where EXACTLY have I said that - a diff would be most useful. The "There is no attempt to single out articles created by you" was said by YOU. If you can show me the diff where you claim I've said that you are targetting my work that would be great. But I suggest you don't keep making multiple false statements against me, esp. at ANI. Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposal for IBAN

• Support a two-way Interaction Ban as proposed above by User:Spartaz. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Robert, the two-way proposal was made by Star Mississippi. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 10:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• To be clear I propose a one way IBAN as Mr Lambert is not actually doing anything wrong. He tried to put in redirects, Lugnuts reverted him so all these articles have to go through a discussion. The whole reason we are here is because if Lugnuts' ownership and refusal to clear up his own mess. It would suit a lot of Lugnuts' enablers to force through a 2 way ban to protect the stubs so unless someone is going to step up and take care of these I would suggest that one way is the only way. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  OK, Spartaz, where to start with your raft of false claims against me - it's clear you have a serious issue with me, and me alone. Firstly, I don't believe I've undone any of JPL's redirects, or if indeed I have, it's the odd one. Infact, how many times has JPL even bothered to redirect an article at all? "Lugnuts' ownership and refusal to clear up his own mess" - As you're not here everyday, you obviously missed this list of articles I've taken ownership to clear up "my own mess". Take a good look at that and let it sink in. Own mess indeed - the absoulte nerve of your comment is really something. It's work I aim to continue, along with the thousands and thousands of cites I've added to articles since the start of the year. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  At one point I did try to redirect some articles. Lugnuts came through and just reverted every single one of these redirects. A few of them later when they were at AfD he voted to redirect. I will let others judge if this beavior is acceptable. This proposal would however give Lugnuts exactly what he want, another rule that preserves the huge mass of sub-stub articles he created that was deemed to be such a discruptive creation that he has been banned from creating stubs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose; per Spartaz, a two-way IBAN would be counter-productive in that it would restrict good-faith efforts to cleanup the mess. I'm undecided on a one-way IBAN. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Wjemather. The only "mess" is the current NSPORTS coupled with the lack of any useful SNGs – a total shambles created by a small consensus of agitators in direct opposition to the ideals of Wikipedia:About which state: Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers by acting as a widely accessible and free encyclopedia that contains information on all branches of knowledge. If someone interested in rowing becomes aware of a rower called Charles Massonnat, why shouldn't they be able to look at Wikipedia and read that M. Massenet competed at the 1928 Olympics in the French men's eight team? Lugnuts has not created any mess – he has created articles that provide information for the readers. I think you should withdraw your messy comment above, stop making WP:POINTs and follow Lugnuts' example by building and preserving useful content. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 10:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Lugnuts was banned from creating more stubs because it was deemed too disruptive for him to do so. You are now essentially proposing that I be banned from nominating any of those stubs, that were grounds to restrict Lugnuts behavior, from nomination for deletion, even though they were found be community consensus to be disruptive. If this ban is put in place it will only encourage future behavior by him. Making it so I cannot nominate his stubs for deletion is exactly what Lugnuts wants, exactly what the point of his rude accusations against me was on his talk page, and bringing that about will be an act of rewarding the very behavior that brought him here to ANI.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:ABOUT talks about a community of millions of contributors. How many were in this "community consensus" you and your deletionist clique are always banging on about? As many as ten? How many millions could not be bothered to take part in such a tedious discussion because they have much better things to do than put up with a load of claptrap? You should have an IBAN because you are a disruptive editor at AFD. You could redirect single source stubs yourself without going near AFD. But, you don't. You waste people's time at AFD by demanding deletion because you haven't found any source other than the one in the article. Sometimes, other people can't find any either. So, given that the single source found does meet WP:V, assuming it is a WP:RS, the remedy for the stub is redirect per PRESERVE, etc. Not for you, though. You invariably refuse to accept redirect as a valid alternative to deletion. That is disruptive behaviour which wastes time and then you wonder why other editors sometimes express their frustration with you. From what I have seen, Lugnuts willingly agrees with redirect pending additional sources.

Lets look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Massonnat. You proposed deletion. Lugnuts suggested redirect per four policies and guidelines subject to more sources being found. Eight minutes later, you are back with We should not be redirecting names of not notable people it is just not justified which is complete and utter BS, as well as bad English. There are two sources in the article that satisfy WP:V and WP:RS. So, the subject has been verified and qualifies for redirect given that notability is uncertain. By objecting to redirect, you are in breach of site policy and there is good reason to believe that you are trying to provoke Lugnuts into retaliation. Your behaviour is disruptive and you should definitely be subject to an IBAN. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 12:48, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@No Great Shaker: Community consensus has already determined that Lugnuts mass-production of stubs was disruptive (hence the tban) and has left a huge mess that needs cleaning up. Also, we are not here to relitigate an RFC that reached a consensus that you didn't like. This is not a battleground, please don't treat it like one. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support a two-way ban - seems like a pragmatic suggestion. I would oppose a one-way IBAN. Deb (talk) 09:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
  • This proposal punishes the victim. I was falsely accused of doing something I was not doing. Lugnuts was brought here for making this false accusation. This proposal rewards Lugnuts for making a false accusation and being incivil.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

    I don't see that it punishes you or indeed that it rewards Lugnuts. Deb (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• Strong support per Robert and Deb. I also oppose a one-way IBAN. The biggest issues at AFD are the lack of WP:BEFORE in many of the cases raised and the refusal of certain people to accept that any subject can be a redirect if it is verified – it does NOT have to be notable to exist as a redirect. These people are in breach of WP:PRESERVE and other related policies and guidelines. To be fair to JPL, he is not the worst BEFORE offender but he is one of the worst redirect refusal offenders. To say that he is not actually doing anything wrong is like Rees Mogg saying that Johnson hasn't actually done anything wrong.

And, just to be clear, the two-way IBAN must apply to AFD so that Mr Lugnuts cannot nominate an article which Mr Lambert has created or developed. And vice-versa, of course, in case Mr Lambert should happen to stumble across something created by Mr Lugnuts. If they both want to contribute to an AFD which doesn't directly concern either of them, that would be okay per point #2 of WP:IBAN as long as they don't reply to each other, even if they are in agreement. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 10:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• • This is an insanely broad proposal. Lugnuts has edited virtually every articles on some topics. That is just plain way too broad. It is also an example of puinishing me for behavior by someone else. I am not the one going around falsely accusing people of houding me because a few of the thousands of sub-stubs I created have been nominated for deletion when they clearly do not meet Wikipedia inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
• Alternative suggestion. We should automate a !Delete vote on every AfD for Mr. Lambert and a !Redirect vote on every AfD for Lugnuts, thereby saving them both an enormous amount of time. Secondly, we should automatically hide these two votes, thereby saving everyone else an enormous amount of time. The project would be greatly improved. Jacona (talk) 11:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose This proposal rewards Lugnuts for being incivil and falsely accusing me of things I am not doing by giving him exactly what he wants, a way to stop me from nominating the thousands upon thousands of sub-stubs he created for deletion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

That looks to me like an admission of guilt. You ARE carrying on an anti-Lugnuts campaign in which your goal is to delete (not discuss or redirect) ALL stubs that he has created, regardless of the value they provide to our readers. Two more things for you to note: (1) whenever you write on a talk page, will you please preview it first so that your poor grammar and spelling can be improved; (2) stop using idiotic terms like sub-stub – a stub is a stub. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 12:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I am glad people are finally calling out the use of 'sub-stub'. It's an inaccurate term that is used to try to frame Lugnuts' article creations in as negative a light as possible. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 12:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

They were deemed to be so disruptive he was banned from further creating these sub-stubs. There is nothing wrong with the term. What is wrong is having Wikipedia weighed down with them. The fact of the matter is at least pre-1930 birth over 50%, maybe even over 80% of our articles on Olympains were created by Lugnuts, the majority of which were created by consulting one sports table and doing less than 3 minutes background research, plus writting, we know this because they were created that close to other articles on Olympains he created.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

The lowest article classification is stub. There is no such thing as a sub-stub. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Johnpacklambert you too have created many very short stubs, some with zero citations. I think you must concede that creating shorter stubs on Wikipedia is a good faith activity?

• William Hooke (governor)
• Enrique Muñoz Arístegui
• Pedro Laso de la Vega
• Denia Nixon
• Juni Bek

You can see the full list and order by length here Of the 2,426 pages you've created, 50.4% are stubs. CT55555 (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• Is that limited to articles I created but exist today? Because a lot of articles I created are no longer in existence. Being a stub is not the issue, lacking sourcing that meets GNG is, and those are two seperate issues. Go ahead and nominate all those articles for deletion you listed here if you want. I will not oppose any of the nominations (although I strongly suspect other editors will oppose some of them). I actually nominated one of them myself. This is 5 articles. In the case of Lugnuts we are talking about thousands if not tens of thousands of articles. It was determined that his creation of such was disruptive and he was banned from creating more stubs. I did not participate in any way in that discussion. Not did I participate in any way in the discussion that lead to the decision to say that only those who won medals at the Olympics were default notable. In fact I did not even realize that decision was made until about a month after it was made. Also many of the stubs I did create were created over 8 years ago. I have since come to better understnad what sorts of things we need to justify an article. The one exception I see here is an article on a governor of a state of Mexico. As I said, you are free to nominat that article for deletion, and I will not vote against it. I highly doubt such an article would be deleted, but I am not stopping anyone from trying. Also, a good many of the articles I created were redirects. Another good set were on populated places, and there are very broad inclusion rules for populated places. I may well have created unjustified articles. I have nominated two articles I created for deletion just this week. Is there a place where I can easily see a list of all the articles I created?John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  You created 2,426. 258 have been deleted. 2,157 remain. Of them 1,225 are stubs. So of the 2,426 that were created, 50.4% remain up as stubs. I will not propose any for deletion, because I actually think each of the examples above (I picked the shortest ones to make a point) add some value. I would not advocate for their removal. I'm not trying to say they are a problem. I'm saying that you and the other person have done similar things - create shorter articles. I'm trying to guide you towards seeing Lugnuts activity as not inherently a bad thing.

  I linked it above, but you can see the list here:

  https://xtools.wmflabs.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Johnpacklambert

  I wish you well. CT55555 (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for your analysis, all the fives. Juni Bek's article in its current would be a slam-dunk AfD case if they were an Olympian! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

• No, I am not carrying on an anti-Lugnuts campaign. That is a malicious accusation. I am trying to cut back the number of Olympic sub-stubs on Wikipedia. Some of these are created by Doma-W. They are not all created by Lugnuts. In fact less than half of my AfD nominations this year have been of articles created by Lugnuts. I am trying to start the process of removing articles on Olympians that do not meet our inclusion critiera for Wikipedia. It is not my fault that over 80% of these articles were created by Lugnuts. Please remive your false accusation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Certainly not. You said: a way to stop me from nominating the thousands upon thousands of sub-stubs he created for deletion which literally confirms you are seeking to raise millions (thousands upon thousands) of articles created by Lugnuts at AFD and, as I have outlined elsewhere, you will only be satisfied with deletion, not redirect, despite the policies and relevant guidelines which apply. With a goal like that, you are actively campaigning against Lugnuts (okay, a few other editors have created some Olympic stubs too). Wikipedia isn't weighed down by stubs – read the two opening sentences of WP:NOTPAPER and then read WP:ABOUT where it says: Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers by acting as a widely accessible and free encyclopedia that contains information on all branches of knowledge. Lugnuts benefits readers by providing information on all branches of knowledge and, per WP:STUB, the information is useful and always reliably sourced. And there is everything wrong with a stupid, meaningless term like sub-stub or microstub or "protostub", the latest (not by you, to be fair) and most idiotic of the lot because proto- means first. Just say stub. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 13:42, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose as not actually addressing the problem. JPL has every right to redirect, prod, or AfD an article, whether written by Lugnuts or anyone else, and Lugnuts should be able to express his opinion and provide information that might be useful. But ultimately, an article that contains no information other than that a sportsperson competed at an event is doomed to redirection or deletion unless someone provides sources that show there is more to say about the subject. A more sensible restriction might be to allow both editors to lay out their case at AfD, then require them both to walk away and let consensus form. If the number of nominations becomes a problem, a restriction on the number that JPL can make in a given week or month might help. It might also help if Lugnuts could produce a list of articles he could live with being redirected so that discussions can focus on the ones he has strong feelings about. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  What if we gave Lugnuts a period of time (given the amount, a year or two might be necessary) to bring these stubs up to standards and prevented JPL from nominating any Lugnuts hasn't reviewed yet for deletion until that time has passed? Lugnuts could put the ones he couldn't bring up to standards in a list somewhere so we know what's been reviewed and not up to snuff vs. not reviewed yet to see if it could be brought up to snuff. Just a thought. Afheather (talk) 00:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support a two-way ban (oppose a one-way ban, either way). If these stubs are so disruptive -- they're not -- there are thousands of editors capable of dealing with them. JPL's comments here -- see "a way to stop me from nominating the thousands upon thousands of sub-stubs he created for deletion" above -- make clear that this is some sort of crusade of his. -- Vaulter 14:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Last fall we decided that competitors in the Olympics who did not receive a medal were not notable. I have been trying to help in implementing this decusion. I have explained this multiple times. Yes, I am trying to bring our inclusion of articles on Olympians into line with our actual guidelines. That people treat this as somehow an attack on one editor is false and malicious. If this proposal is passed it will endorse the very uncivil accusations that caused this ANI to start.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
    • I've read your repeated replies and feel like it is necessary to remind you not to keep bludgeoning the discussion. I should also remind you about "people in glass houses" and the like. -- Vaulter 15:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
• Also the scope is unclear. On what ground other than ownership, which Wikipedia rejects, can I be banned from editing an article based on who created it? Would this apply only to articles created by LLugnuts, or would it apply to any article ever edited by Lugnuts?John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
  • John Pack Lambert, it seems pretty clear that many of these problems could be avoided if you simply stayed away from Lugnuts's stubs. It is not up to you to correct the entire project, and the upshot is that we are here, again. And yes, it can be a requirement under such a ban that you check who created an article that you wish to nominate or redirect; there is nothing unusual about it. No, this is not "ownership"--it's avoiding trouble. Lugnuts doesn't own their articles, and that won't change. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
    • we are here because he falsely accused me of hounding him. This ban would reward him for his false and malicious attack on me. This is a clear proposal to punish the victim. If someone else engages in uncvil behavior towards someone, the solution should not be to punish the person who was the target of the unvicil behavior. That is exactly what this proposal is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

      "we are here because he falsely accused me of hounding him" - Again, a diff please to back up your accusation. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

• Also, other editors have expressed the view that what will happen is the next time someone begans to try to clean out the articles that do not meet our inclusion criteria that are on Olympians, Lugnuts will try lobbing the same false accusations at that new editor. There is no rule against an editor nominating a large number of articles on the same topic for deletion, especially when that is 44 or a few more over a period of just over 5 months. I have not nominated articles for deletion more than once a day, have nominated articles almost not at all on weekends, and less than half of my total nominations for deletion in this period have been of articles created by Lugnuts. There is no objective way to see any of this as problematic when these articles do not meet our current inclusion criteria. There is no objective problem with that. The problem is Lugnuts rudely claiming in very uncivil ways that such behavior is actually a probglem, but there is no actual problem with the behavior itself. The way to create civility is not to punish those who are the victims of uncivil behavior.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support. This situation is untenable. While it is true that Lugnuts created a lot of stubs that resulted in his topic ban, it does feel like JohnPackLambert is carrying out a vendetta against Lugnuts. I'll echo Drmies' advice for John, leave Lugnuts articles alone. It's OK. Someone else will get to them, and with the apparent bad blood between you two, I think it'd actually be refreshing if someone other than you were nominating his articles for deletion. Also just a point of advice, I don't think the victim talk is helping you either. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 18:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose anything that would put any form of restrictions on JPL or in any way imply that he has done anything wrong. Nobody has produced any evidence that JPL has done anything wrong aside from nominating a bunch of Lugnuts' stubs; and since it was found in the past that Lugnuts' stub creations were problematic, it is not WP:HOUNDing to enforce that decision by going over them with a fine-toothed comb - on top of which, there is a specific exception to WP:HOUND for someone who creates the same problems across multiple articles. Mass-creating a large number of similar stubs clearly fits that exemption. Without the ability to specifically and deliberately go over a collection of similar stubs added by a single person, examining them simply because eg. Lugnuts created them, we would effectively be allowing people like Lugnuts to flood the wiki with whatever they please and have it be impossible to challenge their additions as a WP:FAITACCOMPLI; people are sometimes allowed to make bold mass-additions (though I think previous decisions have established that Lugnuts went far beyond what is usually admissible in that regard), but even under situations where it is admissible, doing so clearly allows anyone else to challenge them en mass as JPL has done. Therefore, JPL's focus on Lugnuts is not only appropriate and admirable, but something we absolutely must protect as defensible under such circumstances. A two-way interaction ban would effectively be protecting Lugnuts' (clearly problematic) flood of stubs from scrutiny by establishing the precedent that anyone who examines them will be barred from doing anything about them, and would invite people to make similar mass-contributions in the future knowing that they can simply interaction ban anyone who takes issue with it or tries to subject their contributions to review. --Aquillion (talk) 19:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. As I understand it, JPL seems to be methodically nominating undersourced sportsperson microstubs by birth year, and is currently in the 1920s-30s. The fact that a large proportion of these articles happened to have been created by Lugnuts is irrelevant to JPL's behavior. Somewhat in line with Spartaz's proposal below, I would suggest in the future JPL redirect such articles when possible, and if Lugnuts genuinely feels a standalone should be retained then he or any other editor can revert the redirect, and JPL can then open an AfD. I also recommend JPL limit his non-reply comments in this (and other) discussion(s) so we don't get big blocks of repetitive stream-of-consciousness commentary as he workshops his own thoughts on a matter. JoelleJay (talk) 19:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I am actually going through by birth year. So I just moved from 1901 to 1900.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Editors who are saying that other editors can deal with these non-notable stubs are missing the scope of the problem - Lugnuts makes this accusation against any editor who is reviewing articles on Olympians for notability. As such, topic banning John Pack Lambert will not resolve the issue, because it will reoccur as soon as one of those other editors start trying to deal with these non-notable stubs. BilledMammal (talk) 01:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose any further restrictions on AfDs by John Pack Lambert (JPL). He is limited to one per day and has honored that restriction. His attention to the Olympic "sub-stubs" has been productive . (And, yes, there is absolutely a difference between an ordinary stub and a "sub-stub" -- i.e., an "article" mass produced in one or two minutes where the entire narrative is limited to a single sentence saying that "Joe Smith completed in fencing for Freedonia at the 1928 Summer Olympics.") Some years ago, I favored more draconian restrictions on AfDs by JPL, but his noms in the past year, at the permitted 1-per-day rate, have reflected more thought and care. He's not always right, but his recent AfD work has been valuable. Cbl62 (talk) 02:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support I offered John a compromise (last point in the sub-section "Observations from Lugnuts", above), and he's flat out refused. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
• Additional concern. I've already given support to the two-way IBAN but comments by and about JPL in the whole Lugnuts at AFD thread have convinced me that JPL is not a fit and proper person to be raising AFDs. I understand he is currently subject to a one AFD per day sanction and I propose we remove that sanction and replace it with a full AFD TBAN for a period of at least six months. I could quote numerous examples to support my view but here are just a few.

At the Charles Massonnat AFD, Lugnuts suggested a valid redirect and JPL quickly responded with: We should not be redirecting names of not notable people it is just not justified. Besides the bad English, he is completely wrong. In this thread, Phil Bridger said early on that The best long-term solution would be for JPL to stop nominating articles for deletion when there is an obvious redirect target. He has been told many times that there is no need for a subject to be notable to have a redirect, but merely to be verifiable. This point has been reiterated several times by Phil and others.

Why does JPL have to be told something "many times"? Obviously a WP:IDHT issue and someone who wilfully ignores other people should not be part of a collaborative discussion which impacts WP content.

Then, although it's a sideshow really, there is all this condescending "Mister" stuff which prompted Lepricavark to say: it is egotistical (and) we are not his subordinates.

The last example I'll give is JPL's statement that: This proposal rewards Lugnuts (by giving him) a way to stop me from nominating the thousands upon thousands of sub-stubs he created for deletion. Whatever interpretation he has tried to place on that statement, it confirms that his purpose is to obliterate everything Lugnuts has done and that amounts to a personal vendetta against another editor. He cannot be allowed to use AFD as a weapon against someone he dislikes – and remember his stance on redirects when you think about that – a case of delete everything, redirect nothing.

To summarise, I propose a full AFD TBAN on Johnpacklambert for at least six months. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 09:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm not convinced that it was egotistical. That was just one possible interpretation, albeit the most likely interpretation if someone in my culture made that kind of demand. At any rate, I agree that the evidence provided in this thread supports a full AFD tban for JPL. His understanding of deletion policy is inadequate, and he is far too hasty to support deletion in most cases. Furthermore, he has yet to acknowledge any problems with his editing and seems to only provide argumentative responses. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 13:30, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I'd Support this. There's a huge WP:CIR with JPL's understanding of the whole deletion/prod/notabilty requirements, highlighted in the sub-section, below, that has been going on for some time. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Let's start TBANNING everyone who routinely spouts P&G- and consensus-noncompliant arguments at AfDs, oh and also everyone who repeatedly receives NPA warnings regardless of venue. That should take care of a lot of the drama. JoelleJay (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

New Proposal - redirect & ban on reverting redirects

We could end the whole thing by a) redirecting all the unsourced stubs and they can be undirected if anyone finds sources, and specifically banning Lugnuts from reverting a redirect. If someone else wants to revert the Mr Lambert can let someone know and they can review and nominate at AFD. This is a bit clunky but stops the disruption in its tracks. Thoughts? Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support. This would be a simple clarification/extension of their existing topic ban. I proposed similar in a previous ANI thread, with a caveat that in order to revert, the article must be substantially expanded from multiple instances of significant coverage, i.e. meeting the terms of the current topic ban on stub creation. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  Again, another false assumption aimed at me. Apart from some VERY early stubs when I first joined WP (2006-07), I don't believe anything I've created is unsourced. You'd certainly have a hard job in finding anything from say the past 10 years I've created that is unsourced. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  what is false is your claim that I am targeting articles created by you. I am targetting in part Olympian articles that no longer meet inclusion criteria. You have not yet apologized for your false and malicous accusations. Nor have you apologized for your doubling down on condescedingly referring to me by a name after I had asked you multiple times to stop using it and to start calling me Mr. Lambert. This is the only proposal that actually shows that the community does not approve of rude behavior and false accusations, the others reward rude behavior.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  An extremely high percentage of these mass-produced stubs do not have a single source that would contribute to passing GNG. Too often, the reliability of the source used is questionable, and there has been zero effort to substantiate any of the information from other sources. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:49, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. For a start, I don't believe Lugnuts – the usual target – has created ANY unsourced articles unless he has inadvertently forgotten to add a source somewhere. I'm in favour of deleting anything that remains unsourced for a reasonable period, especially if the author has been asked to provide sources. If a stub has five words with a source and is undoubtedly noteworthy, it is a valid article. If it has five words and a source but there is reasonable doubt that it is noteworthy (e.g., someone who played in one EFL match for a fourth tier team), then it is a redirect per WP:V, WP:PRESERVE, etc. To restore an article from redirect, additional citations from reliable sources must be introduced. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 10:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose any action. It doesn't seem like there's been any real abuse here. What's the big deal? 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support This is the only proposal that shows the community actually cares to stop false accusations. The other proposal rewards false accusations and will lead to more. Every other proposal will basically endose Lugnuts false claims that he is being targeted, and will enbolden him to go after other editorss who dare to try and enforce the current rules on Olympic participant notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose this is severely one-sided and would not actually resolve the problem since, according to NGS, Lugnuts does not create unsourced stubs. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 12:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Lepricavark. Good point about severe one-sidedness. It amounts to a witch-hunt. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 12:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• • Well, it was Lugnuts who was going around falsely accusing another editor of targeting his creations for deletion. Lugnuts should be the only person punished for such false and malicious actions. If the proposal limits the actions of the editor he falsely accused, than it supports his false accusations, and amounts to endorsing his incivil behavior. When one person is engaging in incivil accusations against another, the person they have falsely attacked should not be punished. Doing so rewards the behavior, which is exactly what Wikipedia should not do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Doing so rewards the behavior, which is exactly what Wikipedia should not do. Really? May I recommend some light reading for you? This will tell you what does happen on this site, even though it should not. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 12:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support in the sense that AfD is completely flooded and it absolutely does not need to be with all of these stubs, which can and often are handled by redirects. This is not exclusively a JPL problem (see User_talk:Star_Mississippi/Archive_6#Poul_Nielson_AFD for example), but I would say that JPL needs not to complain about the redirects, which he subsequently does sometimes simply because he thought it should be deleted. As far as my two way (courtesy @Robert McClenon, @Spartaz) it's because I don't think a one way will completely solve the problem. Some of the Lugnuts redirects have been subsequently kept at AfD. John Pack Lambert is working through a number of category backlogs (wonderful, needed), but I personally think there is enough of a backlog that someone else can handle Lugnuts' stub XFDs. Granted I think we'll end up here with that person, but the community is not willing to take action on Lugnuts' conduct so there hasn't been an option there. Star Mississippi 13:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose On further thought, the real problematic behavior here is the rude accusations that Lugnuts posts on his talk page. We need to A-get him to accept that due to the size of his contribution to the number of lacking any source that meets our guidelines and not meeting our inclusion criteria Olympic articles, he is going to see lots of those nominated for deletion. That is not a result of targeting him, it is a result of the fact the vast majority of such articles were created by him. 2-that he should not accuse others of houding him, when there are simpler, less malicious explantions for the behavior. So ultimately if we want to come to some consequence, the best one would be some clear restiction that will be placed on Lugnuts, and only Lugnuts, the next time he falsely makes accusations against people who are nominating Olympic or other articles created by him for deletion. I say other, because the place where Lugnuts comes cloest to having created a whole class of articles is in the Olympic Arts competitors articles. I have not seen one of those not created by Lugnuts, and almost of all of them are about like this "John Jones (1905-1975) was an American panter. He competed in the Olympics art competition in the 1948 Olympics" with just one source. Actually I will show you. Here is an article I picked at random. It was Konrad Hippenmeir, which as random pick is not the worst such article. Now if you follow the Olympedia source you will see it says more about Hippenmeier. He was the chief of the planning office for construction in Zurich. That one source is not enough to show he was notable, and it does not look like his positions were enough to make him inhernetly notable, but it is possible that there are more sources that could shed light on him, so someone wants to go digging for them. Clearly this is not a biography, and considering that Olympedia says more about his non-Olympic competition than Wikipedia does, we have the odd result that Wikipedia is more narrowly focused on the Olympics than Olympedia is. This is a very odd occurance, and since Lugnits created this article (which was the first Olympic Arts competitor article I found, it took me going to 3 articles on a list to find one not by Lugnuts and it was Frantz Jourdain which is the type of substantial article we need to justify having it. basically either people were like Frantz Jourdain and truly notable artists who happened to be in the Olympic arts competition, or we should not have articles on them. I once tried to interest the Arts Wikipedia project in this issue, but no one seems to have been willing to try to go through these articles and either expand them or nominate them for deletion. The source hunting is not going to be easy, but I keep hoping if I bring it up someone who knows something about this will at least try and start some review. Category:Olympic competitors in arts competitions has 1,710 article plus 146 articles in sub-cats related to medals (I do not know if there is any overlap). Still I do not see exactly what proposal will work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I think what we need to do is tell Lugnuts "people are not targeting you, they are targeting a set of articles. The fact that the majority of those were created by you means that many of the deletion nominations will be of articles you created." Lugnuts knows that I am not just nominating for deletion any sub-stub Olympian article I come across. Some I find sources for and add sources to. In one case he reverted my doing this because he did not like my link or text or something, and then he reented it in edited form. I still do not understand why if he was going to keep the general text and I believe even the link, he did not just edit my contribution to a form that he thought was acceptable, and why he found a need to revert my contribution at all. However the episode not only shows that I am not just trying to mass delete every article on an Olympian who was not a mdalist I come across, but it also shows that Lugnuts knows I do editing besides nominating for deletion on such articles. He knows it, but he does not acknowledge it because it would undermine his ability to falsely accuse me of targeting his articles for deletion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I think in this case we should propose that we tell Lugnuts to stop falsely accusing those who are trying to implemnt the fall 2021 decision that non-medaling Olyumpic competitors are not default notable, of going after him. We also need to say the next time he brings one of these uncivil accusations over this matter we will do something sepcific. Say block him from editing Wikipedia for seven days.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
• On the Olympic Art competitors, my review of Category:1901 births just came across Filippo Sgarlata. He was a sculptor who was in the 1948 Olympic Arts competition. That is all our article says. The article was created by Lugnuts. the one source listed, Olympedia, has 3 paragraphs on Sgarlata. From the Olympedia article we learn that Sgarlata lived in the US from 1926-1932. We learn that he was a professor of sculpting in both Palermo and San Luca. He crfeated a gate for a notable building in 1961, and created some works that somehow were deemed to be "in line with fascists ideology". Is this one source enough to have this article survive? Porbably not? Was Sgarlata a notable sculptor? I am not sure, but really wish there was a way to get people to look into it more. I know there is a well developed set of notability criteria for artists, but I am less than sure what it is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support. This would greatly help with the problem at hand. It's not about either one of them "winning". Jacona (talk) 13:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
• Conditional support. I think on my third review this is a good idea. I think though we need to be clear on scope. Is this saying that any current Olympic article on someone who was not a medalist, which is only sourced to stanrd Olympic and spots table articles can be redirected. Lugnuts is not allowed to revert the redirect, but other editors who chose to can do so. Also, it appears we will have somewhere where such redirect reverts can be posted in notice, so that another editor will look over it and see if either they can find more sources or if it really does need to go to AfD. Thus if one editor comes along and say, redirects every person who was on the 1924 Mexican men's Basketball Team in the Olympics to a general article that mentions them (either on the team, or more likely because we probably do not have an article on the team, the men's basketball at the 1924 Olympics article), and then some other editor decides to revert all those redirects, we will not put the onus on the first redirector to go through and nominate all those articles for AfD, but will have other people willing to at least try to sort through these articles. Well, OK that example does not exist. The first basketball was at the 1936 Olympics. My first glance makes it look like most if not all Peruvian competitors do not have articles. In the article Basketball at the 1936 Summer Olympics we have redlinks to most of the members of teams who did not actually play in the Olympics. Hmm, actually some of the non-competitors we have articles for. So, yes, I think we need clearer guidelines. Partly because the issue is not "unsourced" per se, but "lacking sources that are giving in-dpeth coverage". the problem is the articles are sourced to sport stat pages, and not articles giving in-depth coverage that are indepdent, secondary and reliable, not that they have no sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
  • John Pack Lambert, I think there is a calculation that relates the number of comments made by someone who starts an ANI thread to the chances of success for whatever they propose: the more comments, the lower the chances of success. Drmies (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
    • @Drmies while I think JPL is bludgeoning this discussion, in his defense, it was @Spartaz who opened the main thread as well as this specific proposal. Star Mississippi 17:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
      • User:Star Mississippi, you are correct: my apologies, JPL. But I hope you will take the hint. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
        • So it is OK to punish people for finding a behavior so problemtic that they bring it to ANI, but if they are a silent victim and wait for other people to find the behavior truly problematic, it is a little less OK to punish the victim. Are people here really serious about standing up to the uncivil, unfounded attacks Lugnuts has lobbeb at me, or am I ton conclude that falsely accusing someone else of something that all the evidence shows is not the case is acceptable behavior and that the real wrong behavior is speaking up about uncivil actions?John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

          Can you point us to one comment in this thread (or ever) where you've admitted even partial responsibility for this conflict (or any conflict ever)? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose as most of the stubs are sourced, and redirects often go unnoticed and receive little attention so AfD is the best place for disputed redirects in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose any action, far as I am concerned, and I don't know how much weight my suggestion has is that JPL should be TBANNED from all sports related AfDs nominations, comments, voting. I truly believe he has no interest in sports subjects let alone wanting to perform any WP:BEFORE style research. Govvy (talk) 23:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  Govvy, you've hit the nail right on the head, there. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 11:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. As I have stated below, some of these stubs are not entirely unsourced and it seems to me that Johnpacklambert is using the redirects to effectively "delete" articles and circumvent any sort of AfD process, which, in my opinion, is pretty outrageous and seems to be an abuse of rules. Two articles created by Lugnuts had this happen to them in February, which I asked Johnpacklambert about doing without doing a proper WP:Before, then expanded the articles and added more references. They did this to two more articles today, that myself and another user added references to and I expanded one. Redirecting all sports stubs that are "unreferenced" isn't a good idea as it seems to depend on what some users consider "unreferenced". Some of those (at least four that I was made aware of) were referenced, or at least had a foundation and can be expanded. ExRat (talk) 23:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as mentioned above, this is one sided per LEPRICAVARK and NGS. Kante4 (talk) 10:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Far too many of Lugnuts' stubs are expandable/notable. I am also highly against anyone redirecting them without first taking them to AFD. Lastly, they are not unsourced. Scorpions13256 (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposal – stubs at AFD

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

---

With immediate effect, a complete ban on all AFD stub nominations until conclusion (however long it takes) of a thorough Village Pump discussion about the acceptability or otherwise of stubs, including any terms or conditions applicable. Exclude from the ban any article that: (a) is a suspected hoax; (b) definitely lacks notability (e.g., a non-league footballer or a film extra); (c) is completely unsourced; or (d) obviously enough, is not a stub.

It is no good anyone saying that we already have clear guidelines on stub notability and redirection. We do not, as AFD cases like Charles Massonnat repeatedly prove. We need to get right down to the very basics of WP:STUB and decide once and for all what is acceptable as a stub, what is not acceptable as a stub and what, of the latter, can be redirected.

Also, as Phil Bridger mentioned above, can people please stop using ludicrous expressions like sub-stub and microstub? A stub is a stub, whether it has one sentence or ten, and whether it has five words or 500. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 21:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• oppose this is silly and an overreach and in the interest of fairness, the only way this would even be close to becoming acceptable would be to also ban stub creation. PRAXIDICAE💕 21:32, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I would have thought that a so-called sysop would know and respect WP:CIVIL? Calling me silly when I try to find a way forward from all these arguments is uncivil and disrespectful to say the least. A ban on stub creation is an "overreach" and is also out of scope because the issue is deletion, not creation. Frankly, I wonder why I bother. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 21:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

They are not calling you silly. They are calling the idea silly. Because it is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose We should delete more of these proto stubs. 2601:2C3:57F:3F80:2CF6:872A:911D:531B (talk) 21:48, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose 50K articles are already sitting around with notability questioned and a low liklihood of every being AfDed because it would take an army to review. Adding to that backlog is not in the interests of the encyclopedia.21:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
• This should be closed as a time sink; there is no way this proposal will get consensus.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose This is the silliest proposal I have ever seen. We do not need to make it even harder to remove articles on non-notable people. Delaying processes even more will help nothing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Anyway, what exactly is a stub. Is Kjell Roikjer a stub because of low text, or is the lone list of his works attached at the end enough to move beyond being a stub. Do not even get me started on how this article lacks any sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is a proposal to engage in filibustering. No chance. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 22:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I mean to only way this would maybe make sense is if there was any hope we would ever say "we will not allow any articles with less than 2 sources, that have less than x amount of text". Even if that might make sense as a general rule (which I am unconvinced, some rulers are going to be undersourced and we can say little about them, but we know they actually did rule some country, so having the article is justified), exactly how would we use such a rule to deal with the thousands of one sentance articles on artists. Making it so no one can do anything to remove problematic articles is not good, and focing people to add primary and non-reliable sources to an article to get it above the stub threshold so they can then turn around and nominate it for deletion does not make sense either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:16, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I just read the Wikipedia entry on stubs, at least some of it. It throws out multiple possible thresholds, one 250 words, another 1,500 characters in mainspace, and then in bold says there is no set size at which an article stops being a stub. I think this proposal would fail on not having a clear enough scope to apply it, even if the underlying idea behind it really made sense, which I do not think it does.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
• oppose It's no secret I'm a big fan of stubs as I've seen what can become of them over time through collaboration. However, a complete ban on all AFD stub nominations is not in the best interest of Wikipedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

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

Thinking outside the box: raise the stakes for JPL's redirects and Lugnuts' reverts

IBANs and TBANs are not ideal. Let's just raise the stakes?

1. as soon as JPL redirects two articles that turn out to pass current notability guidelines, he is topic banned from redirecting articles and all deletion activities for 3 months, and
2. as soon as Lugnuts undoes two redirects that turn out to fail current notability guidelines, he is topic banned from undoing redirects and all deletion activities for 3 months (an exception: if topic banned, Lugnuts can still participate in AfDs of articles they created, but cannot undo a redirect)

The goal is to make sure neither party is redirecting/reverting indiscriminately. Whether something passes/fails notability guideline would be based on consensus, probably through AfD, with a "no consensus" close not triggering either sanction. This is to be enforced by any admin who observes the conditions have been met. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Just trying to think outside the box. I want both of them to be able to contribute productively, but think they should be more careful. I'm sympathetic towards Lugnuts for having so much work undone, which has got to be really frustrating, but in the end, the work that's undone so quickly was also created quickly. Requiring other people to do the thorough search for sources required at AfD, when you didn't do it to begin with (assuming the sources exist), isn't reasonable. But I also don't think JPL is going to do a thorough search for sources before redirecting. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment much like TPH thread above, the issue is volume. Virtually none of the articles that either editor is working through are BLPs. This is not a crisis that needs deletion today, and it can wait for an uninvolved editor. I'm not sure whether this is enforceable, technically, but might get some peace and quiet. Star Mississippi 14:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support with "any admin can impose these tbans if the conditions are met" (so we don't need another discussion) and without the exception for Lugnuts being able to participate at AFDs of his own articles (a tban from AFDs should also be a tban from AfFs of his own creations or else it reduces the incentive to not get tbanned). I like that this is self-regulating and automatic and puts consequences on the editors' actions. Kudos on the creativity. Levivich 15:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• Added the enforcement line. I still prefer to err on the side of allowing someone to comment in AfDs of their own work, but we can revisit that if enough people support this idea without that exception. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to define some kind of time period or volume of good decisions for the between the first and second action? A second failed redirect / revert that comes after 500 correct ones probably doesn't need to trigger a topic ban. Scribolt (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Maybe, but what number makes sense? Both of these editors are capable of making a ton of similar actions in a short amount of time. If this slows them a bit, I wouldn't consider that a bad thing. What about just making it appealable by either party after six months? 500 correct actions sure would be convincing evidence that it's not needed. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• Misses the point. The problem with JPL is that he persistently opposes redirection because he appears to think that any article he doesn't like must be deleted. You need to rethink this proposal. JPL's attitude to redirection is illustrated by the comments he has made at the Massanet AFD.

The comment by Levivich about stopping Lugnuts from taking part in AfDs about articles he has created is not only stupid but reprehensible. How can he not be allowed to defend his own work? NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 17:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• It may not address what you think is the most important point, but it doesn't miss the point. JPL opposing redirects at AfD is a problem, but it's a problem subsequent to what this addresses. If you want to stop him from doing that, you can propose it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
• And Lugnuts opposes deletion or redirects to point where they reverted them. No one seems to be making a big deal about that, except a few, like Rhododendrites, that are addressing both sides of the issue rather than just focusing on one. A closer of an AfD is expected to understand policy and weigh !votes accordingly, not just tally up numbers, so Mr. Lamberts misunderstanding of policy would be quickly disregarded in that case. And a reverted redirect can be challenged giving the community a chance to form a consensus through discussion. The system will work when it's allowed to work. Of course none of this would be happening if both Lugnuts and Mr. Lambert would assume good faith in this dispute and try to find common ground. This absolutist philosophy doesn't work anywhere, either in inclusion or deletion on Wikipedia, or in our interactions with each other. --ARoseWolf 18:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC) --edited 18:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. Lugnuts ownership behaviour in defence of the kittens they have spawned is half the problem; there cannot be an exception for these. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Ownership behavior has to do with editing an article. The exception here has nothing to do with editing the article. It's to allow surfacing sources at AfD. Maybe the exception should be worded that way. Ultimately, if he doesn't add anything useful to AfD, the closer should discount the !vote as with anyone else's. If there's a problem with Lugnuts' behavior at AfD, propose a sanction, but the evidence and arguments in this thread so far don't logically point to that IMO. This proposal is instead about [what seems to be] particular root issues (for one side, that many of these should never even reach AfD because they're obvious redirects; for the other, that there are too many uncareful redirects). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
    • The aim here is to end disruption. Disruption by Lugnuts has been mostly (if not entirely) related to the articles they created; excluding such articles from any sanction reinforces ownership and renders the proposal impotent and unsupportable. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
    • I've been going through afds he's participated in for articles he created that are currently redirects, in an attempt to substantiate the accusation above that he reverts redirections of his articles only to !vote redirect at the afd. I haven't found any evidence of that. I also haven't yet found a single instance of him providing a source. (I'll grant that he may well have done so at an afd that didn't result in a redirection or deletion, and even that that may be why it didn't; those aren't the ones I'm looking at.) What I have seen, over and over and over, are comments similar to the one here, almost to the word. If you're that concerned that he be allowed to add sources, he can do so by editing the article. Like he should have done in the first place. —Cryptic 21:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
      • I think that the similarity in terms of comments at AfD is probably a response by Lugnuts to being told to change their behaviour at AfD. The comment you're highlighted is neutral, based on "policy" and avoids any judgemental comment about the AfD. I see that as a mature and flexible compromise made by Lugnuts. It still allows them to vote, but by restricting their comments to a boilerplate response - which is, fwiw, a perfectly reasonable suggestion to make - there's less chance of causing anyone to take offence. As I've said above, I can't make a comment on whether JPL has changed their behaviour as a response to sanctions and other suggestions, but I will state here that the number of comments made by them in this discussion concerns me. I would hope to see more compromise; I don't. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. For what it is worth, I have raised the issue with Johnpacklambert in February about him unilaterally redirecting articles created by Lugnuts without any sort of discussion. I do not know of discussions that have taken place that permit a single editor (not an administrator) to effectively delete an article and circumvent an AfD. Possibly, there are, I am just unaware of them. Two of the articles they had done this with (Peeter Mürk and Edgar Puusepp), I have found decent references for. So, these redirects seem to be done without them doing any proper WP:BEFORE. Johnpacklambert has done this again today with two more articles (Artur Amon and Georg Vinogradov) that, again, I have been able to find decent references for and even expand the article for Artur Amon. I find it frustrating that editors who are not admins can simply "delete" articles by doing a redirect. It seems to me to be a crafty way of getting around the entire nomination for deletion and discussion process. As for Lugnuts, I have found that many of the articles they have created are an okay foundation, and if an editor takes a few minutes like I did today, they can be expanded. ExRat (talk) 23:31, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
• 2 redirects over what timeframe? I bet I can find 2 that go each way for Rhododendrites (who I consider an exemplary editor) or myself (less exemplary but not someone who should be topic banned I hope). I will also note, neutrally, that this proposal only appears to be fair. From what I've read, it's actually asymmetrical against JPL because JPL has interests in this work beyond Lugnuts, while Lugnuts is mainly concerned with protecting his creations so JPL has far more "risk" here. Perhaps that's intentional, but if not I thought it was worth noting. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

  I actually disagree. Lugnuts "risk" is similar to John Pack Lamberts because John Pack Lamberts is not the only editor redirecting or prodding articles created by Lugnuts. BilledMammal (talk) 02:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

  That's a fair point. Still leaves an unfair timeframe for both of them though. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. Editors are not expected to be perfect, but these proposals expect perfection of Lugnuts, who is expected to be able to perfectly predict the results of an AFD, and of John Pack Lambert, who is expected to not miss any source, however obscure. However, I like the general idea, and would propose an alternative:
  • For John Pack Lambert: If he redirects or prods more than two articles in a month where it is clear that a WP:BEFORE was not done, then he is topic banned from redirecting articles and all deletion activities for 3 months.
  • For Lugnuts: If he reverts a redirect or a prod on more than two articles in a month without ensuring that the article includes at least one source that a reasonable editor could believe meets the requirements of WP:GNG, then he is topic banned from undoing redirects and all deletion activities for 3 months.
  • The following exceptions apply to both editors: If topic banned, they are still permitted to change a prod into a redirect under any circumstances, and they are still permitted to participate in AFD's on articles that they have created.

Rather than expecting perfection from both of them, this instead requires that both put a good faith effort into their work that shows that their actions are reasonable and in good faith. BilledMammal (talk) 02:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

That's a pretty good proposal. It should clarify for Lugnuts that DB entries are insufficient. A standard for Mr. Lambert on BEFORE might be harder to clarify, what a reasonable person would see as an obvious violation would be debatable to a committed wikilawyer.Jacona (talk) 11:45, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment This whole discussion was started over the trivial fact of Lugnuts 'niggling' at JPL. Their interactions will hardly ever go any differently, and it's petty and pointless to want to control something like this. The potential for actual 'disruption' is already limited by existing restrictions on the numbers of stubs created and articles nominated, not to mention that pages already can only be redirected once before they're reverted. So, just close this without any further action -- no interaction ban, no sanctions, no arbitrary limits on nominating/reverting, for either of them. Avilich (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose as I have no confidence this would solve the (perceived) problem. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

• This proposal doesn't look like it's going anywhere. No objections if someone wants to close it to reduce sprawl. I would like to point to #Observation under the TenPoundHammer section of this page, though. I suspect in both cases the best outcome is going to be one that won't make most vocal participants happy, though I don't know what that will be. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Does JPL understand notability and the PROD process?

Trying not to be too blunt, but does JPL actually understand notability, PROD and deletion? These are the examples from just yesterday:

• Autrey Nell Wiley - prod rationale of "a reference connected with the collected papers of a person collected by that person's employer is not enough to show notability"
• Veysel Turan - prod rationale of "Being one of the last survivors of a conflict is not a sign of notability in and of itself, yet that is pretty much all we have on this person"
• Rhoda Truax - prod rationale of "We have no sources telling us anything at all about this writer. All articles need sources. The article has been tagged as unsourced now for over 12 years. It is far past time something was done about this"
• Fujio Shido - prod rationale of "The one reference here is not enough to show notability and chefs are not default notable just because someone somewhere once published a short blurd on them". Shido's article was sent to AfD at 17:27. ONE minute later, JPL votes delete. What WP:BEFORE work has been done?

There were two redirects (Georg Vinogradov and Artur Amon) which also suggest little to no WP:BEFORE was done. Maybe I'm not looking at the right bit of WP:PRODNOM and WP:DEL-REASON, but please can someone show me where an article that is unsourced or poorly sourced equates to being eligible for a PROD? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:34, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Lugnuts. The only mentions of sourcing in DEL-REASON are points #6 and #7 but these concern articles where exhaustive attempts (as for BEFORE) have failed. There is no valid reason for anyone to PROD or AFD an article on the grounds of unsourced or refimprove unless tags have been in place for a reasonable time and the BEFORE search then fails. Hope this helps. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 10:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you - it does. I'm not really involved with the PROD process, so I wasn't 100% sure on valid/invalid prod rationales. Thanks again. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for flagging these @Lugnuts. I have seen instances of The article has been tagged as unsourced now for over 12 years. It is far past time something was done about this" far too often in deletion nominations lately. It's far past time for AfD is not for clean up to be enforced. It may be true that there aren't sources, but the nomination gives no indication the person has looked. And it's a larger issue than John Pack Lambert, unfortunately. Personally I think PROD should only be used for clear-cut cases. "being one of the last survivors" is something that definitely needs discussion since consensus isn't clear community wise. Star Mississippi 12:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Wiley is clear-cut notable in my opinion in her roles as department head and chair. Someone more intricately tied with academic policies can cross check me there and I'm fine if it ends up at AfD. I'd be voting keep though as I think she published well enough for a woman in the era in which she worked. Star Mississippi 12:25, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

NPROF requires the highest-level admin position, e.g. president of a university; department head or chair absolutely does not qualify. There is nothing whatsoever in the article to suggest academic or GNG notability, so a PROD was perfectly reasonable. I'm less experienced with assessing humanities scholars, especially pre-internet ones, but it does not appear her publications are remotely at the level of impact expected for a C1 pass, even "for a woman". JoelleJay (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Totally fair @JoelleJay. I wasn't able to identify whether the Dean or department head were named positions, even if those type of roles were named at that time. I still think a reference connected with the collected papers of a person collected by that person's employer is not enough to show notability" is not a particularly valid because about five seconds of google found that there was much more out there. An AfD could discuss whether her writing was well cited enough for academic notability. Perhaps I'd change my vote, but I think this is too much of a gray area for PROD. Star Mississippi 00:59, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes it's certainly not a subject I would PROD, I just don't think it's as clear-cut a case of BEFORE not being performed as it's being made out to be. Editors who aren't experienced with academia could pretty quickly come to the conclusion she isn't notable based on there not being any TWU-independent coverage on the first page of Google hits (not that people unfamiliar with a field should necessarily be making judgment calls on notability within it). JoelleJay (talk) 02:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Where does PRODNOM or DEL require an AfD-style BEFORE search? All they ask for is a valid deletion reason, of which failing to meet a notability guideline is one. Neither of them specifies how one is supposed to determine that a subject fails N. JoelleJay (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

The whole point of the WP:PROD process is that it requires a subject to qualify for deletion, so to be a valid candidate for WP:AFD, and in addition that the deletion should be uncontroversial. It would completely defeat the object if it required a lower standard than WP:AFD. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Sure, I agree that that is a reasonable inference from the WP:AfD page, but neither of the actual policy pages says anything whatsoever about doing a BEFORE. One could read just PRODNOM, follow the link for valid reason for deletion to DELETE, read the DEL-REASON section, follow the link to N, read just the GNG and/or SNGs sections as instructed by DEL-REASON (subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline), and still never come across a requirement for doing BEFORE-type searches. The fact that it isn't even alluded to in the relevant policies can then be interpreted as an intentional omission excepting PROD nominations from doing a BEFORE (a PROD is supposed to be an easier method of removing articles, after all). JoelleJay (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, WP:PROD is supposed to be an easier method of removing articles, but only of those articles that could be removed by other methods. It's not a method of removing articles that shouldn't be removed. Why would anyone with Mr. Lambert's amount of experience, and who is here to build an encyclopedia, need to be told by policy or guidelines that one should look for sources before proposing anything for deletion on the basis of their lack? It's not as if it is rocket science, or whatever metaphor is used these days for something that is too difficult for my baby grandsons to understand. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I mean, we don't know that JPL doesn't do a minimal BEFORE for each PROD. But again, the relevant policy pages rather glaringly do not obligate a search for sources -- something that one would very much expect to be in at least PRODNOM if it was actually required -- before prodding an article, so it's incorrect for people to claim he is violating some policy when they feel a sufficient BEFORE wasn't done. And it could be that the ease with which a PROD can be contested is considered enough of a counterbalance to justify not doing an AfD-level search (especially if, in the nominator's eyes, a deletion wouldn't be controversial). JoelleJay (talk) 22:30, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Just been looking at the Shido case and mention should be made of the considerable expansion done by Nihonjoe only a few hours after JPL's comments. As Lugnuts says, what BEFORE was done? Seems that Nihonjoe had little difficulty in finding plenty of information. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 10:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the sources added, comprehension of and ability to search in, Japanese would be a prerequisite for finding them, don't you think? _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 17:34, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

And for Rhoda Truax, I've just done a very quick scan of Google and immediately found this and this. I daresay I could find a lot more if I tried but I think the PROD nominator should do that. I've added the obituary and archive refs to the page given that, as the PROD says: It is far past time something was done about this. Indeed. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 10:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. It is a fair assumption that JPL doesn't particularly understand notability, though I can't really comment on PRODs as I haven't seen him using that feature. However, where notability is concerned virtually all of his votes at AfD are delete and his rationale appears to be a copy and paste job. His arguments for deletion are often weak and regularly at odds with established notability inclusion guidelines. There have been some recent cricket AfDs where the subject is clearly notable, multiple people have also reached that conclusion, but JPL comes along and votes delete with the same copy and paste rationale. One cricket AfD multiple sources were discovered, and the article expanded to a good standard. JPL claimed there were no sources to be found, which makes me question if he bothers doing WP:BEFORE. It also makes me wonder if JPL is just a delete troll, as he seems to vote nothing but and at times borders on WP:POINT and WP:DISRUPTIVEUSER, though what constitutes that isn't for me to decide! StickyWicket (talk) 11:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

• Maybe it's not just understanding. His comments are frequently full of incorrect spellings and grammar, often to the point of being incomprehensible, such as this. Jacona (talk) 11:25, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

That's a good point, Jacona. His messages to this AFD (the overall piece) are littered with poor spelling and grammar. Several times, I've had to read his comments two or three times to be sure of what he's trying to say. I've asked him to use preview but to no avail because it seems another of his faults is WP:IDHT. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 11:44, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

A paid obituary and a genealogy archives database, really? Do you understand notability? Truax has a handful of reviews for one of her books so is likely notable through NAUTHOR, but the easiest way to verify this is through a university library account, which is certainly not expected of PROD. JoelleJay (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

JoelleJay, JPL's PROD was about verifiability (no sources), not notability. The point was that JPL raised a PROD without looking at Google and so he did not perform a BEFORE or seek the missing sources. If JPL felt so strongly that "it is far past time something was done about this", then I think he should have done something about it himself. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 19:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right that your comment was actually about verifiability, I was reading it in the context of all the other parts of this discussion that are on specifically notability and people's understanding of it. I'll be sure to keep all those other things you said about me in mind, too. JoelleJay (talk) 19:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay, Joelle and I apologise to you. I think I shouldn't be here at the moment because I've just spent hours completing forms for HMRC. Sorry for sounding off. I've amended my entry above. Sorry again and all the best. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 20:16, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

• No, he does not In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Easley High School, he voted to delete an article about a school that was 113 years old and is on the national register of historic places, that has a huge number of alumni with articles, and has a large number of references in the article. The nominator wisely withdrew the nomination, but Mr Lambert had thrown out an unconsidered !delete vote, and in spite of being asked repeatedly both in the discussion and on his talk page, ignored it (he continued to edit during the time period). He is either not competent, NOTHERE, or outright rejects community standards. He is a huge negative to the deletion process as he gums up the works and rarely provides reasoned input. Jacona (talk) 12:43, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I do not see why disagreeing with you makes Mr. Lambert suddenly incompetent. The Banner talk 13:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

    Disagreeing with me is fine. Deliberately gaming the system is or fubbing it is not. But Mr. Lambert jumps in and makes a quick Delete vote on articles with dubious rationale, and rarely re-visits even when consensus has been met that the article is clearly notable, thus keeping it in AfD to be reviewed by many editors. I believe he is deliberately doing this to waste others time to keep AfD flooded so that other editors do not have time to respond to his many other deletion priorities. Jacona (talk) 13:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

    ...And it's not sudden, we've been discussing it here for many years. Unfortunately, each attempt to reign in the problem is just a finger in the dike as he finds a new way to make things worse. Jacona (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

• WP:DEL-REASON point 8 specifies notability as a rationale, which covers the first, second, and fourth reasons; and being tagged for twelve years without anyone finding sources obviously satisfies DEL-REASON point 7. People can reasonably disagree on what qualifies (hence why PROD requires only one disagreement to prevent it from happening), but I'm not seeing these as justifying sanctions. Neither does WP:BEFORE apply to PROD - the entire point of PROD is that it is a lightweight process; and I would strenuously oppose any attempt to make it applicable there, since it is not workable to have so many heavier restrictions on article deletion than we have on article creation. As I said above, if someone can create dozens or hundreds of stubs, it is important that other people be able to at least suggest their deletion in some form. Requiring an extensive WP:BEFORE check for a mere PROD would effectively make it possible for people to flood the wiki with specific types of stubs they believe we ought to have as a WP:FAITACCOMPLI and leave absolutely no reasonable way to challenge them in a reasonable timeframe. --Aquillion (talk) 18:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

  Ridiculous. As I have already said, WP:PROD is an easier way than WP:AFD to get articles deleted, not a way to get articles deleted that shouldn't be. This is a project to build an encyclopedia, not a game that requires some sort of balance between people who want to create an encyclopedia and people who want to delete it. I get the impression that there are mamy people who would prefer it if we didn't have any articles, so they could argue to their heart's content without those pesky things getting in the way. And why all this language like "extensive WP:BEFORE" when it is not an extensive process at all. It only takes a few minutes to see that some PRODded articles have loads of coverage in reliable sources available online. but many people don't even want to spend those few minutes. I thought that WP:NOTHERE was a reason for blocking, so why do we continue to tolerate people who treat this as an "inclusionists vs. deletionists" game rather than an encyclopedia that needs building? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Counter-proposal

Where JPL takes an article by Lugnuts to AfD, he may make no further comments beyond his nomination rationale. Lugnuts may offer his keep rationale, which must refer to the article and not the nominator, but may not participate further in the AfD. This does not prohibit either party from improving the article with sources which prove or disprove notability. Any off-topic remarks or personal attacks from either party should be removed or refractored by any uninvolved admin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:00, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

HJM - that's pretty much what I've been doing in any case. You can see from the last few most recent AfD noms from JPL one, two, three, four, five), etc. Infact the second comment in that fifth AfD was to remind JPL about a WP:COPYVIO issue that he had done. Oh, and the bit "Lugnuts may offer his keep rationale" - I don't always !vote keep, but I know what you mean. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

If people are so worried about JPL and Lugnuts (I don't have an opinion on that); what about just putting an IBAN as suggested earlier? Why is everybody looking to reinvent the square wheel. IBANs have worked in previous instances, I don't see why the imperative to come up with more and more fancy alternatives to a problem that already has a solution. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:16, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian, a two-way IBAN would essentially be a one-way IBAN against JPL, since it would prohibit him from nominating for deletion or participating in AfDs for any articles Lugnuts created or substantially edited -- so, the vast plurality of sportsperson articles -- while it would only restrict Lugnuts from responding to deletion nominations from JPL. JoelleJay (talk) 22:36, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

But JPL's talkpage is littered with notes about articles that he belives are non-notable, the last three being Norman Raeben, Ray Reeve and Robley Rex. To the best of my knowledge, I don't believe I've had ANY input to those articles, let alone created them. By JPL's own admission, he's now reviewing people born in 1900 - 6,000+ pages. Sure there will be a few Olympians in there, but plenty of other people too. Picking some at random, maybe JPL would like to review Augurio Abeto, Adila Bayhum, Henry Ah Kew, George Alapatt, etc, who fall into the unsourced/poorly sourced bracket. I don't know about the notability requirements of those people/subject areas, but there's a starting point, and everyone can get back to what they enjoy spending time on. I agree with RandomCanadian here - it's an attempt to make a fancy solution to problem that already has a solution. I've offered JPL a compromise (above, somewhere...), and he's said no, so I've added my own support !vote to the 2-way IBAN. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:43, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

• This was meant to be a discussion on the problem of Lugnuts falsely accusing others of targeting articles created by him when they are actually targeting articles about Olympic competitors that do not meet our inclusion criteria. I think the above statement shows Lugnuts is still involved in such unfounded accusations and is not realizing that the problem is his attempts to personalize the broad campaign to bring Olympic coverage into line with the fall 2021 decision that non-nedalists are not default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

  "Lugnuts falsely accusing others of targeting articles created by him" - John, you've been asked to provide diffs of this claim - you have yet to do so. The quote of "There is no attempt to single out articles created by you for deletion" was said by YOU here. So unless you can back up your claim, you are the one who is now casting aspersions, and I suggest you stop doing so. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Schaffer paragraph

Account is removing content, claiming copyright infringement and threatening legal action. More eyes needed to discern credibility. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:6038:F028:E9EA:27B0 (talk) 19:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Accountnumber3, the account in question, has been indefinitely blocked by Widr for continued legal threats. -- LuK3 (Talk) 20:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Some of that material was challenged as a copyright violation previously - see here. No original source for the material was pointed to, though. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

SPA IP likely violating COI rules

136.49.157.120 is the aforementioned IP. Edit history shows only one article is of their interest. Zealous editing behavior, which inserts their own POV and hides critical POVs. Normchou ^💬 19:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Possible bot assisted indiscriminate addition of a template by an IP

See [Special:Contributions/1.126.105.119]. @Largoplazo and Botterweg14: who have tried to stop them. Doug Weller talk 19:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I just blocked them. Too indiscriminate with some pretty odd ones at times. Doug Weller talk 20:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Reviewing their edits, finding what might be only an occasional glitch amid constructive edits, is likely be a nuisance. Their intent is clearly productive, carried out in connection with a discussion at Template talk:Infobox language#Add Language Endangerment Status, and, as far as I know, many or most of the edits are fine. But then you get something like this, where a caption reading "Big Bird" shows up under the map near the bottom of the infobox at Faliscan language. Largoplazo (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@Largoplazo many of these placed the UNESCO template incorrectly as the language is not in the UNESCO Atlas of the World's Endangered Languages.[152] User:Demetrios1993 has done a sterling job of fixing them.[153] It looks like he didn't have time to finish however as I can see others that aren't in the Atlas. I think it would be safer to roll them all back rather than have articles that aren't in the Atlas shown as in it. Doug Weller talk 13:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed on this, and thank you for taking care of it! Botterweg14 (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Doug. Indeed, i was planning to check all of the relevant contributions, but i had an appointment and couldn't finish. I just checked the rest of them. By the way, in the "Introduction" of the Atlas' third edition – that you shared above – the editor-in-chief Christopher Moseley elaborated that the degree of "extinct" used pertains to linguistic varieties from within the past couple of generations. Specifically, on page 11 we read:

The terminology of the degrees of endangerment has changed slightly since the first and second editions of this Atlas. Professor Wurm had established the practice of naming the five gradations as: vulnerable languages, where decreasing numbers of children are being taught the language; endangered languages, meaning that the youngest speakers are young adults; seriously endangered languages, where the youngest speakers have already passed middle age; critically endangered languages, which have only a few elderly speakers remaining; and extinct languages, marked in the previous editions with a black cross where they were last known to be spoken. Of course, the world is littered with extinct languages, and those included here are only those that have died recently, within the past couple of generations. In practice this means: since an awareness of their plight and imminent extinction was recorded. All trace of these languages has, in some cases, been wiped out for ever.

Thus, articles describing earlier linguistic varieties – which the IP edited – are unrelated. Demetrios1993 (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@Demetrios1993 you did a brilliant job, much appreciated. And thanks for the note about the introduction of the Atlas, very interesting. Now I hope the IP doesn't come back after the block and continue. Doug Weller talk 16:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Unsourced additions by MountainKurd

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

MountainKurd is adamant about adding unsourced info at Kurds in Azerbaijan and other articles. They have now been reverted by at least two other editors but readds the content and accuses us of edit-warring. When there's no source nor any info on Kurdish roots in the articles, how are we suppose to verify?[154] --Semsûrî (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@Semsûrî: Is there a reason this couldn't be handled at WP:ANEW? —C.Fred (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

It can also be solved at the WP:ANEW, but for this the current discussion should be closed I guess. The issue is that the editor is rather persistent and not really cooperative. They've had some issues with several experienced editors. Maybe they need a warning by someone else.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

They've already received many warnings from many different users on their user talk page, in less than a month of editing. Levivich 21:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing, factual error through word play by User: The paradox guy

@The paradox guy: has introduced factual errors using reliable source, foreign affairs, [155] after editing warring [156], [157] and warnings given about factual errors [158], over the language used (forcibly, illegaly), not mentioned in sources visavie change of administration. Both foreign affairs, Al Jazeera do give some background information about the disputed territory, and both say it was annexed/taken from Amhara by the TPLF. So the changes in the lead made by The paradox guy does not correspond with the sources provided, and his arguments on Talk:Western Zone, Tigray is pulled from context (administration take over by Amhara officials vs use of the forcibly/forced in the prism of alleged abuses against civilians).

In short he is misusing, inserting factual errors, pulling context from sources in order to push the view in the lead of article that the change/take over of administration by Amhara officials was forced and illegal even though the sources doesn't say that. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 22:31, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

according to OXFORD public international law annexation means "the forcible acquisition of territory by one State at the expense of another State." You are not intitled to your own facts. The fact is out there for all to see. The area was forcibly taken.

STOP removing sources. I have added a report from HRW to show the forceful removal of the administration and the inhibtatants. The paradox guy (talk) 10:10, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Can someone also revert this guy, until he can provide reliable sources for the changes he wants to make, that doesn't involve pulling context from the sources. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 22:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

IP sockpuppets of Jinnifer

Lots of activity from LTA Jinnifer tonight, the usual talk page harassment coupled with edit warring about how popular Spider-man is and decade sections for horror films. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jinnifer/Archive for some history. The IP ranges involved are unfortunately quite busy, but blocks on 2600:387:15:630:0:0:0:0/61 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) and 2600:387:C:7135:0:0:0:0/61 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) should cover it for the moment, if anyone is so inclined. MrOllie (talk) 02:27, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd appreciate a bit of action. My revert finger is getting tired. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Blocked the 64. Thanks my garden friend for flagging. I'm about to go offline so any admin can feel free to modify as needed. Star Mississippi 02:50, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Whacked another /64 which was being actively used. firefly ( t · c ) 10:15, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

And back again as 2600:387:15:637:0:0:0:8 This is AT&T mobile, the /64 isn't going to be wide enough. I again encourage a block on the /61 MrOllie (talk) 11:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell has placed anon block on the /32. Thanks, all. MrOllie (talk) 12:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Srianu1's actions on Ayya Vaikundar

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

---

User:Srianu1 has repeatedly removing a WP:NEUTRAL version of the Ayya Vaikundar (founder of Ayyavazhi) article [159] based on neutral references and insists only on relying on Ayyavazhi scriptures. [160] [161] ("Removed fake information and reinstated it to original as per Akilathirattu ammani") ("Unsourced and fake contents were removed. To bring neutality contents added as per Akilathirattu ammani"). Wrt Talk:Ayya_Vaikundar#Vaikundar and User_talk:Redtigerxyz#Vaikundar, two "Cyber defamation complaints with ref Acknowledgement Number : 21602200009493, and 21605200023615 was already raised, based on which unsourced contents were removed". I perceive the defamation complaints as WP:LEGAL threats. The user is WP:POV pushing about the founder of the religious movement based on scriptures and not focusing on the historical individual behind the movement. Sai Baba of Shirdi is a similar article, which speaks about the historical persona and also notes the attributed miracles and his status as a revered goldly figure. Request Admin intervention on article and user conduct. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Having looked at Talk:Ayya Vaikundar, it is obvious that User:Srianu1 has a conflict of interest. I have placed a warning on his/her talk page; please let me know if there are any further incidents of edit warring. I'm prepared to block this user. Deb (talk) 07:50, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

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

Deletion of Guatemalan and Honduran Canadians…

I am writing in response to a proposed deletion of the Guatemalan and Honduran Canadian pages here on Wikipedia. I have tried to remain civil but the editor of the proposed deletion Slywriter has been making these thinly veiled attacks on the Guatemalan and Honduran Canadian communities, claiming that both of those communities don’t have and encyclopedic value in his own words. I have the snapshots to prove my case. He not only suggested removing the Guatemalan and Honduran Canadian pages but just about every page associated with the Latin American Canadian pages have been slated for deletion according to him and when I saw that post, I immediately blamed him for being prejudiced. It’s one thing to remove a page for lack of merit but to remove an entire group from a country sounds like bigotry to me. I can’t remain “collaborative” with people like that and I believe going to an administrator would solve this problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhiladelphiaWanderer34 (talk • contribs) 04:27, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Without even addressing whether ANI is the proper venue for this, considering Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guatemalan Canadians is an open discussion, you say "I have tried to remain civil" but also "when I saw that post, I immediately blamed him for being prejudiced"... which is it? --Kinu ^t/_c 04:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Consider me notified. I do not dispute the edit summary, which is not directed at any group, it is directed at articles whose single source is the Canadian Statistics/Census, which as a result appear to fail WP:GNG in compliance with WP:NOTDATABASE and so brought to the community through WP:AfD, also known as literary genocide.Slywriter (talk) 05:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

• Indeed, an administrator can solve this problem ... by at the least delivering a stiff warning to the OP about his unwarranted personal attacks. For my part, I have very little use for an editor with a bare handful of mainspace edits loudly proclaiming the terms on which they presume to be "collaborative" with the rest of us, especially one so willing to haul out the racism card for edits which they dislike. Ravenswing 07:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Could OP's comment here about all this "getting sent to Ottawa" be considered a WP:NLT violation? --Kinu ^t/_c 07:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I was just about to ask the same thing, having just now looked at the user talk page ... Ravenswing 07:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

From the context, they seem to be talking about informing the relevant countries’ embassies, rather than the Canadian legal authorities. Brunton (talk) 09:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I read it as a rather unconvincing attempt at a WP:MEAT threat: I’m pretty sure the Latin American community will most definitely care and hopefully force Wikipedia to keep those pages open. DeCausa (talk) 09:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I would have thought that anyone who was so concerned about hurting peoples feelings would write Puerto Rican Canadian, not Puerto rican canadian. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

An administrator can indeed solve PhiladelphiaWanderer34's problem. PhiladelphiaWanderer34, you are warned for unwarranted personal attacks and retaliatory behavior, and any further conduct along these lines will result in sanctions against you. You may not accuse other editors of racism for doing things you disagree with, and bringing a meritless claim of this kind to ANI is a remarkably bad idea. You've provided no diffs or other support for your accusations. Deletion discussions are a normal process of the encyclopedia, and your conclusion that Slywriter is motivated by racism is out of bounds. I see no indication of any such conduct on the part of Slywriter.. Acroterion (talk) 13:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

202.79.51.241 - rollback needed?

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

Hi. This IP has added tons of unsourced height articles to BLPs of Nepalese people (footballers, cricketers, actors, etc). I've dropped them a note on their talkpage about WP:RS, etc, but I believe there is an issue with IP editors using their mobiles to edit WP in seeing such a notification. In the meantime, are these edits worth rolling back en-masse? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Cherrypicking absurd non-RS added because it fits POV

I have now reverted Dortana twice for using a cherrypicked reference at Êzîdxan[162]. This reference is by a Rakesh Anand, a self-proclaimed "trained Actor and screenplay writer from Hollywood" and has no expertise on Yazidis whatsoever, however Anand is added as a reference by Dortana as it fits their narrative. The editor moreover subtly removes the word "Kurdistan" from the introduction albeit being referenced in the subsequent Usman reference (oddest part is that Dortana was the one adding the Usman reference so I merely extracted more info from the reference). I am then asked to explain my reverts in the talkpage, which is just absurd as I have concisely expressed what my issue was in the edit summary. I genuinely don't know what I can express in the talkpage that won't be repetitive. Dortana has been disruptive for a while now and a sockpuppet investigation is also underway here, but until then, can someone please take action on this local issue? The whole article is a POV-fork of Kurdistan as the work Êzîdxan is merely a synonym of Kurdistan (as was also referenced before Dortana removed it for POV reasons) --Semsûrî (talk) 14:25, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Dortana has a history of POVforking on Wikipedia including this[163][164] and Êzîdxan is just another one. A assuming good faith is a bit difficult at this point. --Semsûrî (talk) 14:34, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Jackedano's unsourced additions

User:Jackedano has been on Wikipedia for 9 years and should be well-versed with Wikipedia's guidelines revolving around sourcing and verifiability. However, they have continued to make numerous unsourced additions past my four warnings and show no sign of remorse, stopping and improving their editing patterns. – DarkGlow • 15:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Please provide Diffs of these unsourced additions to allow others to evaluate your claims.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Here are some: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, all of which concern WP:BLPs. – DarkGlow • 23:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

IP 67.161.6.243 replacing sourced information with unsourced

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

This IP is making repeated changes to the taxonomy sections of articles on mammals (and, I believe, other animals), deleting sourced information and replacing it with contradictory, unsourced claims, and in some cases changing the article text so that it directly contradicts the source cited. Other changes are simply unsourced and, on examination, prove to be spurious. There is the odd legitimate edit in there, but the IP only communicates through edit summaries and continues despite warnings on their Talk page to at least provide sources for their claims so that they can be evaluated against the existing reliably sourced, statements.

Examples of problematic edits: [165] [166] [167] [168] [169] [170] [171].

I note that a different IP (2601:647:4180:6010:0:0:0:0/64) was blocked for virtually identical edits on the same pages recently, so this could also be block evasion. Anaxial (talk) 09:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Perneric sockpuppetry

User:Perneric is a sockpuppet of User:Farhan Rana Rajpoot Artist (previous investigations) as can be seen from creating Draft:Farhan Rana Rajpoot Director. Perneric also edits across multiple projects spanning Wikidata, Simple English, and Commons the same as previous confirmed socks. Please indef them. 0xDeadbeef 09:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

They have also uploaded the same image on Commons by previously blocked socks (See User:Wiki_Chumabu and User:Mazzulah Peel; blocked by @Magog the Ogre). 0xDeadbeef 10:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

 Blocked Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

User:DarkShineMan

DarkShineMan (talk · contribs) repeatedly adds unsourced content to and about BLPs. They have been warned multiple times by multiple users for this, and I recently blocked them, but they have returned to make the exact same edits. Please can somebody review? GiantSnowman 12:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked DarkShineMan. Any administrator is free to unblock if the editor agrees to provide references to reliable sources verifying their content changes. Cullen328 (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE by 213.172.93.89

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

Right off the get-go, this new IP has been engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:TENDENTIOUS behaviour.

It is especially ridiculous how a (pro-)Iranian user, teaches us democracy here

Attempted twice to remove around 2k information by high-quality academic sources. These were his reasons; Added the file of the Royal Geographical Society. Erased inaccurate and misleading information. - The false statement is erased. Historical documents should be more respected than some Wikipedia users's opinion. Instead he has attempted to add a primary source from 1864 and even included his own commentary along with it (can be seen in the bottom [172]). These type of IPs appear every now and then, and have never shown any sign that they are here here to build an encyclopedia. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

• They seem to have calmed down a bit so I am loath to block right now. Also, NOTHERE is probably not the best term to use for an IP editor. Drmies (talk) 18:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Legal threats by a COI account

Theoriginallawoman (talk · contribs) is disrupting Slaughter & the Dogs, adding unsourced content as the 'band's representative' and threatening legal action. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Blocked by Bbb23.— Diannaa (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Indian Cricket Rocks

• Indian Cricket Rocks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm not sure this user his here to build an encyclopedia. Multiple reverts on this article, with edit summaries like this and this, this summary ("the whole article is clearly antisemitic") at Israeli war crimes, along with this claim from a "new" editor. Thoughts?

I self-reverted on each exemplified article. I did not and do not mean to be disruptive. I may have got wrong of stick on some things. No more summaries like that. Indian Cricket Rocks (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Violation of NPA and not here

75.134.90.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This [[173]] in response to this [[174]] because of this [[175]]. Also [[176]]. Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Just keeps at it: [177]. Agreed, very clearly WP:NOTHERE. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked by Canterbury Tail. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Legal threat

Ogom Chijindu was redirected after an AFD. 187lawyer has removed the redirect to restore the article and made related legal threats in the edit summaries. MB 17:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

This is an obvious legal threat, and obviously an empty threat, so the perpetrator should simply be blocked and ignored. I am, however, a little perturbed by the existence of this redirect. Would we have redirected a man's name to his wife's article in similar circumstances? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Reverted, protected, blocked. However I agree with Phil, the redirect is pretty weird. I would have deleted the article rather than do that. Black Kite (talk) 18:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

The argument, I suppose, is built on "girlfriend" status; we typically don't list "x is dating y" in the first place, but this is all prompted by her appearance on Basketball Wives. That probably explains the supposed lawyer too: fame and fortune are at stake. I was going to put it up at RfD but I can't guess what its fate would be, since there is ample sourcing (at least from last year) of her being his partner and being on that show. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Surely the obvious redirect is therefore Basketball Wives, not her boyfriend? Black Kite (talk) 18:10, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@Black Kite: I was thinking the same thing about the redirect target. —C.Fred (talk) 18:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

This redirect is even worse than I thought. I had believed that this was redirected to her husband's article, per one of the comments in the AfD discussion, but it seems that it is just someone she is dating, or maybe not any more. Unnotable people don't announce in reliable sources when they are no longer dating someone. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

A quick Google suggests they are still a couple, but that's not the point, so I have boldly redirected the article to Basketball Wives. Black Kite (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Turkish language

There is also a conversation above, but this was opened by another used in order to solve a situation in which I have accused him. Now I open this conversation, in order to solve the problem. To consume, there are violations at the page, where my edits are reverted each time without a serious excuse. Please, some administrator solve me this question: why at the Russian language the unrecognized state are put different, while at the Turkish language the northern occupied part of Cyprus (aka Northern Cyprus) is out normally like a state? Please, make the page following the Russian language page... Greek Rebel (talk) 19:14, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@Greek Rebel: That is a content issue, not something that requires administrator attention. —C.Fred (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@C.Fred: I think that violations are administrator issues. Anyway, where can I ask for help? Greek Rebel (talk) 19:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@Greek Rebel: Looking at the history of Turkish language, it looks like your bold changes have been reverted by other editors, and there is no consensus to make your changes at the talk page. Are you sure you want administrative action taken? —C.Fred (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

OP warned for edit-warring and page protection requested at RfPP. This seems to be a medium(ish)-term edit-warring issue. Involved editors should stop edit-warring and gain consensus for their changes on the talk page of the affected article, per WP:BRD. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:29, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

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

---

• DudleyPuppyWasAPlainOldMutt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DudleyPuppyLikes2ChewHisButt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2603:8080:eb00:7a7b:b85b:13f3:4b38:58d2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The users above are all appear to be the same person. I have not reported yet for sock investigation, but pending the outcome here, I think that's also prudent.

The user refuses to follow MoS standards and as evidenced by their constant reversion of every edit by any other user, they have no interest in working collaboratively. Their behavior indicates WP:NOTHERE and DudleyPuppyWasAPlainOldMutt is now engaged in an edit war on Hamster and Gretel.

I tried to explain to them how they were using the infobox parameters incorrectly, specifically, using the first_run parameter as a date (it's supposed to be a country) [178]. The response I got was "it doesn't matter". [179] (That date issue is moot at this point because in the ensuing hours, first_run was made obsolete in Template:Infobox television anyway)

Some of their edits are simply nonsense:

• [180]
• [181]

Others are now just obvious vandalism:

• [182]
• [183]

ButlerBlog (talk) 00:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

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