Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

---

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion

User:Huasteca

Huasteca (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has been editing since the first of this year, and in that time has found their way over to COVID related articles with which they have a problem accepting WP:MEDRS and WP:DUE, as well as their continued attempts to either overstate what sources say, or make new information from combinations altogether. Their first talkpage post (here) was filled with accusations of propaganda, and they flat out lied about the sourcing in the article. They later venture into personal attacks territory, and continues even now to refuse to understand that consensus is against them.

To this user's credit, they did attempt to discuss this on a noticeboard instead of continuing to edit war... but after that discussion resulted in no support for their views/goals, they went right back to making large changes to attempt to push the negative information to the forefront. The user then today again provided two sources not compliant with MEDRS and attempted to synthesize information from them that wasn't really present in the original EMA announcement - which they conveniently ignored because if anyone here would like to read that announcement, it does not say that it is confirmed, it says it's still a "possible link" and being listed as a side effect - which is not the same as saying "we have confirmed a causal relationship with the vaccine" - yet Huasteca wants us to say that, and the user wants the information about the blood clots to be plastered front and center for people, when at most one or two sentences would be merited, just as for any other side effect.

All in all, I am unsure whether this user has some motive for this other than building an encyclopedia, but it is clear to me now that allowing this user to continue to edit in the COVID-19 vaccine topic area would be a time sink for other editors, and it is producing virtually no good discussion. As such, I'd like to start this discussion on perhaps applying the COVID-19 general sanctions to apply a topic ban on COVID-19 vaccinations. Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Update, this response to an uninvolved editor trying to explain things has personal attacks, aspersions, and is overall unhelpful. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't even know how to respond. It seems User is deeply disturbed by the EMA's announcement today finding a link between Astrazeneca and cerebral thrombosis and continued suspensions of Astrazeneca vaccinations. He has been aggressively pushing the view, not only that there is no link between Astrazeneca and cerebral thrombosis but that no one has even hypothesized this link. Hard to believe but true. This is his position - he literally refuses to acknowledge the content of reliable sources. [1]. He even refuses to accept that numerous countries have suspended AZ vaccinations - with arguments on the line of "they were just temporary pauses". Funny thing is that I haven't even really engaged in an edit war with this editor - I just took this entire scenario to the relevant noticeboard where he promptly requested I was topic-banned. Perhaps this is the second of the Five stages of grief now that his position is even more untenable than before? God knows. He knows I have disengaged from the topic so I assume it is the product of a mixture of vindictiveness and frustration. Should not be wasting people's time here, though, including mine! Huasteca (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The EMA did not find a link, they found a "possible link", and you would know that if you clicked the link in my original post. I have not pushed any view one way or another - I have fought against presenting a viewpoint as "certain" based on non MEDRS and sources that don't say what you're trying to say, as we are not a crystal ball and it's better to wait than get it wrong in the meantime. This editor has not disengaged from the topic, or if they have done so, it has only come after this noticeboard filing. I'll note that this user has continued making aspersions and personal attacks even here - showing that they cannot edit in this topic area without personalizing things, and I remain convinced that a topic ban from COVID-19 vaccines would be beneficial to the project. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Since I was mentioned here, involved with the edits of the page in question, and asked for my opinion by an editor on my talk page, I will give my 2 cents. The issues raised by Huasteca are not entirely without merit, however, the objectionable material here is in how he chose to go about attempting to edit. While editing, he used primarily sources that did not meet the WP:MEDRS standard, and as such his edits were generally reverted. I attempted to explain that this was common, and that even I had had recent edits reverted on similar grounds recently, though I thought them to be passable for several reasons, and that trough discussion with the community we had come to a consensus. Moreover, there were some considerable WP:DUE issues with his writing, with unconfirmed reports being presented front and center, without clarification, in the lede. Some of these edits also left out important information from within his own sources, that was important for a reader to understand the entire situation. The primary issue, however, comes with his reaction to criticism. He has frequently accused other editors of colluding or conspiring to "push POV", and yet takes even very mild criticism levelled strictly against his work (as opposed to him as a person) as a personal attack, lauding phrases such as "a very serious personal attack" and "a torrent of abuse", when not a single insult or threat had been thrown his way, merely constructive criticism over his edits. His assumption that the AstraZeneca vaccine casual link to the few dozen blood clot cases would eventually be confirmed appears to now be proven correct by the EMA, but the issue is not really about that. We don't attempt to predict the future, and accusations of conspiracy, abuse and "British Propaganda" (his words, not mine) quickly derail the discussion instead of moving it forward. In addition, he appears to dismiss the MEDRS standard as some kind of excuse that other editors are using against him, rather than a standard that we should all hold each other by, especially on a topic as important as this. He repeatedly accused other editors of POV pushing, when he quite clearly held and promoted a POV himself. Ultimately, the inclusion of a lot of his content would not even have been a problem, especially now with the EMA's new statement, but the violation of WP:MEDRS, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:DUE were the primary reasons for the conflict. His decision to immediately take offence, rather than to attempt to discuss the mater impartially prevented the establishment of a stable consensus. Still, it is worth noting that he has expressed support for other vaccines, most notably Pfizer's, and does not appear to maintain a more broad anti-vaccination attitude and has, at least at times, appeared responsive to complaints (even if not in the most constructive way possible). Why this user is such a staunch opponent of this vaccine I do not know, but it wouldn't have been an issue if the discussion he had with us was more focused on facts and edits, and not on taking offense and accusations. I wish him all the best, but find this type of behaviour quite unhelpful. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 22:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Pure WP:BATTLEGROUND from Huasteca. They seem to be living out a fantasy in which they are a lone hero fighting against evil pharma shills. Unfortunately this means mischaracterizing what sources say (so: "There is no longer any doubt on the causal link between Astrazeneca and the clots"[2]) and concocting a bizarre story about what other editors are saying (so: "You guys can write AZ is magic and cures Aids and it won't have an impact on public perception"[3]). Probably some WP:ROPE is left to play out, but in a fraught medical topic subject to GS, these kinds of antics are the last thing the Project needs. Alexbrn (talk) 05:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  Alexbrn Guys, could you please just leave me alone? You have been proven wrong, yes I know its annoying but its what happens when you take WP:FRINGE views. Other editors are dealing with the article and I'm not involved anymore. Harassing me here is not going to change anything. Stop wasting people's times with your personal attacks, I'm not going to react in kind. Huasteca (talk) 10:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Huasteca. There are no personal attacks by Alexbrn. Given your message here I would ask if English isn't your first language as that would explain some of the problems you are having. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 12:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

CambridgeBayWeather There have indeed been a number of pretty nasty and uncalled for personal attacks by this user against me, as well as by other members of this odd cabal. If you want the diffs here, I will provide. And yes, you are correct, English is not my first language. It's my third language. But I'm still pretty certain I speak and write it better than you do. Thanks for your valuable input to this conversation. Huasteca (talk) 13:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes I would like some diffs and I so far all I see is you making personal attacks. Calling others an "odd cabal" is an attack. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

CambridgeBayWeather This is a personal attack, for example.[4] Saying that me raising concerns about the neutrality of an article is due to "malice or incompetence" is a completely uncalled for personal attack. I also consider you completely randomly questioning my ability to communicate effectively in English because I happen to speak other languages a personal attack. The Trump era is over. I'm not wasting more time on this, I'm sorry. Have a nice day. Huasteca (talk) 23:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Huasteca Yes that was a unnecessary attack by Alexbrn. However, that does not make it OK for you to make them as well. By the way asking if English is your first language is not a personal attack. Just a question. Not sure why you would bring up some foreign former president. Trump never had a "era" up here. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 23:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

CambridgeBayWeather It's fine. Sorry for taking it the wrong way then. These guys make me moody and defensive. Regards. Huasteca (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

This user seems to have avoided this discussion by claiming they would be leaving this topic area alone, but they've yet again removed referenced text in this edit with an edit summary that's a borderline personal attack, and misleading. I stand by requesting that this user be topic banned from COVID-19 vaccines as they are unable to contribute in this area without becoming overly dramatic, making personal attacks, and slow edit warring to get their preferred outcomes in articles. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

It's sad that he now appears to have been completely insincere in his reasoning up to this point. This to me disproves the presumed good faith hypothesis and is reason enough for me to concur with you request. This is malicious behaviour and actively detrimental to the goals of building an open and neutral encyclopaedia. Goodposts (talk) 13:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Given that the behavior has continued, I would propose a partial block from COVID-19 articles. They can propose changes on the Talk pages, or go edit somewhere else for a while. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

HandThatFeeds, I would be okay with this except for the fact that just as much, if not more, disruption has been caused by their derailing of discussions on talkpages for vaccines at least. I also think that they may just need a break from the vaccines and they may be able to contribute meaningfully on general COVID articles (ex: about the virus, pandemic, etc). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic Ban from COVID-19 vaccines

• Support Topic Ban from COVID-19 vaccines Huasteca is a massive timewaster who is attempting to push contentious and unverified medical information against Wikipedia guidelines, with persistent IDHT problem. The sooner they get the boot the better. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Could you provide diffs as evidence of me "pushing contentious and unverified medical information"? Also could you substantiate your allegation of me being a "massive timewaster"? It would allow me to not interpret it as a gratuitous personal attack. Thank you Hemiauchenia Best regards.--Huasteca (talk) 23:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Support Topic Ban from COVID-19 vaccines per Hemiauchenia. h 13:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Support Topic Ban from COVID-19 vaccines: Given the following scummering of Gs/alerts:topic=covid as "sillyness" [5] and then obviously continuing to engage in battles per comments above. In mitigation per someone above has had a couple of points worthy of inclusion; and may have reduced problematic edits since soming to ANI.and may have been riled from some stuff albeit AGF initially unintentionally. In some ways I'd like to conside allowing talk page edit requests for Huasteca but on risk/benefit considerations and the difficultly of making acceptable edit requests its likely better all round that it also include talk pages. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC) I've struck my support for 2 reasons. The first inaction of admins seem to appear that the regard "general sanctions" to be meaningless. The second is that @Berchanhimez's "And this user" immediately after this post can be taken as a dig at myself .... unless one actually goes into the links to see that "This user" probably refers to Huasteca. An admin should probably therefore close this an no action. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

And this user Huasteca has continued to cast aspersions and make personal attacks all while continuing to edit the article and its talk page after multiple times claiming they "weren't involved" or they "haven't looked" in days. This disruption is preventing article work because those of us who are actually trying to improve the article are, from all sides, having to waste time on what now appears to be intentional "fudging" of sources and trying to make the most POV text possible that can be supported by a source. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Djm-leighpark - I was attempting to reply to my own comment above - but the replylink tool when I clicked it after my name put it down here for some reason. You can verify that in the fact that the edit summary says "replying to Berchanhimez (using reply-link)" and not your name. For complete clarity, "This user" in the above statement refers only to Huasteca. I'll note that Huasteca (I won't use "this user" again for clarity) has now admitted to refusing to assume good faith and has attempted to justify their continued actions because they took it to NPOV/N - where they were pretty clearly in a minority viewpoint on their desired edits at the time, so I'm not sure how that could justify their continuing this at all. I agree that administrators are too scared to touch this area - unfortunately, some people decided to witch-hunt the only administrator who was actually keeping a lid on COVID disruption off of the project, and obviously nobody else has stepped in and become willing to touch it. I don't think that lack of action yet, when only one administrator has even commented and that was early on to try and get Huasteca to step back/improve, means that it should not be actioned - especially as, I've been showing here, disruption has been continuing. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Support Topic Ban from COVID-19 vaccines per my arguments above. Goodposts (talk) 22:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I still believe this needs at a minimum an uninvolved administrator to review and consider the arguments here and close this before it is automatically archived. This is the second time I've had to comment to prevent archiving of this thread without more than one administrator commenting (and even that administrator has not returned since attempting to defuse the situation above, which I appreciate but did not work as evidenced by continued (slow) disruption). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban. The provided evidence is weak. The supposed offence of using MEDRS-incompatible sources was in a talk page post that discussed EMA and MHRA announcements, via two mainstream news stories - other users agreed EMA and MHRA are usable and the EMA announcement is now used. The "borderline personal attack" was "shenanigans". The "removal of referenced text" added wording to give a full quote rather than a truncation. That version is still live. However, Huasteca's discussion style is hyperbolic and they need to stop describing articles as "propaganda" and making references to North Korea, etc. Fences&Windows 13:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

  They were already told to stop doing such, but they just repeatedly say they're "stepping back" or otherwise "done" with the article, then they come back and continue the same behavior after this discussion dies down enough that they think they're safe. Note that a week ago an administrator here told them to stop doing such, but they are still being hyperbolic since being told that sort of thing is inappropriate - why do they deserve another warning when the first one did not work? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 14:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

  Pragmatically possible problematic contributions in the topic area seem to me to have reduced in the 10 days since this ANI was raised, certainly compared to the period immediately before that. Under those circumstances the discussion is likely to peter out until closed or taken to archive by bot. If I am not mistaken Huasteca has not "owned" the disrespect shown in the comment used when removing the "General sanctions" notification from their talk page, and perhaps that is a bad precedent for the admins to ignore without at least a warning. I have a faint hope article maturation and WP:MEDSECTIONS of the affected articles might help lead to less issues ongoing ... however I am afraid there is a real risk of escalation and being back here or whatever after this ANI closes. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

  Berchanhimez, they're not obliged to stop editing the articles or talk pages - they've not been topic banned (yet). If we sanctioned Wikipedians for returning to an article they said they'd stopped editing we'd lose a lot of our frequent content creators. Topic bans need to be better supported than framing every comment or edit you disagree with as disruption. Djm-leighpark, the bad-tempered removal of a GS notice was unwise, but editors are allowed to remove such notices from their own talk page and display annoyance - we're not robots and it is still proof Huasteca is aware of the general sanctions on COVID-19 articles. Huasteca, if you continue characterising other editors as propagandists you will be sanctioned. They are not your opponents; they are your collaborators. Focus on content, not other contributors. There seems to be agreement on what kinds of sources can be used in the articles and wordsmithing hardly seems worthy of getting topic banned over. Fences&Windows 12:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I haven't logged into wikipedia for a couple of days and have just come across this. I'm literally a loss for words. That you, User:Berchanhimez are trying to get me topic banned because I publicly called you out manipulating an EMA statement to fit your narrative is borderline surreal. (See [6]). Berchanhimez, a more mature reaction would be to apologize for getting carried away in your zeal and promise to refrain from violating Wikipedia policies in the future. Trying to get me topic banned out of petty vindictiveness because things are not going your way on the article is also in itself a violation of Wikipedia which in merits some form of sanction in my view. Especially considering I'm not even that active on Wikipedia. Regardless, I have done nothing wrong and I will appeal the ban in the unlikely case that, due to canvassing or concerted action, this meritless accusation somehow leads to any sanctions being imposed on me. I trust wikipedia to be functional enough for this ridiculous case to go nowhere. Huasteca (talk) 23:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

This response itself which attempts to project this user's actions onto me, as well as continuing to cast aspersions and accuse people of "canvassing or concerted action" when nobody has done such and no proof has been given... this should show to anyone reading this that (including User:Fences and windows) that this disruption has continued past all warnings from other people. I'm not sure what this user thinks was "manipulated" by myself, but they are the one who has continually attempted to violate WP:V by cherry-picking words/phrases from sources in their edits in this topic area - and in fact that was agreed upon by people both on the talk page and at WP:NPOVN where they tried to take this when they didn't like what they were told on the talk page. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I would have thought the clever moved would have been to have left ANI with Fences and windows's summary at 12:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC). But Huasteca has determined to continue it. I probably wouldn't have checked here but for this edit at [7] at 23:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC) (somewhat after 23:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC) ). I read it as a minor wordsmithing badger and would likely have ignored it apart from the fact I didn't sign properly in my earlier response there which is really a mandatory correction I sort of had to make. This leaves me with a concern issues are likely to continue. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I have not determined anything Djm-leighpark. I just respond to this barrage of notifications in my inbox. But could you please tell me what the problem is with that specific edit? I look at the diff and its not even my edit. What issues are likely to continue? So far the only issue I see is a serious bout of WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:GAME. Huasteca (talk) 10:01, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I frankly don't know if I've made a good faith mistake here or not, I have certainly made one and maybe others, and if I did I apologise, but I'm not actually going to waste any further effort checking this ... Bigdelboy (talk) 21:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Berchanhimez, the edit they are referring to as "manipulation" was here where you removed "they exceeded what would be expected in the general population" (referring to combination of thrombosis and thrombocytopenia), which was supported by the source and could be seen as downplaying what AstraZeneca and the EMA said in the statement. You also put "plausible" in scare quotes and turned "the occurrence of thrombosis in combination with thrombocytopenia" into "the occurrence of thrombosis and thrombocytopenia", which alters the meaning - it is the co-occurrence which is the focus of attention, not the individual occurrence of either. Fences&Windows 12:16, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

You’re using the same cherry picking here to justify calling that manipulation, whereas I made those edits by taking the sources available as a whole, not just picking the scariest parts of them. Further, putting an exact quoted word in quotation marks is not “scare quotes”. Furthermore, it is not just the coincidence of the two that they are concerned about, it’s also when either happens on its own. Again, this is all supported if you look at the entirety of sources available, instead of just finding one part of one source that you can pick out. This was also the general agreement on the talk page and NPOV noticeboard. I am unsure why you are attempting to rehash this here and justify personal attacks by an editor when the discussion about that was already had and came to a clear consensus. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 12:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Fences and windows: Thank you. I agree my language was a bit hyperbolic when I first engaged in this article (which is some time back now, I think) and the North Korea reference was uncalled for. For that I apologize. But the odd thing is that despite toning down I am facing hostility I don't think I have ever encountered on wikipedia. The irony is that its precisely these attacks which are drawing me back to these articles.--Huasteca (talk) 23:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Note Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Janitor102 may be relevant to this thread. Alexbrn (talk) 09:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Now that this has concluded without evidence of sockpuppetry, I think that this needs a conclusion to prevent further disruption in the COVID-19 area when Huasteca inevitably returns to those articles which they themselves admit they cannot stay away from. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I think it is likely that Huasteca is a sock of Php2000 as suggested in the SPI comments, rather than than the originally proposed master. Can't be bothered opening another SPI at the moment though Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: indefinite block

This editor has also apparently been editing while logged out to edit war - as evidenced by this page history. At this point, they know well the rules against edit warring and sockpuppetry (including logged-out socking), and they are still choosing to engage in disruption which apparently consists of more than just COVID-19 related topics. This editor, even while being discussed at ANI for their failure to comply with community standards, has continued to disrupt articles - they've simply ignored the COVID-19 space for as long as necessary that they feel they're "okay", then they went right back to it, and now they're disrupting another topic area by edit warring with logged out edits. For this reason, I feel an indefinite block is warranted until this editor expresses their realization of their disruption being... well disruptive and promises to comply with rules and guidelines in the future. If this isn't actioned, now almost 2 weeks since the first post, we will be right back here in another few weeks when this is archived and thus Huasteca realizes they can go back to their disruption without being actively scrutinized. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

No, I haven't User:Berchanhimez. I was mistaken for an anonymous IP from Indonesia of all places. The user who did so has since apologized and retracted his accusation as can be seen on my talk page above your unexpected rant. You, on the other hand, seem to have developed a very unhealthy obsession with me. We are not interacting on any article yet you follow my talk page and track my edits, presumably due to a sense of hurt pride or unfulfilled desire for revenge. Please, take a deep breath, read WP:HOUND] and kindly forget about me. Incidentally, I am also pretty sure from their coordinated WP:CANVASS behavior that User:Berchanhimez and User:Hemiauchenia are the same person, not that I care as long as you leave me alone. Huasteca (talk) 18:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I have no obsession - you have been edit warring on COVID articles and now articles outside the COVID area - even if you never crossed 3RR. You are continuing to cast aspersions with no proof - if you cannot provide proof that me and Hemiauchenia are the same (hint: you can't, cause we aren't) or proof of canvassing, then you should retract those claims. You are not helping yourself at all by continuing to make personal attacks and edit warring. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I have say that I support the proposal of an indefinity block for the editor User:Huasteca on the grounds that in my interactions with him I have observed similar premeditely disruptive behaviors to those pointed out by User:Berchanhimez and in general, the other editors that have participated in this report, meaning that I've observed him to be an editor that is very disruptive, often incurring on WP:HEAR in the sense that continues to outright ignore and remove any evidence that opposes to his point view, he also tends to stay low for some time to then restart the same edit wars. Besides this, there's notorious behavorial similarities (here are the diffs that I presented as evidence in the SPI [8][9], I have to remark, the similarities I've observed only involve the editors Huasteca and Php2000, not janitor102, which is the editor that said SPI considered to be the sockmaster) bewtween him and an editor that was blocked for incurring in sockpuppetry and IP socking[10], I notice that some of this was mentioned before, but no direct link to the actual diffs used as evidence was presented. Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• As can be seen from their watchlist[11], Huasteca has now put a {{retired}} template on their userpage, and continued editing. This seems odd. Alexbrn (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn I have indeed retired, having simply responded to a comment on a talk page (ooooh what a terrible crime, right??) I can't take this level of WP:HOUND and WP:NPA from you and your WP:CANVASS buddies. I was particularly annoyed by your failed attempts to get me topic banned and string of rather nasty insults. I'm done. Wikipedia is not for me. Too many psychos taking out their personal frustrations online. Huasteca (talk) 13:38, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Looks to me more like another false claim of disengaging, giving cover for your continued dramah, as above. Perhaps a site ban might help enforce the retirement to everybody's satisfaction? Alexbrn (talk) 13:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I honestly think its you who should be permanently blocked from Wikipedia for behaving like an online thug. All of this because you didn't get your way on that Astrazeneca article a few weeks back. It doesn't really concern me anymore but someone should do a UserCheck on User:Alexbrn, User:Berchanhimez, User:Hemiauchenia. I find it extremely unlikely that three independent users have obsessively followed me for three weeks since I last engaged with them on the Astrazeneca article where they miserably failed in getting me topic banned or in finding community support for their POV pushing. I'm personally convinced all three are the same person using socks in a canvass strategy. Doesn't concern me anymore but I have no doubt in my mind. Either way, it doesn't matter. Goodbye. Do not ping me here anymore. I'll no longer be logging in. Huasteca (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Danth's law is in full bloom in that comment, but it reinforces the point that this user is not "retired". Alexbrn (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Not even going to start on the massive amount of personal attacks, but yet another lie, as this user has been re-engaging on the article within the past week. Once again, they're using a "retired" or "I'll disengage" tactic to try and stop the scrutiny from being on their disruption, and they'll be back disrupting soon enough. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 16:47, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I've not been directly involved in this, but I have noticed this user's edits to Genocide of Indigenous Peoples, which turned into an edit war with a random account only made to edit that page briefly and fight for this user's edits, and their edits to the Mexicans page (also their behavior on the Mexicans Talk page) where they consistently accuse other editors of "POV pushing," and they do not read/misrepresent sources other editors present them with (See: accusations of "POV pushing," accusing editors who call out their behavior as "having an obsession with them," basically reflection and projection so as to deflect blame for behavior and combative editing). I'd recommend taking a look at User:Php2000, in terms of rhetoric, behavior, and specific pages edited.--Hobomok (talk) 19:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive POINTy AfD !votes and racist comparisons by Johnpacklambert

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

---

A user, @Coin945, made 72 (!) AfD nominations in the space of approximately three hours with no delete rationale apparently as an attempt to clear out the "unsourced since 2007" category, including a number of blatantly notable topics like City attorney and Anal sphincterotomy. Multiple people (a solid cross-section of AfD regulars with complex and varied opinions on deletionism/inclusionism and implementation of deletion policy) strongly suggested on his talk page that he withdraw these nominations, due to their disruption to the AfD process, and they received multiple procedural speedy keep !votes. Coin945 appears to be mostly inactive aside from this, and so reasonably may not have seen the encouragement to withdraw, but such nominations could have been speedily kept under WP:SKCRIT#1 regardless.

After strong consensus developed amongst other AfD regulars that these nominations were inappropriate, @Johnpacklambert made delete !votes on all or virtually all of the nominations (cross-section: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/External flow, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City attorney, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cheetah Girls (video game), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anal sphincterotomy) while casting aspersions on the motives of editors who desired the nominations procedurally kept on Coin945's talk page by describing them as "showing utter contempt for Wikipedia and what it is meant to be". These !votes make SKCRIT invalid, requiring that the disruptive nominations above and beyond what AfD's contributor pool can handle either be IAR closed or run for a full week. In addition to accusing editors who want the noms withdrawn of contempt and essentially NOTHERE, he then went on to repeatedly accuse editors desiring withdrawal of a Jim Crow-style grandfather clause (2, 3) including telling other editors to "go back to 1925 Alabama where they belong", which received some righteously angry criticism from @Hyperion35.

This is not acceptable behaviour, and an editor with JPL's tenure and experience at AfD should be decidedly aware of that by now. There is a limit to what the process can handle, and there is a rather low limit to how many times it's acceptable to compare people who want to avoid said process-bludgeoning to Jim Crow racists. Vaticidalprophet 05:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• Putting aside the nomination discussion, I agree with the comments made above. While I appreciate @Johnpacklambert: for supporting my deletion rationale, I think it highly inappropriate to make the ad hominem attacks on our fine AFD volunteers for doing their job. I would like to apologise for any harm that was caused by comments made below my deletion nominations. Let's keep these AFD discussions rooted in evidence and facts. :)--Coin945 (talk) 05:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• Seems like a good number of these could have been boldly redirected instead of having so many AFD nominations at once, at least IMO. The spam-ish mass-delete votes are as unhelpful as the spam-ish mass-keep votes. Truly, both sides should stop treating AFDs like a procedural battleground. This is an encyclopedia not a weird parliamentary procedure MMORPG. And finally idk what JPL was thinking with those ad hominems; way out of line. Levivich ^harass/_hound 06:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Also, I don't think it matters if they're closed today or next week. Just let them run. I support striking uncivil !votes tho (as a general matter), and the nom should either confirm they've done the before for all of these, do the before now and then make said confirmation, or withdraw (SK1) those noms for which no before has/will be done and where no one else has voted delete. Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• I'll second what the others have said, JPL's comments were over the top and a major breach of WP:CIVIL. The mass nomination of articles to AFD by Coin is a problem as well - Even if many of them would end up being deleted regardless, the fact that Coin nominated one further article to AFD after the barrage of messages on their talk page, coupled with the refusal to withdraw them, is irritating and shows a lack of regard for the opinions of those other editors. That being said, unless people have evidence that this has been a recurring problem, I don't think much more than a warning is in order. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 06:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't think Coin needs to be sanctioned -- I didn't make him the topic of this thread, after all. Anything stronger than "the ones no one or only JPL wanted to delete are speedy kept, please don't do that again" is IMO punitive. It's understandable that an editor with apparently low activity in recent years might make a trout-y mistake in good faith (certainly we've had some high-profile cases of it lately), and I cut people some slack for not being immediately responsive to a bunch of strangers descending on their talk page with unflattering comments. Vaticidalprophet 06:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• Some of these articles should be deleted, others I'm not sure. Regardless, both sides did a poor job with the AfDs. The nominator failed to explain why the topic wasn't notable. You can't just say its been unsourced for 15 years (although that's usually a good indication of lack of notability), you got to go a step further and say that you don't believe the sources exist (if that is in fact true). And the "procedural keep" argument is just as obnoxious, at least evaluate the article, either it has potential to meet the notability guidelines or it doesn't, you can't just say too many articles were nominated (as if there's an actual limit. I would say that JPL's comments were inappropriate, though not racist. He actually was accusing others of acting like a racist. The comparison doesn't really make sense.--Rusf10 (talk) 06:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• Johnpacklambert's high-volume, bot-like participation in the deletion process, combined with a refusal to discuss concerns civilly, has already resulted in a topic ban from nominating more than one AfD per day; his !voting, however, is similarly disruptive (and for largely the same reasons).

  Here is one example: on February 3, in a 7 min 53 sec interval between 08:59:55 and 09:07:48 he edited 12 AfDs. All of these edits were to !vote delete, except for one Redirect. He spent the following amount of time between each edit: 40, 55, 32, 70, 28, 32, 22, 73, 29, 36, 56 seconds. Similarly, on January 19th, 1065 seconds elapsed between Mystic songs of Sylhet and Willard Keith: 28 AfDs, with an average of 38 seconds spent on each.

  While it's possible that these edits were all composed separately in separate browser windows, queued up over the course of a longer period, and then submitted at the same time (with 20-70 second long breaks between each one for some reason), I think the more parsimonious explanation is that this is simply how long he took to write each !vote out.

  To explain why these numbers are so concerning to me, let's look at an example from today: his !vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top (technical analysis) "This is a dictionary definition. Wikipedia is an encyclopdia, not a dictionary." This edit was made at 12:54:30: his previous edit (to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tonti diagram) was at 12:53:53, and his next edit (to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tower array) was at 12:55:08. That's thirty-seven seconds for a !vote. Let's break it down: this !vote is 11 words long, let's say the associated ~~~~ is one word, that leaves us with 12 words. Some quick research suggests that the average typing speed is 32.5 wpm for transcription, and 19.0 wpm for composition, giving us between 22 and 37 seconds just to type out the !vote. Assuming two to three seconds for both page loads (clicking on the AfD's edit link to open up the posting box, and then clicking/alt-shift-S'ing to save the edit), we get an estimate of 26 to 43 seconds just to edit the page and type out the !vote. This leaves between eleven and zero seconds which could have been used for the entire process of evaluating the article; as a point of comparison, the "Find sources" toolbar at the top of the AfD page has eleven links in it.

  It may be pointed out that his AfD ratio is high, and most of his Delete !votes are on articles that get deleted. I don't think this matters here: since a large majority of AfDs close as Delete, !voting D on totally random articles would gives "correct" results in a large majority of discussions, so a "good ratio" does not in itself indicate attention and care is being used in reviewing articles (indeed, 98% of his last 200 !votes were to Delete and 2% were to Merge). More importantly, however, even if he was only !voting on articles certain to be deleted, it's hard for me to understand how an 11-second skim of an article constitutes productive contribution to a discussion. AfD is intended for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies; this involves putting at least some effort into determining whether the individual article meets criteria or not. However, despite being warned and sanctioned for similar behavior in the past, Johnpacklambert has continued to burden the process with extremely large volumes of !votes that prevent such discussion from occurring. It's not that the arguments he makes are solid, or even that they're persuasive: it's just that, in the several minutes of research required to assess an article, find sources and type out a counterargument to one spurious !vote, another twenty will have been made in other AfDs. At that point, why bother?

  It would be obviously disruptive for someone to counter this by !voting in thousands of AfDs with "Keep per WP:BEFORE" at a rate of two per minute: JPL doing this to delete articles is, arguably, more disruptive (articles kept due to spurious !votes can be easily re-nominated for deletion, whereas articles deleted due to spurious !votes are quite difficult to access and re-assess, and there is often little evidence that they even existed outside of redlinks). I'd recommend that his AfD topic ban either be extended to the entire process, or expanded to prevent rapid-fire !voting. jp×g 07:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  • I think this might be the point where serious discussion of a broader tban becomes viable, but it'd require a much more confident definition than we have there. I don't know if a full AfD tban would fly, but moreso for precedent than anything. (People have, of course, been tbanned from all of AfD, and even from every deletion process.) But the behaviour here has flown past what has previously been ascribed to ideological disagreements into full-on battleground-y personal attacks. Vaticidalprophet 07:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• I'm really not a fan of the backhanded insinuations of racism. JPL could have picked another example of a grandfather clause that wasn't bound up in ugly race politics. I've protested when other AfD participants have used the venue to imply other people are racists for voting the "wrong" way (and gotten nowhere because prefacing such an attack with the word "keep" is an exemption from the civility rules that apply to the rest of us), and I think it is just as unacceptable for someone voting delete. Reyk _YO! 07:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• While I understand the general history of Jim Crow laws, I'm not getting the exact reference to 1925 Alabama. Did something special happen there in that year? All I can find is "the game that changed the south" which doesn't seem relevant.

  Regarding the issue of the 72 nominations, I observed that Uncle G was on the scene early, providing good guidance. They have been absent for some time so it's good to see them back in action. Uncle G is a veteran of the early days and iirc once explained that the AfD process was deliberately designed to be laborious to discourage frivolous abuse. The tool Twinkle has subverted this design by automating the process and so it is now easy to punch out 72 nominations with a cookie-cutter nomination, as in this case. I also see editors using scripts to make !votes at AfD too so the likely result of such trends is that warring factions will destroy AfD with great salvoes of identical nominations and responses. The logs can't accommodate much more than about 100 nominations/day as a template overload tends to occur. Perhaps Twinkle should limit everyone to one nomination per day?

  Andrew🐉(talk) 08:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Andrew, did you genuinely just type "warring factions will destroy AfD with great salvoes of identical nominations and responses." with a straight face? Black Kite (talk) 09:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
    • For what it's worth, let's not completely derail this discussion with that, as we all know it can be. ☺ I'd much rather stick to the behaviour evident at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pani, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Map-based controller, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imum coeli, the particular behaviour at the head of this section, and of course Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living Water Christian School. Uncle G (talk) 10:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Fair enough. Firstly, simply AfDing articles that are unsourced is a bad idea if that's the only reason you're doing it. BEFORE hasn't been done here, that's clear. FWIW - Pani is an obvious keep , there are always sources for surnames. We actually have a number of articles for people with this surname (i.e. Bhavna Pani) and also the Italian/Spanish version, (i.e. Mario Pani), so there's that as well. The second is more interesting, there's a few references in a BEFORE search but I think the article is also slightly confused as the usage in cars is I believe using "map" in terms of re-mapping. Imum coeli is a concept that looks like it might be better dealt with as part of a more overarching article, but it's OK as it is - it's not a dicdef. The school is ... well, it's a school. It has lots of local coverage. It doesn't have any other coverage. I don't think we need to rehash NSCHOOLS all over again here. Black Kite (talk) 10:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
        • The big issue is that there's such a combination, at such high rates, of potentially-has-merit and unlikely-to-have-merit nominations all at once. The onus for BEFORE is on the nominator, and that hasn't been done at all. In turn it'd be one thing if that had just...happened but they could all be procedurally kept (without needing to invoke IAR), but JPL bludgeoned that process too, while being nasty to people who wanted a procedural close to later evaluate some of the nominations on their own merits. Vaticidalprophet 11:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
        • Again, though, that's the subjects, and Vaticidalprophet is bringing up the behaviour. The behaviour is rapidly going through most of the discussions Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 13 and claiming that most articles "belong in a dictionary" even if they are nothing like what dictionary articles are, discounting sources cited (even immediately prior in the discussion) based upon what the article looks like, as well as what is brought up in the head of this discussion. I didn't know about Special:Permalink/769474340#User:Johnpacklambert until today, but some of the observations there about not giving due consideration or effort seem very much on point, as well as what BrownHairedGirl said. Uncle G (talk) 11:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
          • Well, yes, but my point was that their behaviour is AfDing articles with no sources and claiming "notability". Like blasting a shotgun randomly into the air, by doing that you're occasionally going to hit a worthwhile target (i.e. Manufacturing test requirement design specification, Natalie Snyder), but most of the time you're going to miss. Coin945 needs to be politely informed how to actually AfD an article properly, by saying why they believe it is non-notable. However I will say to some that have commented on those AfDs - doing a Google search, finding some trivial or vague references to the subject, and then shouting "you didn't do WP:BEFORE!!1!" is equally useless to everyone. Black Kite (talk) 12:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
            • You are conflating the behaviour of Coin945, which isn't what this is about with the behaviour of Johnpacklambert, which is. That behaviour is the multiple "Jim Crow" comments, and the rapid-fire, as analysed above, discussion contributions. Uncle G (talk) 13:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
              • @Uncle G: Ah, yeah, fair point, that'll teach me to not read things properly (I read it as POINTy AfDs). The behaviour of Coin945 clearly belongs in a separate "WTF are you doing?" thread. 16:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
                • @Black Kite: I think you did the five-tilde thing again. jp×g 23:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• Special:Diff/1017617649 directly says "Jim Crow", by the way. Uncle G (talk) 11:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• The burden is on people to show that these articles are notable. The fact that we had this many articles that had been unsourced since 2007 is a very big problem. I have yet to be convinced that city attorney is a notable topic, and even if it is as I said there it is deserving CfD. The city attorney is just a lawyer who works for the city. At least in the US prosecuting criminals is done at a higher or at least different level, but the county prosecturor or district attorney. Some districts may coincide with cities, but these people are not the same as city attorney. The burden is on people who want to keep these articles to show that they are notable, and that is not being done in most of these cases. I will however go back and review my statements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Johnpacklambert, I was waiting for you to comment here, hoping that you would make a more convincing statement than this. It's not about the AfDs or the articles, - it's about your comments in them. "go back to 1925 Alabama where they belong" - in a discussion about whether to retain an article on a surgical procedure? That's disgusting. You don't need to 'go back and review your statements', you need to recognise that they were outrageously offensive, and apologise for them unreservedly. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I was a little out of line with that statement. However my point is that Wikipedia does not have a grandfather clause. Articles having existed for 14 years does not show that they are notable. In fact it is a major, major, major problem that articles are allowed to exist even a year without sources. This is a huge problem and noithing is getting done about it, and when people try to do something about it they are constantly stymied at every turn. This is very, very, very frustrating. So is the fact that when people explain why articles do not meet existing standards they are so often met by people who want to increase special pleading. Wikipedia does not have a grandfather clause, and that is my point. We should not respond to deletions with speedy keep proposals that have no merits. This whole thing frustrated me. I was out of line. What we really need to do, as I say over and over and over again, is to make all new articles go through the AfD process. In the last month we have considered porposals to delete literally thousands of articles on non-notalbe wells and farms in Iran. I am not exagerating. The fact that someone who takes the time and effort to nominate articles for deletion is met by such obstructionism when the articles have languished for 14 years with no sources at all is very, very frustrating and shows that many editors of Wikipedia have no desire to see Wikipedia mature into a site where we use reliable sources to create well sourced and accurate articles. That is what I want, and we will not get there if we move forward under any illusion that just because an article has existed for a while it has any merit. Early Wikipedia was a horrid place, where biographical articles existed for years with no sources at all. It is not what we want to return to at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I appreciate the apology and explanation here, but I do have to wonder about the feasibility of making new articles go through AFD. We often don't have enough editors participating in AFD as is (just like we don't have enough people participating in AFC, NPP, or any other process), and it seems inevitable that we'll have non-notable articles existing on the site for a long time before somebody notices. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 14:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
        • JPL's position that I've seen him outline before is approx. "force every new article to go through AfC", which in my opinion would be the initiative that turns Wikipedia into "the perfect size, just like Citizendium". (But then I am not someone with a glowing view of AfC generally; "better to ask forgiveness than permission" has been baked into the project since day one, for better or worse.) Unsourced or terribly sourced articles are in fact deleted quite often (as JPL knows, because of how many of those discussions he's participated in); the reception to Coin's actions here is not a reception to the fact he nominated unsourced articles, let alone to the fact he nominated long-term unsourced articles, but the fact he nominated three-quarters of the total count of an average day in the space of three hours, with no indication of WP:BEFORE, and then that JPL bludgeoned attempts to handle it how any other WP:TRAINWRECK would be handled while making some atrocious claims and comparisons. Vaticidalprophet 15:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
      • The problem is that you are still ignoring the actual arguments of other editors, and you are treating AfDs as if this was a battle for Wikipedia's soul. It is a horrible abuse of AGF. Some people believe that some articles should be kept, and go to the trouble of explaining reasons why, and showing either that sources exist or where to find them. You need to stop treating other editors as obstructionists. I can list many reasons why some AfDs actively undermine Wikipedia's reputation (multiple female CEOs having their pages deleted in March, Womens History Month? Want to hazard a guess how that makes the site look to half the world's population?), but I try to avoid letting them affect how I respind to editors in AfD because it is irrelevant to the process itself, and it is better to acknowledge and consider that other editors might have good reasons for their opinions.

        I don't know whether this might help, but some time ago an editor added a Keep vote in an AfD where I thought Delete was the best option. This was a complicated medical issue, and the editor's comment seemed to me to be overly simplistic and unworkable, and other editors had already considered and discarded the suggestion. But I checked the editor's userpage, and it was clear that he wasn't an expert on the topic, he was a musician. And I thought about how the response I wanted to tell him would look, all "listen to me, the expert, you ignorant peon!" and cringed. Instead I gave a non-technical explanation of the problems his suggestion would create, and asked him politely if he had a suggestion for how to make it work, and whether he had any other sources he'd like to contribute that might be helpful for us. He responded with a reconsideration that showed that he had taken my advice and had really thought about the issues and was persuaded. My point is, you have to see other editors as people, they may be wrong, they may have missed some important fact, they may not see things your way. But try to work with them to build a better encyclopedia. Hyperion35 (talk) 17:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Personally, what I'd like is if you actually put the research effort in, because I like to think that you can if you try. I went and found sources contradicting several of those zero-effort AFD nominations, and as I observed at one point I was the only one doing so out of you, me, and the nominator. That's not right. We need more people doing the research. We don't need zero-effort piled upon zero-effort piled upon zero-effort.

    You asked me whether I was serious at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clear Lake Keys, California. Yes, very much so. See User talk:Hog Farm#Virginian corners. But the way that we are approaching the GNIS mess is by doing lots of research, looking in history books and suchlike to at least triage things. We need lots more of that, people who think that something is not notable, or perhaps even wholly unverifiable, going and checking.

    If someone could find a Virginia/West Virginia directory of marker trees, then at least we could know which of Reywas32's list of "corners" is just a tree that Wikipedia is falsely claiming to be populated by people and which is likely a settlement genuinely named "Something Corner" and in need of more detailed attention, as Hog Farm and I did with "Something Springs" in California with a book of California springs.

    We are putting the effort in. Go and look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pepperwood Grove, California. That's people all double-checking one another, and doing the research independently, so that we know at the end that we have got the right result, that we can be confident in. That's some of the best of AFD.

    Uncle G (talk) 12:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Navigational break

• I feel obligated to weigh-in here on two counts: (1) the large number of AfDs at once, regardless of reason, and (2) the Jim Crow references. Quite frankly, the latter concerns me most because some editors have been experiencing unwarranted allegations or innuendos of racism based on misconceptions or worse, not to mention oblique comparisons of innocuous or unrelated circumstances to racism in an effort to win an argument. Doing so only serves to lessen the seriousness of the real issues - liken it to the kid who cried wolf. It is a growing issue on WP, and it needs to be nipped in the bud. I don't know if an apology is enough - that is for our admins to decide. As for the AfD issue, I think some possible solutions are:
  1. set a limit on the number of AfD noms by a single editor per day;
  2. establish a holding area for bulk noms with a discussion page;
  3. establish a guideline enforceable policy that makes it mandatory the nominator must first attempt to find RS, or resolve the issue that makes it a delete candidate per the steps outlined in WP:BEFORE, which is what I teach my NPP students to do before nominating; it's an important process. It also applies to AfC, so I'm not sure how all those articles made it to mainspace. Perhaps that should be investigated as well - cut it off at the root. Atsme 💬 📧 15:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC) ^{corrected & clarified 16:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)}
  • establish a guideline that the nominator must first attempt to find RS, or resolve the issue that makes it a delete candidate, which is what I teach my NPP students to do before nominating -- WP:BEFORE exists, and yet... Vaticidalprophet 15:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • (ec) The articles made it to mainspace because standards were less strictly enforced then - the procedures we have in place now for article creation should at least theoretically reduce the potential for large numbers of completely unsourced articles to slip through, although some of the discussions on this page about mass creation of stubs suggests we still have problems. It does suggest that Wikipedia needs to something about these sorts of completely unreferenced that have been untouched for a long time, (like we have done for unreferenced BLPs) even if unregulated mass nomination isn't the solution. ANI isn't the place to work out a solution however.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• Can we close these discussions? WP:CSK clearly states that we can close these kinds of nominations early. Scorpions13256 (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Part of the issue is those criteria require no one other than the nominator !vote delete, and JPL bludgeoned that process. They could be closed on the basis that holding to the letter of that rule does not improve the encyclopedia. Vaticidalprophet 16:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

My bad for the first one that I closed. My finger slipped, and I was not aware of that part of the rule. I will not close the remaining ones citing WP:IAR because I am not a big fan of it. I'll just let the remaining ones stay open. Scorpions13256 (talk) 16:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm quite a fan of IAR myself. What I'm not a fan of is my chances with making IAR NACs without rousing the fury of the "ban all AfD NACs" contingent. Vaticidalprophet 16:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't be a fan of putting the acronyms "IAR" and "NAC" next to each other at any point. If there's an IAR closure to do, let an admin take the heat, they're used to it. Black Kite (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• There are two problems here, of very different natures. Coin945 was wrong to do as he did, WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD are not minor suggestions, they are actual requirements. Editors have been wrong before, and ideally this sort of mistake should be trivial to reverse, and hopefully the lesson will be learned. The editor appears to have acted in good faith, however, and I would consider it the equivalent of accidentally hitting "Reply All" on an office email, annoying and mortifying, but not a serious offense.

  Mr. Lambert is a more serious matter. His comment was incredibly offensive, irrelevant, and unnecessary. My father used to require security escorts when he went out to register Black voters in the 1960s. I live in a major Southern city, I have seen the literal blood and sweat that has been spent reversing the legacy of the Confederacy and Jim Crow. While it is true that "grandfather clause" is often used in non-discriminatory issues, Mr. Lambert was pretty explicit in making it a Jim Crow comparison (because in 1925 in Mississppi, that was the only context for a Grandfather Clause). There is no way to compare keeping a rather mundane article on Wikipedia to systematic violent racist disenfranchisement, it is beyond absurd.

  It is also a symptom of a broader problem with Mr. Lambert's comments. Right above his "1925 Alabama" remark, my comment was essentially the same thing I would have said if my boss sent me an email right now telling me that we needed to gather information on this procedure as part of a review of reimbursement rates or regulations or medically unlikely edits, if perhaps a bit more terse and frustrated. I was actually looking through our chart of CPT codes to see if I could find the correct ones to add to the article when I checked and saw Mr. Lambert's response. I don't like to have to pull this card, but if you're wondering why Wikipedia has trouble retaining experts, this is one admittedly minor reason.

  Mr. Lambert did not contribute anything to the discussion, and even aside from the bizarre comparisons to Jim Crow, he seems overtly hostile towards anyone who votes to keep an article, refuses to engage on the merits of the article, and his own words show a distinct view of AfD as a battle between "deletionists" and "inclusionists", rather than a place where people consider the merits of a given subject and offer reasons why we might keep or delete it, where editors often spot things that might have been missed by others. This attitude appears in almost all of his comments on yesterdays mass AfDs, as well as his response to Coin945's talk page. I think that he is not productively contributing, and cannot productively contribute if he sees AfD discussions in such conspiratorial and factional terms. Hyperion35 (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  • One day, someone will rise to the challenge of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surgical Incisions. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 17:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I clicked on that, expecting it to be an April Fools prank. I'm genuinely speechless and more than a little impressed. Usually those sorts of "helpful" changes require a whole committee. Hyperion35 (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• Some of the AfDs have other Delete !votes as well now (as I said above, a scattershot shooting will hit some correct targets). Those should not be closed. Black Kite (talk) 16:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • (Passing note: you accidentally put an additional tilde in your signature above.) The ones with delete !votes from people other than JPL should be left to run a week, yeah. Not sure how many that is -- quite few. Vaticidalprophet 16:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
    • At this point, more of these are attracting delete or merge !votes. A significant number were good candidates for deletion, the problem was a lack of understanding of the process. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• Lambert's response of "I was a little out of line with that statement" speaks volumes. Please do not brush this matter under the carpet. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• FWIW, and I appreciate that it's noway near the offensiveness of the comment Mr. Lambert made as discussed above, he made this comment about redirects on a cricket AfD, when nothing of the like has happened within the past year as I can work out. It just seems that at times he wishes to cause gripes with other editors with his comments. Many articles he has voted on may well be suitable deletion candidates, but these comments, and certainly those of racial nature are completely unnecessary/unacceptable at AfD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  A very bad !vote. Not just the conspiracy theory aspect, but because Nauman Sadiq clearly passes WP:CRIN (a WP:SNG, complementary to WP:GNG). Narky Blert (talk) 19:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  Narky Blert, yes and no. On one hand I have seen people sneak back after an AfD is closed as redirect to restore the article without addressing the reasons raised at the discussion, though this has usually been related to articles about fiction; the D&D enthusiasts in particular used to do this all the time. On the other hand I haven't seen any such shenanigans from the cricket people though, so I think that particular accusation from JPL is off the mark. And on the gripping hand, WP:CRIN is so awful at predicting which subjects will actually pass GNG given enough time and research that it actually carries no weight anymore and hasn't for months. Reyk _YO! 09:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if this is related, but it seems worth bring up that just last week User: Liz warned him that he needs to use an edit summary when he PRODs an article; she had previously warned him of the same thing on March 11. 2601:249:8B80:4050:6D3B:D5BA:1BFB:F4C9 (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  Note that those warnings came AFTER this ANI thread for the same thing, were it was closed with the remarks "...JPL has agreed to take the feedback on board and act differently..." But he continues to show the same pattern of behaviour. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comments on his talk page also point to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leo Lebeau where users were noting problematic comments from him there last month as well. 2601:249:8B80:4050:6D3B:D5BA:1BFB:F4C9 (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  Specifically in this case, I will leave it to others to judge whether his comment "I have a right to favor a definition of marriage that is in the best interest of children and editor above will not silence me" is "the shocking homophobic remark left by John Pack Lambert that in my view should not even be allowed on Wikipedia" as posted by User:Eiko237 in their apparent final edit on Wikipedia. 2601:249:8B80:4050:6D3B:D5BA:1BFB:F4C9 (talk) 13:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  As someone who happens to be gay, this is disheartening to read...--Coin945 (talk) 14:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• See selection below. This is by no means exhaustive, but serves merely as a small sample of the issues over the years.

In which JPL is banned from more than one AFD nomination

In which JPL is topic banned for amongst other things, making racist accusations

In which JPL's obsession with categories and sexist editing resulted in contributing to significant negative press

Block for edit-warring BLP violations

Is it now time to revisit the ban idea from all deletion discussions I previously suggested due to JPL's complete inability to understand the problems he causes. Despite promising (again) to take feedback on board, once again we are here.

So far JPL's history of editing is one of warring with other editors, engaging in systematic sexism, accusations of racism, obsession with categorisation, abuse of living people, disregard for other editors by deliberate abuse of the deletion processess, and rampant incivility. So what point do we get to show him the door? Is it that time yet? Do we need someone to write up some more news pieces naming him publically? Because as with the Tenebrae saga, that is the current bar it takes to get action here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I am very, very, very, very sorry about making the complex comparison to grandfather clauses and wish to most profusely apologize for it. I have struck all such comments, and wish again to most profusely apologize for it. I wish to do so in the most apologetic manner possible.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• The above accusation of "systemic sexism" is a clear sign of people thinking it is fair to accuse me in the most nasty ways, and I am sick and tired of it. Especially when people accuse me of such 8 years after the fact. This dregging up the past is getting very annoying. It is an unfair accusation, much of it is based on total and complete lies about the matter at hand, and it ignores the goals and motivations of those involved in the process. To understand what I mean, the category Category:American women novelists was created by a user who wanted to highlight a different set of articles on women than they felt were then highlighted in Wikipedia. Their intentions were noble. The issue came because of the complex conflict because of diffusing and non-diffusing categories. It came about because Wikipedia has a complex categorizsation system that takes a lot of effort to naviage clearly. Non-difusung categories are an odd exception to general category rules, and they do not apply in all cases. Sports and acting we fully diffuse, and category rules have lots of other exceptions. To call attempts to apply such rules "sexism" is to imply bad intentions to legitimate attempts to make Wikipedia a better place. To refuse to recognize that such was done in good faith, and to attack someone over it literally 8 years later is just beyond reasonable. As I said before I am very sorry about my taking the linguistic origins of the term "grandfather clause" and applying it in ways that were unkind and uncharitable. However I am really, really, really tired of this "attack John for a misunderstanding of our complex categorization system 8 years ago that he had tried his hardest to not repeat in the ensuing 8 years". This is just too much. I think we should go to forcing every editor to use their real name, so they can be exposed to the same character assasinations as above.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, how many times has there been a case brought up against JPL at ANI? This honestly feels like the same issues resurfacing again and again. It doesn't feel that long ago with the last issue. This clearly is a long standing problem. Govvy (talk) 14:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I have no use for the vast majority of what I see from JPL. However, is it possible to consider that he's not necessarily the problem? The last time I commented on this page, it concerned the tendency of Wikipedians to throw around the Jimbo quote about "the sum of all human knowledge", how that has been quantified and how in terms of article count, this community has only accomplished slightly more than five percent of that goal in a span of over twenty years. What I didn't discuss is how I've slowly weaned myself away from Wikipedia after years of observing tons and tons of wasteful activity come across my watchlist (God's perfect timing: today's sermon in church was on Titus 3:9) and how high-quality sources have done their best impersonation of Rome burning while regular editors have done their best impersonation of Nero fiddling. It appears that project space provides a vast array of venues for regular editors to hide away in walled gardens, oblivious or even hostile to what "the sum of all human knowledge" actually entails. XFD is perhaps the worst example of this. If you believe there's community consensus occurring in deletion discussions, you're part of the problem and perhaps you should step aside to make room for those who really wish to move this project forward. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:38, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

JPL and communication

• [12]

Ok, so I've interacted with JPL over many years. My experience is a.) he seems to get frustrated when people don't seem to understand the point he is making, as well as (a situation not uncommon in XFD) people attack him and/or his words in ad hominum attacks rather than the topic under discussion, and b.) possibly because of this, he often takes comments about his nominations as just more of the personal attacks, when he seems to just want to discuss the topic in question. and all too often leads to c.) him saying things that to the outside viewer that appear to be really inappropriate. (I'm not adding diffs out of fairness to him, and because there are plenty above which help illustrate this) And I should note that I've seen editors clearly intentionally bait him in a discussion as well.

I'm not a doctor by any means, but just a thought - I linked at the top of this thread that JPL has self identified having a diagnosis of Asperger's.

And while I don't think we should ignore/excuse offensive communication, I wonder if the communication issues that are being seen may have some source in that.

And I think it would be unfair to exclude JPL from XFD, and he has shown at times to not be disruptive in discussing there.

So here's my suggestion for moving forward -

1.) JPL can't use the PROD system anymore. He doesn't seem to be following the process and opposed prods seem to lead more to the type of frustrated communication we seem to see. I'm not seeing much in the way of anything productive here. In my opinion, for JPL, the structure of XFD, seems to be at least somewhat better to help focus the duscussion.

2.) Limit JPL to only a few (4 or less, maybe?) nominations at XFD per week for similar reasons. (I'm writing it this way because if we limit it to one a day, we'll start seeing disparate group noms.) The goal here is to reduce the amount of "nominator attacks" he receives per week that he will need to deal with at the same time. (Since around a week is the minimum duration of most XfD discussions), and since, in my opinion anyway, I think such scenarios is a fair part of the issue here

3.) Suggest to JPL that when ever he is faced with a situation where he feels he is being attacked, to disengage - stop responding to that editor in the discussion. There is no requirement that we respond to something someone says in an xfd discussion, just because they ping us. (My suggestion to him might be to not comment in that discussion for at least 24 hours or longer. This should give him a chance for reflection on how to better communicate.)

I sincerely hope this helps. - jc37 14:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose The above nominations shows clear intention to use my being open about being on the autism spectrum to discriminate against my ability to participate in AfD. This is clear discimination against me as a person. I am sick and tired of it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  My intent is foster understanding, not discrimination. Because, to be honest, I think the discussion above is leading to to you being topic banned from XFD entirely, which I don't think is fair to you for the reasons I noted. I apologize that you saw anything different in my above comments. - jc37 15:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  If you really wanted to foster nderstanding you would go after someone who made false accusations of sexism based on false and malicous attacks on what I did 8 years ago. That was a horrible case of hating on me. It was unfair, it was based on falsely representing things, and one of the articles engaged in mean spirited and hurtful attacks on me for all sorts of things. If you wanted civility you would go after that most uncivil of comments above, not find a way to put new puntitives restrictions on me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not going to dig into an 8 year old event (that I honestly do not recall, off the top of my head). - As I said above and will repeat - Yes, you have been attacked in the past. and baited too. So have I, so have others. I'm not saying that that's right. But each person can only control what they say, not the other person. And right now, the discussion appears to be about concerns about your editing. I believe that your apology below was well meant. Let's accept that in the past mistakes were made and try to move forward. We'll see what the community decides in the end, but as for me, I was and am merely trying to give you the benefit of the doubt after (as I think you would agree) many years of interacting with you at cfd and elsewhere. I think you can be a productive contributor. But the way things are moviong above, I'm concerned that we will lose you as a contributor at all of XFD. Anyway, I'll let others comment from here. As I said, for whatever it's worth, my goal was merely to help. - jc37 18:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment My view is that AfD is an open process. There is no reason to treat the nominator's effort as the final say on the matter. So speedy closing just because you thought there were too many nominations is a horrible plan. If we have a huge group nomination it might work, but an individual nominition should be treated on its merits. A speedy keep that ignores the fact each AfD nomination is considered on its own needs to be treated as invalid. As I said I am apoogizing profusely for my over reaction to such things. However it is beyond frustrating that refusing to treat nominations on their own merits is allowed at all. We need to change the whole process on this matter. I keep apologizing for going too far, but people here seem to want to punish me for trying to contribute to Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: ASDs and subclinical traits of them are, ahem, prevalent enough on this site that I honestly don't think treating those editors who happen to both know about and openly disclose one radically differently to the rest is good practice (indeed it often comes off patronizing). I have some thoughts generally on the tendency of many editors to react to declined PRODs and to claim "PROD is broken" or the like -- my observation is people who make a big deal out of PROD being 'useless' are people who get a lot of those deprodded articles kept at AfD, i.e. the system is working as intended. (I say this as someone with some blue in my PROD log.) It's clear a lot of people in this conversation are getting to a breaking point with JPL and that the actions here (even with his apology that I have no reason to doubt or downplay the sincerity of) have gotten the conversation to a point where they're seriously reassessing "can we really just go through the ANI cycle with him every couple months with nothing changing?", and I am confident Jc37 is intending his proposal with sympathy, even if -- as we can see -- it didn't exactly come through. Vaticidalprophet 15:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Also, for what it's worth, I'm not at all confident that repeating someone else's mention of their neurotype in a much higher-profile place than the discussion it first occurred in is good practice. Vaticidalprophet 15:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I am very, very, very, very sincerly sorry for my comments. I recognize that I was totally out of line. I value participating in AfD a lot and very much want to continue to do so. I am trying to make positive and helpful contributions. I am very, very, very, very sorry for my out of line comments. I have apologized profusely and am really trying to move beyond this incident. Engging is Wikipedia is one of the most important and enjoyable things I do in my life. Banning me from participating at all would be cruel and wrong. I have apologized. I have gone back and struck every one of my comments. I have said I am sorry. I am sincerly trying to make this right. I am really, really trying. I want to fix this. I am sorry very profusely. I am not blaming other people. I was out of line. I admit that. I am pleading for forgiveness.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I (as mentioned) genuinely believe you're sincere and recognize your comments were out of line, and I accept that apology/offer forgiveness. I have no ill will or desire to cause you harm. I do recognize a lot of people are obviously frustrated with a pattern of behaviour, and that you have a history of being brought to ANI over AfD-related issues. I don't want to take something enjoyable away from you, and I certainly wouldn't support any initiative to curtail your participation on the entire website, but a lot of people are seriously concerned that you haven't taken on board things that you were strongly advised in previous threads. Vaticidalprophet 16:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • A thought: would you be willing to submit to a formal mentorship process if anyone were to volunteer one and the community agreed it was valuable, to help you take those comments and suggestions on board and collaborate productively in AfD? Vaticidalprophet 16:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment With regards to the proposed measures, it was my understanding that Mr. Lambert was already under an order not to nominate more than one XfD per day (the issue of multiple articles at once was addressed in that ruling as well). I am not sure that further limiting him to 4 per week is useful, given the existing limitation. Further, the problem seems to be his communication and relations with other editors.

  There are editors who post things I disagree with in AfD. If I comment, it is along the lines of "you say there are no sources, but you have not addressed Source X and Source Y mentioned above" or "WP:THREE is a personal essay, not a guideline". The important part is that we must all keep our comments focused on the content in those discussions, and work together towards the goal of building an encyclopedia based on sets of guidelines.

  The problem is that Mr. Lambert does not seem to do this. It is not just his ridiculous comparison to Jim Crow grandfather clauses, but the broader mentality of AfD as a battle for the soul of Wikipedia, with himself as the defender of all that is holy against those wicked "inclusionists" who would destroy the encyclopedia if not stopped. Go and read his various comments referenced above and you'll see that this is not much of an exaggeration. This is the root of the problem. Hyperion35 (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Additional concerns (making this a separate comment for clarity). In addition to the above suggestions, I believe that Mr. Lambert should not participate in discussions (including but not limited to XfDs) involving LGBT individuals, broadly construed. The self-declared bias is simply too obvious to ignore, and honestly this is for his own good to avoid making comments that will absolutely get him sitebanned if made in the wrong context. The fact that his views are based on his religion is the only reason I'm not suggesting a siteban right now.

  Finally, as to the issue of any neurodevelopmental disorders, that is not an excuse for conduct. I have ADHD, I know not to edit during the hour before I take my afternoon dose of Adderall (or the 40 minutes or so until it takes effect). I am epileptic, I don't even have to be told not to edit after a seizure (nor would I want to). If Mr. Lambert's condition prevents him from being able to edit, he should not edit. If it requires some sort of accomdation, he should seek out accomodation, for example if he believes that it prevents him from understanding an editor's comments, he should ask for clarification first. Hyperion35 (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - WTF? The 72 AFDs that prompted this thread were not nominated by JPL. So why would we restrict the number of nominations by JPL? PROD has nothing to do with anything in this report. Why would the proposed sanction include PROD? JPL was uncivil, but those comments have now been struck. I don't care what JPL (or anyone else) did 8 years ago. It's very clear that some people don't actually give a hoot about the incivility, they care more that JPL votes delete, and they're trying to use the former as a way to restrict the latter. JPL should be warned/reminded about the incivility; and if there are a lot of recent examples of incivility (not 8 years ago), then maybe JPL should be restricted from AFD, but if so, that should be for incivility, not because he votes delete too often. When you start wanting to restrict noms and prods and those have nothing to do with anything in this report, it's very transparent what you're all doing; now stop it. Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  Not speaking for anyone else, but my post above has zero to do with keep/delete. I've seen many places where he has expessed Keep in a descussion. And Liz (among others) has pointed out some PROD issues. Prod merely exists to help with AFD clutter. a Prod restriction doesn't prevent someone from still nominating the page at afd for discussion. Additionally, I'm trying to not flood with diffs, because I think it will not be helpful to JPL. Though yes I have seen very recent examples of what I am talking about. this has been ongoing for years, not just occuring years ago. And finally, I don't think your assumption of bad faith is being helpful here, but YMMV. of course - jc37 16:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  • This is why I hate these discussions. People just broaden them into throwing on any and all attacks they can, instead of focusing on the issue at hand. I have corrected that issue and do not think it is fair to bring it up at all. The fact that an issue from April of 2013 was brought up shows that there is truly vindictiveness on some people's part. The fact that it was brought up in false way that involves lieing about my actions and intentions is even more galling. Evidently you will no give forgiveness or accept apologizes. I corrected the issue. I went through and struck the comments. I struck a huge number of other votes that did not directly realte to the comments and reanalized them considering new information, or reconsidering the information at hand. I have tried to clearly improve everything involved. i will admit I was wrong in my attempts to delve into the history of the Grandfather clause. I most profusely apologize for that. However I am not wrong in saying that it is a problem in Wikipedia. You have to look no further than the nomination for Category:Wells–Bennett–Grant family. Initially people were arguing to keep the category because we had an article, even though the article had no sources of any kind. I am sorry for letting the slowness of the process get to me. I have profusely apologized for that over and over and over and over and over and over again. What I want to see is more articles to reach the level of being well sourced we have in Dallin H. Oaks, although that article gives undue weight to some things and I think has no really considered how he is truly impactful on a broad scale. i think it may also underestimate his contribution to the formation of the federal public defenders program. The article on Dallin H. Oaks was an unsourced stub for about the first two years that it existed. I have apologized for my actions. I think that turning a discussion of one event into a kitchen sink attack fest is exactly what we do not want to do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  • I have profusely apologized for my coments. I was wrong. I was also wrong to go over the top and accuse those who favor keeping cricketer articles of being willing to do an end run around the process. I profusely apologize for that. I will explain my flawed thinking. We have explained that subject specific guidelines are just meant to suggest that GNG is likely to be met, but it has been shown that in the case of criket this is not at all true, so in that situation it would be expected that people when told that an article does not meet GNG would answer that issue, instead of fasely asserting subject specific guidelines negate a need to meet GNG, they do not. They are meant to suggest GNG is likely to be met if we search really hard, but in the case of cricket that has not provied to be the case. I am very, very, very sorry for that comment. I have made many comments on circket related deletion discussions since than and have done so in a civil manner that has avoided assigning negative intentions to other editors, and I again profusely apolgize for that comment. I was the one who went through and struck all the comments above, it was not done by anyone else, so I have shown a willingness to as much as I can fix the problem created by my actions. I have profusely apolozied for it as well. For the record, my actions 8 years ago that brought such wide spread attacks were in no way uncivil. They were a reasult of applying the general rule of category building in Wikipedia while ignoring our headache causing exception to that general rule. A headache causing exceltion that is so little understaood that I could literally go and find thousands of cases of articles that have categories that do not conform to ERGS rules, and I could go through and find hundreds of categories that by either convention of agreement do not conform to ERGS rules at all. I have even proactively made various nominations in CfD with the intention of improving our conformace to ERGS rules. I have apolgized over and over again. I went to the work of reviewing all AfDs in existence to ensure that I found and removed every last one of my out of line comments. I have apologized profusely. I really do want to increase the level of civility in Wikipedia discourse. It is just hard to attain such when so many discussions are just not engaged in at all. For example I nominated some categories for deletion about a month ago. Some of these nominations have had no comments about them at all. I am very, very, very sorry for my over reaction. I was out of line. I admit that. I am trying to do all I can to make things better. I really want to increase the level of civility in our discussions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• FWIW, JPL has apologized for any comment of his that may have been considered inappropriate to extend this would be to inundate JPL. More annoying is that some of the editors with an opinion here are the ones who do next to nothing when it comes to building an encyclopedia and only stalk ANI and live for the drama. A lousy lot I must say. Celestina007 (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Name names, because I'm seeing, if anything, many more productive content contributors than the ANI norm. If you're comfortable accusing people of not building an encyclopedia, you're comfortable saying exactly who you're thinking of. Vaticidalprophet 16:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Vaticidalprophet, I should name names? to what end? To elongate the drama? You just validated my point and I didn’t even have to mention a name. That would be all, I won’t be entertaining any questions or comments. Celestina007 (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Because if you're going to accuse people of essentially NOTHERE (which may I note is what started this), you should have the guts to actually say who you mean instead of going "teehee, if you think anything about my statement was intended as a harmful and evasive dramabomb then you're NOTHERE!". I respect you, and I don't think anyone, let alone someone worthy of any respect, should be making such cruel and baseless assertions with such a dramatic and evasive style. Vaticidalprophet 17:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Vaticidalprophet, I also have great respect for your work and you as an editor and when I made mentioned of editors who do nothing meaningful but live for the drama, I promise you I didn’t have you in mind. In summary i guess what I’m trying to say is, there isn’t any need to elongate or escalate the matter. Celestina007 (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• You might get some insight at User talk:Celestina007#A call to engage in character assasination. 2601:249:8B80:4050:6D3B:D5BA:1BFB:F4C9 (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• That is certainly an example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and of the underlying problem at hand. I also think that it is rather poor advice to give to Mr. Lambert, as it is not constructive at all to encourage him to think of this as a crusade or to view people as "inclusionists" vs "deletionists." We really need to try to remember that we are all on the same team here. Hyperion35 (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear Celestina,

Agreed, this is an ongoing issue which must be addressed.

Blessings,

Yaakov W.Yaakov Wa. (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• I would like to again apoligize for my comments. They were out of line. What I should have said is "A key part of Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Verifiability. This is a rule that applies to every article. This is the main focus on these nominations. If we want to build a collaborative and better project, we need to not act in ways that bite the head off sincere contributors. We need to consider this article in light of this principal." I am very sorry that I engaged in less than productive dialogue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I think that it is good that you are sorry. My primary concern is the attitude behind your conduct, specifically related to what you said here. I would like to see some sense that you understand that, aside from a few genuine vandals and zealots, most editors are trying to build a better encyclopedia. Some editors disagree with you over what it should look like. That does not mean that you are wrong or that they are wrong, but it does mean that you need to be able to participate in good-faith discussions instead of acting as though editors who disagree with you are going to destroy Wikipedia. You also need to abandon the idea of "deletionists" and "inclusionists". Some people err more on one side or the other, but you should generally assume that most editors are trying to improve Wikipedia. In general this is advice that a lot of people need to hear, you're not the only offender. But what I would like to see is dropping the idea of any sort of grand crusade to save Wikipedia, and recognition that people can disagree with you without being villains in your mind. Hyperion35 (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • You are right, I was too harsh in my comment there, and I apologize. I am very, very, very sincerely sorry.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @Johnpacklambert: It is important to discern that Wikipedia:Verifiability is a content policy, whereas Wikipedia:deletion policy is Wikipedia's deletion policy. Your ongoing rationales at AfD to base notability upon whether or not articles are sourced, and therefore verified, is a conflation that is not congruent with Wikipedia's deletion policy whatsoever. It is your own notability policy that you essentially made up, and have swamped AfD with for a long time now. It's a synthesis and syllogism that carries no weight for outright deletion in AfD discussions, because it is not policy- or guideline-based at all in respect to outright deletion. Furthermore, per WP:NEXIST, topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles themselves. Per the guideline, "The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable." North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• I still want to know why it is ok for someone to falsely accuse me of sexism over a false representation of events from 8 years ago, go on to call for people to write more hurtful attack articles on me and try to include them in publications. That is truly a vindictive position, and no one has called it out at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The only person who keeps bringing up the sexism issue is yourself. Someone seems to have mentioned it above, but it see,s to have been universally ignored as irrelevant. I am not sure what you are talking about with regards to attack articles. My advice would be to step back from this discussion and refrain from commenting for a few hours, simple because you are digging a hole. I would suggest that Vaticidal Prophet, myself, and others, are actually offering you the best defense that you are likely to get, even if it may not seem that way at the moment. Take a deep breath, take the afternoon off, calm down, and come back and re-read some of the comments here from VP and myself about specific concerns with your behavior, and instead of immediately apologizing, think for a bit about what we are saying. We are not trying to get you banned, not even from AfDs. We are trying to help you recognize specific behaviors and attitudes that are not constructive, specific things that you could change in your approach that might help you improve your editing and efforts. Hyperion35 (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment If people here were most motivated by wanting civility, there would be a univesal attack on the comments that falsely accuse me of sexism. The fact that there has not been any rebutal of those malicious comments makes the claim that incivility is the number one concern suspect. I not only apologized, but I went to the trouble of striking my comments. I have made two AfD nomination's in the last 2-3 days, and no one here has bothered to point out any problems with either. I will admit they both may have been a bit on the wordy side, but the one for a school has had 2 delete votes and 1 redirect. The other has had no votes yet, but I identfied a very through search that I did, specified additional sources, and I think explained why they do not add up to enough. I may not have fully summarized it enough (in part because I got distracted by this), but I will go back and try to do that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • If all your participation in AfD had the clearly brilliant and caring level of research involved in something like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David O. Leavitt, the only complaint people would have about your editing is that you don't use enough paragraph breaks. (This would be true regardless of whether they agreed with your rationale; as Hyperion notes, 'wanting an article kept you want deleted' is a disagreement on an issue and not a personal slight.) Note JPxG's analysis above about the amount of time between your AfD !votes. The criticisms your behaviour receives are not an inclusionism-or-deletionism matter. Vaticidalprophet 17:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • The problem is that in Wikipedia people spend way, way, way, way more time criticizing. Praise is very, very rare. People need praise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I am still waiting for someone to actually call out the malicious attack on me over events 8 years ago.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I think some of the frustration comes down to people ignoring this statement under the verifiability guidelines "For how to write citations, see citing sources. Verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view are Wikipedia's core content policies. They work together to determine content, so editors should understand the key points of all three. Articles must also comply with the copyright policy." Just above that we have "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable." Also we have "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." This absolute core policy in Wikipedia seems to be generally ignored in deletion discussions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I feel a need to again apolgize. I was very out of line. I am sorry. I should not have engaged in such rhetoric. I am very, very, very sorry for doing so and wish to apolgize profusely.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Johnpacklambert has made a large amount of good contributions and also bringing up the fact he has aspergers is nonsense, he seems like he made a mistake. Des Vallee (talk) 04:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose any restriction based on any perceived mental health issue, per equity. Speculation on the topic is deemed a personal attack; difficult to see why this should not be. ——Serial 13:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - as Des Vallee points out, Aspergers being used as an explanation for this behaviour isn't part of due process; I've got Aspergers myself, and while it's true that part of it is one's emotional reactions to things, pretty much every symptom of Aspergers is a sliding scale that varies widely from person to person.

I would say that we have no way of knowing to which degree JPL's actions are due to his Aspergers or simply his choices. To that end, any restrictions, or judgements, based in this would be unjustified.

As for restrictions on editing - Jc37, you yourself seem to understand that part of the issues JPL runs into is in part due to his responses to things, something that I feel I'd be correct in saying seems to be a pattern you've noticed in the 8 years you've edited alongside him. He gets frustrated if people don't understand the point he's making - a situation not uncommon in XFD, fine.

However, people then run into issues with him due to the way he has spoken or his word choices - and you place the onus on other editors here, not JPL himself. I feel I have to drive home the point that either he decides to really watch his word choices in the future, which by the looks of things above, he seems to be on the way to doing and has recognised, or he is unable to do so, and per WP:COMPETENCE, cannot be trusted to improve the project. That really is the long and short of it.

Though other editors contribute to these instances where XFDs get off-track and run into difficulties, especially those who on occasion bait him, but what you list under c) - "him saying things that to the outside viewer...appear to be really inappropriate" (emphasis mine) is, I feel, not justified. I don't think there's any amount of context that can make some of his word choices okay; past a certain point, no matter the intention, they are wrong. You're not adding diffs, but I do need to emphasise these for my points:

• "who need to go back to 1925 Alabama where they belong" - is any editor in that discussion Black? Are any of them Hispanic? I'd file it under a lack of consideration, but editors should keep in mind that though Wikipedia isn't as diverse as we want it to be, there are editors on here who are not white, and thus, comments like this are to be solidly avoided. It's unfair of me to those editors not to highlight that comment; though JPL has apologised, I don't think it's "fair" to preserve the modesty of a comment such as this, as there's nothing worth preserving.
• "If he wants to enforce a grandfather clause he needs to find a time machine and go to 1925 Alabama" - again, the 1925 Alabama thing, on more than one XFD, to more than one editor.
• "It is time we take a stand against unsourced rubbish in Wikipedia. It is such total drek that has lead to some hoaxes lasting a whole decade" - just unnecessarily hostile and righteous. It's an XFD for a little-known video game. It is literally not necessary to go so hard for a small article.

I don't see an instance wherein having an 'insider view' would the way that JPL has spoken to editors here okay; I understand the want to handle a person with Aspergers with caution if you do not have it yourself, and I've been on the receiving end of such in the past, but I have to emphasise, it does not mitigate acting unpleasantly. I can't always pick up on people's emotions as part of my Aspergers; doesn't mean I don't care about them. If I unintentionally hurt someone, I apologise - which JPL has done here - but I do not expect someone else to wave off other people's hurt because of my diagnosis. I'm sorry if this is a little much, but it's important to emphasise, and I hope I've explained it well. Either JPL's competent enough to change his behaviour, which I'd tentatively agree that he is, or he's not, in which a case, WP:COMPETENCE still applies, diagnosis, good faith or no. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposal for lighter and more focused restriction

You'd think I was ready to endorse anything after that wall of text I posted above, but the above proposal seems silly to me.

• First of all, he's already restricted from nominating more than one AfD per day (the editor who nommed the huge block on April 13 is Coin945, a totally different person).
• Second of all, who said anything about PROD?
• Third of all, who gives a damn if he's an autist? Probably half the people here are autists. I can neither confirm nor deny being one myself (since I'm not sure if I will get pwned in a similar fashion later for having said so), but plenty of people I know on this project are, and it is not a problem for them or for me. This doesn't seem relevant, and it feels kind of weird to bring it up at all.
• Fourth of all, I don't think that the category edits demonstrate that JPL is sexist, or that the Jim Crow comparisons demonstrate that he is racist. While mindbogglingly ill-advised, they both represent severe failure to consider how something would come across, which is not the same thing as deliberate expression of prejudice. I'd prefer to contribute to a project where people can say something awkward or stupid, and not be held accountable for people insisting they meant the worst possible version of it.

That said, there is one issue that a number of people have mentioned, and it's quite simple: JPL contributes to a very large number of deletion discussions, he does so at a rate (sometimes as little as 22 seconds between !votes) where it would be physically impossible to have done appropriate research, he is open about doing this for WP:BATTLEGROUND reasons, he is often confrontational with other editors, and he often fails to adequately consider the impact of what he says. For example, according to his AfD stats, he made eighty votes on April 5 and seventy-three on April 6. This is an issue (and him being an autist is not). I think that the issues with WP:BATTLEGROUND are almost all directly downstream of him participating in so many AfDs (per the stats, of the last 500 AfDs he's !voted in, one hundred and forty of them are currently open). Wouldn't you feel like it was a battle if there were 140 open discussions for people to argue with you in at any given time? In light of this, my suggestion would be rather simple: that JPL be limited (or, hell, limit himself) to ten AfD !votes per day. This seems quite a bit easier on him than to be banned from the process entirely -- and if there continued to be problems, the restriction could always be extended (in the same manner as his topic ban from nominating more than one article per day). I have no reason to believe that he is just a garbage editor, or incapable of contributing positively: certainly there are circumstances under which a site ban would be warranted, but I don't want him to get sitebanned. It is clear that he is making a decent and good-faith effort to change his behavior (i.e. by striking his recent short AfD !votes and replacing them with better-thought-out ones), despite being ganked in this thread by about a dozen people at the same time. I think that ought to count for something. jp×g 18:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support as hopefully a good way for JPL to work in the project. I genuinely have no desire to harm or unduly sanction him; this is a way for him to demonstrate that he does enjoy AfD, that he does like Wikipedia, that he does believe in these principles he lays out. Ten !votes a day is not an overly harsh restriction; it's an opportunity to do in-depth research, to find what's what, to be confident in the end that you've made the right decision. JPL wants to do those things. I believe he can do those things. Vaticidalprophet 18:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes it is an overly harsh restriction. Especially when given without any time limit. There have been days when over 5 articles I created have been nominated for deletion. This is an absurd limit. It does not at all acknowledge the verifiability principal. This is a super harsh restriction. I am not the one who plindly mass put the same response to over 50 articles. I went back and struck every one of my out of line comments. This is over the top and wrong headed. It will effectively silence me and detroy my adility to participate in AfD at all. A limit of ten is totally unreasonable. If it is imposed it will show a clear decision to silence me and deny me effectively any participation in Wikipedia at all. It is so absurdly low it might as well be zero. It totally ignores the actual volume of AfD at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • It is so absurdly low it might as well be zero -- I don't agree with this, and I don't think most people who frequent AfD do. I would consider myself a regular !voter and make significantly fewer than ten !votes on an average day. I once went a full month with virtually none due to a self-imposed hiatus after I had an action criticised. If AfD introduced a hard rule that no one could make more than ten !votes a day, it would affect very few people, including very few of the people who are 'regulars' there. (As regards your comments about sanctioning people who bring up some unfortunate past occurrences, keep in mind that the majority of participants of this conversation have confidently stated they do not agree with bringing those up, and understand your justifications.) Vaticidalprophet 19:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Well, I am not you. The fact of the matter is there was a period of time where sometimes 3 days a week 5 articles I created would be nominated for deletion a day. The whole episode involved nominating for deletion articles on leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that all had at least 2 sources that were published in printed publications. At the same time huge numbers of articles on leaders of the Catholic Church with only 1 blog source were ignored. The whole episode really felt and still feels like it was motivated by religious animus.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
        • Correct me if I'm wrong, but 5 seems like a substantially smaller number than 10. jp×g 20:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Super strong oppose The absurd limit proposed above is just plain absurd. This would effectively silence me from participanting in any AfD debates at all. This is truly unfair and unreasonable. Other people participate in huge humbers of AfD discussions and do not in any way indicate anything but copy and paste interactions. Such people include Luggnuts who has engaged in some attacks against me above. There have been days when 5 or more articles I created have been nominated for deletion by the same editor in fact. I have apologized profusely for my comments. The above proposal is way, way, way more draconian than others. It woud silence me. It is absurdly puntative.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment This is just plain absurd. It is puntative. It is just wrong. I have apologized multiple times. I have fixed every out of line edit. The fact that people still want to punish me shows a true vindicitivness and something that is just wrong. It is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. I have tried, tried, tried to fix this. Everyone wants to punish me. No one is holding the person who attakced me with false accusations over an event 8 years ago responsible. This is wrong.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I am tired of falsely being called racist and sexist. Those are complete and total lies. I have apologized more times than I can count. I am tired of the vindictive and puntative process going on here. It is just wrong. i am not allowed any defense. I am attacked for every mistake even if it is 8 years ago, and people lie about what I did and engage in malicious attacks on me. This whole process is wrong headed and wrong.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• @Johnpacklambert: If you read the comment that I used to open this section, you will see that I said several times that I thought these accusations were unfair. I would appreciate if you responded to what I actually mentioned as issues (the eighty !votes in one day, the !votes made with less than eleven seconds of research, the explicit WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:RGW attitude, etc). jp×g 18:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• If you really thought the comments were unfair you would propose santioning the truly out of line person who attacked me falsely about events 8 years ago. Instead you propose to essentially kill my participation in AfD. You pretent to be my friend and then stab me in the back. Your poposal would silience me far, far, far more than the poposal that you respo9nded to. If there was any justice on Wikipedia the person who brought up the events from 8 years ago and proposed publishing articles attacking me would be the only one facing sanctions. There is no justice in Wikipedia unless you withdraw your attacks on me. Right now there is a double standard which says we will punish John is he apoligizes 10 times and rescinds his offending edits, but another person can engage in just as uncil actions and go unpunished. This is not justice, it is a special type of punishment that whatever your false claims otherwise shows that I was right that I should have continued to hide my autism. It is bad enough that most autistic parents would abort another child with autism if they could. I apologize and get punished, someone above engages in even more long standing attacks and receives no reprimand at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not sure if this is canvassing, but he is going to the talk pages of multiple users to complain about this proposed restriction: [13][14][15] 2601:249:8B80:4050:6D3B:D5BA:1BFB:F4C9 (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • This whole process involves denying me of any right to defend myself and punishing me for even trying. I aplogize. I strike my comments. It is not good enough. People are demianding I be silenced forever. I am going to strive to keep my voice alive as long as I can. It is all I have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• As this goes on people make more and more puntative proposals. They seek to silence me and restrict me and exclude me. This whole process is unfair. Even more unfair is the kitchen sink, punish someone for a behavior not at all related to what was brought up. The issue was not that I was making too many contributions, the issue was that I made them in a harsh and uncivil way. I have apologized for them and stuck them. If Wikiepdia was at all fair and just that would have caused this to close and no one would try to punish me. I have corrected the problem at hand. This is truly an unfair and unjust tribunal that seeks to silince and punish people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - is there actually a rule or guideline that is broken when someone votes in a lot of AfDs in a short space of time? I can't see why this is a massive issue. The decision as to whether the article is deleted or not ultimately comes from the closing admin, who will weigh up the strength of the arguments presented. If it were simply just a vote count then, maybe, I could see an issue but it isn't a vote count. Users have every right to post '*Delete - a non-notable xxxx' or '*Keep - meets WP:GNG' and not expand on that if they wish. That is their right as an editor to make that comment and a closing admin has every right to ignore that comment if they wish to do so. Again, I'm struggling to see why this would warrant a sanction. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, WP:BLUDGEONing is a form of WP:Disruptive editing. It's true that robotically making eighty "Keep" !votes per day at a rate of two per minute could have a similar impact in the opposite direction; this would also be disruptive editing, and I would absolutely support a daily limit on AfD participation for someone who did this repeatedly over the course of years. The issue is that JPL is doing this explicitly toward the end of drowning out and discouraging "keep" !voters, and engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior as well as incivility to other editors despite having been warned multiple times. jp×g 19:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose any sanctions whatsoever. JPL has been punished enough. They have accepted that they were in the wrong and have apologized extensively, I don’t see any real reasons for any further sanctions. A warning should suffice. Celestina007 (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Extensive apologizing is great, but I'd prefer if he stopped doing it in the future, which he has said many times in this thread he is unwilling to do. jp×g 19:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Stopped doing what? Accusing people falsely of sexism by lieing about edits done by someone 8 years ago. Oh wait, that was another editor who you are not trying to sanction at all. Or maybe it is calling on people to try to publish in various print locations character assasinations attacking another editor. Oh wait, that is another thing that I did not do, but the person who did it is not facing any santions. Nope, the general rule seems to be John Pack Lambert must be punished because no matter how much we say otherwise we deem him an evil person that we want to silence and restrict as much as possible. Then we will use the fact that we have imposed one restirction as a way to attack all his behavior forwever in the future. The process is now punishment in itself. The fact that I admitted that I was out of line will now be used to silince and punish me in the future.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment The arguments about the number of votes in a day are not at all worth considering. Different AfDs call for different amounts of participation. Some AfDs have openers who have made a very clear case of discussing the existing sourcing, and have shown through before. The high count from the other day involved a very complex issue, and I have apologized for that. I have tried to address the issues at hand. I am not sure what elese I can do. Do people really expect more of a contribution on an article discussion like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adarsh English Boarding School. This is a very clear case of Wikipedia:Verifiability being violated. Sourcing to an institutions own website is not sourcing to secondary sources which is absolutely required. In some ways it seems that bringing up and demanding that this super core principal of Wikipedia is followed is being treated as a flaw. True, we rearely have as such slamdrunk failures of notability with biograpies, but with schools we have them so often it is truly discouraging. Biographies have a slightly better track recrod. There are very few unsourced biographies or biographies only sourced to a website that is controled by the subject. Controlled by the subject's employer is a different story, and sourced only to non-reliable sources we see a lot, but completely unsourced articles or articles sourced only to a website controlled by the subject seem to be more common in schools than anything else. I have apologized for the actual issue that caused this to come up, and have removed the ofrending edits. So why is there this desire still to punish.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support broadly and open to modification. For example, an AfD on an article he has created might be exempt from the limit. This is not a punishment, any more than it would be punishment to limit someone to a maximum number of drinks in an evening if you know that they have a problem. The goal is to tone down the battlefield mindset, and the sheer number of AfDs that Mr. Lambert is concurrently handling seems like it could drive even Mr. Rogers to incivility. Perhaps this is not the ultimate reason, but it does seem like the best good-faith conclusion. I would also consider either counting comments at an AfD towards the daily limit, or limiting Mr. Lambert to a single comment per day for any given AfD where he is participating, for reasons that I believe should be obvious to anyone reading this.

  I would like to see Mr. Lambert engage in constructive discussion where he listens and considers the perspectives of other editors, and really this ought to be a goal for all of us, if someone were to reply that I need to put more effort into doing the same thing, I would readily agree. I believe that this proposal appears to be a reasonable step towards this goal. Hyperion35 (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Lie. You want to punish me because I believe that marriage should be limited to being a man woman relationship. So I see no reason to trust anything else you say. You have proposed topic banning me. This proposal is not reasonable. It kills my ability to effectively participate in discussions at AfD. What I would like to see is editors acknowledge that Wikipedia:Verifiability is a key principal and means that we should have absolutely no unsourced articles, let along over 50 that have lasted over 14 years. I have apologized for attacking other people. The fact that the above editor has expressed a desire to topic ban me is a clear indication of animus. He has clearly declared he is unwilling to engage in a constructive discussion, and instead has shown he wishes to force other people to accept a certain position on various public policy issues and is willing to use Wikipedia as a platform to punish and silence those who hold other views.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Son, this is exactly the behavior that we are talking about, all in a single paragraph. I did not want to topic ban you, emphasis on the very deliberate tense used. I supported this solution specifically because I thought that it would help improve your editing and reduce the risk of a topic ban. Further, you know nothing about me or my motivations, I have been bending over backwards to offer you advice because I have a cousin with ASD, I have seen his struggles with social situations and I try to help others in similar situations. I genuinely do not care about your views on marriage, as they no longer threaten people like my coworker and her wife, who just welcomed a baby into the world. But most importantly, Wikipedia will still be here tomorrow even if we do not delete all the unsourced articles today. Non-notable articles will still be deleted even if you are not there to nominate or vote on them, which I no longer believe that you are capable of doing in a manner consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines on civility. Hyperion35 (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Now you have falsely attacked me with the lie that my views threten people. This is a false and malicious position. You are the one who is clearly uncil by saying that the views of someone "threaten" others. That is total and complete malarky. It is not a threat to define an instituion in a way that focuses on raising children. Marriage worked for thsousands of years and to treat me the way you do for supporting the definition of marriage that was accepted in every society until the 21st-century shows true wrongheadedness. You have clear bias against me, all your attempts to say otherwise are just plain rubbish. I did not threaten anyone, but you have tried to silence those who hold political positions you do not agree with.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose:
  1. Editor 1 makes 100 articles in five minutes.
  2. Editor 2 AFDs 100 articles in five minutes.
  3. Editor 3 votes delete on all 100 nominations in five minutes.
  4. Editor 4 votes keep on all 100 nominations in five minutes.

I do not support restricting any one editor in the above hypothetical while not doing anything about the others. 1 is "building the encyclopedia", 4 is "rescuing articles", but 2 and 3 are "disruptive"? No way. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure I am allowed to make any comment on this without being accused of being uncivil. I will try anyway. Evidently it is because "building the encyclopedia" means increasing the total number of articles in the encyclopedia, without any consideration for any other factor. That does not make sense at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Levivich: Like I've said, I endorse similar sanctions against anyone making massive volumes of zero-effort, driveby "Keep" !votes. I'll show up on this noticeboard to support them if they're proposed. What I object to is allowing deletion processes to turn into shoot-em-up games where any attempt to provide a reasoned argument will be instantly swamped by hordes of people robotically !voting "keep" or "delete" on every open discussion (because look, the other side gets to do it, it's not fair!). It's a Red Queen's race that can easily be avoided by enforcing a bare minimum of effort from discussion participants. jp×g 20:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@JPxG: I hear you and we share the same goal. But why focus on JPL alone? It's a solid analytical point about the "vote rate" (votes per minute or vote timing) and how that leaves no room for a proper before search. But before is for nominations not participants; there is no rule that participants must perform a before search prior to voting. Second, was JPL's vote rate so much higher than other editors, in those same set of 72 AFDs? I see other copy-paste votes when I review that set. Is the quality of JPL's votes so much worse than other votes, even in that same set of AFDs? I see "keep clearly notable" and other similar votes. Is JPL's match rate so much worse than anyone else's? If we want to have a rule that participants should perform before searches prior to voting in AFDs, OK. If we want to rate limit noms or votes, OK. If we want to kick people out of AFD who have too low of a match rate, OK. But let's not hold one editor to a standard we don't hold other editors to. JPL may not be following best practices but he's not violating policy and his votes do no harm whatsoever. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Levivich You are correct that the number of votes, in and of itself, is not the problem. What brought us here is the behavior and content of those votes. The proposal to limit his AfD votes was suggested based on the good-faith assumption that participating in too many concurrent AfD discussions might be one cause of his behavior. I believe that we can call it a consistent standard that when an editor starts comparing people who vote differently at an AfD to Jim Crow segregationists, then there is a problem. And while Mr. Lambert apologized for that inappropriate behavior, he has continued to showcase battleground behavior, bludgeoning, failure to AGF, incivility, at the very least, with comments like these. You may be right that the proposed solution is not related to the problem, but it was an attempt at avoiding what may be the inevitable alternative, either a ban from AfD, a temp siteblock, or both, since this behavior appears to continue. Hyperion35 (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Levivich, yeah, pretty much. The days when we needed every article we could get passed roughly the time SEOs worked out a way to get juice despite the nofollow. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) A passing comment, and not a slight. I have no slights on anyone (and re. Celestina, I totally concur with your comment in a higher subsection that all is forgiven and all is understood). It's nearly 6am here, and I've been making a real attempt to sleep for the prior two hours, but it's a messy matter at the best of times. Here one issue is that I feel driven to check my laptop, and when I do, I come back to the sense that JPL is personally trying to blame or insult me and that there's an emotional intensity way too high to comfortably handle. I believe JPL is sincere and motivated and cares a lot; if I didn't believe that, I wouldn't be supporting this, I'd just be dismissively waving my hands at the whole thing. I'd like if this could all be "we're entirely confident he understands", but...would JPL-related ANI threads be started every few months if he did? I don't want JPL to be dragged to ANI every few months, I want him to be a contributor at AfD who's a respected part of the place's ecosystem. I think he's gotten to this point because he believes, sincerely, he needs to !vote at that rate for his opinions to be recognized and valued -- but ten !votes with strong rationales are weighed much higher than eighty "not notable"s (or eighty "notable"s). I still sincerely think that if anyone were to step up to mentorship it'd be a valued role that could bring major accomplishments...but if we could wish mentors into existence we'd have a different project. Still. Perhaps I can wish. Vaticidalprophet 19:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support. The bulk nominations by Coin were a good faith error and I have good faith they won't be repeated. The insinuations of racism by JPL were also a violation of civility, and definitely need to stop, but are not really the main issue. The reason we keep seeing JPL brought back here is his habit of reacting to AFDs with his initial reaction from the first few seconds of looking at the nomination and maybe also sometimes the article. If throttling the number of AfD comments per day is what it takes to stop that, and get him to participate productively in AFDs rather than writing quick-take comments that everyone soon learns to ignore, then that would be a good thing. If it's insufficient to address the problem, then maybe we need to think about a complete topic ban. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The above is what I mean by kitchen sink attacks. The editor acknolwedges that the issue at hand was resolved, but still wants to punish me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I have no interest in punishment. The outcome I would like to obtain is more in-depth contributions to AfDs or, failing that, fewer shallow hot takes. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
      • If you really wanted that you would make a proposal that addressed that issue directly. This is just puntative. Especially since the discussion had nothing to do with that at all, you guys just snuck it in on a matter that had to do with incivility, which I have both corrected and apologized for. So yes, this is punishment.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
        • User:Johnpacklambert, you are in a hole. Stop digging. I don't know how this is not yet clear to you. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
        • If you really wanted that you would make a proposal that addressed that issue directly from what I can tell, that is the intent of the above proposal. You can still comment on AfDs, and ten !votes per day is not an insignificant number. I'm sure if after a few months, the quality of your !votes has improved, people would likely not object to the restriction being lifted. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment It was not my original intention, but per this edit, I no longer believe that John Pack Lambert is capable of constructively contributing to Wikipedia in a civil manner. I now reluctantly support a full topic ban from XfD for 2 to 6 months, in the hopes that he will take a step back, reflect, and gain some perspective. Hyperion35 (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • So now I will be punished for exercising my political rights and support proposition 8. This is the editor who brought up the LGBT issue, and proposed a total and complete broad topic ban. For calling him out in this mean spirited action, he is now doubling down on it. Yet there is no proposal at all to punish the person who brought up 8 year old issues and attacked me on them. This whole thing is getting out of control and ruder and ruder as we go. It also all goes to kitchen sink issues. Where one issue is brought up and but people bring up unrelated issues and then punish you for it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support, reluctantly but emphatically. I pride myself on my ability to stay away from the dramaboards, but here I feel obligated to weigh in. I am not, in any sense of the word, an inclusionist. Nor am I anti-autistic, anti-religious, partisan, punitive, part of a cabal, or given to personal attacks. But I firmly believe that, aside from blocking, supporting deletion "is the gravest and most delicate duty that [editors are] called on to perform." And despite healthy measures of patience and good faith, I cannot conclude that JPL is doing the necessary legwork to justify his scores of "delete" !votes. In addition to the myriad examples already presented, here's another one. AfDs citing the now-deprecated WP:SOLDIER essay were for a while among our most contentious. Not long ago, JPL !voted in five of these in five minutes: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. In each case, he !voted to delete. Not a single other editor reached that conclusion: even the most ardent deletionist supported at least leaving a redirect behind. Instead of addressing this rather obvious possibility, JPL simply gave canned one-sentence justifications that showed he had done zero research. That's not surprising: it's impossible to assess notability in sixty seconds. JPL's refusal to see that, in my view, suggests that he does not have the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart. He instead reacts as if this is a scene from The Trial, stooping to unjustified accusations, personal attacks, and bludgeoning. The offer of ten AfD !votes a day is very generous. So many editors get by every day without even approaching that limit. The fact that JPL sees it as akin to zero shows that he still fails to take seriously the issues being raised here. That fact leads me to support, at a minimum, the very moderate, very reasonable proposal presented here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Why is deletion a more serious issue than article creation? There is no logical reason to hold this view?John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • An erroneous article creation is much, much, much more easily remedied than an erroneous AfD. Substantive (i.e. not procedural) reversals at DRV are almost unheard of. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • And this to me is the very definition of a grandfather clause. Unjustified deletions can be reversed. It also ignore the fact that 70 articles having existed for 14 or more years without sources shows that unjustified creations are not well regulated. We have had total hoaxes survive over 5 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support as a bare minimum, although I question JPL's competence at AfD at all, seeing as how, according to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pani, he apparently believes "we do not keep articles without sources" and does not seem to accept that if sources can be found, an article should be kept. I only hope that his identikit votes are ignored by the majority of closing admins. P-K3 (talk) 22:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • You are ignoring the verifiability guidelines. That clearly states that we should delete anything that is not sourced. Sources are the key. I have never argued to delete an article when actual reliable sources have been specifically listed in a deletion discussion. However my reading of the verifiability guideline seems to clearly indicate the sources really should be put in the article. It also makes no real sense to mention them in a deletion discussion and not put them in the article. I am not arguing that we need links to the sources. Sources do not have to be on-line. However we need clear references. That is clearly what verifiabilty says.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • John, the verifiability policy states that material lacking a reliable source [...] may be removed (emphasis mine). It does not state that unsourced articles must be deleted. That all articles must be sourced does not mean unsourced ones must be deleted – Wikipedia is a work in progress, and sources can always be added later. – Rummskartoffel (talk • contribs) 22:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Nowhere in our verifiablity policy or our deletion policy does it say that we should delete an article that is not sourced. An article for which sources do not exist will fail our notability guidelines, but the only way to determine that is to look for sources, not just vote to delete on the lack of sources in the article as it stands. P-K3 (talk) 23:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Actually, you did exactly that, several times within the span of about 40 minutes, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Map-based controller and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/External flow, and in the same span Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dantapura waved away sources that you could not possibly have read or considered in that length of time, given your AFD contribution rate analysed at the start of this discussion. Your grudging retraction at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/External flow then proceeded to ask how you could be expected to be "clairvoyant" about a pointer to a book with an entire chapter on the subject that was right above your first discussion contribution. Uncle G (talk) 00:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
    • No, that was reacting to the sources that were added to the article. This is all unfair that I am being threatened with we everything including a total ban from Wikipedia, and yet the person who engaged in no analysis arguments to speedy keep faces no sanctions. The only fair conclusion is that Wikipedia has a grandfather clause that default says any article that exists is treated as presumed notable unless we prove otherwise. At least that is what it feels like when those who favor deletion are put under microscopic scrutiny for their every action but those who favor inclusion are allowed to make arguments with no sources with impunity. I went though and revised a huge number of deletion votes. Yet no one gives me credit for that. I really, really went over and above to correct the issue, yet I am still being punished. This is totally unjust.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment the above shows that no contribution goes unpunished. People even find ways to criticize my contribution related to David Leavitt. There is no room in the world for praise. Only criticism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose- This is just an "inclusionist" power grab and excessive punishment for someone who has already apologized. It is at least 10 times easier to add a low-quality article than to get one deleted.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't think it's excessive to require that someone "only" !vote on ten AfDs a day. This is a quite large number; there seems to be a lot of confusion in this discussion between this proposal and the (currently in force) limitation to one nomination per day. jp×g 00:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per Levivich (our inability/unwillingness to treat editors equally is of some concern) and Rusf10 (who, while speaking robustly, makes an informed point wrt agendas, albeit those perhaps yet unspoken...) ——Serial 16:23, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose According to toolforge:afdstats, well over 90% of pages where JPL voted delete were indeed deleted or redirected. There is no issue with his editing spree. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose JPL has been making extremely helpful contributions to Wikipedia, JPL did make a mistake but he has apologized and I think we can get over this now. Personally I am a an maximalist on Wikipedia and think that everything from Bread sandwich to List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach should get it's own article. But he has made an immense contributions and the majority of the votes for deletes he casts in AFD's ultimately do get deleted. Are we genuinely stating that editors should be less engaged in Wikipedia or that having a minimalist position in AFD's is somehow wrong? With that in mind working past or faults is the best, and is always the best solution. Des Vallee (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support For the racist and sexist posts made time and time again. The AfD issue is a red herring, with people seemingly OK with the former. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
• Looking through this entire gigantic thread, it is hard to foresee how consensus for anything could develop here. Perhaps this situation is ready for an Arbcom filing. Nsk92 (talk) 00:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Somewhat concerned about the comments he made in the past, indeed, but per Levivich and Rusf10 a clear oppose to any AfD restriction. JPL - I as you would take advise of DrMies Comment. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

No

Very simple. ☺

I said it above, and I'll say it again: what I want is not banning, nor restrictions. I want Johnpacklambert to put more effort in, and I think that xe can. I don't have a magic administrator button that gets people to actually do the research at AFD, so that we get something that is cross-checked by multiple people. Somehow that's missing from MediaWiki. But none of the administrator buttons that I do have seem right. The edit button gets me trying to talk Johnpacklambert into approaching AFD with the same approach that well-valued contributors do. Do the research; show that you've done the research; and apply Project:deletion policy correctly, not out of a sense of frustration about how much utter dren there is here. Find out whether sources exist and evaluate their depths and provenances, because that's what deletion policy and notability are all about. If they do not, make a good case showing what you did to find them. If they do, cite them. If you see others cite them, check them out, and collaborate with other people by doing things like transferring them from the AFD discussion to the article. And if you see a bad article, fix it by doing the research and writing.

I speak as the person facing an 18-year-old mountain of utter rubbish on top of an article in its very first revision in 2003 screaming to get out at Responsibility assumption (AfD discussion). There's an awful lot of this. Postal orders of Bangladesh (AfD discussion) was one person's personal experience placed into the passive voice to give it seeming authority, and false on its face. (Clearly, someone, possibly a lot of people, know what was claimed to be unknown.) But zero effort at AFD only makes things worse. We learned that with the schools thing. We learned that with many others as well.

Uncle G (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment The comparison I made makes sense if you understand I was saying that people were trying to apply a grandfather clause to preserve unsourced articles that had been on Wikipedia a long time, and then if you understand what the historic origin of the term grandather clause is. I think that linguistic issue has escaped some commentators, so they clearly do not get what I was saying. I was saying that I thought people were trying to apply grandfather clauses, no more and no less. That does not lessen the incivility of it, but I think it would cause some people to actually understand what I was saying. I was saying I thought those I was reacting to were trying to apply grandfather clauses. Everything else was built on and allusions to the term and its historic origins, that was the sum total of my meaning.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • As I have said I recognize that my statements were uncivil. I get the sense that some did not understand what I was saying about grandfather clauses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • This doesn't seem to have any relation to the comment you have typed it as a response to. Are you sure you put this in the right section? jp×g 21:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
      • It is meant to be a general explanation of the comments that caused people to open this putative process where it is only after I both fixed all the things directly related to the discussion heading and removed the offending statements did anyone even try proposing a punishment. I was reviewing some of the earliest comments and it was clear that people did not at all understand what I was saying.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, I understand why you might not have seen how other people would react to this, or realize the connotations of what you said. That's a separate issue. Hyperion35 is very upset by this, and I don't think that you are making it any better, because you're not seeing how xe would react to being called a liar, which you should not have done either.

    But there are two parts wrong to what you did. You've said some things, here and originally, that are truly upsetting to people. (Me? I got called someone hiding xyr identity by an account named after an identifiable public figure the other day. Possibly not as upsetting as xe thought, since the fact that I assert that people should not evaluate what I do here based upon what I might claim about myself on a user page came up in Project:Requests for adminship/Uncle G and Project:Requests for adminship/Uncle G 2 16 years ago. Being called all sorts of things happens. But the "dirty -istas" namecalling is wrong, in any form, "back to 1935!" or otherwise. One day I'll write up the history of that properly, although Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Dream Focus#Proposal regarding DreamFocus has something important on the subject. It is a truly sad story of how a joke that was never true has been translated into something that people seriously, but quite wrongly, believe.)

    The other part is just rocking up and rapidly making comments at AFD by looking at the article and doing nothing else, not one scintilla of research, research that you would put into something that you nominate. Worse, you did it on mass nominations where the nominator didn't do that, either. How do you think that that's going to work properly? No-one checks, everyone looks at the articles and makes superficial judgements, and we both lose genuine subjects and keep non-subjects. Think about it. You're one of multiple checks. You have to do that job properly. You want people to write articles properly? Well people have to participate in deletion discussions properly, too.

    Uncle G (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  • There's a little more on the history, and another of my little green boxes, at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article Rescue Squadron#Statement by Uncle G. Uncle G (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I am being threatened with much more severe restrictions because I will not sit back and let people engage in character assasimation against me. I have a right to defend man/women marriage. It is the bedrock of a society that properly sees marriage as focused on raising children. My holding this position has caused someone to call from a topic ban. This is a way to build into Wikupedia bias. They then tried to pretend to hold another position, and now they are talking about banning me completely and totally from Wikipedia. I both apologized for my uncivil remarks and removed them. In the process above people are trying to punish me for standing up for my views.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• I think it is truly unfair that I am being threatened with punishment for defending someone who was trying to apply verifiability from someone who was trying to silence them. I have over and over again apologized for my uncivil response. I am not going to sit by and let someone argue that my political views should be grounds to limit my participation in Wikipedia. That is just wrong. I also find it truly objectionable that false accusations of sexism against me are allowed to stand.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • As you already know, though, xe was actually getting Twinkle-happy and not doing any research, so couldn't have known whether things were verifiable. Applying Project:deletion policy involves looking for sources and failing, as it says right there in the policy and has done for a long time now. It even says "thorough". Again, think about that. How were you in any way thorough? How was the nominator? Neither of you were. You weren't defending anything. You were following zero effort with more zero effort. How does that make you better than the people you are saying aren't putting effort into writing? Be better than this. Uncle G (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment If Uncle G really wanted to improve the quality of AfD he would do something about the people who try to argue that we should continue to defer to subject specific guidelines that have been shown to in no way reflect the likelihood of a subject passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• I am tired of Hyperion5 patronizingly calling me "son". I am just plain tired of how the whole attack John Pack Lambert for every vote in AfD by him which with I disagree goes. Especially odd is the treatment of me as someone to be punished because I am not willing enough to consider leaving redirects.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  I have asked them to stop. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• Anyone who regularly participates at AfD is bound to recognize JPL. They have indicated earlier in the discussion that they really value participating in the process. I'm glad to hear that because we don't have a surplus of editors willing to participate. However, I do have a couple of observations based on the many discussions I've closed that JPL has participated in. Sometimes while reading the discussion it seems that JPL has only considered what other participants have said and not the article itself (let alone other sources not included in the article). I would hope everyone reads and considers an article before participating at an AfD and assume JPL does so and that this thinking is simply not reflected in their final comments. I'm not sure what JPL's process is before participating in an AfD discussion, but the rate at which he participates gives an appearance that it is not fully considered. I think the proposal above to limit the number of times he participates is really just a substitute for saying "we need more high quality participation from JPL at AfD". And so that is what I would like to see JPL commit to doing. I would hope that there is thought and care behind his participation in discussions and so it would be helpful if that was demonstrated in how he !votes. I would love to see JPL bringing new ideas and perspectives to the discussion more frequently. I'm not touching on the inappropriate comments made, beyond this sentence, because I believe JPL's apologies and I would hope they know that future such comments could lead to a block or a return to ANI neither of which I'm guessing they want. In the end, if JPL can go a step further when writing his !votes I think that would do a lot to assuage people in this discussion. At that point he would simply be another frequent somewhat one-sided AfD participant; just as we see with other such people (whether keep or delete inclined) they'll never be without controversy but there also won't really be consensus to limit their participation either. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

  +1. Probably the most reasonable and fair comment in this section. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

  +2 Barkeep49. VV 11:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• I've only diagonally read much of the preceding drama (since I do not like drama). What I do agree with is that care and effort should be put into commenting at AfDs, just as in any other discussion. I'm probably closer to the "deletionist" end of the scale myself (there's too much fancruft, etcetera); but when I occasionally go through AfDs and notice JPL's comments they are more frequently than not very brief and symptomatic of other issues as pointed out by others above (and too frequently in roughly the same neighbourhood as WP:AADD). Whether there are any effective steps to be taken (beyond engagements of good will and future improvements) is a good question (issues about SNGs being misused by other editors; et al. notwithstanding). If this issue has already been pointed out in the past I'd argue some more muscled suggestions could now be an option (80 !votes in a single day hardly gives reason to keep the "!" in front of "votes"...). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• I would put myself in the same camp as Uncle G, I really don't see a point in banning someone from voting. Be it JPL or someone else. The only thing I can ask for and press for is simply to ask JPL do more research into why he should vote that way. Govvy (talk) 09:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• I find myself opposing any AfD restrictions. There were two issues here: a bad batch-nom of AfDs, bad only because work clearly did not get put into them, and a bad response to the batch-nom on JPL's part, ending with a very uncivil remark. The uncivil remark is worth a warning or maybe even a short term block, if we do those for incivility. It's not worth restricting their ability to participate in the AfD process: the harm here isn't their AfD participation, it's their incivility. I agree with Barkeep49's comments above as well, though - the reason we've gone off on a tangent regarding what should be allowed at AfD is because of past behaviour, but I can also say as an AfD/DRV participant that a simple JPL vote doesn't hold a lot of weight in a deletion discussion, especially if there's well-considered keep !votes next to their delete !vote (however, this also imples a well-considered JPL keep !vote, rare as they might be, are worth a lot at AfD.) SportingFlyer T·C 12:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • a simple JPL vote doesn't hold a lot of weight in a deletion discussion Here's my thought. This has been said several times in this thread. It's been said in prior JPL threads, including by admins who routinely close AfDs. JPL's reason for making these votes, as he's made clear in this thread, is he sincerely believes they're the only way he can have an impact on an issue he considers ultra-important (whether to keep or delete articles he believes inappropriate for the project). By extension, anything that allows this to continue is actively harming his goals. Whether or not those goals are agreed with by individual editors is beyond the scope of ANI. My hope for a situation where JPL is, ahem, restricted to ten !votes/day is that those votes won't be 'simple' ones but well-considered rationales, i.e. things that closers weigh and other people concur with. In other words: that he can actually have the impact on AfD he wants. Vaticidalprophet 13:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I disagree with this - that assumes his current overall conduct is disruptive, which it's not - it's just not as effective as it could be, and this is not an AfD issue unique to him. His conduct on the batch AfD nom was disruptive with a grossly uncivil comment made, which is what we should be concerning ourselves with. SportingFlyer T·C 14:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I have tried to make much more considered and deliberative votes at AfD over the past few hours.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I would definitely argue that every JPL vote today was constructive and in line with a Wikipedia guideline. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. This is my anecdotal experience.

I rarely participate in AFD. It's hard work. There's no point at all in either nominating or !voting without putting the effort in.

I recall a couple of AFDs where a nominated article had been not so much WP:REFBOMBed as carpet-bombed. After reading all 30+ citations - in one case I !voted delete; in another, I singled out a couple of citations which I considered RS from among all the cruft, and !voted the other way.

I have among my bookmarks the contributions of a WP:SOCK, whose primary interest was in creating articles about Bollywood films sourced only to WP:IMDb; he could churn one out every 7 or 8 minutes. (Subsequently blocked, so not WP:G5 creations.) I'm slowly working through them when I have the fortitude; only a hundred or so to go. Every one takes 15-20 minutes work to make a nomination which I consider proper. I've saved a couple by a WP:BEFORE search (a stopped clock is right twice a day); other editors have saved another couple at AFD by WP:HEY, finding citations I'd missed. Win-win - either a non-notable article gets deleted or a notable article gets improved. Both results are good for the encyclopaedia.

If anyone wants to improve the encyclopaedia by participating at AFD, they must avoid WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and boilerplate !votes - or they're just wasting both their own time and everyone else's. Narky Blert (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this is also one reason why a limit to 10 votes per day does not seem unreasonable. I often browse AfD, but due to the effort involved, as you mention, I skip through a lot of nominated articles (especially cricketers, so many cricketers, why?), and comment only on articles where something about it strikes me as being worth spending the time to track down sources. Hell, just copying and pasting references from multiple tabs into a comment takes up time. Even a delete vote requires taking enough time to be sure that you haven't missed any sources, or that the sources available are not significant. And then it takes time to type up a vote explaining the vote, why it does or does not meet the relevant criteria, or in some rare cases why there might be more complex issues involved (for example articles that fall under WikiProject Medicine, and then you have to explain those complex issues in a non-technical way). Some votes might be easier, of course, for example blatant pseudoscience and fringe articles.

Ten AfDs per week sounds like a reasonable workload, and I can't imagine trying to keep track of more than 20 in a week. And of course, in any given AfD there will be disagreements. Sometimes it's a factual matter or an obvious misunderstanding, other times different editors will just have different good-faith views on what constitutes SIGCOV. It also takes some experience to determine when it is appropriate to add a comment and when it isn't. For example, I no longer interact with editors who wave around WP:THREE as if it were a real rule, it just never ends well. Some AfDs won't create much disagreement at all, others will become dramabombs or even thermonucleardramatic warheads. Dealing with too many at a given time is just inviting burnout and the resultant snappish incivility in anyone.

I don't know that a limit of 10 per day will address the underlying problem that stems from a bizarre battlefield view of the process (something that seems to be overlooked in all of this), but it seems like the best compromise to deal with the symptoms. Hyperion35 (talk) 20:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I still find it very offensive that the false and malicious attack built on mischaracterizing editing I did 8 years ago has been allowed to stand. That attack is extremely offensive. Something needs to be done about it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• Start a separate AN/I thread about it? 2601:243:1C80:6740:6D3B:D5BA:1BFB:F4C9 (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Whether or not you agree with the message you posted years ago, it's not really a "mischaracterization" to label you as not-so-supportive of gay people (this is your message that's being talked about). versacespaceleave a message! 21:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The last time I checked a few days ago, he also had an explicit statement about same-sex marriage on his user page, so it's not just an 8 years-ago thing. He is certainly allowed to believe whatever he wants, and as an American I support freedom of religion very strongly, but at the same time he may wish to consider that Wikipedia has a very diverse group of editors including many LGBT people, and of course Wikipedia has articles on many subjects including many notable LGBT people. But finally, JPL really needs to recognize that this is most definitely not the reason why people are criticizing his behavior here. He seems to be trotting this out as a reason why he feels entitled to ignore good-faith criticism on unrelated issues. Hyperion35 (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Certainly, he has the absolute right to his opinion, but I don't believe saying he's homophobic is "mischaracterizing" him when he's stated explicitly that he does not support gay people. versacespaceleave a message! 00:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

On legislating improvement

So, JPL has had a great spree on AfD since the beginning of this thread, making !votes with much more care and thought than usual, and I'm happy to see it. He'a also clearly in a lot of distress, about which I've previously expressed my sympathies. I've been looking at, responding to, and !voting alongside his recent !votes, and I'm wondering how to make sure this is a persistent improvement such that there isn't yet another JPL ANI in a few months. It's clear that this one got him to seriously reconsider how he came across to other people and make bona fide improvements, in a way that previous threads didn't. I genuinely believe this can be the start of a new age for JPL's AfD participation, but only if it's actually kept up and doesn't go back to "eighty !votes a day of one-sentence rationales" by the end of the week.

ANI wields blunt tools. It's difficult, anywhere on the project, to get and sustain this kind of improvement. The tools we have mostly just tell people to stop doing something -- stop writing about a topic, stop talking to another person, stop editing entirely. You can force a change to how Wikipedia looks with these tools. You can't really force a change to what someone thinks of those things, although they might calm down with distance. There's very little that can be done to invoke remorse in a wiki-recidivist. This is human nature. You can't legislate improvement. But we've got improvement here, so...?

I wonder if the solution might be a suspended sentence, so to speak. What if JPL has no AfD restrictions, but they'd be imposed if he goes back to not !voting with rationales? I dunno, man -- I'm dropping into informality there because this is difficult. It's gone as well as it can go, which is to say, nightmarishly awful but at least something good came out. (Ain't that ANI?) Certainly I've seen much worse outcomes. I'd like this to be beautiful. I think it could be. But how can that gold stay? Vaticidalprophet 14:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support suspended sentence I would support Vaticidal's suggestion of a suspended sentence, and I would support a suspended ban on voting in AFDs with the exception of articles he has created or contributed significantly to.Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose This is unclear about how a suspended sentence would work. Who would get to invoke that it needs to be implemented rather than suspended? How long would the suspension last for before it would go away? As I wrote in my comment above the proposed sanction was really a substitute for "make meaningful contributions at AfD" and so that, rather than some arbitrary number, should be the goal. If John can do that then the sanction is unneeded. If he can't do that then the right answer, in my view, would be to topic ban. This just feels punitive in an unnecessary way. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

  I'm trying to figure out how to not be punitive. I don't know that one ANI thread can genuinely change a pattern stretching years. I do know that we have these threads every few months, and that means something is very wrong. I'm intentionally being unclear because there's no clear path, and multiple people would need to work together to decide what the clear path is. One way or another, the "JPL gets dragged to ANI, promises to change, and soon everything is back how it was when he got dragged there" cycle needs to stop, because it's obviously causing substantial distress to an enthusiastic and prolific editor. The form of stopping it where he gets fully removed from AfD is clearly not the form he wants, and is a much stricter form than needs to be the case. Vaticidalprophet 00:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

  Honestly, his behavior here at this ANI event is in some ways more disturbing than his original behavior that brought him here, and I am rather surprised at how it has been ignored completely. He has been uncivil, he has engaged in battleground behavior, he has cast aspersions at other editors. I would provide diffs but one can just scroll up.

  Most significant, in my opinion, is that he has made many comments that continue to display his "deletionists vs inclusionists" mindset, as seen here and here and several other places (he has so many comments in this ANI alone that tracking down the diffs is difficult). Until amd unless that attitude changes, I have pretty much zero expectation of improvement. Hyperion35 (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

  I don't disagree. Vaticidalprophet 09:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support an alternate remedy. I think that in the above proposal, I should have said something like "JPL !voting on articles that he created or substantially contributed to shouldn't count towards the total"; as someone who's had "my" articles nominated for deletion, I feel like this is a basic right that every editor ought to be given (except in the case of unbelievably blatant abuse, which is not what has happened here). Whether it's 10 articles a day, or 20, or whatever, I don't think is particularly significant either (nor is establishing a minimum time that must elapse between edits, or whatever other pedantic thing). The reason I proposed a limitation to 10 AfD !votes per day was because that felt like a reasonable threshold that would prevent disruption while allowing continued participation in the process at a high volume (as has been said above, even most AfD regulars don't get above this level very often). But I would be perfectly fine with no restrictions at all, so long as there was an understanding that this issue cannot be revisited endlessly, and that the next time similar disruption occurred it was followed by some form of prohibition (whether that's a TBAN or restrictions or whatever). However, I'll stress that I don't really want JPL to be topic-banned from AfD; him being gone entirely would prevent him from making reasoned !votes as well as drive-by !votes, and losing a contributor would make the process shittier and harder to deal with for everyone. jp×g 00:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose restriction, not the implementation thereof per Barkeep. ——Serial 13:25, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Various Thoughts About JPL

My first comment is that this discussion should not be about racism or about an unfortunate remark by User:Johnpacklambert. He has apologized for the remark, and it is tangential to the main topic, which is JPL's conduct in deletion discussions.

Second, in discussions in WP:ANI or elsewhere about a controversial editor E, someone always makes the statement that we, the Wikipedia community, want E to be a better or more careful or more thoughtful version of E. We, the Wikipedia community, do not want to impose restrictions on them, so much as we want them to become a better version of E. That is almost always naïve. They aren't likely to become a different version of themselves, and, if they did, they would be someone else. The idea that we can either persuade or require JPL to become a more thoughtful or more deliberate deletionist is misguided. They are what they are. At this point, the only real question is whether they are a net positive or a net negative to the encyclopedia. An editor who thinks that JPL is currently a net negative should not think that putting restrictions on them will make them a different or better editor.

So I suggest that the only real question should be whether the involvement of User:Johnpacklambert in deletion discussions is a net positive or a net negative for the encyclopedia. If one thinks that they are a net negative, they should be topic-banned from deletion debates. If they are a net positive, or if we are not sure, then we should close this thread with no action. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I think that sums it up just about perfectly. 2601:243:1C80:6740:A107:F113:B09:97D5 (talk) 23:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

How do we measure net positive? Because if everyone just gives their opinion on it, that would just be a popularity contest. If we base it on data, then somebody is going to have to review all of JPL's contributions and report back whether they are majority positive or majority negative. Of course we'll have to define "positive" and "negative". I would define it by match rate. Have JPL's !votes been out of synch with the community? What percentage of the time? We can measure that, but we can't measure "net positive" for an editor with thousands or tens of thousands of edits, because no one is going to analyze them all; I'm not sure it's helpful to frame things as net positive or net negative for experienced editors.Levivich ^harass/_hound 23:49, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

As a general point I don't think match rate is a good way of evaluating a user's contributions to AFD, using that methodology you would end up evaluating the editors who express an opinion in the discussions where the eventual outcome is extremely obvious from the start as being "Positive contributors", and those who contribute in the controversial discussions that could go either way as "Negative contributors". 86.23.109.101 (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Levivich asks: "How do we measure net positive?" I don't know, and I haven't made a proposal for how to close this thread. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Match rate is a poor individual statistic both for 86's point and for the fact AfDs do not close 50-50. Someone who spams delete on everything with absolutely no judgement at all will have one of about ~70%, someone who spams keep on everything with the same sensibility about ~20%, iirc (someone ran the stats a while ago, though a someone I suspect does not want at all to be pinged to ANI). They're usable as a comparative for individuals with similar !vote distributions, so long as you spot-check to see when and where they're voting. They're fantastically useless for anything else. Vaticidalprophet 14:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

That seems a little doomeresque. If it were really impossible for people to change, why bother with topic bans, general sanctions, or any administrative process other than indef-blocks? Heck, why bother with {{uw-vandalism1}}, {{uw-vandalism2}}, {{uw-vandalism3}} and {{uw-vandalism4}} rather than carpet-bombing every account that writes "hi" in an article? But even if we are maximally pessimistic, and we assume that nobody is capable of changing "who they really are", I think it is totally reasonable to ask them to change their behavior. This is quite simple: "if there is something you shouldn't be doing, the next time you're about to do it, don't". If they fail to do this, then some additional discussion needs to happen. I think it's a little patronizing for us to assume that someone is incapable of that. jp×g 06:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

The net positive or a net negative test for the encyclopedia would be how many times after this discussion that Lambert is back here for the same thing. Probably go round in the same circle of "he does good work at AfD, so close with NFA". However, it's easy to have a good record at AfD if you're the only !vote for delete (or indeed keep), or your expressing the same !vote at the point where it would be a WP:SNOW outcome before you voted. But that would need a more detailed analysis, and as everyone knows, 87% of all statistics are made up on the spot. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I see two factors that should inform a decision. One is JPL's conduct in this ANI discussion alone. He has been combative, engaged in battleground behavior, belittled and insulted other editors, and has been warned repeatedly by multiple people to "stop digging". I mentioned earlier that it is difficult to pull up diffs for his behavior because he has so many comments in this discussion, a textbook example of WP:PEPPER. And despite his few apologies, most of those comments are along the lines of "This is so unfair to me!".

He has also repeated his belief that he views AfD discussions as a battle between "inclusionists" and "deletionists" over the soul of Wikipedia. This runs counter to the very basic mission of collaborative editing, and it seems to me to be a good explanation for the source of his behavior. And other editors have already suggested that a Delete vote from JPL "means nothing", because it is predictable and often fails to cite a reason. So this raises a very real question of whether he is actually contributing to the project. I mean, if all he is going to do is vote Delete with half-sentence WP:IDONTLIKEIT a hundred times a week, and then rage against so-called "inclusionists" for "ruining the encyclopedia", then why, exactly, is he here? Hyperion35 (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment, vis-a-vis "net positive/net negative". I have two thoughts on JPL and Wikipedia. The first is that I don't think most of Wikipedia "gets" John Pack Lambert. Searching ANI for JPL will get you a book's worth of disputes, with JPL up against a wall defending himself against a wide range of complaints and comments that range from the rational and reasonable to the vitriolic. Form what I have read, many editors have been at a loss to understand his contributions and his actions in many of the disputes he has been in, as well as his actions that have caused problems.

Second, I don't think John Pack Lambert "gets" Wikipedia. If he did, he would have altered his behaviour to not get so many ANI cases filed and be continually pissing people off. He would have made the simple effort to !vote at AfD with a rationale beyond his boilerplate !votes, which very rarely contribute an additional view to the discussion at hand. The changes required are not a big deal, but he either does not seem to want to make them or is unable to make them. If he understood the basics of how Wikipedia works, and he made an effort to change his behaviour to work in line with standards, we would not be here. But the long string of disputes shows he doesn't get it.

Now, when two parties to an arrangement don't really understand each other, isn't that situation what you would call a "net negative"? Isn't it time to sever the connection? I guess I am saying it is time for Wikipedia and JPL to break up and move on. These long and laboured ANI disputes do not help to change his behaviour, it seems. And I would guess that that the sometimes awful comments directed his way aren't helping his sense of well-being. The whole situation is a net negative for both sides-- JPL and Wikipedia. --- Possibly (talk) 01:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposed Topic-Ban

Unfortunately, I think User:Possibly has summarized it well, and has resolved my question about "net negative". I propose that User:Johnpacklambert be topic-banned from all participation in deletion discussions and from all nominations for any type of Deletion. I regret that it has come to this.

• Weak Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support, reasons just above this thread. I think an AfD TBAN is the minimum. --- Possibly (talk) 03:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support and any appeal of said ban would need to demonstrate an understanding that Wikipedia is a collaborative process and not a contest, and specifically that XfDs are not a contest between "inclusionists" and "deletionists". I would also include a limited exception for any XfD where JPL was the creator or significant contributor to an article, and similarly that he is allowed challenge a CSD or PROD tag on said articles. Hyperion35 (talk) 03:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• Question/Request - Robert McClenon, does this include adding and/or removing PROD templates? Also, CFD = "categories for discussuion, in that other types of proposed discussions happen there (and other XFDs may have non-deletion proposals/results, like "redirect"). And what about DRV? Is this topic ban proposal intended to be "broadly construed"? And if so/not, would you please update the proposal accordingly? Thank you. - jc37 06:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC).

  @Jc37: PRODs are not really deletion discussions per se, but if the proposer wants to include prods in his tban, i think that should be established. versacespaceleave a message! 11:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Applying a PROD template is a type of deletion request. DRV is not a deletion request in the strict sense, and my proposal was meant by me to be narrowly construed based on the analysis by User:Possibly. However, all CFD and RFD nominations should be interpreted as deletion nominations, because otherwise they can be gamed. Beyond that, if it is necessary to ask more questions, then it is the wrong solution. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom and the excellent summary by User:Possibly. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - same reasons as above: lack of diffs of disruption; AfD match rate is good; apologized and struck the uncivil comments. Levivich ^harass/_hound 06:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• Unsure. I don't really find JPL's standard spam-!voting to be problematic, at least not any more than "Keep meets [SNG]" or "Keep for the reasons of editors who voted keep". But there are occasions where he makes jarringly insulting comments, and he rarely backtracks even after being called out. For a standard example, see Nathalie van Raemdonck: *Delete nothing even remotely close to making this hater of her political opponents and advocate of destroying the freedom of speech notable. Then there are his crueler and definitely net-negative contributions at Celia Reina, in both his !vote (Delete this junk article. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to right wrongs.), which was written while the clearly good-faith article creator was active in the discussion; and in response to someone else's helpful feedback to that new editor (no, this is not a worthwhi.e goal. It is a violation of the purposes of Wikipedia and disruptive. Wikipedia does not exist to right great wrongs. It does not exist to create coverage of people, but to follow coverage that exists. This person clearly and completely fails academic notability guidelines and creating an article on her was disruptive to the purposes of Wikipedia. We need to stop encouraging people who go around creating articles on non-notable people and to start actually standing up for people following the inclusion criteira, the no original research, and other guidelines as written.) These were all completely unprovoked and added well after a delete consensus was apparent; there was no reason at all to even participate in these discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 07:42, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - Lots of claims of disruption but few diffs, good evidence of changed behaviour. Besides, if we start tbanning people for boilerplate AfD votes and getting cranky there will need to be quite a cull on the inclusionist "side" as well. Reyk _YO! 07:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose same proposal as the rejected sub-sections above, but in different words. Clearly no action is going to come of this mountain of words. Also per Beeblebrox further down: but they are not obligated to do so and "lazy editing" is not something any admin is going to sanction for (perhaps Beeble/someone else might want to close this section on the same basis?) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support. StuRat:Reference Desks::JPL:AfD. Those claiming that it would somehow be unacceptable to prevent JPL from engaging in boilerplate voting when inclusionists do the same are demonstrating the same inclusionism/deletioninsm battleground mentality that JPL is. Also, they should feel free to bring any particularly obstreperous keep !voters to ANI if they feel the actions are sanctionable. Of course, this isn't about boilerplate votes, it's about the attitude both detailed and demonstrated throughout this ANI, which go well beyond "being cranky" - see the AfD's that JoelleJay cited. Seth Kellerman (talk) 11:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The claims that I make "racist" and "sexist" comments put up by one of these commentators are false. I have been doing much more indepth background work on AfD of late. The fact that this has moved to an attempt at a total and complete ban when there was not enough support for something more limited is just plain not justified. I have both apologized and struck the comments in question, but to call them "racist" when I have throughly explained they were merely allusions to the fact the people in question in my mind were supporting grandfather clauses is to show a refusal to listen to what I contribute. Also to follow up a limited proposal with a proposal for such a broad and all encompassing ban is just not by any stretch of the imagination justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

  It's a fair point. If one tban proposal fails to gain consensus, just start another! Again and again and again and again, until all resistance is ground down and you get what you want through repetition. Reyk _YO! 12:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

  The previous proposals were seeking for different outcomes, not a TBAN, which this one is seeking. versacespaceleave a message! 12:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment People in this discussion have focused on very small incidents that spread out over years. They have avoided looking at the sum total of my contributions. Here [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living Water Christian School] is a link to my most recent AfD proposal that closed as delete. The way people talk about some of the issues involved here they make the process the punishment. They even bring up issues that were resolved and moved past 8 years ago. The whole way of approaching the issue is unfair and unreasonble.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Some of the above votes are missing the point. I think we've all done at least a few boilerplate votes. "Delete per nom", "Keep per nom", "delete: not notable" probably make up half of my AfD votes. This is not the issue. Possibly worded this very well. Are JPL's overall contributions to deletion discussions net positive or net negative? A user pointed out that some admins do not look at JPL's votes when closing a discussion. Others have pointed out that he has been homophobic in discussions. Another editor pointed out that he's been brought to this noticeboard several times. These are all fair points of discussion to bring up. JPL's responses these points have been claims of "character assassination" and "hating on [him]". On the other hand, he has apologized for some of his comments, and I believe these apologies. Despite this, its hard to ignore past concerns. In the end, I feel that if admins are not listening to his comments, and he has been seen saying anti-gay things, his contributions to AfD are net negative. versacespaceleave a message! 12:25, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • How is it other than character assasasination to mischaracterize my actions 8 years ago and then attack me for it. There is no other way to describe such a thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • So you want to TBAN an editor from AFD because the editor doesn't believe in gay marriage? This makes sense in your head? Levivich ^harass/_hound 13:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

    that was one example. there's at least four/five in this thread admittedly this thread is quite long, so there may be more. versacespaceleave a message! 14:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - taking a glance at JPL's recent contributions at AfD as well as recent AfDs initiated by him, all I can see are well thought out rationales, clearly relating to Wikipedia inclusion guidelines. Comments are almost always related directly to WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, deletionists, although strange animals for the most part, should be allowed to roam free. JPL has given me a good going-over in the past, but that is the nature of AfD, where opinions vary and may get heated. But all have their place in those discussions, especially long-time editors acting in good faith like JPL. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose a net-postive at AfD. ——Serial 13:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose — In the end, the real subtle/subliminal problem is the subconscious bias or prejudice against deletionists which for some reason never extends to the inclusionists, but that’s a discussion for another day. Did JPL go a little OTT with some of their comments? yes, does it warrant a tban? No! I mean, are we really considering a tban over an idiosyncratic ideology? Come on! Ironically, JPL is one of the very few editors who actually give extensive well thought out rationales when !voting at AFD's. Celestina007 (talk) 13:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - per above. T-ban would be an overreaction. Jip Orlando (talk) 13:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - I find this whole ANI to be ridiculously drawn out and a huge overreach of authority. I have disagreed with JPL, vehemently, in the past. I have also agreed with JPL numerous times. This? This has become character assassination, whether that was the intent or not. This has become about silencing a voice of opposition, whether that was the intent or not. That's something I will never agree with, regardless of the what is being discussed, and it needs to end. --ARoseWolf 14:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: This is not the first time this has happened in this AN/I thread, but again we have [16][17] JPL going to user talk pages to bring up the topic ban discussion. 2601:249:8B80:4050:A107:F113:B09:97D5 (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

  Please sign in. In any case, it is wholly unsurprising that JPL is—horror!—mentioning it elsewhere, when every proposal so far raised is shot down only for another to raise its Hydra-like head. ——Serial 16:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

  On top of that, among the six support !votes so far, two come from non-extended-confirmed editors, and two come from editors who have recently been to ANI and/or otherwise sanctioned more frequently than JPL. The remaining two are experienced editors in good standing whose judgment I now question. YGTBKM, this thread. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

  The IP /64 has made over 3500 edits since March 2020, consistently to articles about comics/fantasy/superheroes, so there's no evidence of inappropriate logged-out editing. DanCherek (talk) 18:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

  Is there some hidden rule somewhere saying editors can't sidebar discuss these things on User talk pages because, so far, I have found very little rules being enforced anywhere except when it is being imposed on someone that particular admin's don't like. But I digress, what other restrictions do we want to put in place to silence JPL? --ARoseWolf 16:44, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

  I suppose someone could be concerned it's cnvassing people to come here and vote Oppose. Reyk _YO! 17:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

  Well, let me put their mind at ease. It's not the true definition of canvassing as JPL never asked for anyone to come here at all. He also posted his comments on the talk page of User's who have already commented here. His comments had no bearing whatsoever on when or how I decided to "speak-up". I have followed this ANI for a few days now and just find the repeated attempts to find some legitimate reason to punish JPL, despite the overwhelming majority of editors simply not agreeing with anything brought forward, to be quite disgraceful. The longer the ANI drags on the more ridiculous it sounds and if there was any legitimate concerns in the beginning it is simply drowned out by the hysteria that ensued to character assassinate JPL. I don't know JPL personally. I'm sure we disagree quite a lot. But enough is enough. --ARoseWolf 17:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

  I would also encourage you or anyone to look at the conversation that followed on each User talk page. I am not a 'deletionist' nor am I an 'inclusionist' and I don't really believe there are many who fall under one category or the other all the time. I hate those words because it turns Wikipedia into a battleground when it should be about giving the encyclopedia a firm, strict foundation and building upon that. Right now it feels like Jell-o. --ARoseWolf 16:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose An overreach and overreaction on this already drawn out Dramaboard discussion, which does no good - JPL's recent comments in AfDs appear to have at least heeded the advice given to them, so I don't see what more we need to do, unless people have a bias against "deletionists" (and seeing the amount of needless cruft we have around here, really they should be encouraging deleting the poor articles created years ago when standards were much lower). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. (EC) The issue isn't JPL's general behavior at AfD, which I've noticed has improved on average from boilerplate !votes to at least include policy arguments. Individual instances of being condescending/cruel should be called out, and if that remains a problem should be addressed at ANI, but a TBAN wouldn't be that helpful at this point. JoelleJay (talk) 17:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose This is the right remedy but the wrong time. JPL seems to have taken onboard the criticism offered and the quality of their participation at AfD has improved in more recent discussions. If that were to backslide then a topic ban would be appropriate, and I have said as much when other remedies have been proposed. But I am hopeful that the improvement will stick. Sometimes an ANI thread can be successfully concluded not with a sanction but with the user demonstrating a change in behavior; hopefully this will be one of those times. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - More recent AFD contributions seem to show proper approach - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ABES Institute of Technology, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Jørgensen (photographer) addresses relevance of coverage, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mehraj Ahmed appears to be compliant with BEFORE (there's only so far you can get with super common names), they seem to be more spread out as well. I'm not seeing current AFD participation by JPL as a net negative. And yes, the deletionist perspective isn't the most popular, but we shouldn't be giving sanctions to an editor because they are deemed to be too far on that spectrum. Hog Farm _Talk 18:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The rationale for the proposal, that JPL has not made an effort to change his behaviour to work in line with standards, is invalid given their recent AfD activity. DanCherek (talk) 18:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I would strongly advise anyone who uses the terms "deletionist" or "inclusionist" to re-assess their own views and participation in XfDs. There are no such things as "inclusionists" or "deletionists", or at least there should not be such individuals on Wikipedia. Obviously people will have different interpretations (and quite often misinterpretations) of GNG and SNGs, or what they consider to be sufficient SIGCOV, and so one person may vote Keep and another Delete in a given XfD. But the idea that there are two "teams" is directly in contravention of WP:BATTLEGROUND. No really, go read it:

  In large disputes, resist the urge to turn Wikipedia into a battleground between factions. Assume good faith that every editor and group is here to improve Wikipedia—especially if they hold a point of view with which you disagree. Work with whomever you like, but do not organize a faction that disrupts (or aims to disrupt) Wikipedia's fundamental decision-making process, which is based on building a consensus. Editors in large disputes should work in good faith to find broad principles of agreement between different viewpoints. This is a fundamental rule that we should all be following. We are all here to collaborate on editing an encyclopedia. If you believe that you are part of some "team", or that you are in opposition to some "team", then with all due respect, you are probably in the wrong place. Hyperion35 (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Why was this proposal even made, when a proposal for "limiting him to 10 AfD !votes per day" was having trouble getting traction? Why would yet another proposal be made, that even the proposer didn't support strongly? @Robert McClenon: I recommend that you withdraw this proposal and {{hat}} the section as a distraction. jp×g 23:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

  User:JPxG No. This proposal was not a distraction. It simply was a proposal that was opposed by a rough consensus. As I explained above, I think that any limitations on JPL are likely to be ineffective. He is what he is. Either he is a net negative, or a net positive, or we don't know. I was slightly persuaded by the analysis by User:Possibly. I still think that my proposal needed to be considered, and it has been considered. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• This thread has now been open for two weeks. No specific proposal has gotten a consensus in support of it. JPL has clearly done some introspection and has seemingly committed to try and do better. I don't see much point in this staying open any longer. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

So far we have an extremely long discussion thread (185,251 characters as of now), and a few proposals:

1. Ban from PROD, limit to "4 or less, maybe?" XfD nominations, suggest that JPL disengage from arguments (2 support, 4 oppose)
2. Limit to 10 AfD !votes per day (6 support, 7 oppose)
3. "JPL has no AfD restrictions, but they'd be imposed if he goes back to not !voting with rationales" (2 support, 2 oppose)
4. Topic ban from all deletion processes (6 support, 17 oppose)

The only thing that seems to have anything resembling consensus is the vague sentiment of "JPL should refrain from doing extremely high-volume delete !voting, and it ends up here again, there will be a whole 'thing' over it". I think it would be completely fine to close the discussion with that, and then after that we all go back to writing a god damn encyclopedia. jp×g 23:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - The next time that there is a complaint about the AFD participation by User:Johnpacklambert, it should go to ArbCom, because we have seen that this/he is an issue that divides the community and is not being solved by the community. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  Maybe ArbCom needs to handle it. If it comes before the committee I will read the case request with interest (given that my only involvement with this topic is in an "administrative" capacity I would not expect to recuse). I do have an alternative thought: there is evidence at the moment that this thread has produced changes for longstanding issues. If those changes do not stick, a topic ban would seem to be more appropriate then. This thread doesn't on its, I feel, reflect an inability of the community to handle the situation and if we end up back here I suspect I would not be the only one who might reconsider whether or not a TBAN is appropriate. Consensus can change. That said I hope that this will be an example of successful dispute resolution rather than a failure. And just to be absolutely clear I am obviously speaking only for myself and not for any other arbs or the committee as a whole. I can't divorce the fact that I'm an arb from my overall thinking but I've participated in this discussion as an AfD closer and thus someone who reads a lot of AfDs rather than as an arb. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose any t-ban or rate limit because that solves nothing and is fundamentally flawed. Others have already argued the various aspects so not restating them here. I think this entire thread and multiple attempts to bring in punitive measures are a colossal waste of time and energy. VV 06:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment — it’s obvious this is going no where & I don’t see a reason as to why this thread hasn’t been closed yet. The thread has taken a new turn as opposed to what it actually started out as. I correctly stated earlier that the root cause of this was related to Inclusionist vs deletionist philosophy and alas it is indeed what it has become. When it comes to JPL everybody suddenly has an opinion even the most incompetent editors who do next to nothing jump in and voice out their inconsequential and non imperative opinions. Could a decent sysop close this already? At this rate, Its becoming a circus show. Furthermore, this thread does a major disservice as time spent here could have been used in actually building an encyclopedia. Celestina007 (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

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

User:CPCEnjoyer and Radio Free Asia

• CPCEnjoyer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) – On Radio Free Asia and Talk:Radio Free Asia:

The account appears to be a single-purpose account that has engaged in edit warring on Radio Free Asia in order to label it a "propaganda" organization. The user has also been casting aspersions on the talk page, accusing Chipmunkdavis of "perhaps intentional" misrepresentation of CPCEnjoyer's arguments. The account's username, also appears to be a derivative of a common meme, and CPC may very well refer to the CPC). The account seems to be WP:NOTHERE and has been engaging in deceptive and tendentious editing practices that include false claims of consensus on the talk page and the restoration of sources that do not actually back up these claims that were being presented in the lead in Wikivoice.

Edits include: 1 2 3 4. 5. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Claims that I have a "single-purpose" account are unsubstantiated. I have only recently made my account and am still discovering wikipedia and I believe editing multiple pages at once might be a bit too much to handle. If you feel any "aspersions" were thrown around, I apologize and if the user above-mentioned feels offended then I retract my statement, it truly was not my intention to cause him grief. Regarding the concern of my name, I believe we share the sense of humor, considering your name is derivative of a common vulgar joke "Mike Hawk". The part that struck me most about your accusation is saying that I am WP:NOTHERE, I understand I have not been much active outside the RFA article, but to say that it means that me, a user who has only recently joined the wiki, is not here to contribute to Wikipedia is simply a frightening way of thinking of new users, at least from my perspective. Also, I based my claims of consensus on the 2007 discussion which was not opposed. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 20:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

To respond in part, a single purpose account is a user account or IP editor whose editing is limited to one very narrow area or set of articles, or whose edits to many articles appear to be for a common purpose. Your account pretty clearly fits this definition. It's also a total misrepresentation to cite a 13 year-old comment on a talk page as current consensus, especially when the article has not called the station "propaganda" in the Wikivoice of a stable lead since 2010. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

On the same wikipage, according to WP:SPATG, in the Number of edits section, it is said that: A user should not be tagged as an SPA just because they only have a handful of edits. As of now I have made twenty contributions to wikipedia, with eleven of them being Radio Free Asia or its talkpage. I know that over fifty percent of my edits being in the same category may seem like I have created this account with the intention of it being a "single purpose account", but I reassure you that it is not the case. As an example I will use your account, over twenty-five percent of your 1192 Main edits are related to China and the Uighurs. Does this now mean you are now a "single-purpose account"? On another note, I agree it was a bit of a stretch to cite a thirteen year old comment as current consensus, I realize it was a mistake on my part, however I have learned from my mistakes and attempted to establish new consensus in the Talk version of Radio Free Asia. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Once upon a time I have only recently made my account and am still discovering wikipedia, said the new editor with a precocious edit history and a userbox on their page that one would never find on someone new to WP. Grandpallama (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I didn't know this at the start of the content dispute, but Radio Free Asia has recently re-entered the news in relation to the Uyghur genocide ([18]), so the sudden presence of a number of new/infrequent editors may be due to this. CMD (talk) 02:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Once upon a time I had a thought in my head that made me say it out loud: Perhaps I should learn the policy and rules of Wikipedia before doing something that would damage the website and/or break the policy? And I have been going with it ever since. While I appreciate your flattery, some could interpret it as a personal attack, so I would avoid your passive aggressive writing in the future. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 10:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

some could interpret it as a personal attack They would be wrong, since I have accurately pointed out that the evidence of your editing history, wikilawyering, knowledge of WP policy/procedure/technicalities, and userbox (and its reference to a onwiki controversy) do not align with the assertion you are "discovering Wikipedia". As far as the complaint here goes, you've argued repeatedly (alongside other curiously new editors) at Radio Free Asia to insert material against the consensus, and participated in edit warring there (again, alongside other relatively new editors) to the degree that the page was placed under ECP.[19] Your account's very first edit to Wikipedia was to remove sourced information with a misleading edit summary. There are strong WP:NOTHERE vibes, and your unwillingness to listen to more experienced editors at Radio Free Asia or NPOVN is textbook WP:BATTLEGROUND. A TBAN is in order, at the very least, but I'm not encouraged you won't just carry this approach elsewhere. Either way, I support a sanction. Grandpallama (talk) 13:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

You seem to have an issue sticking to your narrative. First you claim that I have accurately pointed out that the evidence of your editing history, wikilawyering, knowledge of WP policy/procedure/technicalities, and userbox (and its reference to a onwiki controversy) do not align with the assertion you are "discovering Wikipedia". but then you go on and say that I am showing unwillingness to listen to more experienced editors at Radio Free Asia. So which one is it? Am I an experienced editor or a new one unwilling to listen to more experienced editors? You say I am giving off WP:NOTHERE vibes, while clearly exhibiting WP:BITE vibes. I also find it very ironic to claim that I am wikilawyering while trying to do the exact same thing. Your evidence is based on the assumption that everyone who edits Wikipedia for their first time does not know the policy, procedures, its technicalities or how to use a user-box(?). Are you saying I should be sorry for familiarizing myself with those things before editing? There is no reason for me to listen to more "experienced" editors when they are in the wrong according to the policy. Seniority does not guarantee you or anyone else absolute power nor infallibility. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 14:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

There is no reason for me to listen to more "experienced" editors Read WP:IDHT. When a consensus of users oppose you on the talkpage, neutral users at NPOVN also tell you that you are incorrect, and users at ANI express concerns about your behavior, you need to start listening, or yes, it will end with some sort of sanction. Grandpallama (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Not very nice of you to cut your quote short and change the meaning of my sentence. No consensus has been established, hence why the discussion was posted on NPOVN. I have engaged in consensus building, I have addressed all of the issues that the creator of this incident report put forward, I fail to see how that equates to me "not listening". CPCEnjoyer (talk) 17:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support NOTHERE block. There is some seriously fishy stuff going on, probably WP:MEATPUPPETRY involving off-wiki forum coordination, regarding this subject. Look at the 3 accounts that replied to me here at NPOVN; one of them is CPCEnjoyer, who absolutely is an SPA, and the other two are the highly suspicious accounts discussed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EuanHolewicz432. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

This ANI investigation was brought to my attention on my own investigation's page (linked above), and since this user has apparently drawn a line between CPCEnjoyer's and mine, I believe I have somewhat of an obligation to contribute here. First of all, I fail to see the supposed evidence or "suspicion" based on a shared contribution to a general viewpoint - do I have a claim on your coordination with Horse's Eye, with Mikehawk10 or Chimpmunkdavis? Of course not, and so I have not attempted to pursue such "lead", because I understand that all of you hold true a different view on the matter and no matter the result of the discussion, the quality of RFA will improve - either it will be restored to a state that I myself (and some other editors) find more reflective of the truth, or the position of the existing status quo will be strengthened (as it already seems to be, with more sources cited in the lead by Mikehawk10). I fail to see how this discussion is negatively impacting Wikipedia and therefore I fail to see the point of this charade, notwithstanding the fact that I (obviously) do not know any of the other involved users in an off-Wiki capacity, neither those who argue for or against the changes I support. This entire procedure looks to me like an attempt at "siccing" Wikipedia administration (no disrespect meant towards the administration by this phrasing, of course) at people you disagree with and as I stated in my own investigation, this really sours my view of Wikipedian discourse. I don't think CPCEnjoyer was entirely right in making some of the main article page edits and reverts that they did (at a cursory glance, I didn't really analyze the edit date and correlation to talk page), but to claim coordination is based on next to no evidence and I find it dehumanizing and slanderous. This is my stance on this most recent allegation - as for the SPA, NOTHERE claims - these are up in the air and I don't think it's in my position to argue regarding that here. This concerns only the coordination claim. --EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 10:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Preposterous. Simply preposterous. But these allegations and accusations with no proof nor substance seem to be the norm at Wikipedia, so I am hardly surprised. I would hope that anyone who is not involved in this Radio Free Asia dispute is clearly able to see that this is just an attempt at misdirection and censorship after people like Crossroads are unwilling to discuss for a consensus. The most baffling thing is that I have made my edits and talk page replies before these editors made any of theirs, so I fail to see how I am the "sockpuppet". But I digress, go for it, do your "investigation", I have nothing to hide. Perhaps you should stop and think about whether you are arguing in good faith or witch-hunting a person who you are in disagreement with. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 12:23, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• comment Just popping in to say- User:EuanHolewicz432 and User:CPCEnjoyer part of why people may be linking the two of you is the overly complex language and similar style of wiki-lawyering you are both partial to. You both use unnecessarily inflated language, I assume to sound more intelligent and thus convince more people- but... it really only comes across as unnatural. Which turns people off. But the language is what makes me believe there is a link between these accounts. And for the record Support WP:NOTHERE block- because they are not here to work collaboratively, and they have proved that over and over in this post. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I have no connection to this case or anyone in it (ANI is on my watchlist due to an unrelated case). What, exactly, are the charges against CPCEnjoyer, and what is the evidence presented? So far I see that he suggested on the talk page that another editor had intentionally misreprented an argument he had made. He should be advised to AGF and phrase any future statements as "perhaps you misunderstood my argument, I am saying that this source..." etc. That is not an ANI issue. Is the user a SPA? Most new editors make their first edits to the same article or subjects. Is there evidence of sockpuppeting beyond "these guys sound similar" because I do not see it. Is there a significant problem with his edits, actual vandalism, true edit warring, misrepresenting sources? Do you have diffs? What I am seeing here is a talk page dispute and an editor who brought a bunch of vague suspicions and accusations to ANI and nothing else. I am mot an admim, I have no power to make anyone do anything, but I would strongly advise people to present actual evidence, in the form of diffs, to show actual wrongdoing. I would also advise that SPI is the place for sockpuppet accusations, if you genuinely believe that is happening. Hyperion35 (talk) 18:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

  The OP provided very specific complaints and a series of diffs. And the concerns raised here have been subsequently raised in the relevant SPIs, but it is not inappropriate to raise them in the context of a potentially relevant behavioral complaint, too. Grandpallama (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support NOTHERE block fairly blunt this person isn't here to try to build a neutral encyclopedia at all instead trying to use Wikipedia to spread a viewpoint, ironic because he clearly despises Wikipedia as it's banned in China. Des Vallee (talk) 01:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support - I'm not involved in this dispute but support considering that I recognize that obvious socking is involved. —PaleoNeonate – 11:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Nothing in this thread (or their recent contributions) leads me to believe that this is likely to be a brand new user. Just saying. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Per a checkuser "acquittal". This is an article content dispute that has spilled from a talk page to ANI based on, as near as I can tell, nothing more than unsupported allegations and suspicions and nothing more. The diffs presented do show what might be a single 3RR incident, we have a different board for that. Look, I personally disagree with CPCEnjoyer's edits, Radio Free Asia and other VOA media outlets are not propaganda operations. But that is a content dispute to discuss on the article talk page.

  Do the editors have similar writing styles? Yes. So do I. So do a lot of people who attended small liberal arts colleges with writing-intensive programs. What I am seeing here is a disturbing lack of AGF, combined with casting aspersions and toxic behavior. The only reason I would not suggest a boomerang is that far too many other Wikipedia editors engage in similar behavior. Sockpuppets certainly are a problem, but seeing sockpuppets behind every bush and jumping straight to accusations of sockpuppetry is possibly worse, more corrosive.

  Take this to AN/3RR for the initial diffs provided, if a trout is that important. Take the sock accusations back to SPI (again) if you genuinely believe in good faith that there is a sockpuppet issue here that has somehow evaded the previous checkuser. Or find some actual evidence of actual behavioral problems instead of vague handwaving suspicions. Hyperion35 (talk) 05:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:NPOV, WP:OWN, and copyright violations at Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed

Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

User:AmirahBreen has been tendentiously editing the article on Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed for at least several months, resulting in an article that read like a laundry list of criticisms and complaints against the subject. There have been numerous copyright violations as well, mostly sentences lifted directly from sources or closely-worded paragraphs; a few have merited revdel.

AmirahBreen created a BLP/N thread stating, "I am concerned for this article because I feel there are attempts being made by a group of people to control the content of the article and the admin who is contacting them and asking them to do so is at the center of it." AmirahBreen disputed that they were editing in a slanted fashion, and spent a fair amount of time disparaging other editors, at one point referring to them as "a pack of hounds" while saying they were supporters of the article subject trying to whitewash the article. Attempts to remove the negative POV are met with reversions and stonewalling/talk page bludgeoning. Diffs from mid December 2020 - mid March 2021 are unavailable due to copyright revdels, and some of the other diffs provided may end up revdel'd due to other copyright concerns. This list below is not exhaustive, but I'm trying to balance TLDR with other editors' time.

[20] Large BLP/N thread.

WP:NPOV

[21] Restores negative content to lead that was not fully supported by cited sources, and re-adds NPOV "refuses to leave" language. [22] Argues to keep NPOV text about renouncing American citizenship. [23] My removal, as the addition is revdel'd. Added a negative quote from an analyst not mentioned in either source cited. [24] Again my removal, addition is revdel'd. Sources cited do not support the language. "opposition candidates were again targeted by government forces, while taking part in a protest in Mogadishu over the election delay, when shells fired at them landed inside Mogadishu Airport." The chaos at the protests came just hours after an intense exchange of gunfire erupted in Mogadishu in the early hours of Friday morning...said in a statement that “armed militias” had attacked military posts with the intention of taking over government buildings... he said.Mr. Khaire later said in a news conference that shells fired against opposition protesters had landed inside the city’s international airport. Source is clearly not stating government attacks on protesters or government shelling of the international airport as fact. [25] Added "The Lower House attempted a motion on 12 April 2021 to extend Mohamed's term by two years with no elections taking place, which the Upper House declared unconstitutional." Source says Somalia’s lower house of parliament voted overwhelmingly to extend by two years the term for the government of President Mohamed Abdullahi Farmajo... The special session saw 149 MPs vote in favor of the extension, with only three opposed. [26] Added negative content about conditions and food ration cuts in a UN funded refugee camp in Kenya. [27] Removed supportive text from Italian undersecretary of foreign affairs. Was sourced. [28] Adds a negative quote from the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations committee responding the the Lower House's vote. This is WP:DUE while the Italian undersecretary's support should be removed? [29] Removing tags with majority of editors supporting the tag. [30] "The prime minister apologized for the attacks pointing out that peaceful demonstrations are a democratic right.The prime minister apologized for the attacks pointing out that peaceful demonstrations are a democratic right." The prime minister did not apologize for the attacks, and the wording that was removed from the response also contributes to the POV. Source states the prime minister was "sorry this happened" and "peaceful demonstrations are a constitutional right but armed ones are not." [31] Placing blame on article subject directly, source actually says the administration is not ready. Picked the negative information out of the source, as the source also says “There are several reasons which caused this fiasco," Abdulfatah said. "Lack of good will is one of them because both sides were engaged on defeating each other instead of focusing on the gist of the issue. Secondly, there is a degree of recklessness among the Somali politicians because, all the Somali people were waiting the results from the talks but yesterday both sides were delivering wealth of information and started demonizing each other.” [32] Adds "an estimated 20 people were killed." Sources cited say "A protest leader said “some have died” after the clashes." "“Some have died and others were wounded,” he said, without giving details." "The United States Embassy in Somalia said that “as many as 20 people may have been killed or injured” in the morning clashes in the capital"

Close paraphrasing, copyright infringement

"some view this election impasse as a new stumbling block for Somalia's road to democratisation." There are those who view this election impasse as a new stumbling block for Somalia’s road to democratisation source - removal - addition revdel'd "The United Arab Emerates expressed "grave concern" over the deteriorating situation in Somalia, calling upon the interim government of Mohamed and all parties, "to demonstrate the highest levels of restraint in order to achieve Somalia's aspirations to build a secure and stable future for all", and expressed its hope that stability would prevail in Somalia, "in a way that preserves its national sovereignty and fulfills the aspirations of its brotherly people"." UAE expresses grave concern over deteriorating situation in Somalia... called upon the interim government and all parties to demonstrate the highest levels of restraint in order to achieve Somalia's aspirations to build a secure and stable future for all... The UAE expressed its hope that stability would prevail in Somalia in a way that preserves its national sovereignty and fulfills the aspirations of its brotherly people.source - removal - addition revdel'd In November 2020 the First Deputy Speaker of the Upper House of Parliament, Abshir Mohamed Bukhari, said that Mohamed had proven unreliable in overseeing the upcoming parliamentary and presidential elections in the country First Deputy Speaker of the Upper House of Parliament, Abshir Mohamed Bukhari, has said that President Mohamed Abdullahi Farmajo has proved unreliable in overseeing the upcoming parliamentary and presidential elections in the country. source - removal - addition revdel'd Mohamed was accused of wanting to subvert Somali nationhood to consolidate power. And there are those who suspect incumbent President Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed ‘Farmajo’ of wanting to subvert Somali nationhood to consolidate power. source - removal - addition opposition party leaders wrote to the Turkish ambassador in Somalia urging the Turkish government not to send the shipment, for fear that Mohamed would use it to 'hijack' the upcoming elections. Somalia’s opposition says it has written to Turkey urging it not to send a planned shipment of weapons to a special police unit that they fear incumbent President Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed could use to “hijack” forthcoming elections. After hearing that Turkey planned to send a shipment of weapons and ammunition, including 1,000 G3 assault rifles and 150,000 bullets to Harma’ad, a special unit in Somalia's police, between Dec. 16 and Dec. 18 opposition candidates said they had learned Turkey was planning to deliver 1,000 G3 assault rifle and 150,000 bullets to Harma’ad, a special unit in Somalia’s police, between Dec. 16 and Dec. 18.source - removal - addition Council of Presidential Candidates announced that they no longer recognise Mohamed as the President of Somalia since his term expired without any agreement on the path toward elections to replace him opposition leaders say they no longer recognise President Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed after his term expired without a political agreement on a path towards elections to replace him. source - removal - addition revdel'd the electoral implementation tensions had been compounded by questions over the legitimacy of Mohamed’s mandate following the expiry of his constitutional term in office on 8 February And electoral implementation tensions have been compounded by questions over the legitimacy of President Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed’s mandate following the expiry of his constitutional term in office, on 8 February. source - removal - addition revdel'd to overcome Al Shabaab, to provide national security sufficient to organise universal suffrage and to ensure a complete constitutional review of Somalia's supreme law. promised to tame Al-Shabaab, provide national security sufficient to organize universal suffrage, and ensure a complete constitutional review for the country's supreme law. source - removal - addition Abdi Hashi, was not invited to this week’s meeting despite being from Somaliland, and he has argued that he, not the president’s people, should select Somaliland’s commission members. Abdi Hashi, was not invited to this week’s meeting despite being from Somaliland, and he has argued that he, not the president’s people, should select Somaliland’s commission members. source - addition - removal

Article talk page bludgeoning
AmirahBreen · 141 (64.7%) Ohnoitsjamie · 28 (12.8%) ScottishFinnishRadish · 14 (6.4%) Removing huge amounts of own commentary from article talk page: [33] [34] [35] [36] [37]

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

This feels like a perfect candidate for WP:3 rather than ANI 2001:4898:80E8:3:C18B:6B0C:568:318C (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that applies due to the BLP thread, other users discussing during the RFC and other users editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The talk page from March 13th onward is just a series of conversations between you two with next to no outside edits aside from two from User:Ohnoitsjamie. This is why I suggest a 3rd party, because it's clear you two disagree, and that otherwise it looks like a content dispute. Would you consider trying WP:3? 2001:4898:80E8:3:C18B:6B0C:568:318C (talk) 23:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you read the BLPN thread linked above to see why I don't think that's a worthwhile use of time. See [38] for an example. Anyone who disagrees with them is a bad actor who is part of a group acting in concert against them. I was a neutral, uninvolved editor when I started editing the article and since I agreed the article was slanted I was just someone Ohnoitsjamie summoned to do his bidding. A third opinion also won't address the significant copyright violations. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I have been following this page for awhile due to me answering an edit request on the article. If anything, ScottishFinnishRadish is the third opinion when there was a dispute between AmirahBreen and Ohnoitsjamie earlier. I had remained silent on this matter as I don't have the capacity to wade through 93 sources in another nation's leader's article, but tracking the edit history thus far indicates that AmirahBreen exhibits signs of WP:OWN and WP:NPOV in this article while ScottishFinnishRadish has been trying to neutralise the tone on the article only to be reverted by AmirahBreen. SFR has accurately summarised AmriahBreen's behaviour on the article and her behaviour is worthy of attention here rather than WP:3 as I feel that no number of third party opinions will cause AmirahBreen to take a step back. – robertsky (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I think I first came across this article as a result of an WP:RFPP awhile back. As I've noted in past threads including the original WP:BLPN thread I created to try to get more eyes on the article, the article reads like a running tally of all things critical about the subject without much regard for quality of source, and most of it had been written by AmirahBreen. I applaud ScottishFinnishRadish's efforts to reign in the negative POV slant of the article, and I've tried to pitch in along the way, but I believe we're beyond WP:3 here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if anyone who has a bit of time to spare could take a look at this and offer input. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I was also involved with this article and this editor earlier at Talk:Mohamed_Abdullahi_Mohamed/Archive 1#Neutrality and observed the same problematic behavior that ScottishFinnishRadish has documented. For instance, in a series of edits she removed a huge amount of well-sourced content with canned and inaccurate edit summaries like Immediate removal of unsourced contentious material about a living person according to Wikipedia guidelines (credit to Ohnoitsjamie for originally providing that diff on the talk page). It took me a lot of time to restore the material that was improperly deleted. She also has a penchant for deleting warnings from her talk page while keeping positive comments, and a tendency towards combativeness. Over the course of our talk-page discussion in December 2020 I had felt that her attitude was improving somewhat so I'm disappointed to see that the problems have continued. Rublov (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I also came into conflict with this editor about four months ago, where I made a large edit containing what I felt were intuitive NPOV and MOS changes; however, I made the mistake of bunching everything up into one edit and not explaining it adequately, which caused the editor to revert the whole thing and post on my talk page. Most of what they said was fair criticism, but they also made some pretty bad faith accusations of me "doing nothing to improve Wikipedia by making other editors feel undervalued and unimportant when you run roughshod over their work". I was kind of taken aback by this and felt discouraged to edit the article further, though I managed to de-escalate the situation and they've seemed to have calmed down a bit since then. Nonetheless I do think this behaviour is a sign of WP:OWN and would be problematic if it continues to affect the article and its editors. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 00:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

The behavior continues at the page, now accusing me of WP:NPOV and WP:WEASEL for well sourced content. The issue is with Mohamed, who was seen as the anti-corruption candidate, won the presidency in the second round of voting which has direct sourcing from both NPR and Politico.

They first added a citation needed template after that sentence [39], then added the weasel words tag to the entire article [40], then removed the sentence with the edit summary NPOV Weasel Words,and also unclear which of the five sources given at the end of the paragraph they are from [41]. They clearly did not read the sources, and just disagreed with that statement. I restored the text with a direct quote from the NPR source [42] which they then reverted again. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Your edits to the article have been fair and accurate as far as I can see Yeeno. As you can see in this discussion above, 'bunching everything up into one edit and not explaining it adequately' is something I have done myself too in the past, and as other editors complained about this, I have not continued to do so. It is also the only occasion I have come across when you have done it. My words to you above were quite harsh, but I do not assume that you did so deliberately or in bad faith, I was only trying to express how I felt about it. I am sorry if I put you off editing the article by my reaction on that occasion, I did not mean to.

I have learnt too while editing this article. Yes, I have made mistakes and when I have understood that something I have done is wrong, I have corrected it or ceased to do it, just as you did. But these other editors will not let an issue drop, even if it was done some time ago and hasn't happened since. Take their case about copyright violations for example. I have been told of two copyright violations which I made some time ago. Since I was told, as far as I was concerned I did not make any more. But recently, ScottishFinnishRadish has become very pedantic over using even a few words from an article. At the same time Ohnoitsjamie has become pedantic claiming that it was not said in the article when I re-word anything. Between the two of them they have made me feel that I am not able to edit the article at all.

When I first started editing the article there was nothing at all in it about the current term in office, of which there was very little positive press coverage about too and still is. After I started updating this section, they started accusing me of writing a 'laundry list'. I maintain that their own edits are NPOV as it appears to me that they are trying to whitewash (for want of a better word) the article themselves. That is an on-going content dispute. When someone is insulting to you, responding in kind is not usually the best way, but my comments when I asked them how they would feel about being called a 'pack of hounds' on another noticeboard were trying to get across to them that I found being accused of doing a 'hitjob' insulting. They were telling me that it wasn't insulting because it was not meant literally and I asked them how they would feel if somebody used derogatory language against them in a figurative manner, 'pack of hounds' as an example. If they couldn't understand that I was upset at being likened to an assassin, then how can they now be saying that they were offended at me asking them, well wouldn't you be offended if you were likened to a dog?

I also consider the term 'laundry list' insulting, and have said this from the time it was first used. As far as I am aware I am the only woman working on the article and it is like telling me that all I am fit for is doing the laundry. On top of this, my edits to the article have not been dirty. It would be dirty to deliberately put something in the article which is not properly referenced by reliable sources, for example, but I have not done so. Referring to all my edits collectively as a 'laundry list' is quite sexist, on top of which it is unfair and untrue. Amirah talk 12:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish your comments above about anti corruption-cadidate are a content dispute. The source says ' "And even though the process was rife with corruption from all sides, a vote for Farmajo is seen as a vote against corruption," as NPR's Eyder Peralta reports from Nairobi, Kenya. ' You selected the words 'Mohamed was seen as the anti-corruption candidate' ignoring the first part of the sentence which clearly states that corruption was on all sides (including Mohamed's side). I consider this to be NPOV. Also I consider it to be weasel words as you have not said who he was seen by as being the anti-corruption candidate. This could have referred to anybody. It was in the article in quotes because it was an opinion of the person who said it. Yes, there were five sources given at the end of the paragraph, but I asked you to put the source you got this from beside what you were quoting as a fact, which was not necessarily in all five sources. Amirah talk 12:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

It was not the opinion of the person who said it, it was the reporting of a correspondent with NPR, who the NPR article was quoting. There is also sourcing for this in the Politico source. The entire paragraph uses all five sources, so putting cites after each single sentence we'll end up with four cites after every sentence, which isn't necessary. A quick perusal of the sources would have provided the information. It was cited and you removed it anyway. The entire paragraph before goes into detail that the whole process was corrupt. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I am not asking you to put citations after every sentence, only this one where you have claimed a contentious fact leaving out part of what was said which would have balanced the contention behind it. Only two sources would have been required here, not all five. The paragraph before does go into detail about the corruption, but does not say it was coming from 'all sides' as the NPR article claims. You have left this vital piece of information out, making out that Mohamed's campaign was squeaky clean. What the campaign was 'seen as' by some is different to what it actually was, according to the source. And still, there is no indication as to who saw it as such. You are also now saying that it is also in the Politico article, well I am not sure that the Politico article is neutral at all. Amirah talk 13:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean by a neutral source? Sources have to be reliable. We have to be neutral in how we handle them. DeCausa (talk) 13:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I mean that I am not sure if it is reliable. Amirah talk 13:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

What’s not reliable about it? DeCausa (talk) 13:45, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

This is the type of stonewalling and insulting editing I wrote about above. She has already called Ohnoitsjamie sexist for using the term "laundry list," and now she's admitted to removing something as POV and weasel wording without having read the cited sources, and now she's not sure if a source is neutral/reliable to further rationalize removing neutral, cited prose. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish it is you who is saying that I had not read the sources, just because I asked you to make it clearer which sources you were citing, does not mean that I had not read them myself. The text in the Politico article reads 'There are those who say that Mohamed, 54, who ran for president on an anti-corruption platform, bought his way to victory. Those same people say it’s the ironic but inevitable cost of doing business in a still desperately unstable country.' I don't know if that's reliable because I don't think every single person who says Mohamed 'bought his way to victory' also says that it is the 'inevitable cost of doing business . . . . . '. I don't think it is possible to ask every single person who has said that. Again it doesn't make clear who those people are, and ScottishFinnishRadish has picked out only the words which look good on him. Amirah talk 14:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Politico But what really won Mohamed the love of the people was his reputed distaste for corruption... But the reports of a corrupt election have not dimmed public enthusiasm for the civil servant who ran on the platform to clean up the Mogadishu swamp. Celebrations in the streets revealed a populace that was ecstatic to have a president who won their affection years ago—not a blatantly corrupt consensus choice of the clan elders. You've left out the quotes I've already put on the talk page of the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Now you are just selecting more quotes which are good about him and continuing to ignore the negative side of it. Amirah talk 14:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

This is turning into a continuation of a content dispute, for which AN/I is not the place. A lot of different tangled issues are covered above. The article history shows a very rapid editing rate, and the talk page show a large number of simultaneous sections. In a situation where there is an overarching content dispute neither of these are very helpful to editing through consensus, so it may be advisable for all parties involved to slow down a bit. Reading through the talk page and the BLP/N thread, discussions do tend to spin out and lose their focus quite quickly. This may be a good situation for a Wikipedia:Mediation process, perhaps through the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. All editors seem to be editing in good faith, so better structured discussions may lead to a depersonalisation of the issues involved, and clearer outcomes. As a final point, I must say it's a net benefit to the project that Somalia articles are getting more eyes, even if it is causing content disputes. CMD (talk) 14:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

The issue is that at least four users other than myself have had the same issues with her on this article. Even in this thread she has accused someone of sexism. Everyone that has recently tried to repair the NPOV issues with the article has the same issues. That's why I brought it here, rather than for more dispute resolution. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with ScottishFinnishRadish. I do not have much confidence that dispute resolution would address the underlying issues here. Rublov (talk) 14:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I understand the issues raised. My hope is that a structured discussion system may ease communications (and make the page feel less like a time sink), without having to bring in any sanctions. CMD (talk) 14:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd ask you to look at where she said Take their case about copyright violations for example. I have been told of two copyright violations which I made some time ago. Since I was told, as far as I was concerned I did not make any more. But recently, ScottishFinnishRadish has become very pedantic over using even a few words from an article. then look at this diff. It's a direct copy/paste of an entire sentence from the source. He added that “this is just like the craziest political gamble”, in a country already wrestling with humanitarian crises driven by instability and the changing climate. This is after a discussion and warning about copyright and copying from sources. This is in addition to the ten examples above. We've already lost the article history from December into March due to copyright revdels, and she sees this as an issue with my editing, not her copyright violations. What help will mediation have on this? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, this isn’t just a content dispute. Looking at the page history (and the response here) there’s some real behavioural issues around, NPOV, sourcing and BATTLE with what AmirahBreen has been doing. I think other editors getting involved in the page will flush it out. DeCausa (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I too would be pleased if more editors would become involved, editors like Yeeno who has always edited the article in a neutral manner, but I am not going to waste any more of good people's time here, as the discussion does not belong on this noticeboard. Amirah talk 16:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A mediated structure might help in providing a simple way for a third party to check eg. whether something is a copyvio without a back and forth. It would of course only work with support, so if that is not forthcoming, perhaps as DeCausa suggests the involvement of more editors would work even without structure. On other possible actions, I don't think anyone above has noted that this region is under WP:ARBHORN discretionary sanctions. This report has languished here for a week without action. If it closes without action, I would recommend future reports go to WP:AE, which has the benefit of a structure that limits reports devolving back into content disputes as they did above. CMD (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I think we're actually past those sanctions, since it was a three month trial. After March 1, 2021 (or sooner if there is good reason), any editor may ask that this request be reopened for the purpose of evaluating whether the discretionary sanctions have been effective and should be made permanent or if a full case should be accepted to consider different or additional remedies. I don't think that this single issue is enough to evaluate if the sanctions were effective, nor am I familiar enough with the topic area to get that deeply involved. I do appreciate that you're looking for solutions though. Thanks for that.

I think that AmirahBreen's most recent reply [43] does an excellent job of illustrating the core issue. Half a dozen editors, including uninvolved editors, have expressed that they see an issue with the behavior and she does not seem to accept that there is an issue, and says that the discussion does not belong on this noticeboard. How much more discussion and time of how many more editors should be invested in this if each new opinion is casually discarded?

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

This behavior is clearly continuing, and it appears they've taken nothing from this thread. Some of those "more editors" talked about above would be much appreciated. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Yappy2bhere

I've been here for about 2-3 months now, so admittedly I'm new. Every edit I've made has been paricularly music based given that I am a musician. Every time I make an edit, however, Yappy2bhere (talk · contribs) is quick to revoke my edit and accuse me of "vandalism" despite me citing virtually every source. Like editing incorrect information on both the Static Major and Bad and Boujee pages.

Even though I may or may not have made editing mistakes, this person will also go out of their way to personally attack users for supposedly making mistakes or something, and from what I've seen this person has been reported in the past but still continues to aggravate incidents.

--SHUTUPGOODLORD (talk) 12:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

• You need to source your work when making dramatic changes to articles. Claiming different keys is certainly not small. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 13:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  I apologize for that mistake, but could this user please stop claiming every other edit I (and other users) make is vandalism? It was more than just that one edit. It's seems fairly unproductive if you ask me... --SHUTUPGOODLORD (talk) 14:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  Admittedly, I can see some warming template abuse on the part of Yappy2bhere, as they certainly piled them on high within a matter of minutes on the 19th, when they could have simply addressed things with a single message. Regardless, you are technically engaged in an edit war on the page Static Major, with you adding the same information repeatedly. I'd ask that you desist with that behavior. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 15:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  I wouldn't say your behavior rises to the level of vandalism, but it's not absurd for Yappy2bhere to think it might be. You should probably read WP:MINOR. Some vandals will mark major edits as minor to hide from scrutiny. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  Understable, I apologize and will stop. --SHUTUPGOODLORD (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, I'm looking at [this edit, for which OP received a lvl3 warning, and the OP is correct. The source does not say it is in G-flat Major. It doesn't state a key. It shows six flats. That could be either G-flat major, or E-flat minor (ignoring the possibility of other rarely-used church modes). The music starts with an e-flat minor chord, which is highly indicative of a key signature of e-flat minor. Therefore OP corrected the article according to the source. SHUTUPGOODLORD, it would be really helpful if you stated as much in your edit summary. Yappy2bhere, did you check the source before accusing ShutUp of vandalism? For what it's worth, OP's user name (I'm presuming meant to be humorous, but simlarly names accounts are often WP:NOTHERE) and newness to project, doesn't engender confidence. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:30, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  As a learned musician a quick glance at the score reveals what is obvious; and the OP is indeed right. Now the username might be problematic; but that doesn't excuse the WP:BITE and lack of WP:AGF from somebody who's been here since 2009, apparently. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  Don't wiki-moralize. In OP's second edit to the article [44] he deleted the source that contradicted the change he wished to make and replaced it with a "source" that said nothing at all about the key, tagging it as "minor" of course. That wasn't inexperience, that was a bad-faith edit. Still believe the first was a misunderstanding? WP:AGF, but don't ignore bad behavior. No idea why you're obsessed with the username. Let it be. Yappy2bhere (talk) 05:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

  I did check the source. It's entitled Migos feat. Lil Uzi Vert \"Bad and Boujee\" Sheet Music in Gb Major - Download & Print - SKU: MN0171443, as you would have discovered had you checked it yourself. You don't have to be a learned musician to notice the "E-flat minor" chord notations on the first page, but unless you're prescient you can't say that the song doesn't start in the minor then shift into the major. The edit was reverted because "as a learned musician" isn't a WP:RS, it's WP:OR. I'm sympathetic, but not swayed. You may "know" that the cited source misinterpreted the key signature, but you still need a source to make the change wiki-credible. (Right, RandomCanadian [45]?) This is Wikipedia. It's not what you know, it's what you can prove. Yappy2bhere (talk) 05:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not going to claim to be a "learned musician", but I understand the notation that musicnotes.com uses. I have a question. What makes musicnotes.com a reliable source?—S Marshall T/C 23:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Robert Joffred claims E♭ minor, but also claims to be a musician and know what the Phrygian mode is. Xe does not play Bass, though. Uncle G (talk) 11:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure I'm overwhelmed with Robert Joffred's reliability either. Conventional music theory is excellent for analyzing European and European-style symphonies and concertoes and opera, and useful for understanding quite a lot of pop, but it's less ideal for analyzing music from other cultures, particularly something like rap which is richer in its lyrics and rhythms than its melodies and chord structures. I wonder whether the best option might be to remove all claims about which key it's in.—S Marshall T/C 09:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I've done so independently of your comment here; though I guess that won't stop this editor's behaviour elsewhere. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Accusations of sockpuppetry by the above

I'm not sure if [46] counts as accusing sockpuppetry, but if it does, then he really needs to work on assuming good faith. Accusing others of sockpuppetry just isn't right. --Cutlass^Ciera 16:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Just reading through here, Yappy2bhere seems to be quite combative, BITE-y, and generally just acting rude toward other editors, new or otherwise.

I would encourage them to soften their tone down, AGF, and be civil.

On a less guidelines/policy related note, and more just a recommendation to them: I also noticed they remove content per WP:UNSOURCED, but I could not find any instances of them searching for a source and adding it. "If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." — WP:UNSOURCED.

This isn't by any means a requirement, but it's encouraged, and I encourage them to do so. —moonythedwarf 19:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

So far as the content dispute is concerned, Yappy2bhere has sound reasoning. Though, it appears that they have a lengthy history of incivility, personal attacks and a general lack of collaborative inclinations. Hopefully, they can be less dismissive and get a grip on themselves, so they don't suffer blocks for their behavior down the line. So far as the main topic of this thread is concerned, I believe it has been addressed. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 20:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the matter this thread was started for is otherwise settled. —moonythedwarf 23:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Gravedancing, personal attacks, aspersions, and more

Yappy2bhere has, within the last few days, insinuated RandomCanadian and Cutlass are sockpuppets, gravedanced on half a dozen different editors, insinuated I am hounding them, and has failed to hold a civil conversation since they joined the site, WP:BITEing many new editors (which is what this AN/I thread was originally started for) and failing to behave in a way conductive to a collaborative editing space. This behavior is absolutely unacceptable, and I personally think this editor needs an immediate wake-up call for their conduct. —moonythedwarf 14:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

1. I made no accusation, I asked whether the two accounts represented two users. It's a reasonable question; you for example use more than one account. I assume you're aware that there are both acceptable and unacceptable ways to use multiple accounts; you should assume that I do too.
2. "Gravedancing" does sound awful, but WP:GRAVEDANCING is not a WP policy, it is an essay. In any case the edits you've linked don't resemble any of the Examples of gravedancing given in the essay. Your characterization of them is inaccurate and your accusation unfair.
3. "Hounding" is "joining discussions on multiple pages or topics [or] debates" where I contribute with the "apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress." Yes, you've been hounding me; please stop.
4. I've "failed to hold a civil conversation since [I] joined the site"? Nonsense; obviously something provoked the greeting cards. Certainly you haven't read my entire edit history, so how did you arrive at this sweeping conclusion. Ouija board?
5. Can you produce a list of the "many new editors" I've bitten, and how? Of course not; they don't exist.

Yappy2bhere (talk) 11:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• As if that wasn't enough; now there's this monstrosity. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

"Monstrous" how, exactly? It's a reply to Moony's unfounded accusations. Yappy2bhere (talk) 08:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Yappy2bhere blocked for (at least 1 month) persistent incivility

Given the persistent history of this editor (as evidenced by the copious amount of warnings they have gotten - dating back to at least 2009); given their WP:ABF accusations; given their refusal to back down; given their apparent WP:HOUNDING of a new editor; and given they're not interested in changing their behaviour; I propose the above remedy as a final wake-up call. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC) Edited RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:44, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support as proposed. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn for now. The situation seems to have changed for the better. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  I do not assume bad faith, but I don't ignore bad faith either.

  For example, on April 22 you made an unsourced change to the key of Bad and Boujee, "improving" the source by removing mention of the key from its original title [47]. Bowdlerizing a cited source is not a good-faith error.

  I reverted the change, but at 2:37 today you restored it with the same "improved" source citation and a belittling edit summary [48]. As support you cited WP:CALC and a new, definitive source which you didn't add to the article. WP:CALC can't support the change--two keys correspond to the key signature. A "learned musician" would know that (note user:78.26's comment above); not a good-faith error.

  Your new "source" doesn't mention the key at all, so that too is an error. user:SHUTUPGOODLORD earlier misrepresented source content in the same way for the same reason, and you were advised of it [49]; not a good-faith error.

  In this one instance you've adulterated a cited source [50], misrepresented the content of a another [51], justified an unsourced change by citing a policy that you knew could not apply [52], and of course added WP:OR into an article despite knowing it was nothing more than that [53]. For what? So you could thumb your nose at another editor ("so in addition to not knowing music theory your research was not extensive enough" [54])?

  Withdraw your WP:NOTVOTE and recuse yourself from this discussion. You've lost your perspective.

  Yappy2bhere (talk) 08:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

  No point arguing since you're still quite too combative. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:44, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Don't fiddle the sources. They're all that holds WP together. Yappy2bhere (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

*Support - shorter: This editor's behavior has long since been out-of-line with their personal attacks, but three months is rather extreme for the first measures taken. As a third party, twenty-four hours to one week seems far more appropriate. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 03:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Support one-month block: Rather than constructively discuss or apologize for personal attacks, Yappy2bhere seems to be focusing on coming up with witty comebacks for their amateur hour routine - like they have been doing for the past twelve years on their talk page that is stuffed full of people responding to personal attacks. For clarification, Wikipedia:No personal attacks is not an essay. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 20:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC) Also, they appear to be indeed hounding 4TheLuvOfFax now. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 20:42, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Withdraw: Yappy2bhere has apologized, so I'm withdrawing my vote. We need to talk things out more and keep civil, if not purely kind. Good luck, Yappy2bhere and 4TheLuvOfFax. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 21:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support - shorter: A one week block seems appropriate to me, as per DarthBotto. If behavior continues, then it can be extended, but 3 months is hasty. —moonythedwarf 13:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Moonythedwarf and DarthBotto: I don't think one week will do anything, especially given the long term nature of this (even this thread has been ongoing for five days, and yet they don't appear to have learned the lesson or heeded any advice). But if you think 3 months is too much, 1 might do. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Prodding for uninvolved editors to review the situation. I honestly can't bother to read Yappy2bhere's walls of text anymore, and am going to withdraw from the conversation as I'm otherwise busy at the moment (and shouldn't be on wikipedia  Self-trout). —moonythedwarf 13:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

You shouldn't withdraw before at least illustrating your several accusations with examples, per WP policy. It's only fair. Yappy2bhere (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• WP:PROVOKE#Examples of poking #17: "Dismissing a user's considered thoughts out-of-hand by calling them "a wall of text" (or equivalently: "too long; didn't read")." Yappy2bhere (talk) 19:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Here you go, an uninvolved editor: I agree with DarthBotto, three months is perhaps a bit long but, based on the behaviour exhibited in the diffs and (dear me, a bit silly) within this very report, anything less than a week would probably be too short. I support a block to stop the user and give thinking time: Yappy2bhere, really, please take on board the issues which have been raised here and modify your style a bit; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 16:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, but I'll miss the refreshments be sorry to go. Yappy2bhere (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I apologize if I offended you or your fellow editors with that response, user:LindsayH; it wasn't my intent. I do believe you answered honestly and without bias, and that your advice was well-meant and offered solely for my welfare. I simply wanted to acknowledge that, while disappointed that you support a block, I don't doubt that you were trying to be both fair and helpful. Yappy2bhere (talk) 21:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

No worries. I'm sure no offence was intended; certainly none was taken. I agree with Ched, below and on the talk page: The behaviour has been apologised for, and sanctions are less good than self-regulation and productivity. In view of that i have struck my support; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 05:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support As one of the involved editors, I support a month long block. --Cutlass^Ciera 16:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Withdraw User has apologized. --Cutlass^Ciera 16:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. Both editors seem to be open to adjusting their approach, and I'd rather see this resolved without trying enforce sanctions on people who are generally here to improve the project. — Ched (talk) 21:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Request for closure: Most of the votes for disciplinary action have been voluntarily stricken, consensus appears to have been reached and now there is an understanding with Yappy2bhere. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 06:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Overtly anti-Semitic edit at The Culture of Critique series once again

• 2405:6e00:3162:b301:49c0:f6da:6144:d918 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This article seems to be a perennial target for overtly anti-Semitic attacks by IPs. Here is the most recent one: [55]

For context, see e.g. the last one I reported here: [56] and before that here: [57]

The recent edit includes the anti-Semitic trope of putting triple parentheses around the names of Jewish or purportedly Jewish individuals and groups. This is considered highly threatening behavior as it is intended to single people out as targets for harassment.

The IP has been warned but I'm not sure that goes far enough for this type of behavior. I'd suggest that this might be a case for RevDel too.

Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 00:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I feel that there should be an edit filter that automatically blocks anyone that uses the edit summary "Clarification on the jews." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

There should be an edit filter that automatically blocks anyone using triple parentheses. RolandR (talk) 02:17, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@RolandR: Filter 766 (hist · log) warns. Surprisingly, most hits do not seem antisemitic, but most are not high-quality edits either. Some people just use triple parentheses as decoration, apparently. Not immediately opposed to switching it to disallow, though. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 03:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Looking at that log, I would say that, once the obvious childish vandalism is eliminated, the majority of the edits caught are indeed antisemitic. RolandR (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I blocked the /64, if this keeps coming up ask for semiprotection. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, The Blade of the Northern Lights. The triple-parenthases alone is beyond unacceptable. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

<sigh> Last time I reported a triple-parentheses-tagger (yes it was antisemitic, given the context) to AIV, the report was declined, because the user hadn't been warned first. Now we're giving this twit oxygen with at ANI, because an "only warning" isn't enough apparently. So can we all get the same page here? People doing this can be blocked without warning, and without discussion, yes? Because WP:PACT? The purpose of a warning is to communicate that the user has done something wrong. I do not see the purpose of attempting any sort of communication (even a template) with a person who thinks that this sort of behavior is acceptable. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 03:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Suffusion of Yellow - I agree. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

(ec) I understand your frustration with the mixed messages, Suffusion of Yellow. In my case I was lucky enough to receive this unambiguous reply from Ivanvector last November: you did the right thing by reporting this. There is no need at all to warn editors not to post racist slurs on this website, that's a thing you're expected to know, and we're not here to coddle racists. [58] So that's what I was going on. Generalrelative (talk) 03:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I stand by this comment and endorse this block. There's something to be said for engaging an inexperienced editor who makes an innocently insensitive edit or remark, we assume good faith and can maybe assume that they just don't understand why it's offensive or why it's not okay to write such things on this website, or maybe they come from a different background and hold different beliefs. Someone who comes here on an anonymous connection and specifically alleges a Jewish conspiracy against whites and starts triple-bracketing names and subjects isn't here to build an encyclopedia, they're here to get a reaction, and the only reaction we should give them is WP:RBI. I have semiprotected the page for one year. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly concur with that action and reasoning behind it. El_C 12:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, my guess would be that the editor did not manually add the triple parentheses, but rather that they have a browser extension that does it for them (like the Trump -> Drumpf thing that came up from time to time). Still a good block, of course. --JBL (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The block is too short IMO, The Blade of the Northern Lights. 36 hours for that, when we don't actually want them "editing" here at all (surely)..? Is the block short because it's assumed the troll is merely flitting by the range in question? Bishonen | tålk 16:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC).

Agree with Bishonen. Blocks of at least 3 months, and if repeated, permabanning, at needed for editors who make this kind of edit.Nishidani (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Generally we don't do long blocks for IPs unless it is shown to be static and long term abuse. Seeing as the other examples are IP4 while this is the first IP6 I cannot see a reasonable argument for a long range block on IP6. Good block but probably does not need to be several months at this point. PackMecEng (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the length of this particular block is too important at this stage - that edit was the only one to have ever been made from that range, so probably just flitting through, but if any more edits of that type appear I'd be comfortable with a longer term one. Agree with me learnèd colleagues above that blocks without warning for that type of shit are justified and necessary. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Obviously if it was an account it'd be an indef, and if there was evidence it was a static IP I'd go at least 3 months depending on the history, but IPv6s are a lot less stable. I never object to anyone modifying a block of mine, though, so if people more familiar than me with the workings of IPs ever want to extend/shorten a block I make it doesn't bother me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Re. "So can we all get the same page here? People doing this can be blocked without warning, and without discussion, yes?" above by SoY: absolutely, WP:NONAZIS is pretty clear if you ask me. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:24, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

64.121.103.144 (now StarshipSLS) and CIR issues

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

---

Could someone please have a look at the contributions of 64.121.103.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and decide if any action is necessary please. This is obviously an enthusiastic editor who's been here for about a month, but their contributions here are plagued by jumping into areas of the encyclopaedia that they clearly don't understand, and making edits that are ultimately disruptive that other editors are having to clean up. In just the last 48 hours they have:

• Closed an AfD discussion that they were a participant in after the discussion had only been open 24 hours [59]
• Answered three "help me" requests with completely unhelpful (and in one case flat out wrong) answers [60], [61], [62]
• Removed another user's automatic talk page archiving without their permission [63]
• Tagged another editor as semi-retired, then on a wikibreak without their permission [64] [65]
• Mass tagged articles with the "Current" template, despite none of them falling under any of the criteria for tagging laid out in the template doccumentation [66], [67], [68]

This is in conjunction to their article editing, which has issues with breaking templates [69] [70] and unsourced additions to articles. [71] [72]. I think this editor really needs some kind of mentoring, and ideally a ban from internal wiki processes until they have significantly more experience. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - I am not optimistic about mentoring for an unregistered editor as long as they continue to edit from an IP address. Since there are significant advantages to registering and no real disadvantages, a long-term unregistered editor tends to be an editor who has "interesting" personal ideas and is not likely to change much. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - I have had problems with this editor at DRN and in Articles for Creation. They were a net negative at DRN. Their submissions to Articles for Creation have been tendentious. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - Unfortunately, I think that they need to be topic-banned from editing in project space. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment from Accused User - What about I try to learn more about Wikipedia? I will try to be more helpful. I plan to red more about Wikipedia policies. I also plan to learn more about templates. I also did not know that I did so much damage. I just started editing a month ago. And, about the space topic ban, that is mostly what I edit and I willy try to add more sources and make my editing more effective. I also plan to ask questions at the Teahouse and work with other editors. I closed the AFD discussion because everyone was saying keep. I also was trying to help with those help me requests. I removed the archiving because the bot was retired, but I didn't realize that the same code was being used with a replacement bot. I put semi-retired because the user said that he won't edit so much now. I tagged articles with current because they were documenting current events. And the unsourced additions and broken templates was when I was still learning how Wikipedia works. 64.121.103.144 (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

• 64.121, we get that you were trying to help.
  The problem is not your desire to help but that you seem to be finding new and interesting ways to make problematic mistakes.
  We want you to learn and we want to help you learn, but you need to meet us half-way. Part of that is going to be slowing down and thinking about things before you do them. Registering an account will also really help us to help you learn. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Beyond what's already mentioned, I'd like to also add the stuff with WikiProject Rocketry. For example, advertising in mainspace: [73] [74], mass pinging others to join the WikiProject ([75] [76] [77]) then being surprised/confused when it didn't work: [78]. Also, trying to resolve speedy deletions themselves, across many articles: [79] [80] [81] [82] [83]. On the other hand I do want to say that for example, putting the current event template on SLS is how I came to this, and when I asked them what was going on ([84]) they very quickly self-reverted their edit ([85]). To IP: You're being a bit reckless here, you should be more careful. The problem is the combination of inexperience and the confidence to just go for it. I would advise asking someone experienced before making edits that you've never done before nor seen others do before. For everything. For example, if you want to add the "current" template to the top of an article because you think it would apply, I suggest you instead ask someone (e.g. at the Teahouse) when to apply that template, and also if they agree that the template applies to the specific article you want to add it to. This will go over better than just adding it yourself. Then you can work with that in the future and apply it to articles without asking, if you're confident you understand the pattern of how it's used. Leijurv (talk) 00:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

  I think that User:Leijurv is understating the concern when they say to 64.121: "You're being a bit reckless here". I think that the unregistered editor is being seriously reckless, and is treating Wikipedia as their electronic playground, which is not what it is for. I said, above, about another editor, that I don't know whether they are a net negative. This editor is definitely a net negative. Having seen the ways listed here that they are making messes, I think that they need a different electronic playground. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I am going to try to follow suggestions, and try to be better. 64.121.103.144 (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate you for committing to learn and improve your editing. There's a few things we need to do in order to get you on-board as a member of the community, and I'll be more than happy to help you with that:

• First, let's get you registered with an account. You don't have to do this, but there are lots of benefits to using an account instead of editing as an IP address, and I encourage you to do this so that you can learn, grow, and do more things on Wikipedia as you demonstrate your ability to improve. Check out the link I provided, and let me know if you have any questions.
• Second, let's start you over from square one and let's get you re-trained and affiliated with Wikipedia and how it works. Since you're brand new to Wikipedia, I highly recommend that you go through Wikipedia's getting started page and that you complete Wikipedia's new user tutorial before you make any edits or take on any major tasks around here. It will provide you with many important walkthroughs, guides, interactive lessons, and other information that will familiarize you with our policies and guidelines, how Wikipedia works, how to navigate around the site, and how to find important locations and pages. Most users who take this advice and complete the tutorial tell me later that it was significantly helpful to them and saved them hours of time and frustration they would've experienced otherwise.
• Third, I'd avoid editing and contributing to internal Wikipedia process until you get proficient with those processes, how they work, and how you can help first. I agree that you're going much too fast; you're not reading through instructions and process guidelines before you participate in them. Let's stick to the basics first, and let's slow you down. You're enthusiastic; you almost remind me of myself when I was new on Wikipedia. I was going very fast with everything, and I made plenty of mistakes while doing so - much that could've been avoided had I simply slowed down.

I obviously can't keep an eye on you, as I have way too many other responsibilities and tasks to perform. However, if you have any questions or need any help, let me know. I'll be more than happy to lend you a hand and point you in the right direction. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: What about I learn more about Wikipedia? Maybe an administrator could keep an eye on my edits and let me know if I make a mistake? 64.121.103.144 (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

That's... That's kinda what we've been saying. We've been saying it would really help us to help you if you registered an account for that reason. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• Hello, I am 64.121.103.144 and I've made an account! What will happen now?64.121.103.144 (talk) 17:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Just from having made an account, I believe you get certain privileges, such as WP:AUTOCONFIRMED automatically in a few days. You should sign your messages with the new account User:StarshipSLS, instead of the old IP, if that's what you'll be using now. Leijurv (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I see that Starship has solicited a number of mentors under the Adopt-A-User program; 15 to be exact (I was one of them). Starship, happy to lurk your contributions history and provide feedback (not sure how much I can commit at this point), but you should know that Adopt-A-User mentors will not appreciate being bombarded en masse. Schierbecker (talk) 02:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Schierbecker I already am being adopted by 3 users. No, thank you, but thanks for the offer. Starship SLS (formerly IP 64.121.103.144) (talk) 16:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: I Adopt StarshipSLS

My proposal is to adopt StarshipSLS and keep an eye on his/her's edits. I am currently adopting FredModulars and willing to expand my helping expertise. I know enough about Wikipedia and how their guidelines work that enables me to help any other users that are currently in StarshipSLS' situation — meaning new and inexperienced. I will make sure that they are doing their work correctly and will help this user if they ask me and/or I see they are in trouble in some sort. I will now and then do a check-in with that user so I can see what they have learned and what they still need to improve upon. In my opinion, this is the best option to go forward with this matter. I will wait for replies and such until I make my final move — adopting StarshipSLS.

Side note: @StarshipSLS: Please make sure to read over Wikipedia's guidelines before making any further edits. I — and others — do not want you to be in this situation ever again. If you need any further assistance, feel free to {{ping}} me here or start a new section in my talk page. Thank you. Jack Reynolds (talk to me | email me) 12:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest that a more experienced editor (no offences Jack please...) is taking care of @StarshipSLS since he ran into several serious issues, I would be glad to adopt and mentor them. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@CommanderWaterford Hello, I've been already adopted by @JackReynoldsADogOwner but I would like to be adopted by you too. What do you say? Starship SLS (formerly IP 64.121.103.144) (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@CommanderWaterford: , no offence taken! I think it would be good if you, CommanderWaterford, adopt StarshipSLS so you can have an eye on him. Yes, I've come across incidents and I'm still learning. But, with StarshipSLS's situation, it would be good if we have multiple people looking after his contributions and such. You are the more knowledgeable one here, so I will do what you say. If you want me to unadopt StarshipSLS, then I will. Jack Reynolds (talk to me | email me) 16:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I want to be adopted by both of you, @CommanderWaterford and @JackReynoldsADogOwner. Starship SLS (formerly IP 64.121.103.144) (talk) 16:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@VersaceSpace also plans to adopt me. Starship SLS (formerly IP 64.121.103.144) (talk) 16:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@StarshipSLS I think it is sufficient if Jack and I will mentor you. You ran into several quite serious issues and I totally understand @Robert McClenon point of view. Others Editors had been blocked for this behaviour without ANI Thread here before and I would support this usually. That said I will mentor you, having a close eye on your contributions, giving you more info on your talk page. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

That's fine with me as well. versacespaceleave a message! 16:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

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

COVID: SYNTH, BLUDGEON and MEDRS (moved from AE)

Original AE statement

Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:General sanctions/COVID-19 Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it WP:MEDRS 18:09, 16 April 2021 - arguing based on "circumstantial evidence" (from a MEDPOP source about a Twitter group of, unsurprisingly, non-experts...) [combined with copious amounts of personal opinion and inferences] 07:09, 9 April 2021 - making a very prominent "Note to closer" (well after the discussion was stalled) based on unreliable and MEDPOP sources. 12:44, 24 April 2021 12:52, 24 April 2021 - proposing two long UNDUE sections to bring FALSEBALANCE about a FRINGE position, despite being told in the immediately preceding that even one sentence might be too much (on what is the main topic article); despite being suggested alternatives, and supposedly ignoring such objections. 15:14, 22 April 2021; - favouring MEDPOP sources (newspapers) over MEDRS (what is cited in WP:NOLABLEAK) - see also the subsequent explanations about this, including the clarification from Guy Macon WP:OR and WP:SYNTH 16:03, 19 April 2021 - attempting WP:SYNTH based on interpretations of twitter posts and MEDPOP sources (the other examples, particularly in the MEDRS section, also show plenty such SYNTH. WP:BLUDGEON and WP:IDHT 10:10, 17 April 2021 - making one long report, based entirely on the popular press, arguing mostly based on WP:SYNTH and even misinterpreting some statements which are in the sources they cite. 15:34, 24 April 2021 - after being warned about MEDRS, they repeat a comment based on substantially the same sources, which again argues pretty much the same things, and is based on WP:OR. Here, in addition, we see a clear attempt at WP:CANVASSING by selectively pinging a few editors sympathetic to their viewpoints. One long section at Talk:COVID-19_misinformation - re-arguing points raised in the previous RfC, despite being told that theirs was a misinterpretation and despite being repeatedly asked for MEDRS and providing none. 15:46, 19 April 2021 - claiming, despite the multiple MEDRS presented, that the WHO report is not scientific consensus ([[User:Novem_Linguae/Essays/There_was_no_lab_leak#Top_quality,_WP:MEDRS_sources|this section of the NOLABLEAK essay clearly shows that it is; and despite me making a long, researched comment quoting from multiple MEDRS just after this... 16:46, 19 April 2021 - ...they repeated a very similar comment just one hour later. 16:32, 22 April 2021 - This (with the two previous diffs) shows that, after being repeatedly warned about their misuse and misinterpretation of a specific statement, sticking to the same point (which they had already expressed a month prior, 02:15, 17 March 2021; here. If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) 06:50, 18 March 2021 Additional comments by editor filing complaint So, CutePeach has been here for about 1 month, supposedly here after they saw a post on Twitter, saying saw: "[a] conversation on Twitter and I am not impressed with your [Wikipedia's] brinkmanship on this topic". 08:19, 18 March 2021. Per their own admission, this kind of thing is still being off-wiki canvassed(16:22, 24 April 2021; It would be better understood in the context of this ANI [86], which was all over Twitter.). Edits such as one of their very first ones (08:09, 18 March 2021) also already show a knowledge of prior events (along with further accusations of brinkmanship, obfuscation and censorship) very suspicious for a new account, which shows again the extant of the off-wiki canvassing. Due to the fact the articles are ECP'ed (after previous socking and disruptive editing in the area, and under the GS allowed for COVID), most of their contributions which show evidence of a problem are concentrated on two talk pages: Talk:COVID-19 pandemic; and Talk:COVID-19 misinformation. So far, about a quarter of their total edits have been to these two pages. These have been solely to advocate for the plausibility of the "lab leak" hypothesis; and, apparently, attempts at discrediting the WHO and the whole of the scientific community (because they, unsurprisingly, show the same skepticism about unfounded and unsubstantiated hypotheses, despite their popularity in the popular press...) - going as far as adding a tendentious header about "disregarding the WHO" when the post below it makes exactly the point that we shouldn't disregard it and that even if we did, it would change strictly nothing about the MEDRS consensus. They have, unsurprisingly, been repeatedly appraised of our policies, including WP:UNDUE; WP:NOR; and, most importantly, WP:MEDRS. And yet, despite all of this, they have yet to cite a single such source, preferring the company of the popular press and of twitter posts... Given the repeated, persistent requests and warnings made to them about our content policies, and their failure to abide by them, their behaviour is nothing short of "perpetuating disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive". I'm heavily involved in this, but at some point editors which keep arguing the same FRINGE points are just disruptive time sinks, and they need to either accept the point and move on to something else (for ex., they've been repeatedly suggesting things which could go into Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 or COVID-19 misinformation by the United States, and yet their involvement in both of those pages is nearly non-existent), or be more formally topic banned from the area. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

The AE thread was closed (wrong venue?). So bringing this over here. The issues are as in the header: some editors are seemingly inclined on advocating for the hypothesis of a lab leak (despite statements from the WHO in their report deeming it "extremely unlikely" and multiple other reports in MEDRS such as Conspiracy theories about a possible accidental leak from either of these laboratories known to be experimenting with bats and bat CoVs that has shown some structural similarity to human SARS-CoV-2 has been suggested, but largely dismissed by most authorities. source: "SARS-CoV-2 and the pandemic of COVID-19". Postgraduate Medical Journal. 97 (1144): 110–116. doi:10.1136/postgradmedj-2020-138386 and Despite these massive online speculations, scientific evidence does not support this accusation of laboratory release theory. Yet, it is difficult and time‐consuming to rule out the laboratories as the original source completely. It is highly unlikely that SARS‐CoV‐2 was accidentally released from a laboratory since no direct ancestral virus is identified in the current database. source: "SARS-CoV-2, Covid-19, and the debunking of conspiracy theories". Reviews in Medical Virology: e2222. doi:10.1002/rmv.2222), based on WP:SYNTH from twitter comments and WP:MEDPOP sources. This has been going on for about a year and is again reaching levels of WP:BLUDGEON proportions; and despite multiple topic bans and blocks for socking (ScrupulousScribe) and off-wiki harassment (Billybostickson), the situation is not abating, and in fact there is distinct evidence off-wiki canvassing is still ongoing (see for example the admission of WP:MEAT at the SPI, here). I request the community consider a couple of things:

• What needs to be done in regards the enforcement of the general sanctions in the COVID area (can we make AE an acceptable venue for this?)
• Whether any additional clarification in regards to the applicability of WP:BESTSOURCES and WP:MEDRS in the COVID area are necessary
• Whether any sanctions are necessary (topic bans, ...)
• Whether this is still the wrong venue and we need to go to ArbCom

Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• Courtesy pings (in addition to the regular templates): @PaleoNeonate, Jtbobwaysf, JzG, Nsk92, ToBeFree, and CutePeach: RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I had topic-banned Billybostickson a while ago, and Empiricus-sextus recently, for their disruptive behavior in the COVID-19 area. It is extremely difficult to apply WP:GS/COVID19 sanctions for conduct in this area, as all discussions about conduct are mixed with endless content debates that are simply continued during noticeboard evaluations. The most recent example was the ANI discussion leading to Empiricus-sextus's ban. It is also extremely difficult to draw a line between repeated iteration of valid arguments and WP:IDHT behavior, especially when there are legitimate reasons for supporting one's argumentation with walls of text. The usual reaction from editors in RandomCanadian's position would be giving up to argue with IDHT editors; I have no idea how they manage to invest this amount of time into dealing with such cases. They're not without blame either, calling a discussion opponent "overly naive" (Special:Diff/1018401000) and describing their behavior as "trolling" (Special:Diff/1018404449). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll say the same thing here as at the other AN/I thread created by RC earlier this week, about the same subject, and spawned from the same talk page argument:

Over the course of the last several months, it seems like every few weeks another extremely verbose thread about the COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis has come to spew bile over a different noticeboard. Frankly, it's hard for me to understand how anyone can sustain caring about this for so long, in either direction; how extremely online can we get? But, moreover, it's hard for me to empathize with the argument that letting "Those Guys" have "Their Article" is inherently evil, or that "having an article about some stupid crap that was in the news" is going to somehow get people killed (note that we have articles about Strategery and planking). I've said this same thing at probably a dozen noticeboard discussions at this point -- it seems like a content dispute. This, to me, is evidenced by the fact that every noticeboard thread about it devolves into a prolonged argument about content. The fact of the "other side" being unreasonable is probably related to it being brought up dozens of times, to the point where any reasonable person would become exhausted and find something else to do.

I hope I can be forgiven for saying basically the same thing again, since this seems to be basically the same thread with basically the same content. jp×g 19:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

One major difference is that I do not think that Strategery or Planking have killed 500,000 Americans and millions around the world. Further, there is very real concern that the so-called "lab leak" hypothesis is primarily political in nature. But the biggest issue is that Wikipedia has some very firm rules about what we write about on medical topics, how we write about it, and what sources are allowed. In this regard, WikiProject Medicine is rather different than most Wikipedia topics. See WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS. Hyperion35 (talk) 20:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, you are right that they didn't kill 500,000 Americans. However, the term "strategery" was mostly used in reference to the foreign policy of George W. Bush, including starting a series of wars which our article cites as having been responsible for upwards of 800,000 deaths (not Americans though). This may seem like a pedantic point to make, but I don't think that a bunch of people dying should significantly change our general editorial standards (if they are bad, we should change them for all articles, and if they are good, then they should work fine even for serious topics). jp×g 20:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Look, my personal views on the GWB administration are both unprintable and irrelevant to this discussion. But as I said above, the most important aspect here is WP:MEDRS. However, I think that there is a valid public health aspect here as well, since disease transmission involves everyone in a way that a war does not. Hyperion35 (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• I think that a mix of topic-banning egregious offenders, and continuing to stress the importance of MEDRS in all COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 articles is probably the best path forward. Editors who flat out refuse to adhere to MEDRS and repeatedly attempt to insert non-MEDRS articles after being warned would be good candidates for TBans. Ultimately, however, this involves one of Wikipedia's weak spots, in that experts have limited time and low tolerance of added stress, while trolls, True Believers, cranks etc are very highly motivated and often have an abundance of free time. Additionally, experts may have very real fears of dealing with some of this stuff if it becomes high-drama, I certainly wouldn't want to become "Twitter famous" and have some unstable extremists trying to dox me or bring my agency into their sights, for example.

  But in the end, MEDRS is probably one of Wikipedia's true bright spots, it's an exceptionally well-written policy for sourcing medical information. Following MEDRS means that the "lab leak" hypotheses are barely more than speculation, "unlikely, but we can't rule it out" means "we can ignore this unless truly exceptional evidence shows up". Still, given how much effort I remember it took to keep Scientologist propaganda out of psychiatry articles back in the day, it won't be easy. Hyperion35 (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

JPxG, this article is the perfect storm of militant stupidity, anti-vax, racism and batshit insane conspiracism. It's being policed by a handful of diligent people who are approaching burnout. Cut them some slack, eh? Guy (help! - typo?) 21:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@Hyperion35: While I agree that persistent insistence on using non-MEDRS sourcing is a problem, I disagree with taking that so far as to say "we can ignore this". Coupled with WP:FRINGE, we have an authoritative source that says how unlikely the theory is, and it's up to us to determine if it can be placed into context on a given page that makes it WP:DUE. I've assisted in making multiple sticky edits to pages that I feel have placed this hypothesis both in proper context and with due weight. I invite you to review them and see if you concur that they meet policy, and if so to revise your above statement accordingly. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

It might be worth noting that, if you go to the talk page for COVID misinformation, you will see not one, but two talk page discussions that were non-admin closed by RC (an INVOLVED editor who was actively participating in those discussions), seemingly in the middle of a conversation, with borderline-WP:PA summary language like "This proposal was dead on arrival; no need to waste time further and entertain the newest SPA" and "Despite all the hot air from political quacks and Trump syncophants, this will not get anywhere closer to being accepted by mainstream MEDRS". Regardless of whether they are correct about the political issues, this strikes me as lacking in collegiality. jp×g 20:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• I was probably unnecessarily rude in these comments; but I note that in each case it was just repeated discussions of topics already raised and resolved otherwise on the talk page, sometimes in the immediately preceding section...; with the same issues about MEDRS and SYNTH as the previous discussions. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• I am not happy about being mentioned by name in an ANI case without being notified on my talk page. I only noticed this because "the other Guy" was notified. I would also note this: "...including the clarification from {{noping|Guy Macon}}". Not only was I not notified with the standard template, but RandomCanadian went out of their way to make sure I wasn't pinged. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

  That was copied from the original AE post (where I was not sure you would want to join in). Feel free to add you 2cents here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• As I've said before, we need to have an RFC on whether a disease's origins fall under Wikipedia:Biomedical information, and, if they do, clearly add it to the list on that page so there's no room for doubt. While I think the conspiracy theories are obviously WP:FRINGE, I have seen experienced editors stridently and unequovocially say both that it clearly does and clearly doesn't. It's going to come up again and again - we need to make sure the guidelines are completely clear. --Aquillion (talk) 22:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • What would be the proper forum for such an RfC; are you thinking that this is something to be held on the talk page of WP:MEDRS, or would there be a better venue? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I think the talk page of WP:MEDRS is fine - we might want to advertise it a bit broadly because it touches on something that is currently a big deal and which people will want to know about, but it's not actually a sweeping change or anything. --Aquillion (talk) 21:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

      I agree that the talkpage of MEDRS is fine. I also agree that this isn't going to be a sweeping change - because from my experience, dealing with dozens of experienced editors, is that the consensus is pretty clear among Wikipedia editors that MEDRS applies to epidemiological information that isn't purely historical (i.e. wouldn't apply to smallpox, for example) - but if it needs to be clearly added to the list then that's the right page to discuss it on. Maybe having it clearly added to the list would enable more GS enforcement against editors who are being clearly disruptive trying to claim it doesn't apply - or at a minimum it'd make it easier to say "here's a link to the guidance, consensus is that it applies" in response to people trying to claim over and over that it doesn't. I spent some time looking at this last night when I couldn't sleep and trying to think of whether a broader discussion over different pieces of information would be useful... but I think this is at least a good start. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

      I think it will be difficult to write a functional RFC question about that. Consider statements such as "Paul Politician claimed that that <condition> is caused by <something>" or "<Medical condition> was first described by Alice Expert in <country>". Would those require an ideal MEDRS source? Or only a statement that says "<condition> is caused by <something>" or "<condition> originated in <country>"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

  • While I agree that a more robust decision on the topic would be beneficial, I think the concern is a bit broader and more complex than just whether the origins are biomed. Common topics of conversation have included the boundary between the scientific, political, and conspiratorial; the category particular overlapping claims fit within; which COVID-19 articles require strict MEDRS throughout, which only for particular claims that are biomedical in nature; etc. I suppose we eat an elephant one bite at a time, but the level of disagreement is broad and deep. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
• Unfortunately (and unsurprisingly), {{FAQ}} isn't visible to mobile users, but might a FAQ section on the talk page help? See Talk:Moon landing conspiracy theories for an example. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 01:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

  I'm generally for FAQs as they help good faith editors. It's unlikely to stop propagandists, though. —PaleoNeonate – 04:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

  AFAIK there's no FAQ at any of the COVID pages under consideration (there's a current consensus section at the main pandemic article, but other than that nothing). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'd like to voice a brief concern that we ensure we don't drift too far into allowing POV to the contrary to drive sanctions and policy enforcement. I worry there's a tendency to drift dangerously close to WP:GAMING while arguing against certain edits, rather than aiming for WP:CONACHIEVE. I bring this up particularly because I have had good success with several of the named 'problem users' by being civil, referring to policy, and recognizing when they make a case for something they aren't able to put into policy terms to find that common ground to build off of. While there are truly disruptive users, I would like this to be a call to the other editors on the topic to take the time to truly improve the encyclopedia, even if it means being clearheaded and finding ways to accommodate or work with requests we don't personally agree with but which abide by policy when viewed through a neutral lens. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
• I disagree with Aquillion and Berchanhimez that the talk page of MEDRS is appropriate place to discuss "whether a disease's origins fall under Wikipedia:Biomedical information" or similar yes/no, problem solved, job done type of approach. The talk page of a guideline is for discussions about how to improve that guideline, and specific content disputes (plural) are only relevant in so far as they are relevant to modifying the guideline text. The Wikipedia:Biomedical information referred to, is an essay, and this issue has been discussed in January on that essay's talk page. It has also been been discussed at WT:MED, which is a more typical venue. I think WhatamIdoing had a good point on the essay talk page discussion: the origin of COVID, vs the origin of any other disease, is uniquely a source of conflict on Wikipedia. I've said before that I find when editors are determined to argue about whether nor not MEDRS applies, the problem they have can generally be examined by citing other guidelines and policy instead. Given the political nature of some hypotheses, it is likely some editors will remain determined regardless what guidelines say.

I don't think this is much different to aspects of global warming or the Armenian genocide, say. It is a controversy where politics mixes against experts of varying authority. I don't really see why it matters if those experts are medical, environmental or historians in terms of Wikipedia policy or guideline. I am opposed to trying to resolve this by RFC, especially one that tries to put X in or out of MEDRS, because it is clearly a multi-faceted topic. There is an IDHT behavioural problem fed by external politics, which will eventually diminish. -- Colin°^Talk 14:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Extended-confirmed protect Talk:COVID-19 misinformation indefinitely

It's not generally done, but I propose to make an exception and apply extended-confirmed protection, indefinitely, to Talk:COVID-19 misinformation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• I see a lot of people editing Talk:COVID-19 misinformation who should have taken at least a month and 500 edits to demonstrate an actual interest in building an encyclopedia instead of jumping into this dispute. The proposed measure would have prevented Billybostickson, Empiricus-sextus and CutePeach from editing the page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• I could see a case for going a step further and deleting the "COVID-19 Misinformation" article and merging what little material actually meets MEDRS, UNDUE, NPOV, etc into a single paragraph in the main COVID-19 article. This is why we have (rarely enforced) rules about content forking, because we already have too many "<Scientific Topic> Controversy" pages that seem to exist solely as a repository for rejected hypotheses and conspiracy theories that would never be allowed on the main page. Hyperion35 (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

  There's plenty of content on COVID-19 misinformation; and it is a notable topic. It just so happens to be a Twitter-canvassing magnet and well I must concede arguing MEDRS and UNDUE time and time again to every new account that pops up because of these off-wiki shenanigans is getting more and more irritating. Deleting the article (and I don't think that's quite necessary or helpful: despite it being a disruption magnet, there is plenty of verifiable content about misinformation which couldn't possibly be included in the main article due to WP:UNDUE and WP:SUMMARY concerns) would just move all of this to other talk pages (Talk:COVID-19 pandemic; ...) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

  Yes it's notable enough for official sites to have released reports and educational material about it, —PaleoNeonate – 04:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose: It's already not possible to edit the article unless you're ECP, so it's not obvious how a bunch of people being silly on the talk page would actually affect content. Meanwhile, it seems like a pretty dramatic restriction to make, for not much benefit, and with quite a few drawbacks: primarily, people who complain that their criticism is being suppressed will gain a lot of credibility if their criticism is actually being suppressed. jp×g 20:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I would think it makes more sense, not less. After all, someone who cannot edit the article is unlikely to comtribute to the talk page. Additionally, having people repeatedly ignoring MEDRS to advocate for adding non-MEDRS material that doesn't belong in the article becomes disruptive and makes it more difficult to use the talk page as it is intended. Hyperion35 (talk) 21:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
    • The problem is that there's a problem, but no solution, or at least no elegant one. How are we to solve the issue of new Twitter-canvassed editors trying to push their POV with poor, non MEDRS sources? Or are we better off just ignoring them - which seems even more condescending and suppressive to me than the proposal. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support for up to one year - yes it's an unusual step but it can be very helpful for the super-unstable articles. My only caveat is it shouldn't be indefinite. Levivich ^harass/_hound 21:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support, to prevent time-sinks like this. Let people learn their craft in less contentious articles. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Worth a try. The lab leak articles have been dealing with bludgeoners and sealions for months, usually new users, some of whom have been recruited by an off-wiki Twitter campaign. These folks do not follow wiki-etiquette. They do not read the room and they do not reduce their intensity when they sense there is a consensus against them. They just keep posting full steam ahead. It's a big timesink. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Guy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
• Unsure Weak support, regretfully. I am sure that someone's going to be confused as to why I'm not one of the most adamant supporters of this proposal, but there have been anonymous or non-extended editors on the COVID misinformation talk page who haven't been disruptive. Even those that originally come to discuss the "lab leak" tend to get the memo when it's pointed out to them - and sometimes good edits get made based on those discussions. As I've said for the time I've been watching the page, I think the problem primarily stems from two things: the lack of clarity on the subject of this article (versus the origin investigation article), and the long time it takes to get COVID-19 GS applied to disruptive editors. The lack of clarity is something I'd love to address, but when it takes time to continue responding to this disruption it's hard to have discussions about improving the article(s) to be more clear that the misinformation article is solely about the misinformation surrounding the "lab leak" and not about the investigation into the lab leak - which should be covered in depth (the history of the investigation) at Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 - while the theory that it leaked from a lab is a fringe theory at this point, it may turn out that it wasn't always one and that article would be where to cover it. All in all, and back to the conduct part of it, I think this is a harsh solution that would only move the problem of the WP:IDHT and WP:Bludgeoning to other talk pages - there's probably a dozen pages where the "lab leak" could fit in - be it as a legitimate part of the content, as a notable fringe theory that should at least be mentioned (as one), or discussing those who've proposed/advocated for that hypothesis - and all of them are going to be vulnerable to the same disruption if this one page is blocked for them. I think it may be a good idea to flesh out a "lab leak explanation" to be pinned to the top of the talk page or included in an edit notice for the talk page (or both), and to allow as a general sanction the removal of any talk page post that is not in line with improving the article. Alternatively (or preferably in addition), it'd help if there were some admins who watched the pages and more quickly impose lighter general sanctions so we don't need to get to the point of ANI. When IDHT or bludgeoning is observed, if within a day or two (and after one or two warnings) an admin imposes a sanction against discussing the "lab leak" only on editors, but not the rest of COVID, it may solve the problem without something this harsh. I'm just not sure this is necessary quite yet, nor that it will be the best solution. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • After seeing ProcrastinatingReader's explanation of what would potentially be doable if disruption spreads, and under the perhaps optimistic assumption that this has given me that this is being looked at and watched by many more editors now, I support ECP for this talkpage with the understanding that perhaps a topic prohibition may be necessary in the future. I didn't want it to get here but I can't see anything else that's going to make it to where myself and others can stop spending massive amounts of time and effort trying to fight off-wiki canvassing of new editors here to push a POV. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose ECP, support one-year semi-protection. I don't think that an indefinite protection of the talk makes sense, though I certainly understand the reasons for protecting the page for a good period of time. If our concern is new, twitter-canvassed editors, then ECP isn't required to weed them out; semi-protection would likely serve as enough of a barrier to do so. These sorts of protections should be narrowly-tailored towards the end of prevention. I have some concerns regarding the potential for future RfCs on the page to not truly reflect community consensus if we exclude (auto-)confirmed editors; the most recent RfC relating to the lab-leak hypothesis had substantial positive contributions from editors that did not have extended-confirmed permissions. It should also be noted that there's currently no consensus on whether the lab-leak hypothesis is a conspiracy theory or if it is a minority, but scientific viewpoint. I would caution against putting specific sanctions on the page against discussing the lab-leak hypothesis, in light of the lack of a current consensus on the issue. In particular, if an RfC is hosted on the article's talk page, I would have strong issues with excluding autoconfirmed and confirmed users from such future discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support - For 3 months or more, —PaleoNeonate – 04:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support with regular "sunset clauses". I don't edit these pages often though I once did so see them on my watchlist. They're always magnets for dubious and determined editors who sail close to the wind. Let's do something about their sails. doktorb _words^deeds 05:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Guy. --Jorm (talk) 05:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose This discussion is not above the misinformation article, it was about a different article. What is being proposed here? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, this isn't the only talk page edited by CutePeach, and if CutePeach's behavior was the only issue, a ban would be the solution. However, this is one of many threads about disruption that significantly involved Talk:COVID-19 misinformation. That talk page is a central honeypot for conspiracy theorists and IDHT behavior. Contrary to COVID-19 pandemic, the article COVID-19 misinformation is dedicated towards misinformation, and this a) causes an imbalance of many POV-pushing editors against a minority of those who uphold policies, and b) makes it much harder to argue for proper weighting and reliable sourcing. People read about the discussion on Twitter and use this specific page to jump into using Wikipedia for pushing their theories. I'd like to prevent this from happening again and again every week, leading to repetitive ANI threads and individual topic bans after long discussions, exhausting the patience of the larger community. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support (with regular "until it is no longer necessary" limitation), after taking some time to think this through. I'm not sure SP would be enough against what appear to be highly motivated editors. It might, per MH10, cause some amount of collateral damage: so, what is the cost/benefit of this? Judging from the vast majority of edits to that talk page, the cost would be minimal, and the benefit would be a much higher barrier to the off-wiki canvassing, which is a perpetual timesink, and is causing more disruption than a few genuine new editors not being able to participate (per Guy, better if they learn their craft in easier areas). Concerned that this might only move the disruption to other pages, but if that happens, we'll have precedent here. Agree with @Hyperion35: that better and less reluctant enforcement of the general sanctions (already authorised by the community, and which explicitly include mentions about MEDRS and other issues) would be a good way to proceed, but seeing that few admins are willing to get involved in this area, this seems a reasonable step. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support Time is a valuable resource, and too much has been wasted already. I think RandomCanadian's take on the cost-benefit balance more or less agrees with my own, and I also agree that semi-protection isn't likely to be stringent enough. (non-admin comment) XOR'easter (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support too much of a timesink and a drain on fleeting volunteer resources. Must be pragmatic here. If this remedy doesn't improve the issue, or it spreads to other talk pages, an ARBPIA-like general sanction limiting discussion on the origins of COVID to ECP editors may be a next step. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

  This argument to me is acceptable, even if I'm sad to see that it might be necessary. I'd rather not see an entire topic blocked for all new/anonymous editors if it can be avoided, but this would actually help in seeing whether the disruption spreads or if it's miraculously confined to this one article, and then can go from there. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support, if this works well it would be another tool in the belt for managing close to unmanageable major ongoing current events pages. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support. The Talk pages of these articles have been massive timesinks practically since the actual origin of the virus. JoelleJay (talk) 01:33, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose indefinite Other than some templates nothing on Wikipedia should be protected indefinitely, and I know that it does not mean infinite. A finite period should be used. One year and it can be revisited after that. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose There was a high volume of controversy on the talk page, but I disagree on calling it disruptive and umproductive and calling the pro lab leak side a lost cause proved wrong. A fair assesment, in my opinion, was that most of the volume in edits responded to genuine dynamics of discussion on the internet and popular media about the virus origin. Once the final report came out, things stabilized quickly. If people still come to the talk page to edit responds in part to a genuine dissatisfaction with the general representation of the information portrayed in the entry, not solely to wiki-canvassing. Defensive measures should include allowing plurality of opinions and editors to raise their voice, otherwise it will set a precedent for ugly behavior when the same problem arises in other areas and the power is in wrong hands.Forich (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Dilemma for closing admin

According to Alexbrn, Wikipedians disagreeing with his POV on the COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis and his interpretation of WP:PAGs on the topic are "miscreants" who should be dragged to WP:AIN and sanctioned by the "uninvolved community" [87]. Except that the majority of editors here voting to protect the page also voted in a recent RFC to label the lab leak hypothesis a "conspiracy theory", and did not change their vote even after the March 30 report from the WHO confirming it as a plausible hypothesis [88]. So much for Jimbo’s "open community" here. Tinybubi (talk) 08:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't really have a POV on this stuff, other than it's a bleeding nuisance taking up too much time (which is why I've largely ignored these pages in recent weeks). Wikipedia is not decided by "a majority" who "vote". And yes, we've had plenty of miscreants: puppets, attack dogs, trolls and WP:PROFRINGE obsessives, who have needed to be blocked or banned. What's doubly incredible is that the article does not even just say that the lab leak stuff is "conspiracy theory": it's more nuanced than that. Not paying attention to evidence is a hallmark of the advocates' approach here. Note that Tinybubi is another WP:SPA banging this particular drum. Alexbrn (talk) 08:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Just saying, Jimbo hasn't really been relevant on Wikipedia for years. And the few times he does step into a debate, he makes things worse. So an appeal to Jimbo isn't going to mean much. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the RFC you reference happened specifically in the talk for COVID-19 misinformation, and there's a reasonable argument to be made that the answers given on that page might differ significantly in the context of other pages. Most notably, both Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 discuss the topic as a WP:FRINGE alternative theoretical formulation as is appropriate for the context. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Ignoring the drum banging, "extremely unlikely" (what the WHO report says) does not sound like "plausible" theory" to me. That, in addition to the other MEDRS cited and ignored ad nauseum... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this perspective, as I've mentioned previously. This seems to clearly fit the WP:FRINGE definition of an 'alternative theoretical formulation', not pseudoscience. I'd go so far as to suggest that interpreting a WHO study into the hypothesis makes the hypothesis 'implausible' could be interpreted as a similar level of POV-pushing as the interpretation that the investigation into the lab leak hypothesis was uniquely flawed. Complete dismissal as implausible doesn't seem to match the guidelines in FRINGE, and would potentially prove Tinybubi right if there were content decisions being made on POV rather than policy. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The lab leak story is not pseudoscience. Pseudoscience pretends to be science but isn't science at all. This story could be bad science. It could be wrong, just like many other ideas in science that were duly investigated and dutifully discarded when the ugly facts didn't align with the beautiful theory (see, e.g., most experimental drugs, the use of bone marrow transplants to treat breast cancer, arthroscopic knee surgery for arthritis, etc.). It currently is "extremely unlikely" to have actually happened that way, and there is significant evidence that it did not happen that way, but saying that it was possible for a virus to escape from a lab that contained that virus is not technically pseudoscience.

[NOTE: There is no evidence that any lab, much less the specific one usually named in this story, actually contained any copy of SARS-CoV-2 before the outbreak started. I'm only saying that it's not pseudoscience to say that that it's physically possible for any given portable object, "A", to be ported from one place, "B", to a different place, "C".] WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Jefferson Starship content disputes

Some time back, I attempted to settle a dispute on the Dispute resolution board between AbleGus (talk · contribs) and Cheryl Fullerton (talk · contribs) over Jefferson Starship. To cut a long story short, the two editors just don't seem to able to agree on anything, and the article's talk page is full of lengthy disagreements. I rewrote the lead based on a compromise between the two parties, and I've tried to explain the issues as best as I can both on the article's talk page and my own, but I keep getting dragged into the conversation both on and off-wiki, and I don't think I'm the only one. I really feel I have given all that I can to settling this dispute, and I think somebody else needs to look at it. I'm loathe to come down like a ton of bricks and suggest bans on two relatively inexperienced editors, but I think they need to hear from somebody else that less is more and the excessive verbiage on the talk page is now putting people off. Your thoughts, please. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

(skimming) For two editors who seem to disagree so much, at least they seem to be focusing on content (for the most part)? If so, that seems to be promising. A voluntary word count limit per series of responses, strictly enforced by a mediator trimming excess text, might be a decent idea. I think when one ends up with a wall of text it's often because they don't proofread/spend time eliminating redundant points/go OTT to hammer their point home (speaking from experience). It seems like they need to split their disagreements up into chunks and work on those. If they can lower the verbosity, involvement from a relevant WikiProject might be viable. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Posted a request. I'm not actually sure either @AbleGus or @Cheryl Fullerton will understand the reasoning, but if they continue to post walls of text I think it's totally reasonable for anyone at that talk to just treat their posts as a refusal to discuss. —valereee (talk) 21:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• I haven't viewed all the details, and just going on Ritchie's summary of the situation (which I trust), it would seem that some kind of highly targeted sanction is worth trying, to both equally. Either 1RR on that article, or just block both of them from editing that one article, for say 60 to 90 days. That would seem to create an incentive to get along once they get to edit it again, and they get some experience editing other things between now and then. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

The C of E and Dial Square

'Dial Square' is the original name of Arsenal F.C.; some fans of the club have founded a new breakaway club under that name. We have an article on that new club, currently located at Dial Square Football Club, created on 19 April. The C of E (talk · contribs) created a separate article at Dial Square F.C. on 20 April 2021, overwriting the pre-existing redirect to the Arsenal article. I restored the redirect on the basis that an article on the topic already existed. The C of E has repeatedly restored 'their' article at Dial Square F.C. (including again today, after I told them that if they did I would come to ANI), refused to engage with me on the topic until I threatened ANI (see my talk page posts here which were ignored), and redirected the existing article to 'their' version, despite the existing article being under discussion at AFD (NB - I !voted 'delete' at the AFD before The C of E created 'their' version, and also created the original redirect).

My concerns about The C of E'd discussion? OWNership, edit warring, refusing to discuss, refusing to follow what I believe to be the correct process (rename via RM, and improve, the existing article, rather than creating two versions of the same topic). Bringing it here for wider consideration. GiantSnowman 10:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• Unless I'm missing something (which is always possible) I can't see why the newer article doesn't simply qualify for WP:CSD#A10. Black Kite (talk) 12:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Although, to be honest, the duplicate article is better, so it might be best to history merge them first. Black Kite (talk) 12:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I explained I did not know about the previous article because it was not following the standard MOS for FOOTY club articles. I invited Snowman to talk on the page about it and I did as he suggested in merging the articles, which he then undid. The reason I did not put the content of the article I created in there was because the AFD was already in full swing and since it is due to be closed today (with delete being the fairly obvious outcome), I feel it would be more prudent and COMMONSENSE to wait until that is done because then it becomes a moot point (there is only 1 day in it and the original is very WP:PROMO and I don't think there is much to salvage by merging histories). Also I do feel that comment to bring me here from Snowman was a little unfair because he made it while I restored it (so I did not see it by the time I had done) and invited him to chat on the talk page. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I think you're going to struggle to illustrate the notability of any club that plays in the Guildford and Woking Alliance League Division 1 North regardless of how good the article is. I'm pretty sure they're not getting the publicity that FCU Manchester or AFC Wimbledon did when they were formed. Black Kite (talk) 13:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
      • The C of E - you only started talking about this matter after I threatened ANI and restored your preferred version regardless. I have already suggested how you deal with the AFD issue (improve the existing article; ping all participants who have !voted; and leave a message for any reviewing admin) and you...ignored me. GiantSnowman 15:19, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
        • Not quite, I suggested we talk as you were writing the ANI threat. I clicked revert to follow WP:BRD probably around the same time that you had written the note. As I explained, I did not see that comment before I restored it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
          • You fundamentally misunderstand how BRD operates. You created the article by overwriting an established redirect (B), I reverted (R) and then posted o your talk page (D). You should have replied and discussed further - instead you reverted a further two times and also failed to respond to my subsequent talk page posts. GiantSnowman 15:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
            • I responded in the comments. You made the revert, I restored it stating the MOS and that I wasn't aware of a previous article. You reverted suggesting a merge, I restored and agreed and did the merge. You seemed to have accepted it as you left it for 2 days before coming back with the revert, which I restored to bring in the discussion. So, no I did not ignore you. Please, I don't want this to get heated. I do think it is best if we wait for the AFD to run its course, and move from there. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
              • So now you recognise that my initial action was the R of BRD, and yet you continued to revert? Why? Edit summaries are not a substitute for talk page discussion - so why did you fail to respond there? Why didn't you follow the advice of improving the existing article rather than trying to replace it at a different location? As Black Kite says you are lucky that your article wasn't speedied... GiantSnowman 15:38, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
                • I already explained on the talk page, the reason why I didn't was because the other one was already under AFD and there was already a series of clear delete !votes. I felt that that one had already been tainted and condemned by the sheer weight of the delete !votes without a single keep one. So even if I did transfer it over, the closing admin would overlook the vast improvements that had been made. If a fresh one is needed then maybe. But I think at the stage we are currently at, it seems more suitable to let that one be closed and AFD take its course and then we can move on to the next step from there. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
                  • The fact you have made ZERO attempt to comment at the AFD is damning. "Oh well it was going to be deleted anyway, nothing I could do to stop that" is, I am sorry to say, absolute nonsense, as is the "tainted" comment. GiantSnowman 17:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
                    • I didn't comment because I didn't see the point. One "keep", "merge" or "Wait, let's redo this" wasn't going to make a difference and often would have been ignored based on my experience. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
• If/when the original article is deleted, the newer one should be immediately draftified, as it would be completely illogical to delete an article when there are two articles on the same subject, yet retain the other one in mainspace. The quality of the article is irrelevant, it's the notability of the subject that is relevant to AfD. Black Kite (talk) 18:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Agreed. GiantSnowman 18:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • It has been deleted. A rewrite in place, with a note about the rewrite in the discussion, and a re-listing for people to change their minds, would have caused less kerfuffle than this. It happens regularly without such incident. Uncle G (talk) 08:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
    • @Black Kite and Uncle G: something I suggested to The C of E multiple times, but they ignored me. Please can you move the mainspace article to draft? I don't want to be seen to be involved. GiantSnowman 17:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
      • You suggested merging, something I did to the correct title for the article. The point is fairly moot and WP:STALE now the AFD has concluded. It was an unfortunate clash of opinions here and I hope we can respectfully move on from it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Stop lying. I'm sorry but that's the only way I can describe it. I clearly suggested to you that "Improve the existing article; ping all participants at the AFD to reconsider (including me); and I'll leave a note for the reviewing admin to consider re-listing the AFD given the improvements". You did not even try. GiantSnowman 17:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh and I think there should be a HISTMERGE with the deleted article. GiantSnowman 17:24, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Was this not a suggestion to merge the two? I apologise if I did misinterpret your wishes. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:25, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

No. That was clearly a request to improve the existing article, and then seek to move the existing article to a different location. You did not no that, nor did you merge the article. In effect what you have done is a form of C&P move here. Ludicrous. Own up to your mistakes. GiantSnowman 17:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Look what happens when you improve an article listed at AFD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nurul Amin (athlete) - people change their mind and its gets kept! None of this "tainted" nonsense. GiantSnowman 11:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• Can this be closed? It looks resolved, with trouting of the C of E. It feels like they’re being pummelled. Uncomfortable. DeCausa (talk) 11:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • They have yet to acknowledge their poor conduct, and the Dial Square F.C. article remains, despite the 'sister' article having been deleted at AFD...but I am happy for this to be closed and us all to move on subject to the Dial Square F.C. article being draftified/deleted per @Black Kite and Uncle G:'s suggestions. If nobody does that I'll sort it myself, on the basis that nobody has concerns re:INVOLVED with me doing such actions. GiantSnowman 08:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Indiscriminate removal of deprecated sources

I believe that David Gerard's indiscriminate removal of deprecated sources constitutes disruptive editing. The WP:DEPRECATED guideline says "[c]itations to deprecated sources should not be removed indiscriminately, and each case should be reviewed separately." When a user does 4-5 such edits per minute is it obvious that it's indiscriminate removal.

The first example is here. The information was removed wholesale. It took me about a minute to find the same information in the Guardian. I've notified the editor about this.

Here's the second example. Even assuming that Russia Today is not reliable for the official position of Russian government, it's not that hard to find Medvedev's words elsewhere or simply put or tag.

I should probably add in general I agree that the less Russia Today is used the better for Wikipedia (with some rare exceptions) and have removed links to it and to other unreliable sources myself. Alaexis_¿question? 17:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

If it's so easy to replace the information in the rare cases where it can be replaced, what's the problem? (Also, WP:DEPRECATED isn't even a guideline.) WP:RSP notes, Many editors describe RT as a mouthpiece of the Russian government that engages in propaganda and disinformation. I'd say that the work of careful review has already been done; in any given case of an RT citation, the burden lies on the side of showing that it should be included. XOR'easter (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

XOR I think it's more the speed that it's done at as well as the fact a huge chunk of information is sometimes removed.I don't see why it has to be done almost instantly and why it cannot be tagged-- 5 albert square (talk) 18:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Because we've had hundreds or thousands of citations to a state propaganda organization polluting our encyclopedia? The presumption has to be that (a) the citation needs to go, and (b) any material supported by it is unreliable. (Even in the rare cases where one might guess them to be factually accurate — say, quoting the words of a state official — if all we have is a propaganda outlet, then we have no grounds to include that quotation. NPOV means basing inclusion on representation in reliable sources.) We need more and faster removals of RT, not the opposite. XOR'easter (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Deprecated does not equal "banned" and perhaps the only source that has any type of outright ban on use from the community is Daily Mail with relation to BLP. Deprecated sources should be removed but with care not to disrupt the encyclopedia, and the presumption that material presented only sourced to deprecated sources is tainted and thus must also be removed is a bad fallacy (as proven by OP post). --Masem (t) 19:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

An example where the material could be restored with a better source doesn't prove that material from an absolutely unreliable source should be kept by default. In the first cited example, not all of the removed content was restored. And in the second, a Google News search for Medvedev's quote ("We are categorically against drawing parallels between the Balkan events and the events in the Caucasus") finds no hits, while a DDG search returns only Russia Today and Wikipedia mirrors. So, we have no WP:RS indicating that the exact quote is worthy of inclusion. The disruption to the encyclopedia was the inclusion of propaganda as "sources" in the first place, not its removal. XOR'easter (talk) 19:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

A similar discussion was held at WP:RS/N and I don't think we ever got a definitive answer about the immediate removal of deprecated sources from articles that aren't BLPs. I think it would be better if the sources were marked with like Alaexis suggests, giving editors the chance to find and replace the source. I found David Gerard's removal of the information attributed to a deprecated source more disruptive than just the removal of the source. There are now articles out there with gaps and paragraphs that no longer make sense. I think I'd prefer a tag added instead of that situation. Least if a source cannot be found, the information can be removed by someone who is familiar with the topic and can rewrite the article around it. - JuneGloom07 Talk 19:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I was looking just now for examples to discuss specifics, and it appears that David Gerard has taken to replacing RT citations with {{citation needed}} rather than removing the associated text in cases where the article flow would be significantly broken [89][90][91][92]. XOR'easter (talk) 19:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I should say "has been", rather than "has taken to", since he didn't just start today [93][94][95][96]. Also for Sputnik, e.g., [97]. XOR'easter (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

At least as I see it the answer we got was that both removing the sourced information plus the text, just replacing the citation with a Cn tag, and doing an in-depth search to try and source at least part of the text where appropriate and up to editorial discretion but that in BLP circumstances there simply is no option and both *must* be removed or properly sourced (admittedly that is kind of a non-answer). I think we should be willing to accept whatever level of work an editor is willing to do that improves the encyclopedia, removing deprecated sources almost always improves wikipedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

See the WP:V policy, specifically WP:BURDEN: Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. ... When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source and the material therefore may not be verifiable. + Some editors object to others' making chronic, frequent, and large-scale deletions of unsourced information, especially if unaccompanied by other efforts to improve the material. Also check to see whether the material is sourced to a citation elsewhere on the page. A lot of these articles don't have lots of watchers and are only infrequently materially changed. Content removed may be lost for a long time or permanently. Indiscriminate mass removal of unreliable sources without spending at least 1 min to Google or check nearby sources in the article probably isn't in line with policy. If that is usually done but these were irregular omissions then that's a different thing. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd say that the articles not having lots of watchers and being only infrequently materially changed is part of the problem. If they're wallowing in obscurity, then replacing bad citations with {{cn}} tags isn't going to help very much: the content drawn from those bad citations will just sit there, being propagandistic, without anyone coming along to fix it. If more dramatic removals are what it takes to get the pages fixed, then so much the better for dramatic removals. Moreover, we're not just dealing with material that lacks an inline citation to a reliable source; we're facing material based on a manifestly unreliable source. The cost-benefit calculus of removal is different when the source is actively misleading. XOR'easter (talk) 20:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

One can go a step further than just tagging by just Googling the fact and seeing if a source pops up, then replacing with a different cite. It takes about a minute for many facts. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

The issue is that, even if sourcing a claim takes "about a minute" (which I consider to be an extremely short estimate), he is removing them far quicker than that. For example, on April 26 we see a whole four diffs in the space of less than one minute. This isn't something that one person can realistically deal with. jp×g 20:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

None of those damaged the articles in question by making their prose disjointed (and the fourth was a swap-with-{{cn}} edit). Also, there are something like 1,500 RT citations yet remaining. That is a problem that no one person can realistically deal with. (At a minute a pop, it would still be 25 hours of work.) Making a dent by cutting redundant citations, removing lengthy quotes from state officials, excising RT from "External links", and swapping out the occasional maybe-salvagable entry with a {{cn}} is a good way to start. And in all that I've seen reading back through Special:Contributions/David_Gerard so far, that pretty much characterizes them. What, exactly, has been broken here? Because I'm not seeing it yet. XOR'easter (talk) 20:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• Wikipedia content is supposed to have a reliable source. In my (not inconsiderable) experience, people will demand, with equal coinfidence, that deprecated sources may not be removed until the person removing has found another source (wrong: it's the job of the person including content to source it reliably), that the source should be removed and replaced with {{cn}} (wrong: only the most uncontroversial information may be left unsourced), and that the content must be removed entirely. David has a long history of being anything but indiscriminate in how he handles this choice. Also: RT is 100% unreliable. It's Russian state media and as trustworthy as Pravda ever was. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I recall having read in a page history a dispute between David Gerard and an FA writer over whether it was acceptable to use the Daily Mail to cite "the Daily Mail said this". After a bit of poking, I found it here. For BLPs, I'm inclined to go "yeah, mass-removing is at worst a bit quick and at best necessary", but I can't see that action as being anything but indiscriminate. Vaticidalprophet 20:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC) Screw this, this is exactly the wrong time for me to get into conversations on ANI. Please no one ping me here for, like, a month. Vaticidalprophet 21:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Vaticidalprophet, "$UnreliableSource X said Y, source, $UnreliableSource X saying Y" is exactly the kind of shit we should be removing. Reliable, independent, secondary. It's a trifecta, not a "pick one". Guy (help! - typo?) 21:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

On top of that, the claim in question was BLP material, even though the article was about a painting. The first line of WP:BLP says that it applies to any Wikipedia page. XOR'easter (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I remember the example at Talk:Hugh_Walpole#Removal_of_deprecated_source and history popping up on my watchlist some months ago wrt MoS, I'm not even sure that removal was in line with policy (specifically WP:RSEDITORIAL, if not WP:EW). Other edits remove historical usages of the source or sourcing uncontroversial facts, both explicitly permitted by the RfCs, eg Some editors suggested that the previous RfC needed to be overturned because there were non-controversial facts which were reported in the Daily Mail and nowhere else. We note that the use of the Daily Mail as a source in such instances, in addition to being allowed explicitly by the previous RfC, would be covered by WP:IAR in any case. It's hard to say this is anything but indiscriminate and IMO DG's interpretation of policy/consensus is broader than the actual consensus. This is not necessarily an issue, or at least not necessarily a remediable one, but I think it wouldn't hurt to at least make a token effort to find another source when making removals, even if it slows down DG's rate slightly. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• Although the majority of edits to remove deprecated sources by this editor are valid, a substantial minority are disruptive and remove pertinent information where a reliable source could be found easily. This results in a substantial amount of damage to the project, which outweighs the benefits of cleaning up the sources in my opinion. This is a long-standing problem (and not the only area of controversy this edit is embroiled in) and furthermore any attempt to challenge these bad edits results in hostile and uncalled for responses by this editor (and a number of allied editors). I feel that sanctions are required. Shritwod (talk) 21:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

In my experience, the fans of deprecated sources consider any removal "indiscriminate", and often treat their favoured deprecated source as somehow worthy of greater consideration than merely bad sources that anyone would remove on sight. They will go to tremendous lengths to find excuses why bad sources are good, actually.

The appropriate policy is WP:V, which explicitly refers to the strong guideline WP:RS as the way to proceed.

WP:RS says: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources.

WP:RS is a guideline, but it's included by explicit reference in the first sentence of WP:V, which is policy: On Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. The words "reliable source" link further down the page to #What_counts_as_a_reliable_source, which is headed with Further information: Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

Verifiability - which is policy - requires the use of reliable sources. Deprecated sources are those that have been found, by strong consensus, to be generally unreliable. Sputnik and RT are deprecated sources. This means they have been found, by broad general consensus, to be all but unusable on Wikipedia.

The deprecation RFC for Sputnik says: Sputnik is an unreliable source that publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail. A significant proportion of editors describe Sputnik as a propaganda outlet for the Russian government. The deprecation RFC for RT says: There is general consensus that RT is an unreliable source for Wikipedia content, and that it publishes false or fabricated information and should be deprecated along the lines of the Daily Mail.

The referenced 2017 deprecation RFC for the Daily Mail says that it is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles.

(Note that a lot of the arguments above are the same arguments that Daily Mail and Sun partisans use, including Daily Mail partisans who are still unwilling to accept two broad general RFCs deprecating the Daily Mail.)

WP:BURDEN - which is policy - states: Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.

As such, removing links to Sputnik and RT is almost always the correct thing to do, as it is a source that has been found generally unreliable. It is not mandatory - but it is almost always correct.

WP:BURDEN - which is policy - also states: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. So the burden of proof for addition or restoration of deprecated sources is entirely on the person doing so, and not on the person removing the deprecated sources.

So if you want material from these sources - which have been found, by a broad general RFC consensus, to be fabricated propaganda sources - then the onus is surely, by policy, 100% on you to find an RS to keep the material in. If you think I have this wrong, please explain why I have the policy above incorrect - David Gerard (talk) 21:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I would also like to hear from the people who don't want me to remove their favourite deprecated sources, detailing what they're doing about our backlog of deprecated sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 21:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Please stop acting like a stuck record and address the issues. Shritwod (talk) 21:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I literally just did, thanks. But I look forward to why you think my understanding of policy is incorrect - David Gerard (talk) 21:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

You are using your personal interpretation of policies to justify lazy editing. Yes, these are not reliable sources but in many cases reliable sources exist. You just don't bother to find them. That is vandalism in my opinion, and your continued refusal to alter your behaviour should be sanctioned. Shritwod (talk) 21:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

According to the relevant policy, On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge. Moreover, Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. There is no way that DG's actions qualify as vandalism. XOR'easter (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• Removing improperly sourced material is a legitimate maintenance task. You might wish that the person doing so find a source, but they are not obligated to do so and "lazy editing" is not something any admin is going to sanction for. Your opinion that it is vandalism is not in alignment with well-established site policies. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

break

The close doesn't make sense. It's not even the thread OP who used the "vandalism" word, it was another uninvolved editor commenting, and they probably meant "disruptive editing". The section was closed within 4 hours based on semantics, really? This seems to be a valid concern, with several admins and editors listed at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations (ie presumably they understand sourcing policy) disagreeing with DG's interpretation of policy/RfC over the past year in the linked discussions, and the issue has had at least one run at ANI before. Whatever happened to "it's why admins invite users who have disagreements with them to raise the issues at AN" ? (incidentally, above we have a non-admin editor being crucified for 'lazy AfDing')

Obviously DG shouldn't be sanctioned for removing unreliable sources, which is thankless work. But it isn't unreasonable to request at least a token effort be made to find other sources[98] (has journal sources with a 10sec Google search) or at least not remove statements still acceptable per the RfC[99]. Policy is also clear that editors do not sacrifice quality in the pursuit of speed or quantity and WP:BURDEN indicates indiscriminate mass-removal is not ideal. If the issue (as claimed above) is that there's so many unreliable sources being used that if DG slowed down then the backlog would never be eliminated, then it needs more editors to help out, not more speed.And yes, I'm aware I'm wasting my time writing this response, as someone will probably tap the Archive button within 12 hours. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Except there's no point in this kind of thing continuing around here on the dramaboard - legitimate issues with their editing can and should be raised on their talk page; where I see only a short discussion has taken place. If the issue is with the objection to the removal of content sourced to poor sources and it not being replaced with better sources, that's one about (legitimate, I'd say) interpretation of policy (seems to be an issue between enforcing WP:V and encouraging editors to apply the WP:FIXIT to problems they encounter) and dramaboard isn't really the best place for that either. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Wow, that's quite a lot of action following my post here (I had to go offline and couldn't follow it). I see that there are other editors who have expressed similar concerns, so I don't think that a closure is justified. I have not accused the editor of vandalism. Alaexis_¿question? 07:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Many editors have express concerns (see DG's talk page) and they have mostly been dismissed in the same way with a failure to engage on the actual points of the dispute. As for "vandalism"... well, that's my subjective point of view. I don't believe that these are all good faith edits though - this editor's over-riding aim seems to be to remove these deprecated sources at any cost, even if that means removing pertinent information from the article. Bear in mind that this editor is also under a topic ban on certain topics and there was a whole bizarre indicent around the Susie Boniface article where this editor again applied a unique interpretation of policy and the privileges of his admin rights. Shritwod (talk) 09:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and boldly undone the close per the discussion below. SkyWarrior 19:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

---

What I would like is that users removing deprecated sources should exercise judgement per WP:BURDEN ("Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. ... When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source and the material therefore may not be verifiable.") and WP:DEPRECATED guideline which says "[c]itations to deprecated sources should not be removed indiscriminately, and each case should be reviewed separately." Thanks to JuneGloom07, 5_albert_square, Masem, JPxG, Shritwod, ProcrastinatingReader thanks for the input, I've tried to incorporate it. This is what I would propose

• If there are slightest suspicions about the information being referenced to a deprecated source, or it's used for BLP, remove the information together with the source
• If such information is not controversial (e.g., that a certain tennis player won a tournament) then replace the reference with {{fact}} tag
• If the source is probably good enough for the claim (e.g. RT for the official position of Russian government), add {{better source needed}} tag.

The editors of course can go above and beyond and find reliable sources and replace the removed ones, but I recognise that this takes much more time. Alaexis_¿question? 07:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC) Also, this thread is not about the reliability of RT or Daily Mail or random youtube channels. 99.9% of such sources should be removed or replaced and I have been doing my part of it. Please keep the discussion focused. Alaexis_¿question? 07:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

While I don't think Mr Gerard's zealous application of WP:V is sanctionable, I do think he could work on his attitude, having had the unpleasant experience of disagreeing with him several times over removal of material in articles on my watchlist because of sourcing concerns. Any suggestion that he apply the policies with a little more care (and deal with the sourcing rather than the content, which is often entirely uncontroversial but, like the proverbial baby, goes out with the bathwater) is met with an accusation that one is a defender of the source being objected to. I appreciate that being questioned is tiresome, but I do think Mr Gerard needs to work on WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Witness the above response: "the fans of deprecated sources", "Daily Mail and Sun partisans", "their favourite deprecated sources". This seems to be Mr Gerard's default response, and I don't find that attitude helpful or appropriate, particularly from an admin. Dave.Dunford (talk) 07:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• I will note that if the effort spent by everyone above complaining about DG removing deprecated sources was used by those same people to add good sources to the articles in place of the deprecated sources, it would have actually been easier than holding this discussion. --Jayron32 12:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • ...and I will note that on several occasions I've done exactly that. It's not the removal of sources that I have a problem with, it's the removal of valid information purely because it is referenced by a deprecated source, to the detriment of the articles affected. Dave.Dunford (talk) 12:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
    • How would I, as a reader, know that the information is valid? --Jayron32 14:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I did replace a few RT links with RS yesterday actually. But that isn't a good argument anyway. Firstly, because it's like saying when someone WP:MASSCREATEs bad articles other editors shouldn't complain but should just improve the article themselves. Nobody exercising human judgement can compete with the speed of indiscriminate actions (see WP:MEATBOT), and nobody should have to WP:HOUND DG's contribs checking his removals and reinstating the bad removals. Secondly, because in some cases the source is reporting uncontroversial info on a niche issue and so no other sources can be found; WP:DAILYMAIL2 explicitly carved out an exception for this, but DG removes those too and tends to argue against reinstating, often to result in WP:NOCON outcomes with low participation and thus reverting to his newly established "status quo" (not really, but understandably editors don't want to edit war with an admin). This, in effect, nullifies what the actual close says and its underlying consensus. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • When an individual user undertakes a mass action on their own which they may believe they have consensus for and/or policy/guideline fully supports, but without seeking a consensus to take those mass actions, they are still at onus for responsibility for those actions to make sure they meet community standards. DG has well stated that removal of these deprecated sources is in line with WP:V which is true, but as has been pointed out, other consensus and guidelines like DEPRECATED do not support the mass removals in these fashions, and this issue has come up multiple times before. DG nor others have asked the community to set a timeline for removal of deprecated sources, which makes the rush to remove them in mass action unnecessary save for the few cases where they are terribly bad (DM on BLP), and just continuing to point back to WP:V to say that supports completing these actions in haste when others continue to find them disruptive is not helpful.
  • There would be no issue if DG announced at VPP or similar some plan in the future (eg 6 months) of mass pruning deprecated sources and then taking the same types of actions they are doing now (which includes content removal along with sources), sorta like a bot approval process. Now you give editors pre-warning to clear out deprecated sources so that when DG goes through and clears them, the last thing we can call this is "disruption". That clears the issue on the onus related to mass actions (the same problem we had recently with mass-stub creation). Heck, if DG wants to do a more targetted one-deprecated-source-at-a-time, a 1-2 month notice for each would be fair enough assuming we're talking in the ballpark of ~1000 current uses or less. Editors would more likely work collaborative if they weren't responding to an aggressive action to correct matters. --Masem (t) 13:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

    Masem, David's project of manually and carefully removing deprecated sources has been underway for at least three years. And for that entire time, he has been harassed by people who don't believe in deprecation, and told, with equal certainty, that he must approach his work in one of a handful of mutually exclusive ways.

    There's nothing careful about the process, in his own talk page he he explains the process as essentially just searching for the deprecated sources and ignoring the top results. This has led to many perfectly valid uses of these sources being removed because this technique does not scale. And it's hardly the case that time is spent on most of these edits - typically not even a minute. This is not editing, this is a human-driven bot that is not in the end adding value, in my opinion. And note that I am not alone in this opinion. Shritwod (talk) 18:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

    That doesn't read to me like his explanation of the process. DG points to a search query and notes, about the top 20 or so there have plausibly reasonable cause, and would need very careful attention to be properly replaced. That's not running a search and ignoring the top results; it's exercising exactly the kind of caution that has been asked for here. XOR'easter (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

    In the end, these are deprecated sources. Wikipedia should not be citing Russia Today. It's a propaganda organ for Putin's oligarchy, used to undermine democracy and further his geopolitical goals. But no maintenance tags ever get fixed, so in the end someone (and it's often, but not always David), does the needful. We should thank him, not constantly hound him. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

    • This. --Jayron32 17:45, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I concur with Guy as well. Maybe rapid-fire removals are less than ideal, but hundreds of citations to a propaganda machine for an authoritarian oligarchy is pretty far from ideal, too. As for the complaints about excessive speed, I've yet to see an example where DG actually made an article harder to read or excised information that would be called vital if properly referenced. For that matter, I will cheerfully dispute the idea that RT is even suitable for official positions of the Russian government. If the only statement of a government's position is in propaganda, then NPOV forbids its inclusion: NPOV means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. No RS = No coverage. Russia Today was deprecated 11 months ago today. That has been more than long enough for anyone with a serious interest in preserving the text originally sourced to them to find replacements. By now, removing those "citations" is overdue. XOR'easter (talk) 18:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

    I have seen no editor state they don't believe in deprecation, nor arguing that these sources must be kept for proper sourcing. They all agree that in time we should remove these sources and not doubting their issue of being too close to propaganda or misinformation or whatever you want to catalog them. They state what deprecation means as used on WP as well as in standard computer language - it is a source no longer supported and should be removed in time, but nothing in policy or in any of the deprecation RFCs on these sources set a deadline or a need for timely removal, which is the issue. The concern has always been loss of information without any apparent attempt to seek replacement or leave behind maintenance templates that help editors know what has been taken out to be fixed. Preventing disruption of the work is a policy matter and that's the concern here, and DG's been doing this on their own without checking with the community of how they should be approaching the work while minimizing community disruption. If DG or others wanted these removed in a timely matter, it could have been proposed to the community, set a timetable to give editors a chance to recover what info they can, and then go for it after that timetable is up - that's how you minimize disruption normally for any type of mass edit issue. Its great that DG wants to do this, but all that was needed was to make sure that the process was through a manner agreed to by consensus, otherwise DG's trending on onus territory that they have to be able to stand up to. This is less about the issues of "oh no, we have Daily Fail and RT links that we need to excise" and more about trying to make sure singular editors do not jump to conclusions on their own to do mass edits, create conflicts, and continue on their own believing they are right; we've outlined numerous times in the past for many other types of mass edit systems unrelated to deprecated sourcing that there's certain processes that should be followed to minimize disruption, and DG seems not to want to engage in that at all. --Masem (t) 19:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

    This, actually. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 19:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

    Masem, the issue is that "in time" is always defined as "some time probably at least a week before the heat death of the universe" and in the mean time these same people make pretty much no effort to fix the rpoblem themselves.

    And that is how it always goes. People who don't want (or perhaps can't be arsed) to fix the problem, objecting to the methods of someone who can be arsed. Someone with an extremely long history of valued contributions to the project, so his commitment is in no doubt. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:06, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

    And I'm saying is that DG could say on VPP/RSN "I planning on sweeping through to remove all Daily Fail and RT links on July 1, 2021. If you want to repair content to use other RSes, you have two months to try to fix them." (though not so tersely), and do nothing else before that day. Boom, deadline set, VPP is considered central enough to alert people to the action, and then when DG goes to do that on July 1, now they can use a sledgehammer rather than a chisel because they have given fair warning. If people can't be arsed to fix the problem in two months after being given that warning, that's their fault now. The problem right now is that no one has given them any warning: being put on the deprecation does not set a deadline because that's not the expectation set by the RFCs or the principle of deprecation. --Masem (t) 20:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

    It's true that the deprecation RfC's didn't fix a deadline. But they didn't set a minimum waiting time, either, or specify a venue where a notice should be nailed up before taking action. Without an explicit consensus to that effect, we can't say that the community opinion is against acting sooner rather than later. XOR'easter (talk) 06:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

    And regardless, WP:V is completely clear that any statement that lacks a reliable source can be removed on sight. It has some cautions and suggestions about how to go about it (which I feel generally reflect how DG has gone about it regardless), but even then, those are worded as mere cautions and suggestions; and every effort to make them more strict or give them more teeth has failed (often, I should point out, failed attempts to change that have been led by the very people now pushing to sanction DG, so they are well aware that their position has failed to obtain a consensus.) This discussion should be closed because it seems to effectively be a begging-the-question effort to rewrite existing policy by going after individual editors who are editing in compliance with it. --Aquillion (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• Seeing as this is ANI, I'm wondering what administrative action is being requested here. ANI is where you go when you want an admin to act to resolve your grievance. At this time I don't see anyone even suggesting what they want an admin to do here. It might help anyone making such a proposal to clearly explain what site policies are being violated as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Someone, please close this again. The discussion post-close is unimpeachable evidence that the close was appropriate. Very knowledgeable and experienced editors stand on both sides of a nuanced policy debate. No consensus is even close to emerging on any possible sanction. If ProcrastinatingReader's desired outcome is not sanction but to "request at least a token effort be made" then that request has been clearly stated and we can be done. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

    I'm not the thread OP. BTW, the thread hasn't even been open for 24 hours (if you subtract the time it was closed, 4 hours after creation). ANIs usually don't start with proposals of sanctions, as people wait to see where the thread goes. But it does seem like there's a hurry to get this one archived... Aside: I think Masem, above, describes other reasoning issues. So I trust we can now draw a line under the idea that any possible criticism of a subset of DG's editing is equivalent to support for overturning the RfCs and promoting the use of deprecated sources or the spread of Russian propaganda.

    The underlying criticism is that in the pursuit of speed to meet some artificial WP:DEADLINE there are bad edits that (probably) wouldn't have happened if more care was taken. Five separate policies/consensus decisions apply to various sample edits, described above. Most importantly for me is that there's a lot of good, factually accurate content written in disparate topic areas by various editors (many now departed) written over 20 years. Much of this content, if removed, will never be re-added due to that fact. Content such as this event was important in the context of the article and adds value for readers (I've just reinstated it with two journal sources). So I think this is a problem. If the community wanted to authorise a search and destroy mission I'm sure it would've said so. But the close said the opposite, and there is no deadline to get the job done with the least amount of loss and disruption. It might take a bit longer, but a noble goal doesn't seem to have justified high-speed editing at the cost of quality in the past (see WP:MEATBOT). It's also erroneous to think that we're misleading readers if the "Special:LinkSearch displaying 0" part takes longer too. If the aim is content accuracy/reliability even at the lowest time whilst not even make a cursory Google search, one could focus their efforts on statements that sound suspicious, rather than hitting everything going down the list no matter how uncontroversial. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

    I don't think we can say that content sourced to a state propaganda organ is fine just because it doesn't instantly sound suspicious. Part of misinformation is mixing the deceptive in with the accurate, so that the latter lends credibility to the former. A half-truth can work better than a lie, precisely because it doesn't set off the reader's alarm bells. XOR'easter (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

    Yes, but when that logic (which is sound in theory) is applied to some of the removal diffs above it not only turned out not to be the case (evidenced by other sources), but also just thinking about the statement one wouldn't've expected it to be false. I'm sure many, probably most, of DG's edits remove crappy statements. I'm just saying a lot completely remove relevant, factually accurate, uncontroversial and highly plausible statements. Some such removals also don't recognise the 'uncontroversial content not elsewhere available' exemption of deprecation, from WP:DAILYMAIL2. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

    If no reliable source exists, then the content is surely WP:UNDUE even if it is uncontroversial. Now, I can think of exceptions in principle to this. For example, we generally like to have the locations of births and deaths filled in, even if RS'es don't make a big deal of them, so including the city where someone died could make sense, and that datum is not likely to be contested. But I've been reviewing many, many DG edits over the past two days and have not found any where I'd say an exemption of that sort would apply. XOR'easter (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

    A reasonable argument can certainly be made both ways in this regard. I agree it would be, relatively speaking, rare, as usage of deprecated source is generally prohibited. In at least the specific examples on this point I linked above, I'd personally argue those were uncontroversial, but I suppose reasonable people could take a different interpretation of what the closers were getting at on that point. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

    Yes, there are apt to be differences of opinion. (If there weren't, how dull this project would be!) The preponderance of RT removals I've checked have been about living people, as one would expect for a "news" source, so the "don't use the Daily Mail or anything on its level for BLP's" advice would apply. XOR'easter (talk) 06:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

    Other than the removal issues and the uncontroversial issues, what exactly is the point of replacing <ref>[deprecated cite]</ref> with {{cn}} anyway? I mean, the sources are deprecated because they make up stuff sometimes, right, not due to some backlinks problem? So surely when WP:DAILYMAIL1 said There are multiple thousands of existing citations to the Daily Mail. Volunteers are encouraged to review them, and remove/replace them as appropriate. it meant that editors actually need to review the statement preceding the <ref>, check if it's factually correct, if so replace it with another source to verify the statement, and if not then remove it. But just keeping the content and replacing the ref tag with {{cn}} just moves it from a tracking cat of 1,500 instances into one with 500,000 instances, so at best doesn't seem to improve content for the reader and at worst makes it harder for a volunteer who actually wants to review the content to do so. If that's what the community wanted, it would've authorised a bot to do the job. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Given the number of time the problem has occurred and the failure of this editor to engage I would suggest a moratorium on bulk removal of sources for six months. Part of the problem is the bot-like activity of these mass removals. Shritwod (talk)
  • Given the number of times this user, who is doing the correct thing in their removals, has been dragged unfairly and without cause to the drama boreds, there should be a moratorium on complaining about their work for six months, giving them time to do this necessary and thankless job. --Jayron32 14:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Oh come on. Unfairly? This user was tbanned last time they were here, as I recall. This page is for discussion of chronic, intractable problems, it says so right at the top. Mass removal of deprecated links is absolutely one of those problems. It's not the first time this has come up, everyone reading this knows that. We can tolerate this thread being open for more than a few hours. So let's stop circling wagons. And please may I remind you that no one here is doing any kind of necessary job. We are all enjoying a hobby, or trying to. The issue here is that the way one user is enjoying their hobby is interfering with the way other users enjoy their hobby. I'm sure we can find a middle ground that makes everyone happy. Dividing editors into saints and sinners and claiming a hobby is a job is not helpful. Levivich ^harass/_hound 14:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I agree with Jayron. Whether you want to call it a "job" or not is besides the point. References to deprecated sources need to go, they damage the encyclopaedia's reputation. David Gerard is doing necessary work. If other think it should be done in a better way, nobody is stopping them. Robby.is.on (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
        • DG is stopping them, by removing content along with the deprecated link. That's the point of this thread. Whether deprecated links "need to go", and exactly how soon, and exactly how they go, are the issues under discussion here. It's not helpful to act as if there is only one valid position and anyone who disagrees is somehow getting in the way. This is what I meant about dividing us into saints (those who are mass removing deprecated links) and sinners (those who think it should be done a better way). Levivich ^harass/_hound 15:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
          • What is the minimum time limit for keeping incorrect information at Wikipedia? If something is not correct, but still written there in Wikipedia, how long must we falsely tell readers it is right before we are allowed to remove it?--Jayron32 15:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
            • It depends on the content. But we have this tag called citation needed... Levivich ^harass/_hound 15:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
              • Which David Gerard makes liberal use of in his removals. He also sometimes adds a new source. He also sometimes removes the text entirely, especially when the text is contentious, controversial, or may otherwise be harmful in the context of things like BLPs. --Jayron32 15:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

                Sometimes he accidentally comments out half of an article and no one notices for six weeks. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 16:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

                • • I'm sure that, if I carefully combed through every single article space edit you've ever made, I could find one mistake. You could do the same for me as well. Perfection is not required, if it were, none of us would be allowed to be Wikipedia editors. --Jayron32 16:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
                    • Can we start a wall-of-text drama thread about the practice of commenting out whole paragraphs? Because I don't think any good has ever come out of commenting out whole paragraphs. It makes the text harder to read when editing in source mode, it invites much less discussion than just cutting text and announcing it on the talk page, and it invites accidents like that one. Lengthy HTML comments in Wikipedia articles: considered harmful. XOR'easter (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
          • David Gerard and very few others have removed and replaced thousands of unreliable sources. I can't say I have seen those who "think it should be done a better way" do it. I think it's unreasonable to make these demands on those who are willing to tackle the problem if one isn't prepared to do the work. Robby.is.on (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
            • You're still referring to a hobby as "work" and dividing editors into good (those doing "the work") and bad (those who think this problem should be handled in another way). You should respect your colleagues and their differences of opinion. People who disagree with DG's approach do not need to have engaged in DG's approach (what you call "the work") prior to suggesting a different approach. Express your opinion, sure, but don't villainize our colleagues who disagree. People who think DG should be doing something different are not being disruptive or obstructive by voicing their opinion. They're not "making demands". Levivich ^harass/_hound 15:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
              • So, why then are you trying to get DG to stop doing his hobby? If his hobby is carefully reading articles, finding deprecated sources, removing the links and dealing thoughtfully with each article after removing said links and treating each situation in the way he feels most appropriately meets Wikipedia's standards and policies and guidelines, why have you spent so much energy in this thread trying to make him stop doing that? --Jayron32 15:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
                • Um, I'm not doing any of that stuff? I haven't even commented in this thread prior to this, and I have no opinion on DG's edits. I have an opinion about attempts to stop discussion of DG's edits. I think our colleagues should be given the space to have that discussion. Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
              • I'm not villainising, just describing what I am seeing. Of course it's disruptive to repeatedly drag people to AN/I for contributions that are effectively net positive. Time would be better spent by leading by example and removing deprecated in "a better way". Robby.is.on (talk) 16:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
                • When one person is removing content and another person wants that person to stop removing the content, leading by example doesn't resolve the dispute. The question under discussion is whether the contributions are net positive. Again, you're welcome to the opinion that they are, but you should be tolerant of our colleagues who hold the opinion that they're not. At best, we'd be open minded, but at least tolerant. Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
                  • In any case it is long past clear that no consensus is ever going to emerge to sanction (or even criticize) anyone for this. People have objected before to the removal of depreciated or unreliable sources and none of those objections have ever come anywhere close to obtaining a consensus to even slow the process down or to add even the slightest bit of red tape that might interfere with it - all previous discussions I'm aware of have reached the conclusion that the sort of edits DG is making are an entirely valid and much-needed implementation of the consensus reached in depreciation RFCs, generally with a majority lauding the precise sorts of removals that a few people in this discussion find so objectionable. You're welcome to try and start such discussions again, but unless you have some indicator that things have changed, it seems like a near-certainty that they will go nowhere. As I see it, the work that people like DG is doing in this regard is time-consuming, necessary, and generally thankless maintenance, and while, yes, you're free to personally grumble or feel otherwise, you have to recognize at this point that your position is too much of a minority to make it a constructive use of time to pursue him in ANI; constantly pursuing someone at ANI for an entirely legitimate series of edits that you object to, knowing the community has repeatedly found them to be legitimate, is a waste of everyone's time. This discussion should be closed with prejudice. --Aquillion (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

                    Legitimate? I see some of them contradicting several policies and the RfC closes. Now, it may be difficult to discuss the issues because as soon as one questions any edits there's the 'you must be a Daily Mail/RT fanatic and a harasser who is trying to relitigate the RfCs' argument waved around (see above), without any attempt to actually engage on the issues. Thus preventing any serious discussion taking place. It seems somewhat like a cult mentality. But that doesn't mean there are no edits violating any policy or just basic logic. If only we could actually have a discussion on this without appeals to emotion and personalisations of the issues. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

                    • You will have to point to which RFC closes you mean; as far as I know, this has come up repeatedly on WP:RSN and WP:RSP, and while a minority has continued to object (usually a minority consisting of people who objected to depreciation in the first place) the consensus has always been to continue such removals. See [100][101] (note that Alaexis, who has been vocal above, tried and failed to get consensus making the removal of deprecation more difficult; no matter how much they may personally object to it, at this point they are well aware that the behavior they are trying to censor DG for is endorsed by the community.) As far as policies go, WP:V seems extremely clear-cut to me; The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. If a source is unreliable, that burden is unsatisfied, and... Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. --Aquillion (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• Alaexis, as I noted above, you previously tried and failed to get the community to agree to restrictions on the removal of depreciated sources here; as you can see in that discussion, while there was disagreement, it is clear that opposition was intense and that your position failed to obtain a consensus. I don't understand why you think you can then turn around and bring DG to ANI for the exact behavior you failed to form a consensus against before - having failed to get consensus to slow the removal of depreciated sources in a more appropriate venue, do you expect a different outcome here? The fact that you dislike those removals and disagree with the fact that WP:V currently allows (and even encourages) them is well-established, but that does not allow you to drag an editor to ANI simply because you dislike their edits. If you believe you can obtain consensus to stop or slow the removal of depreciated sources this time around (which, I assure you, you cannot), start a discussion in the proper place again. But - as I pointed out last time - WP:V is a core policy and its basic principles are not subject to consensus in any case; while there is certainly room to discuss the ideal way to handle such changes and to refine the guidelines for them, ultimately it will always be acceptable to remove things that lack reliable sources, and you will never be able to obtain sanctions against someone for legitimately enforcing that policy. My advice is to WP:DROPTHESTICK on this. You have been hounding DG over these edits by, to my count, around half a year if not more, and have achieved nothing the entire time - certainly nothing comparable to the, broadly, laudable and necessary improvements he has made to our sourcing over that interval. EDIT: I'll also point out that in the middle of a section supposedly devoted to DG, Alaexis dropped a 'suggestion' for a fairly sweeping and still extremely poorly-considered policy change that more or less reflects their failed proposal from the link above. Trying to create new policy by going after individual editors on WP:ANI is entirely inappropriate. --Aquillion (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • First, there are three separate possible concerns raised: 1) the complete removal of factually accurate content, evidently without even a cursory Google search; 2) the removal of uncontroversial usages of content; 3) the replacement of refs with just {{cn}}. It doesn't help to conflate these. Second, if I may ask, how much of the above discussion did you read before commenting? Because there is some discussion on the arguments you've just made, such as the partial quote of WP:BURDEN or the effectiveness of these {{cn}} replacements, and repeating arguments would be detrimental to discussion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Regarding point (3), it seems like people have disagreed with DG's actions in two opposite ways. On the one hand, the suggestion was made that if the information is not controversial, the citation should be replaced with {{citation needed}} to preserve the useful text. On the other hand, replacing a deprecated source with {{citation needed}} might let it get lost in the noise of all the other {{citation needed}}s that weren't born out of propaganda. I know that one can't please everyone all of the time, but it sounds like here, nobody can please everyone any of the time. XOR'easter (talk) 00:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
      • If it's actually uncontroversial, per WP:DAILYMAIL2 it should be kept with {{bsn}}, but most probably aren't eligible. Obviously the ideal standard is to actually review the cites. In 99% of cases the action should be remove the statement or replace the source. If DG couldn't find a source after a quick Google for some reasonable keywords I don't think anyone would whine if he removed the statement entirely. It's not like people are expecting editors to go to a local library and look in some obscure book before they take action. A quick search is not an undue burden. Shifting the maintenance categories to a broader one is just make-work though, like it doesn't even achieve the goal of removing 'half-truths' content. Actually, it's possibly actively harmful because we lose the tracking, the count of cites then becomes meaningless, and others who actually want to review the usages can't. Regardless of whatever solution editors find appropriate, this can't possibly be it, because it doesn't make sense. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:42, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
        • For mass removals, it sounds like a special {{bsn}} for deprecated sources (like maybe a {{bsn-dm}} for Daily Mail) might be useful. Levivich ^harass/_hound 02:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
        • A quick search is not an undue burden. And anyone who wants to retain or restore the content is free to do so (in fact, required to do so); it is not, however, a burden that falls on the person removing the content - an encouragement is not a requirement, whereas removing uncited material is a requirement. They may choose to do such a search but are never required to do so; policy is completely unequivocal on this point, to the point where you weaken your argument every time you express a desire for it. --Aquillion (talk) 04:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
    • First, there are three separate possible concerns raised: 1) the complete removal of factually accurate content, evidently without even a cursory Google search; 2) the removal of uncontroversial usages of content; 3) the replacement of refs with just {{cn}}. The first concern is entirely baseless per WP:V: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. It is completely unacceptable to try and push that responsibility onto the editor challenging or removing the claim. There is no responsibility - none, none whatsoever - to do even the most cursory search before removing a claim that lacks a reliable source. Some editors may choose to do so, but the idea that anyone could be sanctioned by not searching for sources for an unsupported claim added by someone else directly contradicts WP:V and can therefore be dismissed out of hand. "Uncontroversiality" (which is, obviously, subjective) is not a defense; WP:V plainly states that Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. And replacing a source with a CN tag is the recommended solution for editors who choose to be cautious with their removals - ie. it is itself optional - the alternative presented in WP:V is immediate removal of the uncited content: In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. This consider is, again, as opposed to simple immediate removal, which is the default. Nor does it discourage mass-removal at all; the parts you are trying to hang your case on are very cautiously-worded presentations of options, not core, project-central mandates the way the sentences I quoted are. All of these policies are well-established, and are well-known to anyone who has spent any significant time discussing the cleanup of depreciated sources; if you believe you can reach a consensus to change WP:V to reflect your reading, you can try. But as things stand nobody has raised any legitimate concerns or anything remotely resembling misconduct outside of, perhaps, the continued hounding of DG for something that, while many editors plainly disagree with, is clearly and unequivocally supported by policy - something that is nearing the point of requiring a WP:BOOMERANG given that, again, it has been going on for over six months, completely unproductively, without achieving anything at all. I read the discussions above and am aware, yes, that you have an idiosyncratic interpretation of WP:V, but the wording is completely clear - at a certain point (certainly, again, six months in), it is necessary to WP:DROPTHESTICK and recognize that you haven't convinced enough people to sanction anyone over that interpretation. --Aquillion (talk) 04:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

User:99.107.157.94

• 99.107.157.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 1998 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• At the Codfish Ball (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Since my last report of this IP here, they have continued to edit war on pages like 1998 and At the Codfish Ball. This is becoming highly disruptive at this point and needs action. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I've partially blocked the IP user from 1998 and At the Codfish Ball for two weeks. If the edit warring spills over into more articles, let me know and I'll be happy to take a look. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Potential povpushing at 2021 NYC mayoral election pages

Hi all, I wish to bring to the community an issue that I'm only tangentially involved with, and as an infrequent editor don't really have the time and energy to deal with myself, but should probably be addressed given its contentious nature (ongoing U.S. election). User:Shoestringnomad seems to be engaged in aggressive WP:POVPUSHing at the Eric Adams (politician) and Andrew Yang pages (to the uninitiated these two are the frontrunners in the 2021 New York City mayoral election). The concern is less about the edits themselves and more about the trend where their entire contributions to those two pages are to push pro-Adams and anti-Yang content. For example:

• Adding a controversial statement made by Yang
• Despite removing a similar situation involving Adams right before
• Similar removal
• Similar removal

Like I said the diffs themselves don't tell the whole story, the problem is the trend - all of their edits to this topic are to make the content of the articles more favourable to Adams, and less favourable to Yang. A lot of it is subtle changing of wording done alongside legitimate cleanup, but it still makes me very wary that this is editing with an agenda. Uninvolved editors should take a look at the context of their edit history as a whole.

On the other end of the scale, we have User:Oyveyistmir which appears to be a WP:SPA with almost all of their edits being to attack Adams or to add negative information (though admittedly sourced) into the page. They haven't made any substantive edits to any other topics, potentially WP:NOTHERE.

Again, I don't have a dog in this race, but these edits raised a red flag for me so I would appreciate if uninvolved editors can have a look and action as necessary.. Cheers Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 01:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for raising your concerns, Satellizer (talk · contribs). I don't have a dog in this race either, aside from course-correcting an article that had become heavily biased. The irony is that Satellizer (talk · contribs)'s removal of the only critical piece in Andrew Yang's article (which was later reverted by another editor) motivated my own efforts to edit pieces of Eric Adams (politician)' article. I found large parts of the subject's article in violation of WP:NPOV when I became aware of it in February. I was alarmed and frustrated by the unbalanced take on the subject, and I started or commented on sections in the subject's Talk page to rectify the issues. There was a strong tendency by two users to add inflammatory language in violation of WP:NPOV or simply that was given WP:UNDUE weight. Please review the article from February and judge for yourselves just how negative a slant the article had.

Frankly, I'm happy that User:Satellizer has brought this issue to light. If I have overcorrected, I would gladly stand back knowing that the article would remain balanced, as it is not my intention to push my POV but rather push back against a particularly negative POV that has pervaded the article for some time. Shoestringnomad (talk) 02:06, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

As a random third party - Satellizer's removal of that material was entirely correct, and I'm surprised it was restored to the article. Newsweek is no longer a reliable source and neither are random Forbes bloggy contributors. I looked at the NYT article that mentioned Yang's comment about raising kids during COVID ( https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/11/nyregion/andrew-yang-mayor-nyc.html ) and it's only one short part of a fairly long article, with little reason to think it was the main takeaway. Surely, surely there is something more substantive - even in the realm of criticism / missteps - to bring up from the article rather than that one quirk. Literally anything. Hell, the Twitter bodega video or something. SnowFire (talk) 07:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I am also happy User:Satellizer added this notice. I have raised a noticeboard issue previously for several users removing anything negative about Eric Adams. Look at the edit history and you'll see that a handful of users edit away any negative info and claim that it not sourced or not important enough to remain on the page. Oyveyistmir (talk) 05:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Link to draft article after final warnings

112.141.20.205 continues to add link to draft page on articles after final warning on their talk page. Kaseng55 (talk) 01:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocked 36 hours for disruptive editing. This user has been blocked before, so 36 hours it is. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Đông Minh personal attack

Requesting a permanent ban for User:Đông Minh for this: [102] regards Mztourist (talk) 03:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Clearly unacceptable edits reverted + warned. I think a block may be necessary until they can apologise and refrain from further such behaviour. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

While I appreciate your prompt action, the User's attack is far beyond anything acceptable on this project. It comes on top of this earlier personal attack: [103] which translates as "I have no interest in talking to puppets. An old puppet. And I left the English wiki and never come back, I don't care right and wrong anything here. Don't tag my name again, thank you very much." Mztourist (talk) 04:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

The user has been warned - let's leave it at that for now. If they make any further personal attacks after the warning has been left, they can be blocked from editing for non-compliance of Wikipedia's civility policy. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Seriously? This is not mere incivility, its overt abuse, so a block is clearly justified. Mztourist (talk) 07:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocks are supposed to be preventive; so unless we have reason to think they'll continue or unless you can provide evidence this is a long-term pattern, there's no reason to block yet - especially given they haven't edited since yesterday evening. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:42, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

That's a strongly offensive personal attack and in my view inaction cannot be an option. It does merit a preventive block until the user demonstrates an understanding that it's not OK to behave like that.—S Marshall T/C 17:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

On the face of it, and given that this user is only very sporadically active over here, you might have a point. Also, looking at their talk page on the vietnamese wiki (you don't even need google translate - it is in plain English): [104] this isn't a unique phenomenon. @Nguyentrongphu:: you might be able to clarify that discussion for us? Thanks! (Google translate seems to mess up the verb tenses and I can't quite follow although I seem to get the gist of it). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Irrespective of anything else, I highly doubt this user possesses adequate English skills to be editing here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

That discussion is irrelevant to the matter here. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 07:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Seeing their answers on their talk page (which are barely comprehensible), that might likely be the case. They seem to have "retired" on vietnamese wiki, don't know about here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• Dong Minh has retired from Vi Wikipedia and probably from En Wikipedia too. He barely ever shows up anymore. I can't defend his incivility, but a block is not necessary anymore at this point. It's not preventive of anything. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 07:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Obviously not retired from en.w given his last post here was 7 hours ago. DeCausa (talk) 07:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Our continued inaction on this shows our contempt and disregard for his target.—S Marshall T/C 15:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Their response shows a failure to apologise and that they are holding a grudge against the target of their abuse. A block is appropriate. Fences&Windows 18:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Abrilando232

Abrilando232 seems to be specializing almost entirely on articles focusing on the COVID-19 pandemic and COVID-19 vaccines. I first encountered their edits here: [105], after I had reverted a new table added to the page, and then quickly removed here: [106] with some bizarre messaging on the edit summary. I can't say all of the edits made by this user are completely off the rails but some are truly out of left field with no explanation. They have added multiple tables about vaccines in trial stages to multiple pages about COVID-19 vaccines by country without any context to what those vaccines have to do with the country in question in the article for example here: [107], here [108] and here [109]. As myself and other editors have tried to contact the user on their talk page, the questions go unanswered and the talk page blanked like here: [110]. So anyway, I admire their enthusiasm for the COVID-19 projects, however there seems to be a lot of shoddy work with no explanation going on here. Thank you. CaffeinAddict (talk) 03:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I need anyone who answer this question on what did I add the vaccine trial stage, but I can't answer from my talk page before blocked from my account. Abrilando232 (talk) 05:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Abrilando232 - You're not being blocked. :-) Just don't edit those articles any further until we've sorted things out here. We just want to know why you're making these kinds of edits to these articles, and what the tables have anything to do with the article subject. Can you explain what you're trying to do with your edits? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it's already a good sign to finally communicate (WP:ENGAGE, WP:DISCUSSFAIL, etc). I also have the impression of a possible language barrier? Communication is important for the WP:CONSENSUS process, —PaleoNeonate – 10:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely Abrilando232, there's no action here being made, just an attempt to communicate here :). Pinging other editors who had tried to discuss with you on your talk page. Longchess, Tol, Discospinster, Primefac and Mcmatter. CaffeinAddict (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

(responding to ping) I only alerted him or her about COVID-19 general sanctions. After reviewing edits, I believe that his or her edits are good-faith but need more discussion. Abrilando232: It would be very helpful if you could respond to the comments left on your talk page; if somebody reverts your edit, you could discuss with that person before making similar edits to other pages. Tol | Talk | Contribs 03:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

User:80.121.97.28

The anonymous user has been editing in an extremely disruptive manner, engaging in vandalism and incivility and showing battleground behaviour. Most of his edits are in articles falling within the scope of Wikipedia:ARBAA2.

• The user resorts to vulgar language when editing, putting kes lan and kes lan oç in his edit summaries, which is Turkish for "shut up" and "shut up, you s. o. b." respectively: [111] [112] [113].
• Samuel Weems. The user has been adding unsourced content to a biographical article suggesting that the person was "fascist" and "far-right": [114] [115] [116]
• Ordubad. The user has been adding unsourced or dubiously sourced foreign-language names to the consensus version of an article about a city: [117] [118] [119]
• Instances of battleground behaviour: [120] [121]
• In general, the vast majority of the user's edits since the day they started editing last week are reverts: [122]. Other users have tried reaching out to them on their talkpage but to no avail [123] [124]. Parishan (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • They only seem to want to push a POV and their personal attacks in edit summaries are also unacceptable. Very clearly WP:NOTHERE as far as I'm concerned. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• There's... not a lot to like in this person contribs. Blocked for 36 hours. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Saving Page

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

---

Hi, I am trying to improve an article but my improvements are being reverted. How can I save the page of a notable guy who has secured $80 Million+ in profit. He has coverage in notable publications like https://beyond8figures.com/podcast_episode/80m-exit-michael-coles-great-american-cookie-company/, https://www.mprnews.org/story/2007/11/13/caribouceo. This is more than enough to make him eligible for a Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedangeroz (talk • contribs) 18:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Thedangeroz: This is an issue that does not require administrator action. You have been removing an AfD tag before the discussion there has concluded. Please refrain from doing that. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:24, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

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

• When a new account shows up, comments in several AFD discussions, and then asks how to deal with an AFD nomination, things seem a little suspect, especially when the comments were copies of whatever the rationale of the previous discussion participant was. Uncle G (talk) 18:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @Uncle G: It is an issue, but one for our good friend @Drmies: and his CU comrades at SPI (Thedangeroz = Thedeadlyman1? I'd guess), not one for ANI, right? Also quite possibly a COI issue, but I wasn't in the mood for throwing boomerangs. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Look, the guy is mentioned in a podcast. I don't see the problem. Just write him up, as juicy as possible. And the other answer is no, I got nothing for you, I'm afraid. Drmies (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I was just going to watch what the account did for a little bit. The sockpuppetry is fairly blatant. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Leanne/Archive#Report date April 23 2009, 05:37 (UTC) for why copying and pasting a previous rationale makes me remember sockpuppetry. Uncle G (talk) 08:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Innican Soufou

• Innican Soufou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2021 storming of the United States Capitol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

At talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol, Innican Soufou is giving us the benefit of their 49 edits' experience to advocate that we portray Ashli Babbitt as the sole - and indeed innocent - victim of the insurrection. I suspect that this user, who was notified of the DS in February, might be better advised to learn their craft in a less contentious area. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• I've not seen any conduct issues by Innican Soufou on that talk page. I have, however, seen JzG take issue with two words used by IS and use them to go into a rant about his personal opinion unrelated to the topic at hand in the section in which he commented. If anything, I think this just be closed as a premature reporting of no conduct issue whatsoever - and allow the content discussion to continue on the talkpage. Perhaps a warning to JzG to focus on the topic at hand and not allow his personal opinions to go into rants about the events would be merited, as before he commented recently, the discussion was progressing decently, in my opinion. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• I think the reporting editor needs to take a breather and try not to let their emotions get the better of them. I don't care to make a big deal of this, but outright lying in an ani report is not very useful, as everyone involved can read what I actually said. God bless. Innican Soufou (talk) 22:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• This does not seem at all "ripe" for ANI. I'd suggest WP:DR of some sort to help resolve the dispute. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The dispute was progressing fine on the talk page, and is continuing to do so - JzG's behavior in the thread, which has contributed nothing other than FORUM-like comments, is the only thing that could derail it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• I've been disrupted by Guy's repeated non sequiturs, too, suggest a week off. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• He's responding to requests to stop ranting with longer and less helpful rants now, accusing anyone who wants to compromise of bending to the will of a "fantasy world of patriots". One of those seeking compromise is me, a Canadian who doesn't watch TV and doesn't condone rioting, theft or burglary. Not cool. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• "I'm proposing that we separate the one murder that took place (of the unarmed civilian by police) and the other suicides/medical issues that people who may have been involved in the protests died from, days later." and "Well we do know that only one person died during the protest. That was an unarmed protestor. The rest of the people that passed away did so at a later date by either suicide or natural causes do seem to match JzG's description above. Uncle G (talk) 11:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• I appreciate this is a DS area but is there some evidence of recent disruption I'm missing? I went to the talk page expecting to see long discussions started by the editor in question but all I saw was one silly comment followed by a reply or two in response to stuff Guy and others said. While I mostly agree with Guy's comments, IMO they were more disruptive than Innican Soufou recently. Although I have a tendency to do it myself, I do agree it's not necessary to challenge an editor everytime they say something stupid, especially when realistically no one is going to be influenced or misled by the comment. It would have been better for Guy to either just ignore the comment, or concentrate on the article and policy i.e. say something like "No we continue to follow sources, not editor's personal opinions". While they moved back towards this afterwards, their first reply IMO unnecessarily lead the discussion off-topic into editor's personal opinions, and as always "they/other editor started it" is not an excuse. Nil Einne (talk) 11:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• Move to close. There seems to be an increasing tendency to bring people to AN/I for expressing the "wrong opinion" on a talk page. Unless there is a clear breach of policy or terms of service demonstrable using diffs, talk page differences of opinion are not a matter for administrators and there are other avenues for dispute resolution. Close this and Guy deserves a trouting. Fences&Windows 16:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• People sure do get mad online about politics, huh? jp×g 19:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  Not so hot at Canadian, Australian, British or New Zealand politics, to be fair to people..."They" started it! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'm with Uncle G here - those diffs, particularly this one are problematic. This isn't about having "the wrong opinion": describing the killing as a murder, which is a criminal offense, when the authorities are not describing it as such seems like a BLP violation to me. You can't call it a murder without implying that the police officer who fired the shot is guilty of a criminal offense. The comment was made a while ago now, but that kind of stuff on talk pages is not OK. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

  It's only a BLP violation if the target of an accusation has a name, a rough pseudonymous persona or is awaiting a murder trial, none of which apply to federal police, who can only possibly face charges of violating civil rights after killing people. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

  InedibleHulk, I'm not sure I understand your comment. The target of the accusation is presumably the officer who fired the fatal shot - that person has a name, although I guess what you're saying is that the name hasn't been released? Nevertheless, I see think of no good reason why someone would be calling it a murder on a talk page if it has not been so described by the authorities - to call a killing or a shooting would be neutral and accurate, but to call it a murder seems obviously to be pushing a particular POV. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Socking on Radha Sterling

CatJon1 has personally attacked editors [125] and made disruptive edits to Radha Stirling. They have already been dragged to SPI. --Firestar464 (talk) 06:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

[126] Further WP:ASPERSIONS. Firestar464 (talk) 07:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Came here from SPI. I don't think CatJon is related to the group filed there; I do however think that they're linked to Tradeze1 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Also noting that everyone involved is now well past 3RR. Blablubbs|talk 07:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Fixed here. --Firestar464 (talk) 07:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

There is an IP on the talk page which seems to be saying stuff very similar to CatJon. I think this may have simply been a mistake rather than attempt to hide their identity but who knows. Nil Einne (talk) 11:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I have opened a SPI for User:Tradeze1, User:CatJon1, and User:212.63.119.106. Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1!11!! (talk) 12:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Seth Andrew

Over the past year, there have been numerous edits to the Seth Andrew article which appear to be by those with a conflict of interest. Single purpose accounts are editing the article again, as Andrew was arrested yesterday on some serious criminal charges. I ask that any admins help keep disruptive editing from occurring. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 09:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• Looking at the history of this BLP, I decided to add 30 days of semi-protection. Lot of issues with claims and sourcing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • You downgraded it, then. Lots of the editing here over the past year has been autoconfirmed users putting poorly-sourced BLP content, sourced to medium articles self-published by the protagonists, back in. One of many examples: Special:Diff/968333781. Uncle G (talk) 11:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Dennis Brown, you missed that Uncle G had just fully protected the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Seth_Andrew&type=protect. Would Extended Confirmed protection or Pending Changes be a suitable compromise? Fences&Windows 16:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Fences and windows, it would appear that Dennis Brown was correcting the error made by Uncle G. There is no way an article should be fully protected indefinitely. Any edit warring editors should have been blocked as required. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• If someone thinks a different protection is needed, by all means. I just applied the minimum because I thought that would solve the problem, but again, if you feel it needs more, I won't object. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree with your protection. It's the full indefinite that's a problem. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 20:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Full protection is there for when it is the autoconfirmed accounts introducing the BLP violations. This is explicitly laid out in policy. Uncle G (talk) 00:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
      • There is nothing wrong with indefinite full protection. It is there for a purpose - to put a stop to whatever disruptive editing is going on and force discussion of the issues at talk page. Indefinite ≠ permanent and can be lifted at any time. If there was such a thing as "permanent full protection", that suggests it can never be lifted. Mjroots (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Ignoring this misinterpretation of policy, semi hasn't seemed to have stopped the disruption. @Dennis Brown: I've increased your protection to ECP but kept the same duration. Anarchyte (talk • work) 08:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm assuming this should be logged at [127] the usual place since it is covered by Arb authority. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

IP using talk pages as a forum

Nearly the entire output of 24.139.24.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) seem to consist of WP:FORUM/WP:RGW comments on talk pages of highly charged political topics. (Or less charitably, shitposting.) Seems to be not here to build an encyclopedia. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• Normally, we would ask that you first try to talk to them on their talk page about it. ANI is really designed for situations where individual editors CAN'T solve the problem, but no attempt has been made except for a bunch of templates, at least from what I can see from their talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I thought that the presence of so many warnings on their talk page meant that other editors already tried and failed to encourage more productive behavior. At this point it seems like blatant trolling. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• Very few mainspace edits, a lot of talk page ranting indeed. Since it's true that they have not received enough recent warnings I just issued one. More were received before however, —PaleoNeonate – 14:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• I blocked just to try to get their attention, as they seem to never have edited their own talk. Block length of a month, only to ensure the user notices it; no objection to lifting block immediately if the user acknowledges the warnings, demonstrates they understand why what they're doing is disruptive, and agrees to stop being disruptive. —valereee (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks all, perhaps I could have made more of an effort to resolve the problem before bringing it here. I'll keep it in mind :-) Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Democratic Unionist Party

Some extra eyes, assessments of page protection and more pending changes reviewers would all be very welcome at Democratic Unionist Party right at this moment. ◦ Trey Maturin 16:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• (non-admin comment) The DUP has a reputation in UK for being - shall I say - somewhat reactionary, and its leader Arlene Foster has just resigned. This pending diff needs attention. Narky Blert (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

There is one instance of vandalism so far - blocked and revdelled. Pending changes seems sufficient unless vandalism increases a lot. Fences&Windows 17:10, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I try to stay away from the actual NI political parties, despite being in the rest of the NI space administratatively, but since I now watch Sinn Fein I may as well do both sides. Canterbury Tail talk 17:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Ricco Baroni

This user has committed WP:Personal attack in two occasions to different users over at Tajmuraz Salkazanov. To put things in context, Salkazanov is a naturalized Slovak freestyle wrestler of Russian origins who represents Slovakia. This could be explained on many different ways in the main description section (such as ... is a Russian–born Slovak... or ...is a Russian–Slovak freestyle wrestler who represents Slovakia...), however, I think this is the best way to put it as it solves the question "why is he Slovak?", because it's evident that he earned the citizenship of the country he represents via naturalization. This could have perfectly been civilly discussed, however, User Baroni opted to insult anyone who didn't think like he did. He thought the article should be described as an 100% Russian wrestler who represents Slovakia, but is not Slovak, just Russian. In another article of the same conditions (Achsarbek Gulajev), he even wrote the stub template as a "Russian wrestler stub" instead of Slovak, in my opinion, clearly because of bias towards Russia.

The first time he reverted the edits thats showed Salkazanov as Slovak, he just wrote why you deleted his natialisty? he's a Russian and have never refused his natinality even though I never deleted his past in Russia, I wrote "Slovak ... of Russian origins", same as in Yasmani Acosta for example. Now going back to the personal attacks, the first one came towards other user (User:Martimix) who had reverted Baroni's edit to mine, saying are you dumb?? he has a Russian citizenship, he is not slovak heritage. He is still Russian even though once again, nobody said he was not Russian. I was simply not going to argue against that because it wasn't an argument or anything worth it, so while adding more info, I reinstalled the previous version. Baroni then, without argument once again, reverted for the second time, to which I also reverted his for the second time. In response, Baroni commits his second offense while not really changing anything, just insulting me by saying chilean kunt, which is obviously directed towards me because I am a native Chilean citizen as seen in my user page.

I decided not to engage in any kind of discussion with someone who just insults instead of reasoning, and I notified User:Cassiopeia, an administrator who has been extremely helpful to me in a lot of stuff. He informed me of details of edit warring, explained what Baroni had done in terms of Wikipedia's policy and also informed me of the possibility of reporting this in this page as he had already notified Baroni of his behaviour. I then pretty much thanked him and explained my point of view, to which Cassiopeia told me to let him know if I was going to report. Thanks. PabloLikesToWrestle (talk) 16:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Deelee Dube and User_talk:Dangelvoice

There have been ongoing issues with copyvio and edit warring on this draft throughout the month. While a partial block from this page would solve the issue, it's too complicated a request for Page Protection and I'm without a doubt involved. The user does not appear to understand how talk pages work, although we attempted to determine if there was a better way and they did engage for a brief window at User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Draft:Deelee_Dube. Overall, there's no way to communicate with them at all and the draft is not going to get to a place where it can exist in mainspace. The artist/subject is probably notable, but there is a lack of understanding on reliable sources and copyvio, with the latter of course being the major concern. When they're asked not to edit war, an IP joins in asking for nothing to be removed, and there are now rev-del'ed edits from Special:Contributions/Platinumbirch. Suggestions on how to proceed? Courtesy @Justlettersandnumbers, Nick Moyes, Robert McClenon, and Nathan2055: who have also been a part of this conversation. I'll notify the editor as soon as this post creates a direct link as I think that would be the easiest for her to use. Thanks all StarM 16:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

There was a discussion at the Teahouse about a week ago about how to try to deal with this editor. The discussion was inconclusive, but some of us thought that this editor is using a stupid mobile app that either doesn't support a user talk page or makes it difficult for an editor to find their talk page. Since all efforts to communicate have failed and the editor is continuing to edit-war, I think that a block for 36 or so hours is unfortunately in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Could an admin strike some recent edits at Huey Long?

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this, and I apologize if it isn't. Could someone strike the recent racist and explicit edits made by an IP at Huey Long? Thanks in advance. ~ HAL333 17:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

IP disruptively editing at Quantum entanglement

47.201.194.211 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been disruptively editing at the Quantum entanglement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article for several days, edit warring to include a paragraph against the concensus of multiple editors and is engaging in tendentious WP:PROFRINGE advocacy on the talkpage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I posted this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring two days ago, but nobody acted. (The page looks a bit backlogged, maybe? I'm not sure what's typical over there.) See there for a collection of diffs; here's the permalink for my update earlier today. XOR'easter (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)