Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Venkat TL mass page moves

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• If a Rajput candidate is fielded in the adjoining Chittorgarh Lok Sabha constituency, chances are a Brahmin would be fielded here and vice-versa. Mar 17, Geetha Sunil Pillai / TNN /. "Rajsamand seat too complicated for caste equations | Jaipur News - Times of India". The Times of India. Retrieved 23 May 2022.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• @Venkat TL: there was nothing sneaky with my edit, stop accusing other editors. You were asked a few questions here, and you were also pinged, yet you didn't respond. But you saw my "sneaky" edit. Would you kindly respond to the questions posed here? —usernamekiran (talk) 08:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Rhiabethmas

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

Examples of their work:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alansohn - Repeated Violation of IBAN

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

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

That brings us to now. I recently brought three article to AfD, see discussions [8], [9], [10]. Please note that two of the articles, Mayor of Long Branch, New Jersey and Mayor of East Newark, New Jersey Alansohn never contributed to. The third aricle, Mayors of Ramsey, New Jersey, he made a single contribution that I doubt anyone would considered significant. The exemption should not apply to these articles.

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

• 1
• 2
• 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional Sanctions for Alansohn

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I see no good reason for a punitive block, or for the sledgehammer of a total TBAN on AfDs. I still find it pretty much incomprehensible that Alansohn wouldn't have seen the name, but such draconian measures go too far. Drmies (talk) 23:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
• oppose both While I believe the iban should remain in place, I do not see the need for any further sanctions other than to strongly warn Alansohn that any further interactions will result in further sanctions and/or blocks. If, Alansohn wants the iban lifted, they should make a clear statement about what they did to cause the iban (they do not happen in a vacuum and it is foolish to assume it was caused by one person), and what they will do to keep it from happening moving forward. But at this time, leave the status quo and be more careful moving forward. Read every word of the AFD before voting. Nightenbelle (talk) 13:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer: prods and AfDs

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

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

Numerous proposed deletions and AfDs

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

Quality of AfD nominations

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

Canvassing

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

Multiple editors have asked for a slowdown in deletion nominations

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

Previous discussions

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

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

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

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

Perhaps a limit on everyone's rate of AfD/PROD nominations would be helpful, if it's technically possible? I contribute regularly to AfD, and read it more. I'm increasingly worried by early-20th-C deletions where the sources were paper and obscure, possibly non-English, and those in favour of deletion are following a "Google-search-turned-up-nothing" argument, with a dollop of "only references are a newspaper article and an obscure book I haven't read". I'm uncomfortable about deletions where none of the pro-delete editors have actually looked at any of the sources. It's hard work doing this, and it also often requires particular expertise. For instance here's one that really needed someone who could read Greek and access Greek sources; there had been a serious suggestion that sources were available as on the Greek Wikipedia, but no one turned up to verify them, so deletion was inevitable [11]. When AfD is an enormous list, and some AfD-users are just drive-by endorsing anything, without actually doing any work, then we're going to get incorrect deletions. I used to get frustrated with Uncle G for posting complex comments at AfD where he discussed sourcing and notability in depth, but didn't actually give a !vote. I'm now realising that we need more people like that, and more time for them to do the foot-work. I hope you'll forgive me, UncleG!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• It's worth noting prior discussion at User talk:Andrew Davidson#Jealousy in art, which itself lists a number of earlier discussions. (Perhaps the people involved in that discussion should be pinged?) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
• I would like to point to a few recent examples. Everyone else in an AFD says to keep, he arguing nonstop with them, then gives up and closes the AFD as "whatever". [12] Then at [13] everyone else says Keep to his deletion nomination, that the coverage found proved it was notable, he arguing nonstop about that. If people show up to notice what's going on and look for sources, then his bad nomination are stopped, otherwise perfectly valid articles get deleted. At another article he nominated for deletion, he went through and removed dozens of links to it from other articles [14] with the message (Removing link(s) to "Search Engine Watch": unlikely to be saved.). The AFD for the article ended in Keep. [15]. Then there was a massive number of perfectly valid television episode articles he just went through and turned into redirects. I undid him in a number of places, pointing out that two reliable sources had reviewed the episodes, and they listed in the article already. [16] [17] [18] and many others. Other television articles he sent to AFD ended without everyone else saying Keep. [19] [20] The point is if someone is around to notice, perfectly valid articles get deleted. I don't have time to write down how many times this has happened right now, but the same day I reverted him for some of those bad examples, I did others, and then again days before or after that. Dream Focus 19:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

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

  I reverted him at [22] and he then redirected it again and I reverted him again [23] he then sent it AFD where it ended as Keep. [24] Note that the article reads "On the episode's original airdate, Heroes attracted 16.97 million viewers." and has reliable sources reviewing it already.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal

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

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

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

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

  Voting "keep" on every nomination you come across regardless of the merits of the article or the sourcing available is disruptive. Of the 532 AFD's you have participated in you have expressed an opinion that an article should be deleted twice eight times. Only around 50% of the discussions you participate vote keep in in actually close with a consensus to keep. Looking through your comments it is trivially easy to find examples of you making non arguments that have no basis in policy, e.g. vague assertions that sources must exist but which provide no evidence of them actually existing [26] [27], acknowledgments that pages don't meet notability policy but votes that they should be kept anyway [28], voting to keep spam articles sourced to press releases, paid coverage and database entries [29], claims that blogs are usable sources because they have more than one contributor [30], supporting keeping an article on a marginally notable person on the basis of an interview after the subject had requested deletion (WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE) [31] and on and on it goes. Do these kind of votes and those statistics look like the contributions of someone who has a good understanding of policy and is carefully and considerately weighing up policy and the available sourcing before arriving at a conclusion of whether an article should be kept, or do they look like someone trying to find any justification to keep any article on the basis of their ideological views? 192.76.8.78 (talk) 18:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Can we do something to break the chain of

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  You can see their AfD accuracy here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Total noms: 498

  2019: 23

  2020: 34

  2021: 31

  Jan 2022: 8

  Feb 2022: 7

  Mar 2022: 22

  Apr 2022: 124

  May 2022: 247

  Today (June 1): 2

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

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

Of the remaining 332 noms:

158 keep or speedy keep

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement from nominated

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

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

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

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

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

  Also curious, will you continue to REDIRECT an article when your PROD was removed? For example, today you redirected Chasing Nature when User:Ficaia contested your PROD [[32]], which they said "the one source already included seems substantial, so a prod is inappropriate"?

  You're response was not to send to AfD, but to just redirect it because, as you stated, "redirect stub" with this edit [[33]].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for those hearty well-wishes! I reciprocate!

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

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

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

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

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

Motion to close

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2 other proposals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"No evidence there's a problem"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1) Many of these articles are not unsourced.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  If it is such a hugely complex process to bring up an article for deletion, how does Ten Pound Hammer nominate dozens in a day? How does a brand new user make his first 10 edits and nominate four articles for deletion in the space of ten minutes? (see [35]). Unfortunately, the opposite is often true. Bushxingu nominated 4 articles in 4 minutes. Nominating an article is much easier than defending one. It shouldn't be, because the nominator should do their research before making a nomination. I generally (sometimes more vigorously than others, depending on the circumstances) perform my own BEFORE before even commenting on an article - which leaves my input rather sparse compared to editors who seem to automatically vote - either "keep" or "delete" on dozens of articles every day, about subjects which they have no clue, without bothering to click on "scholar" when voting to delete an academic, without reading the article, etc. Thoughtless nominations and thoughtless !votes waste countless hours of serious editors. You should consider not only not nominating, but not voting if you are not willing to put in the work to offer a carefully considered viewpoint. Ill-considered nominations and votes are a middle finger to the face of the community at large. Jacona (talk) 12:30, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment. After seeing the extent of TPH's inability to control himself, I'm changing my !vote to support restriction to like 10 AfDs and PRODs per day, with a requirement to outline his BEFORE search results, with examples and why they aren't satisfactory, for both AfDs and PRODs. TenPoundHammer would you be able to stick to this? JoelleJay (talk) 04:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Quick proposal

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

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

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

A concrete example, launched after ANI:

• In this AFD TPH claims “Nothing on Newspapers.com, ProQuest, or Google Books.” [36].
• A number of book entries are found and listed on the discussion page, TPH claims “Everything I've found on GBooks appears to be a mere directory listing.“ [37] - the books listed on the page, which are from the first page of the search results, are general discussions of the topic and not directories. It’s unlikely TPH missed them if they performed the search, if they did direct links have been provide.
• “I left out a word. Nothing significant found.” [38]
• The word “useful” is added. [39]
• In response to being told he falsely ruled out GBooks as an avenue of research: “"Nothing useful on Newspapers.com, ProQuest, or Google Books." Which avenue did I leave out?” [40] - note that they try to slip in the revised wording.
• In response to another editor: “The two book sources are very tangential mentions; hell, the first one isn't even a full sentence.” [41] - they are referring to this: “The second was a pilot for The Adventures of Superboy, made in 1961. Johnny Rockwell played a young Clark Kent/Superboy in a light-hearted drama set in Smallville. Bunny Henning played Laura Lang. Thirteen scripts were written, but only the twenty-five-minute pilot entitled 'Rajah's Ransom' was made, and it can also be seen on YouTube.”, which is five sentences.
• On changing the nomination text then responding as if it hadn’t changed: “Because no one in the history of Wikipedia has ever left out a word when typing before, right?” - note that the revised version is still inaccurate. [42]
• Another one of the mentioned book sources turns out to have an entire chapter on the subject [43] “Nothing on Google books” is thoroughly busted, this will never be acknowledged.
• At this point there are removing chunks of the article as “unsourced”. [44], said material has sources added after trivia effort and is readded to the article. Not technically any kind of rules violation on their part but still exhausting behavior.

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

What I want to know is why you're so upset over me removing unsourced content. That is allowed, you know. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

It's really annoying when people go around just mass deprodding things for literally no reason. I've been trying to be more exhaustive in my reasoning. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I've been trying to be more exhaustive in my reasoning. That's what we're looking for! However, experience indicates PROD users won't use such discretion without active PROD patrolling. Don't worry, I will slide back to my preferred tasks improving articles in not too long and PROD may once again be a viable loophole for deletion. ~Kvng (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

A wider limit

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

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

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

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

Vandalism?

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's a ridiculous backflip.

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

Observation

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

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

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

Or what it might look like at ArbCom. Clearly, there's a behavioral issue the community has no stomach to solve despite multiple previous reports, so that's the logical next step. Jclemens (talk) 02:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes. There's definitely brigading going on.—S Marshall T/C 11:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

So I'm a bit of a Rip van Winkle, having been very active from 2003-2010, then being more of a reader than contributor, and in the past couple months being PRODded into more engagement, (as in, I'm getting a steady stream of email about deletions, complete with, shall we say, "pungent" characterizations of my past efforts, ha ha). What jumps out as a difference is that everybody is concerned about the sheer amount of toil that is a byproduct of success, combined with the realization that there aren't enough editor-hours available for the all the desired tasks. So when somebody is energetic, it's hard to tell them that they need to slow down, or be less histrionic about DOOM if some article is not deleted Right Now, or even just to follow our basic standards for behavior. I suspect that if there was a way to reduce toil to more closely match available editor time, it would be easier to say "this is a nice place; if you can't do that, go find a different activity". Stan (talk) 05:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I also agree that the degree of partisanship is striking (and not good). JBL (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

The canvassing

So far, the canvassing aspect of Cunard's treatise atop has been virtually ignored throughout this discussion. Just from viewing the list of nominations at a large number of AfD nominations for "List of people on the postage stamps of" alone, it is apparent that TPH is routinely and blatantly canvassing two users in many of their nominations or in comments, one of whom then reliantly comes along and then predictably opines for deletion in many cases. Aspects of the nominations such as "Obligatory ping of..." (discussion) and "As always, ping of @Fram: and @Johnpacklambert..." (discussion) do not inspire confidence that the user is even aware of WP:CANVASS. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

An WP:AGF reading of this thread says there's a lack of awareness of multiple policies. We should remember that we're dealing with a veteran editor who for years has been operating in areas where these policies apply. This makes makes unawareness a not-so-good explanation of the behavior. What we're dealing with is obstinacy and it is clearly having a disruptive effect. ~Kvng (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• More canvassing ty TPH here. Selective notification of a user that typically opines for deletion in list of people on postage stamps articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people on the postage stamps of Romania After the first person said "keep" he argued with them a bit, then did the canvasing you linked to. After three people said "keep" and only the guy canvassed over said delete, he then canvasses someone else who voted delete with him in in previously nominated list of stamp articles, pinging her in that discussion [45]. Doesn't say anything, just pings her. Dream Focus 01:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Didn't he say he was going to put a hold on it for now?

At this point, I can't follow this immense discussion, but I'm sure TPH promised not to do any more nominations or PROD's while this discussion continued. Here's one today (and I think it's a bad one). Is it possible they're trying to force the community to ban them so they can put an end to their compulsion? Let's do it, we'll all be better off. Jacona (talk) 11:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I mean, you say that, but did you not just significantly improve and add relevant detail to the stub in question as a result of that prod? Seems like a content win. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, TPH created that article, so it was a self-PROD of an article that had barely progressed since 2011 - a prime example of content needing a nudge. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer has access to newspapers.com. They could have added those sources instead of making others spend their time doing it. NemesisAT (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323, that is truly the most demotivating comment to contributing to Wikipedia ever. I guess we should only fight about this horrible behavior on ANI and not improve articles, because if we improve it, we confirm bad behavior as being good. That is sickening to me. Jacona (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Umm ... that is basically the entire point of the PROD setup: it's a form of less drastic, pre-AfD stimulation for either improvement or binning. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Why is it demotivating? Now, thanks to your actions, the world can see that Bill Armstrong had two Emmy noms. The body of knowledge moves on. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Had Jacona not noticed the PROD, the article on a notable subject could have been deleted without anyone noticing. That's what is so demotivating here, that we have to keep such a close eye on TPH's excessive nominations and spend time "saving" these articles, when TPH could just improve them themselves. NemesisAT (talk) 12:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

It's pretty clear TPH doesn't want to fix it, he either wants to kill it or try to force someone else to cleanup his mess. If this is how they are handled, why should I work on his articles (thus being proved to be his bitch), it's better to just remove the PRODs without comment. Jacona (talk) 12:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

The positive spin is you did the body of human knowledge a service. Perhaps just pat yourself on the back instead. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

The body of human knowledge would be better protected if people didn't repeatedly nominate notable subjects for deletion, as TPH does. NemesisAT (talk) 12:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Imagine telling other people how to feel about contentious actions that TPH has already promised to pare back in recognition of their errors, as seen earlier in the thread. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 01:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

TPH created the article and is still responsible for 54% of the content, so it is not like they never invested time into it, and I doubt they created it in 2011 just to torment people in 2022. You assume that they could have found the same information, but perhaps not. We all search for things in different ways. That's why humans are better as teams, because we explore the world in different ways and through different means. I've certainly never been on newspapers.com - is that now a requirement for WP:BEFORE? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

The point is, he promised not to do new prods while this discussion was in process, and here he is breaking his promise. That is not good faith. Jacona (talk) 12:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

If you have access to it then I would say yes. TPH regularly states that they have searched on it. NemesisAT (talk) 12:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

The fact of the matter, though, is that per WP:PROD, it is a process to suggest an article or file for uncontroversial deletion (bold emphasis mine). The purpose of Proposed deletion is literally for deletion. It is not intended as a tool to nudge other editors to work on articles. That is what the maintenance templates are for. Furthermore, per the policy page, "PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected." The notions being suggested above of Prod being used to nudge article improvements contradict this notion and are not part of the policy, nor should they be. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

He violated that "promise" ten times in the course of this discussion alone and it's clear he won't stop nominating unless he is stopped via technical means. In the best of worlds, he doesn't understand what makes a good/bad nomination. In the worst, well, I've worked with him too long to call him a troll but he'd be trolling us. I'm hoping it's the former. Star Mississippi 13:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Another TPH Deletion Issue

I think that another judgment error by User:TenPoundHammer should be listed here as long as this thread is open.

• Darkover (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darkover (TV series)

The article was nominated for deletion by TPH on 4 June 2022. About 16 hours later, it was closed by TPH as Redirect, by consensus. (It may have been snowing in Antarctica.) A Deletion Review was opened by User:Jclemens, and was then closed when User:Star Mississippi reopened the AFD as a bad non-admin close.

I don't at this time have an opinion on AFDs and PRODs by TPH, but I do have a proposal that TPH be topic-banned from non-admin closes of XFDs (all XFDs, if they don't know that closing their own XFD is an inappropriate involved closure). Robert McClenon (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support and acknowledge that my relist was likely also Involved (in terms of the discussion, not the particular AfD) but that was the only appropriate outcome since it never should have been closed. This is an example of TPH's complete unwillingness to listen to feedback even while this very discussion is ongoing and who this has been a 13 year issue going back to his RfA. TPH fundamentally misunderstands notability and deletion processes. Are there articles that need to be deleted, yes. Are there other options/editors who can handle them, yes. We don't need to continue to deal with these poor nominations. They're utterly exhausting, speaking as AfD patroller. Saving @Liz and other PROD patrollers' sanity is great. But dumping it on AfD isn't better. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shep Unplugged which he's utterly bludgeoning because he doesn't want it to be redirected (caveat, I !voted) because he doesn't understand what isn't a hoax. Star Mississippi 15:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Exactly how many more people would have had to say "redirect" before someone had the nerve to do it? I disagree with the rules here and think they're overly laborious and bureaucratic. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

That said, I do see how that decision comes off as hasty and as a possible unfair involvement. I'm going to let it stand as overturned. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support The Darkover series wasn't the first AfD that TPH closed early, and it probably won't be the last. TPH clearly doesn't abide by policies and feedback. Even in the above comment TPH said that their decision was "hasty" and that he's going to "let it stand as overturned." No where did TPH state that he would stop closing AfDs. The only way to stop these early closures by TPH is a topic-ban from non-admin closes of all XFDs. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support as involved and personally observing TPH's intransigence on this score. There's not much more to say than what's linked in the discussions involved: TPH doesn't perceive the behaviors as disruptive. Jclemens (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  Because they're not! Everyone said redirect, so I redirected. Why are we making a mountain out of a molehill here? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  Again, you fail to understand that you were not supposed to close a discussion that you opened. Failure to obey policy. And, "everyone" was, what, 4 people that decided to comment on it in the 16 HOURS (as opposed to 7 days) that the discussion was open. This isn't a molehill because it isn't an isolated event. Anyone perusing your editing history can find at least 5 that you opened and then closed yourself after a short time. DonaldD23 talk to me 20:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  So? Am I not allowed to withdraw when I know I'm wrong? I've seen withdrawn AFDs sit for literally days and days because somehow no one noticed they were withdrawn. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not seeing anyone object to you withdrawing an AFD once you realise it is a mistake. But you do realise don't you that closing an AFD as Redirect is not the same as closing it as Keep? ϢereSpielChequers 22:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  You may absolutely withdraw an AFD and close it as a speedy keep (so long as there are no other deletion rationales in the !votes), but not close it as a redirect or any other close besides "keep". You said above I disagree with the rules here and think they're overly laborious and bureaucratic and thats fine for you to feel, you dont have to pledge undying love to the rules here, but you do have to follow them until they change, and if you do not make a commitment to do so well then your time in that part of the project may come to an early end. nableezy - 23:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  Withdrawing a nomination and closing then redirecting are not the same thing. Do you not understand that? DonaldD23 talk to me 23:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  If literally everyone is saying "redirect", then what's the point in delaying the inevitable, anyway? No one can give me a straight answer on that. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  To repeat and summarise those above. Literally everyone in a 7 day AFD is one thing, the first handful of responses before someone has come along and found a source is a completely different thing. That 7 days is important for those who are checking for sources. ϢereSpielChequers 08:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support as uninvolved; clear policy violations without recognizance, as well as an implicit ownership of the whole thing: I'm going to let it stand as overturned. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 02:00, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support as uninvolved passerby. TPH, re "No one can give me a straight answer on [why a nominator closing their own AFD is bad]", is this a serious request for an explanation? Because if this isn't already clear to you from your years on Wikipedia, then you absolutely should not be closing any discussions at all, let alone your own. A poker player can't just grab the pot after they see they have pocket aces and are likely to win, but they're allowed to fold and cede their own chips. A tennis player can't call their opponent's shots foul. A baseball pitcher doesn't get to call their own balls & strikes. And so on. Even when it's obvious, it's not their job: let the dealer / judge / umpire handle it. Having an impartial party make the call makes the result "stronger" than an obviously biased party; XFD results are taken seriously because there's a presumption of a community-sanctioned result, not merely the nominator's preferred result. This is why overturning an AFD takes more effort than merely ILIKEIT, while reverting a bold redirection of an article requires fairly little - you're blurring the line between two processes that are not the same. Anyway, if the consensus for a redirect is so strong - and I agree that in the case of the Darkover TV series AFD it's surely likely to close as merge & redirect - then let someone else close it and trust they'll agree with the obvious consensus. In the rare situations where there really is a "deadline" of sorts, you can even request an early close, citing why waiting out the full 7 days is bad for some reason (doesn't apply here, but maybe if someone opens an AFD on some sort of slanderous BLP article). But even when an early close is merited, you let someone else make the call. That's why nominators almost always can't close their own discussions, except when closing against their nomination rather than for it. SnowFire (talk) 04:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support If an editor has to be outright told that INVOLVED closes are bad, so be it. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Issues with MagicAllium - possible BKFIP user

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

---

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

Early today going through my Watchlist I found that user MagicAllium had removed cited information from the Navan page on the grounds of it being 'really lame trivia.' See [46] and [47]. Seeing this I reverted it and explained that 'Lameness' not a criteria used to determine information on the site.[48]

I later saw after this event on my watchpage there was further disruptive editing by MagicAllium reverting my own edit on Navan as well as removing sections from The String of Pearls and Varney the Vampire. Seeing that the reason for the Navan revert cited a Wiki policy I checked it and didn't see any of the four reasons listed as relevant to its removal.[49] As a result I reverted it again citing that lameness is not a reason to remove content. On the String of Pearls page the reason given for deleting a section of the page was it being 'extremely badly written.' [50] On the Varney page the reason offered was 'removed some trivia,' the trivia in question is related to pop culture with the two most recent examples being removed but not those preceding it.[51] (I would like to not that in addition to this they did improve the grammar on the Varney page, these edits were not reverted or changed by myself and the section edited was identical to the deleted one on the String of Pearls.) I will admit that MagicAllium also created a section on my talk page called 'Grammar' that I for the moment ignored, instead following wiki guidelines I added a level 1 disruptive editing notice to their page.

Later I saw that my reverts where reverted again and that my notice on their talk page had been deleted.[52] Seeing this I again reverted the pages and this time decided to give a level 3 warning instead of a level 2 as I felt that the deleting the level 1 warning as an act of trying to hide it. This was also deleted [53] and my edits reverted again, they also added a note to my talk page that read 'Have you understood what I wrote above?' Like last time I reverted the edits, except for Navan as that would have been in violation of the 3R's, and added a level 4 warning to their talk page. As well as this I added a response to their created section on my talk page and explained that they were free to edit grammar on the site as needed but deleting a section entirely because of that is considered disruptive, as is removing cited content based on 'lameness.' [54]

The level 4 warning was deleted[55] the String of Pearls page reverted again [56] and another user, DonQuixote, kindly @'d me on the Varney page about the issue where I explained the situation. We discussed the issue in the 'Trivia is trivia' section of its talk page and helped improve the section overall. MagicAllium continued our conversation on the issue where I pointed out that the discussion on the Varney page ended up concluding that some of the trivia they were deleting was the best of that section and that their fixing of grammar on that page is appropriate and was not reverted unlike deleting entire sections for grammar on The String of Pearls. I offered them to go and fix these issues but they did not do so and ignored my points, this conversation can be read on my talk page here. [57]

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

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

I would like to update in order to say that as per guidelines MagicAllium was given a notice of this posting on their talk page. They have since deleted it.[58] Dubarr18 (talk) 18:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

@Canterbury Tail @CambridgeBayWeather I am 99% sure that MagicAllium is the latest incarnation of WP:LTA/BKFIP. Focus on grammatical errors, edit warring and incivility, accusations of incompetence aimed at other editors, the same edit summaries as always (compare to, e.g. [59] or [60]), quoting policy at people 9 edits in, and how many genuine newbies are able to explain policy like this [61] 15 edits and 2 days after joining? 192.76.8.78 (talk) 02:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Race and intelligence and the fringe noticeboard

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

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

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

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

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

You were topic banned from race and intelligence broadly construed [62]. It seems clear that a discussion which includes stuff like

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More disruptive editing on The Open Championship from a SPA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paulmcdonald and admin 101

Some issues with admin User:Paulmcdonald.

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

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

Pailmcdonald first used rollback to revert me[63], which is an abuse of the rollback tool. And then they nominated the page they merged for A10 speedy deletion[64], which is obviously no longer valid as there is now merged material that needs attribution and thus should not be deleted like this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment I am just a standard user and not up to speed on the admin side of things but I would like to note that Paul McDonald added a message about proposed merge on the Water target page and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Water_(Saigon_Kick_album)&oldid=1091225987 didn't leave a message that the merge had been completed leading someone to comment on it after it had been completed. It would also be good if they could add the (optional) {{merged from}} and {{merged to}} templates to the talk pages. Gusfriend (talk) 00:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
• Feels much more like it should have been a short civil talk on Paul's talk page, not an ANI report. These are minor oversights at best, not damaging errors. Sergecross73 msg me 12:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Talking tried and failed. And no, these are damaging errors: trying to speedy delete pages which shouln't be speedy deleted for attribution reasons (reasons created by paulmcdonald just before adding the speedy tag) is causing damage; rejecting correct speedy deletions because on non-policy reasons (or because of a total alck of knowledge of the policies) also damages enwiki. And an admin who has these type of issues this often is a serious liability. The non-committal or vague answers here are no reassurance, and don't give the impression that further talking would have been any better. But I guess we'll have to wait and see if similar issues continue to happen or not then. Fram (talk) 13:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I mean, have you seen User talk:Paulmcdonald#Urban Fêtes. Apparently they are unable to respond meaningfully to posts which aren't formulated as a question. And sadly, their answers to questions aren't much better. Having a conversation with them turned out to be a fruitless exercise, and when I then noticed just days later that they made one error after another, I came here. Fram (talk) 13:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
    • I read it and more or less agree with Paul in his responses: you made no request and asked no question, you just, as he said, scolded him. You didn't "have a conversation" with him, not really, more like you yelled at him and then came here. If that is what you think a normal conversation looks like then, well, this is why a lot of times when you raise these issues no one really cares because even though you're right that these were mistakes, your way of handling them and raising them is frankly worse than the mistake itself. If this sounds familiar to you it's because I'm like the millionth person to say this to you and it's what framgate was all about and why you're not an admin anymore. C'mon and let's fix this part and start approaching people nicer with our complaints. And I say this as like probably the #2 top complainer about admin actions on this website, behind you. Levivich 14:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
      • Framgate was about an editor who didn't like her dreadful articles being scrutinized and enlisting WMF insider help from the very top to get me silenced, and the WMF thinking that taking out an editor with enough opponents would be an uncontroversial first power move. And then a number of disgruntled people making trumped-up accusations without much (or usually anything) in the way of evidence to support their claims, but who just felt this a good chance to get revenge for, again, having their problems exposed in the past. See e.g. the notorious deleted Signpost attack piece, and the people behind it. But it at least partially succeeded, in that people can still use it as evidence for something or other. Fram (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Qmamu is what started my concern about Paulmcdonald's judgement in general, both as an admin and an editor and their subsequent denial of facts here. PRAXIDICAE💕 17:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• A Question Do I have to make the exact same decisiosns as other editors all the time, or is there leeway for disagreement when it comes to interpreting application of Speedys? My understanding is that speedy deletions should only be processed if they "unquestionably" meet hte speedy criteria. If there's as question, there are other avenues for deletion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  That's a bit of a false dichotomy: "exact same decisions as other editors all the time" v. "disagreement when it comes to interpreting application of speedys" aren't the only two options. Speaking for myself only, I expect admins to implement consensus. If their interpretation of policy differs from the consensus interpretation, they are to implement the consensus interpretation and not their personal interpretation. I'm not sure, for the examples cited here, whether your interpretation differs from the consensus interpretation because I haven't looked into it carefully enough, although I am sure the consensus interpretation is that press releases to do not count towards notability. Levivich 17:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  I think you can reasonably expect that the creator of an article will usually object to speedy deletion. The only exceptions I've seen are editors who make a lot of articles on the edge of notability, some of whom take the (commendable!) attitude that if no one is willing to stick up for their articles, perhaps speedy deletion is merited—although that happens more often with PROD than CSD, since experienced editors know how to write a CCS, even for a non-notable subject. So no, I don't think that the creator objecting to a speedy measurably counts against speedying, unless the objection is something like, "Wait, please hold on, I'm still working on this and will fix the problem" for a CSD where that's viable, in which case the article can be left to simmer briefly.

  Do different admins interpret the CSD differently? Sure. Just like Supreme Court justices differ in approaches on statutory construction, so do Wikipedia admins. Personally I'm a textualist for the most part. Some reasonable admins feel G11 covers moderately promotional low-quality articles, while I don't, because that's not in the text. Some reasonable admins feel that if an article has been around long enough, A7 doesn't apply, while I don't, because that's not in the text. I think those kinds of difference in philosophy are part of a healthy system; they keep CSD-taggers on their toes because one doesn't know which admin one will get. But there's a point at which an interpretation becomes unreasonable, and I think "contested on talk" as reason to untag is unreasonable, as is calling press releases or paid coverage a credible claim of significance. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 17:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  In a recent case, I wasn't convinced that a source in the article was just a press release. Others were more convinced. But to me it didn't meet the "unquestionable" standard. I'm unsure if that is the matter you are referencing. But if I did get it wrong (and that's possible) it should get fixed in AFD or some other discussion. Just like if any other admin gets something wrong, we can collaborate and work together to fix it. We can get to the right answer and right result.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  Sure but it would be nice to do so without wasting already stretched-thin editor's time when common sense can be applied and perhaps after long absences, familiarize yourself with current community norms, policies and guidelines before utilizing tools and administrative decisions. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Paul, what was the credible claim of significance or importance? Levivich 22:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  I'm unsure of the specific case, but as I recall there were some sources that to me looked like newspaper articles that others said were just press releases. Since others were not convinced, that seemed to me to call for more input.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Putting the extra burden on the already poorly-attended and overloaded AfD process isn't the solution. If your interpretation of the CSD criteria is idiosyncratic and differs from its current practice (both by editors and other admins), then perhaps you could leave the review of the CSD category to others? Kicking the can down the road benefits absolutely no one; not our editors, readers or the encyclopedia. Just my opinion, and I hope it doesn't come off as unappreciative of your time and effort, because it is appreciated.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Lugnuts at AFD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Observations:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Observations from Lugnuts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Do you really think everyone here is too dim to understand implicature? It was literally your comment

  Number of AfDs started by Lambert since 1st Jan: 91
  Number of AfDs started by Lambert since 1st Jan on articles I started: 44
  "There is no attempt to single out articles created by you for deletion" - Lambert

  with the edit summary tick-tock, it's Lambert o'clock

  that @Spartaz recognized as a thinly-veiled aspersion and prompted him to take you to ANI. JoelleJay (talk) 01:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposal for IBAN

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

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

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

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

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

Just chiming in here to say that I've seen the same behaviour - Lugnuts !votes redirect at AFD but reverts redirects outside of AFD, meaning that you HAVE to go through AFD to do a redirect. Maybe Lugnuts has now stopped this, which would be great? FOARP (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Any diffs where I have voted redirect at an AFD, and they reverted that redirect? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hans Riedl. A related issue, and one that occurs much more frequently, is you reverting prods and then !voting redirect in the AfD, rather than just redirecting the article. BilledMammal (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I didn't revert the redirect after the AfD was closed - check the dates again. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood the discussion here; no one was saying that you reverted the redirect after the AfD was closed. What they were saying is that you reverted the redirect, and then supported the redirect when the AfD was opened. As Star Mississippi suggested in that AfD, it raises questions about why you reverted the redirect - or in the case of prods, why you reverted the prod, rather than redirecting the article. BilledMammal (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Exactly BilledMammal, the effect is to make it impossible to BOLDly redirect Lugnuts's stubs, meaning they all have to got through AFD. FOARP (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

You can see from the edit summary re: undoing the original redirect - "hard to believe any WP:BEFORE work was done with the mass-redirecting done by this user" JPL did a mass-batch of redirecting. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    @Deb, you really don't see how banning JPL from nominating for deletion/redirecting/PRODding articles created or edited by Lugnuts -- comprising the vast plurality of non-notable athlete stubs that need to be deleted per community consensus -- is far more of a punishment than banning Lugnuts from participating in AfDs of articles JPL has nominated? JoelleJay (talk) 05:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

    No. I see that Lugnuts' desire to improve Wikipedia is just as great as JPLs is. Deb (talk) 07:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

    What kind of answer is that? JPL has spent a lot of effort and been a huge asset in getting P&G-noncompliant non-notable microstubs discussed and deleted, an enormous proportion of which happened to be created by Lugnuts (resulting in his current TBAN). Most or all of the interactions between JPL and Lugnuts are in the context of these articles being nominated for deletion. A 2-way IBAN would substantially restrict JPL's preferred primary method of improving Wikipedia (patrolling biographies for maintenance and notability assessment) without having any effect on Lugnuts' preferred activities. How is that different from a 1-way IBAN against JPL? JoelleJay (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Yes, but please remember that you're not individually entitled to "offer" anyone anything. I would really recommend you opt out of this discussion now and I would recommend that JPL does too. Deb (talk) 08:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  OK, thanks Deb. I wasn't aware I could not offer anything in this case - thought it would be the right thing. Note that even while this discussion is live, JPL's very next AfD was this. Now if I was doing the same to his articles on a daily basis, well, you know how that would end. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• Additional concern. I've already given support to the two-way IBAN but comments by and about JPL in the whole Lugnuts at AFD thread have convinced me that JPL is not a fit and proper person to be raising AFDs. I understand he is currently subject to a one AFD per day sanction and I propose we remove that sanction and replace it with a full AFD TBAN for a period of at least six months. I could quote numerous examples to support my view but here are just a few.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That would be one hell of a cull on the keepkeepkeep side. Reyk _YO! 00:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose two-way IBAN - Frankly the issue is not simply between Lugnuts and JPL but between Lugnuts and the community as a whole. JPL is obviously no saint, but it is the mass stub creation and obstructionism towards clean-up that Lugnuts engages in that is the main cause of the problem. FOARP (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  And here's the third false statement you've made against me in this ANI thread. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Groundless allegations are also an example of uncivil behaviour. FOARP (talk) 15:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose- Johnpacklambert is not doing anything wrong here and shouldn't be punished. Reyk _YO! 00:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support two-way interaction ban. Dream Focus 03:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

New Proposal - redirect & ban on reverting redirects

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        • I have apoligized for all sorts of things. I even have an apology notice on my talk page. It is not my fault that Lugnuts falsely assumes that someone who nominates many Olympian articles that are 3 sentences or less has a vendetta against him, when the much more simple explanation is that since he created roughly 80% of such articles, there is no intention to target him. I know I have nominated articles on Olympians who did not on my review seem to fit any in inclusion criteria that were created by other editors than Lugnuts.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as most of the stubs are sourced, and redirects often go unnoticed and receive little attention so AfD is the best place for disputed redirects in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose any action, far as I am concerned, and I don't know how much weight my suggestion has is that JPL should be TBANNED from all sports related AfDs nominations, comments, voting. I truly believe he has no interest in sports subjects let alone wanting to perform any WP:BEFORE style research. Govvy (talk) 23:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

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

• Oppose. As I have stated below, some of these stubs are not entirely unsourced and it seems to me that Johnpacklambert is using the redirects to effectively "delete" articles and circumvent any sort of AfD process, which, in my opinion, is pretty outrageous and seems to be an abuse of rules. Two articles created by Lugnuts had this happen to them in February, which I asked Johnpacklambert about doing without doing a proper WP:Before, then expanded the articles and added more references. They did this to two more articles today, that myself and another user added references to and I expanded one. Redirecting all sports stubs that are "unreferenced" isn't a good idea as it seems to depend on what some users consider "unreferenced". Some of those (at least four that I was made aware of) were referenced, or at least had a foundation and can be expanded. ExRat (talk) 23:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as mentioned above, this is one sided per LEPRICAVARK and NGS. Kante4 (talk) 10:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Far too many of Lugnuts' stubs are expandable/notable. I am also highly against anyone redirecting them without first taking them to AFD. Lastly, they are not unsourced. Scorpions13256 (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support as at least a solution to part of the problem. I hope the closer of this section reads the above !votes carefully, as this proposal is for redirecting all the unsourced stubs and I want to emphasize unsourced, so opposes on the grounds that they're not all unsourced aren't speaking to the actual proposal. This proposal does not propose redirecting sourced stubs, just the unsourced ones. Levivich 02:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
  • If we actually limit this to allowing redirects of Olympic articles that have no sources at all of any kind, I am not sure it will have any effect. Pretty much any Olympic articles is sourced to at least one sports table. If we expand this to allowing redirect of other non-Olympain unsourced articles we need to be clearer about the scope, because we actually do have some unsourced articles that at least if we could find one source to just verrify them it would be an acceptable article. This might have some effect if we worded it as "we can redirect articles on Olympians sourced only to a sports stats table, and Lugnuts cannot override that redirect", but I am starting to think people really do not like unilateral redirect. What we really need is to make it so at AfD people can say either delete or redirect or merge in their initial nomination, because as far as I can tell we have no good forum to discuss redirect in a way that will get large amounts of community feedback.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposal – stubs at AFD

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment. Lugnuts ownership behaviour in defence of the kittens they have spawned is half the problem; there cannot be an exception for these. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Ownership behavior has to do with editing an article. The exception here has nothing to do with editing the article. It's to allow surfacing sources at AfD. Maybe the exception should be worded that way. Ultimately, if he doesn't add anything useful to AfD, the closer should discount the !vote as with anyone else's. If there's a problem with Lugnuts' behavior at AfD, propose a sanction, but the evidence and arguments in this thread so far don't logically point to that IMO. This proposal is instead about [what seems to be] particular root issues (for one side, that many of these should never even reach AfD because they're obvious redirects; for the other, that there are too many uncareful redirects). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
    • The aim here is to end disruption. Disruption by Lugnuts has been mostly (if not entirely) related to the articles they created; excluding such articles from any sanction reinforces ownership and renders the proposal impotent and unsupportable. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
    • I've been going through afds he's participated in for articles he created that are currently redirects, in an attempt to substantiate the accusation above that he reverts redirections of his articles only to !vote redirect at the afd. I haven't found any evidence of that. I also haven't yet found a single instance of him providing a source. (I'll grant that he may well have done so at an afd that didn't result in a redirection or deletion, and even that that may be why it didn't; those aren't the ones I'm looking at.) What I have seen, over and over and over, are comments similar to the one here, almost to the word. If you're that concerned that he be allowed to add sources, he can do so by editing the article. Like he should have done in the first place. —Cryptic 21:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
      • I think that the similarity in terms of comments at AfD is probably a response by Lugnuts to being told to change their behaviour at AfD. The comment you're highlighted is neutral, based on "policy" and avoids any judgemental comment about the AfD. I see that as a mature and flexible compromise made by Lugnuts. It still allows them to vote, but by restricting their comments to a boilerplate response - which is, fwiw, a perfectly reasonable suggestion to make - there's less chance of causing anyone to take offence. As I've said above, I can't make a comment on whether JPL has changed their behaviour as a response to sanctions and other suggestions, but I will state here that the number of comments made by them in this discussion concerns me. I would hope to see more compromise; I don't. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. For what it is worth, I have raised the issue with Johnpacklambert in February about him unilaterally redirecting articles created by Lugnuts without any sort of discussion. I do not know of discussions that have taken place that permit a single editor (not an administrator) to effectively delete an article and circumvent an AfD. Possibly, there are, I am just unaware of them. Two of the articles they had done this with (Peeter Mürk and Edgar Puusepp), I have found decent references for. So, these redirects seem to be done without them doing any proper WP:BEFORE. Johnpacklambert has done this again today with two more articles (Artur Amon and Georg Vinogradov) that, again, I have been able to find decent references for and even expand the article for Artur Amon. I find it frustrating that editors who are not admins can simply "delete" articles by doing a redirect. It seems to me to be a crafty way of getting around the entire nomination for deletion and discussion process. As for Lugnuts, I have found that many of the articles they have created are an okay foundation, and if an editor takes a few minutes like I did today, they can be expanded. ExRat (talk) 23:31, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
  • There are lots of editors out there who on multiple occasions say "all these articles are going to end up as redirects anyway, stop wasting our time by taking them to AfD." Really Wikipedia needs to create a way so that AfD easily allows you to nominate for redirect, for merger or for deletion there. Merger nominations on talk pages get way too little views. To have AfD turned into a forum where you can chose delete, merge, or redirect as your initial nomination choice would really help things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
• 2 redirects over what timeframe? I bet I can find 2 that go each way for Rhododendrites (who I consider an exemplary editor) or myself (less exemplary but not someone who should be topic banned I hope). I will also note, neutrally, that this proposal only appears to be fair. From what I've read, it's actually asymmetrical against JPL because JPL has interests in this work beyond Lugnuts, while Lugnuts is mainly concerned with protecting his creations so JPL has far more "risk" here. Perhaps that's intentional, but if not I thought it was worth noting. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• This proposal doesn't look like it's going anywhere. No objections if someone wants to close it to reduce sprawl. I would like to point to #Observation under the TenPoundHammer section of this page, though. I suspect in both cases the best outcome is going to be one that won't make most vocal participants happy, though I don't know what that will be. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The problem here was how uncivl to others Lugnuts has been. Putting others on notice for punishment does not address this problem at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment As mentioned above their is no requirement that people do a before prior to doing a prod. On what grounds can we start imposing special rules on one editor that do not exist for any other editors?John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  "heir is no requirement that people do a before prior to doing a prod" sorry, but you're wrong here. Look at point 1 of WP:PRODNOM which links to WP:DEL-REASON, and then read point 7 - "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" - IE doing a WP:BEFORE. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Precisely. This has already been outlined somewhere above – so, another instance of WP:IDHT by JPL. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 12:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Actually, no. If you read above multiple editors spell out that there is in fact no requirement for doing before prior to making a prob. You are free to try and get the wording on such things changed, but the current wording requires no such thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

OK, it is actually below. The statement is "But again, the relevant policy pages rather glaringly do not obligate a search for sources -- something that one would very much expect to be in at least PRODNOM if it was actually required". So yes, that is a clear assertion that a Prod can be issued without doing before at least per the policy. I see that this is generally not liked, and I will try to do before more when I start a prod in the future.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• I posted the following on my talk page. I am posting it here in hopes that it generates some traffic of people looking at the issue in question. Thomas Forbes is an article that has been posted as having no sources since 2008. I looked through the links to find sources, and nothing was looking to be about him. The name is common enough that it might take a really deep dive through sources to be sure. There seems to be a contemporary businessman with this name, and there are lots of other people with it. My initial search brough up nothing, and we need sources to verify. Not all poets are notable just because they published, but some people have claimed I have over done Proposed deletion nominations, so I am hoping this notice might get some interest.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Does JPL understand notability and the PROD process?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wait, I'm confused. Criteria 6 clearly supports what you've just said, but criteria 5 would indicate that department chairs would indeed qualify. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@78.26, C5 requires holding a named chair, e.g. "the Julie Smith Chair of Electrical Engineering". JoelleJay (talk) 05:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • I have worked on quite a few articles about topics listed on the National Register of Historic Places and am aware that any such listing includes a link to a PDF that almost always contains additional links to reliable independent sources that devote significant coverage to the topic. These are commonly assessments by academics of the historical significance or architectural significance of the topic. In my experience, the National Park Service does an excellent job evaluating the significance of these sites. So, if any editor chooses to PROD or nominate one of these sites for deletion, I would expect a robust analysis explaining why the NPS got the matter wrong, and why the random Wikipedia editor understands things better. Cullen328 (talk) 06:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

    • FWIW this was the state of the Easley High School article when JPL !voted, so he may not have been aware of the NRHP listing. !Voters generally aren't expected to return and change their !votes if circumstances change; closers will account for any improvements to the article, and in this case the obvious Keep outcome would have come one whole day earlier. –dlthewave ☎ 16:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

      He was aware of the NRHP listing. He was notified on his talk page and cordially asked to review the article. Jacona (talk) 18:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

      • That post on my talk page long post-dated my vote. So I was not in fact aware of the NRHP designation when I made the vote.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  No matter how strongly you feel about what the appropriate requirements for WP:PROD ought to be, please remember that WP:AGF is policy. Characterizing disagreement with your position as a game that requires some sort of balance between people who want to create an encyclopedia and people who want to delete it or saying that I get the impression that there are mamy people who would prefer it if we didn't have any articles are honestly shocking. Disputes over deletion have long been a fraught area; we need efforts to calm things down and stick to a general presumption that this is a good-faith disagreement over what sort of stubs are necessary and the rigorousness of the process needed when there is a disagreement over them. --Aquillion (talk) 08:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Counter-proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  I believe the first time you made that accusation against me was at this ANI discussion - see this diff. You have made it many more times since then, and while I don't have diffs for you making it against other editors, I would not be surprised if they exist. BilledMammal (talk) 04:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  So your only diff you've presented is from the best part of six months ago, and not related to anything to do with myself or JPL. So in other words, aspersions. Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  Wait a minute, you've just PROD'd approx 35 articles in LESS THAN 1 HOUR including two batches of ten articles in one minute (05:58 and 06:12). What WP:BEFORE work has been done here? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  The statement you quoted was Lugnuts falsely accusing others of targeting articles created by him. Others include me, and while that was the first accusation, there have been many more by you since then; or are you saying that that was the only one?

  On the topic of aspersions, please stop claiming editors are not conducting WP:BEFORE searches without providing evidence. Evidence would include sources that a WP:BEFORE search should have found. As for how I can nominate ten articles in one minute, I do the research and write the nominations beforehand - often well beforehand. All the ones I nominated today I started reviewing on the 25th of May, though the list I presented at WP:VPP consists mostly of more recent efforts. BilledMammal (talk) 08:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose This would block any attempt to provide further analysis on issues like how a name is not suitable for redirect because there are actual notable people who share the same name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
  • And after a couple of edits to ANI and some talkpages, your VERY FIRST edit today was to start this AfD. So again, how true is your statement of "There is no attempt to single out articles created by you"? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
  • John Pack Lambert, what were you thinking? Drmies (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
    • Is there anything that suggests that this person meets inclusion criteria. I have seen at least 12 similar pages on Olympians that have less than 3 sentences on the subject. 11 of those were originated by Lugnuts. Multiple people have above shown that nominating such articles for deletion is not problematic. It is an article sourced only to a stat page, it does not meet our inclusion criteria for Olympians, and my multiple searches did not turn up any other sources. With the sheet magnitude of articles created by Lugnuts, it takes effort to not find an article by Lugnuts if you are looking at the set of articles with less than 3 sentences of prose on Olympic competitors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  "And after a couple of edits to ANI and some talkpages, your VERY FIRST edit today was to start this AfD" Lugnuts, how is this relevant in any way, shape or form? Who cares if JPL nominated an article that you created for deletion? What's wrong with that? What rule is he breaking? –dlthewave ☎ 16:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  Well, when the discussion is about an two-way IBAN, and JPL goes straight ahead to target those articles... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  No, the discussion is about your unfounded, uncvilly expressed view that someone nominating a few of the literally thousands of less than 3 sentance long articles you have created on people who do not meet the current inclusion criteria for Olympic competitors, is somehow an attack on you. It is not, and the fact that there are so many of these articles should mean that no one should believe your claim that this is targeted at you at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  That's an argument that you made ad nauseam. If someone else feels the same, they're welcome to make it in the discussion. Star Mississippi 18:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  John - why are you continuing with a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality with you posting on multiple editors' talkpages with posts that are basically attacks one, two, three, four. If I was doing the same about you across multiple talkpages, would you find that acceptable? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

This is an ANI about your rude, uncivil behavior. That is why this ANI was opened, saying so is accurate. My complaints beyond that do not say anything about exactly who did this. It is your behavior that was found unacceptable and caused this ANI to open. That the end result of the ANI should punish anyone else because you were so rude and uncivil that you were brought to ANI I think is a fatal flaw in ANI. That it would punish the person who you were attacking in ways that caused you to be brought to ANI who was not even the person who brought it to ANI is not at all good. The fact that I express this view should not be used to punish me. People have a right to comment on unfair process, and an ANI process that punishes someone other than the person who did the disruptive behavior that opened it is not a fair process at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Never heard of WP:BOOMERANG, then? The reason why this ANI has turned into one about you is because you are widely perceived to be incompetent at AFD and people are sick and tired of trying to drum sense into you when you just play WP:IDHT all the time. All sensible editors recognise Lugnuts as a prolific editor who builds the encyclopaedia, while you and your "community consensus" of eight or nine cronies (enough to get your consensuses because sensible, normal people have better things to do) contribute little but persistently make idiotic WP:POINTs to try and justify your misguided deletionism. The four posts which Lugnuts highlighted just above are effectively breaches of WP:CANVASS. Of course, you haven't heard any of this, have you? NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 20:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I was not the reporter. I did not open this ANI. So I do not think boomerang applies to me. Also, the fact is that Lugnuts has been banned from creating stubs because his stub creation was deemed to be disruptive to Wikipedia. Also, since those were posts to people who had already commented on this discussion, I do not see how this could fall afoul of canvass. I was not the person who brought this ANI, so I think the claim that those who report a problem are fair targets of ANI (which I think is a horrible policy in and of itself) can not be reasonably applied to me because I was not the person who brought this to ANI. The fact that I am supposed to sit back and take abuse dished out on me like the above I do not believe is the actual expectation of Wikipedia. You have specifically put me in a group who are not "sinsible", have called others who have tried to delete Olympic articles my "cronies", and lots of other things. You have also called my points "idiotic". All of these are examples of abusive language which should not be done on Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• And it isn't BATTLEGROUND to create a whole discussion section essentially saying JPL should be TBANNED from AfD for being incompetent and not understanding notability or PROD? Especially when it's seemingly based on a couple examples and an appeal to policy guidance that doesn't exist? JPL isn't helping himself with all these repetitive comments, but you've been far more uncivil in this discussion overall. JoelleJay (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, that's pretty blatant canvassing @Johnpacklambert and I'd recommend you not keep that up. cc: @Spartaz who I know has been trying to help you and find resolution Star Mississippi 20:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

It is not canvassing. It was comments to people who had already voted at the discussion. Thus, there is no way it was an attempt to recruit people to vote on the matter, since they had already voted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

It's like trying to deal with Johnson. Perhaps you were canvassing them to try and get them to change their votes? NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 20:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Except all the people in question voted in exactly the way that I am most likely to expect them to. Considering the truly mean spirited and abusive language you engaged in above, it is hard to take any comment from you as worth considering. This is expecially true because you are attacking me for nominating articles on non-medaling Olympains for deletion. Last fall an RFC determined that non-medaling Olympians are not default notable, and I have tried every search I can think of to ensure I find in-depth sources on these people before I nominate them. The language you used above should not be used against other editors on Wikipedia, period.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Now that I've got your attention, do please tell us why you never want an article about a verified subject to be redirected? NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 20:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support. This whole kerfuffle may have been avoided had JPL not made a knee-jerk statement against redirecting in response to Lugnuts in the aforementioned AFD in question [65]. -- Vaulter 14:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose although Vaulter is right about JPL and his knee-jerks. I have to oppose this proposal because my own, recorded above, is a two-way IBAN and a full AFD TBAN for JPL, with no TBAN on Lugnuts. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 15:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support: this is basically a milder IBAN, which I'm fine with because this would prevent AfD discussions from getting dragged out interminably, while taking a lot of the sting out of disputes on AfD. If they want to take it to their talk pages, that's a different issue and can be credibly addressed later. There are plenty of other editors at AfD who are willing to hear each party's case, me included, providing that this doesn't become a time sink, as it evidently has. If it then proves that Mr. Lambert here is far too hasty in PRODing or AfDing in general, we can take further measures. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 18:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support As the only proposal likely to get people to close this discussion, which has dragged out long enough.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - Does not solve the actual problem. Seems to be part of an effort to turn this into a JPL vs Lugnuts discussion when the reality is that, as the original complaint notes, repeated and intractable incivility by Lugnuts in general, despite repeated warnings and bans, is the real problem. No objection to having a discussion about JPL separately to this. FOARP (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support on the grounds that both the parties that have ended up being discussed have indicated their general support for this. That's a good starting point. It should, of course, be possible for either editor to strike their comment at AfD - say, for example, an article is expanded massively and either has suggested deletion. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Mr Lambert's editing

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

---

Since we're discussing Mr Lambert's editing, what about this edit to Alexander Burnstein. Mr Lambert's edit summary says reverted edit that needs to be done, because the subject of the article may run afoul of a topic limit I have on me and I am trying to abide by this limit. The edit here was based on birth year and what places existed then and so was doable without realizing anything more (bolding mine). Mr Lambert acknowledges that it violates his topic ban but claims that it "needs to be done" and apparently he is the only person who can do it. Alexander Burnstein is described as "a rabbinic ordinand of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America". Dillytypes (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

he does this almost daily on his Talk to get others to proxy for him. Discussions have been opened about the TBan violations but they're apparently never serious enough to merit sanctions. Star Mississippi 21:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, this again raises the CIR issue raised above. Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire in 1900 so his edit is wrong, and the edit summaries are bizarre. I increasingly believe we should be looking at something more than any TBAN. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 21:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: I don't want to just delete this subsection because you've commented in it, but we should not tolerate people creating accounts just to criticize another editor at ANI (Dillytypes has 3 edits, check them out). I wanted to bring this to your attention and if you agree with me, please consider just deleting this thread (and maybe blocking the account). Thanks, Levivich 21:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

How many edits should one have before one is allowed to comment here? Dillytypes (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Enough so that an easily-spotted troll account isn't so obvious. Heading straight for the administrative boards is a sure sign of someone with an agenda that doe snot include the Wikipedia itself. Zaathras (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to block the account as I'm definitely !involved (this thread, the topic ban), but you have my blessing to delete this thread as the only other participant. @HJ Mitchell @Drmies FYI if it's this editor. Star Mississippi 21:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• The edit was reverted because it involved editing a subject I only realized after I edited the page it was not within the acceptable scope. This was a mistake on my part, but an edit that could be made knowing only place and year. I reverted it due to the broader issue. The topic ban explicitly says reverting when I realize a mistake was made is acceptable, so I did so. What I do on my talk page is post notice about low source articles that look likely to not be notable. Multiple editors have thanked and praised me for doing so. The most common outcome of posting such other than absolutely nothing is that another editor comes along and adds sources. This is the first I have seen anyone try to claim it violates topic bans. I should have reviewed this article before editing it and apologize for not doing so, however the correct name of a place when a person was born is determined by when they were born, and is not at all affected by any other information about them, so changing the way a birth place is described actually can be legitimate done while knowing nothing else about a person except when and where they were born.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
• A two second glance at the article history Alexander Burnstein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) shows that JPL made two edits and then reverted them within two minutes. JPL's edits to this article are a non-issue that is distracting from the other issues being discussed above. I woudl delete this thread but since someone else did that and it was reverted, I'm closing it in the spirit of WP:DENY. Levivich 21:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

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

Start 2 Arbcom cases instead

All the above is not leading to any improvement or solution it seems. I would suggest starting 2 separate Arbcom cases, one dealing with JPL and his Prod/Afd issues or genral competence (while they often involve Lugnuts' articles, they are not limited to it and don't seem to be targeting them especially), and one dealing with Lugnuts and his issues (civility, editing in general, e.g. his repeated uncivil refusals to change his Linter-error creating signature: these issues are not restricted to his dealing with JPL). Mixing them in one ArbCom would be problematic, as their behaviour vis-a-vis each other is just one aspect of the overall problems they have. Fram (talk) 10:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• Three. The TenPoundHammer thread above is also about behaviour at AfD, and it too is not coming to a conclusion.—S Marshall T/C 11:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I do not think the issues with AfD and Prob merit Arbcom at all. I have limited myself to just one AfD a day, and I do not think there is anything related to this issue that needs to be taken to Arbcom. I try to limit my Proposed deletions to very clear cases, and will take in mind what has been said above and try to limit it even more.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

The counter-proposal above seems to be getting wide support, and would solve the problem at hand for the foreseable future.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• 1. Strong support for taking JPL to Arbcom. As Fram says, JPL's competence is seriously lacking, he blatantly practices WP:IDHT, and his entire approach to both AFD and ANI is WP:DISRUPTIVE. Then, there are additional issues like WP:CANVASS as shown above and all this bizarre behaviour around what people should call him. These things are largely generic so, to be more specific, his refusal to comply with WP:REDIRECT in the face of WP:PRESERVE – which is editing policy – and recommended options like WP:CHEAP has for some time now been a considerable issue at AFD, occurring on virtually a daily basis when he is limited to one nomination per day. The perception that he is pursuing a vendetta against Lugnuts is borne out by several of his comments above.

2. Oppose any Arbcom case against Lugnuts in relation to JPL because Lugnuts has already been warned about his understandable retaliation to provocation and he has apologised – for example, he has stopped addressing JPL as Lambert and now always calls him John. The seven or eight people who dislike Lugnuts need to recognise that he is WP:HERE whereas some of them spend most of their time disruptively by repeatedly indulging in WP:BURO and WP:BATTLE. However, if JPL is retained as an editor, I would support a 2-way IBAN between Lugnuts and JPL.

3. Although I haven't been involved, I support the additional proposal by S Marshall to take the TPH matter to Arbcom. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 12:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support - The biggest problem I see is with Lugnuts' conduct, but both editors have been the subject of multiple ANI posts where the community has not been able to resolve the perceived issues. Even a finding of "no misconduct" would help quell the constant accusations. Fram, my only quibble is your use of "Lugnuts' articles". I assume this is shorthand for "articles created by Lugnuts", but it also legitimizes the idea that Lugnuts has some sort of ownership over certain articles or that the article creator should play some special role in a discussion about allegedly problematic deletions. –dlthewave ☎ 13:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Should actually be articles created and/or developed by Lugnuts. You are right about implied ownership. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 14:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• agree as it's clear this issue has spiraled beyond Administrator fora at least in terms of JPL. Regardless of the status of the accounts bringing them, JPL regularly skirts the edges of his topic ban and shows no indication of a willingness to edit more collaboratively nor have there been firm sanctions for doing so. Oops my bad for the 87th time is not an apology. I won't call Lugnuts a saint, but I don't think ArbComm is needed. I think some form of interaction ban between the two of them under whichever of the sub proposals above would stop the needling of one another which is what's exhausting and has eaten this board. Star Mississippi 13:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
• I agree with Dlthewave; the issues with Lugnuts' conduct is the greater issue, but the community has not been able to handle any of this - even a finding of "no misconduct" for one or both would at least stop the constant ANI discussions. I will note that I don't see editors consistently !voting for a redirect even when none is suitable, or editors consistently !voting against a redirect even when one is suitable, as a significant problem worthy of any attention; most of the time, the closing admin will ignore those !votes. BilledMammal (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
• Arbcom for Lugnuts in the absence of a siteban/block, Neutral on JPL - Really Lugnuts repeated uncivil behaviour, which we've now been discussing on here for years, and for which they have received repeated block and warnings, should have had him indefinitely blocked years ago. Contrary to what is said above, Lugnuts is most definitely WP:NOTHERE but instead focused only on racking up article-creation stats regardless of policy on what articles should actually have, and obstructing any effort to clean up the stubs he created. The failure of this forum to do anything about Lugnuts leaves only an Arbcom case as the outlet. These repeated discussions are a pure time sink and this should be the last one of these we have. JPL obviously has a mixed record on here but frankly if it's a problem and the community agrees it's a problem then I don't see why he shouldn't just be blocked - possibly I just haven't been part of the discussions around his behaviour and haven't seen efforts to do something about it repeatedly fail. FOARP (talk) 14:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  "Lugnuts is most definitely WP:NOTHERE but instead focused only on racking up article-creation stats regardless of policy on what articles should actually have, and obstructing any effort to clean up the stubs he created." Which, of course, is utter rubbish. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

So, your response to my comment on your repeated instances of incivility is ... more incivility. Care to remind us what happened in January 2022 that prompted you to create this list? FOARP (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

FOARP, you claim Lugnuts is guilty of more incivility (yawn!!!!) because he says your utter rubbish is utter rubbish? Why don't you try to BUILD the encyclopaedia like Lugnuts has done instead of boring everyone else with your repetitive WP:POINTs? NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 20:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Good to see the cheer-leaders out in force to pile-on. Anyway, either the two way IBAN or the second alt. proposal should be the outcome, to avoid let more of a timesink. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Who are you calling a cheerleader? –dlthewave ☎ 17:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Lets face it. You, FOARP, BM and a handful of others are always on Lugnuts' case. Maybe you should try and BUILD the encyclopaedia like he does instead of indulging in WP:BURO and WP:BATTLE to try and discredit one of the most productive editors on the site. What have you actually done to improve and develop the encyclopaedia? Less than me, even, I should think. As Lugnuts says, a pack of cheer-leaders, also known as a clique. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 19:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• A proposal to take this to arbcom in a thread that fails at least in part because of polarization/partisanship is going to fail at least in part because of polarization/partisanship. If you think it should go to arbcom, submit the case request and let them determine whether it should be heard. See how they think it should be scoped.
  There is no shortage of evidence that Lugnuts, JPL, and TPH have all been taken to ANI many times for behavioral issues related to the creation and/or deletion of low quality articles, all three have taken up large amounts of time, and the issues have persisted for a long time. Where it may fail is (a) figuring out a scope that avoids having a bunch of person-centered cases, and (b) that there have been various restrictions placed on all three AFAIK, so the argument that the community is unable to handle the problem is complicated.
  I'm weakly inclined to think arbcom should accept a proposal, but scoped to particular areas/activities rather than individual editors. So perhaps "behavior around the mass creation of articles" (and their deletion/redirection), and "behavior in deletion discussions". That scope might be overly broad, but if we could come out of a case with some ground rules for engaging in those two areas, or a mandate to address recurring procedural conflicts, and not just sanctions (or lack thereof) on these three editors, that would be most useful. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support sending one case to ArbCom on Conduct in Deletion Discussions, with at least three parties:
• Lugnuts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Johnpacklambert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I had been about to compose a post to Idea Lab to ask for input on how to compose a community general sanction regime for editors whose conduct in deletion discussions is disruptive. It will be even better if ArbCom reviews the history of these three parties and decides on appropriate remedies for each of them, as well as a regime of ArbCom general sanctions for disruptive conduct in deletion discussions. The parties are three editors whose conduct has divided the community, and each case should have the deliberative review that ArbCom can provide better than WP:ANI. More generally, issues involving disruptive conduct in deletion discussions come to WP:ANI often enough that ArbCom discretionary sanctions are a better way to deal with these issues than the long cases that are currently open. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose I feel that there are a lot of disagreements on who does what where that get way too long and heated, and I'd feel that way even if there weren't a big long sprawling discussion on myself. I don't think anything here is contentious enough to warrant an escalation. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
• Pretty sure the only vote that matters for sending something to arbcom is the arbcom vote on accepting or rejecting the case. AFAIK any user can open a case request if they feel it necessary, and that does not need a proposal at ANI. nableezy - 16:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

What is the problem that ArbCom would be asked to solve? What would be the desired outcome that can't be achieved anywhere else? On the basis of what evidence? Because this thread is generating a lot of heat but very little light. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

HJM, the answer to your first question is JPL. Simple as that. The answer to your second question is that the JPL issue apparently CAN'T be resolved anywhere else so lets try Arbcom in case they can sort it out, the desired outcome being an indef block for someone who is surely the most disruptive editor on the site. Third, the evidence is above. I agree about the heat but the light is dazzling – JPL must go because he is a net negative. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 20:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

That's a personal attack. You might disagree with his opinion that Wikipedia is better off without a great many of these articles but it's an opinion he's entitled to hold. He may not find consensus for it, but Wikipedia is a broad church. What I'm not seeing is evidence of him violating policy. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Arbcom would handle NGS's bludgeoning better than ANI, to take one example. Levivich 21:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Levivich indeed. This is way out of hand. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay, points taken. I will step aside as there is probably little else to add, anyway. HJM, you say my criticism of JPL is a personal attack? What about all the personal attacks on Lugnuts by certain people over the last year or more, where he has been called a net negative despite his massive contributory efforts? JPL is entitled to his opinions, of course, but his actions and many of his statements go way beyond holding an opinion. As for violating policy, he is held by many to be a disruptive editor (see above and previous JPL-related issues at ANI for evidence) and that is surely a violation of the spirit of WP embodied in WP:5P4 – WP:DISRUPT and WP:POINT apply, inter alia. I shall go back to building the encyclopaedia, when I'm next available – which may not be for several days, as it happens, because I have much more important things to do. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 21:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I can't believe this needs to be said to people who are presumably adults, but the solution to bad behavior and personal attacks is not retribution and your response is completely tone deaf. This isn't a playground, we aren't school children (at least most of the people here, I hope.) PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

People who use playground analogies are nearly always the equivalent of playground inhabitants themselves. As for your prescient "tone deaf" remark, it just so happens that I am 50% deaf in my right ear and 75% deaf in the left. I wear digital hearing aids in both ears. [redacted insult -Floq] NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 21:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@No Great Shaker are you itching for a block yourself? Good to know that personal attacks are only ok as long as they come from you. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

(EC) Comment. I do think the issues with these editors is getting to the point where the community is just too exhausted to deal with them. However most of the reason these monthly discussions go on so long without any lasting resolution is because they're really a proxy for preferred AfD outcomes, and these editors represent exaggerated examples of one "side" or the other. So people on one end will bring up even the most minor P&G/sanction/whatever violations by the editor(s) in question whenever he is mentioned at ANI and use these as evidence of the other end being a terrible blight on Wikipedia. Editors on the same end of the spectrum as the accused perceive this as an attack on their deletion/creation/retention preferences and oppose any type of sanctions, to the extent that they'll overlook behaviors they've criticized in the past from the other side. And then the discussion becomes a platform for each group to air their frustrations with "editor behavior" and propose increasingly abstracted and inappropriate sanctions, and no one can keep track of what's going on or even where the end of the discussion is.

I don't see a way the community can avoid this happening, because everyone here already knows all this and we still mostly participate along partisan lines every time. So while I imagine the same thing would happen at any ARBCOM case we put forth, at least it would provide a structured environment where unfocused PA-laden spinoff proposals can't be added and SNOW-closed, where responses are character-limited and threaded by user, and where the "close" is less dependent on participant arguments and rough numbers and more on essentially 8+ supervotes (that are supposed to be) based on independent, P&G-based analyses of the facts.

So for these reasons I would support some kind of case addressing, in no particular order:

1. Lugnuts' behavior with respect to personalizing JPL's deletion nominations, in particular his constant poking (e.g. calling JPL "Lambert" and making it into a big THING when asked to not do that; posting AfD notices from JPL on his OWN talk page (because he has forbidden JPL from using the automatic notification system when nominating a Lugnuts creation) with "tick tock it's Lambert o'clock" edit summaries and "current stats" on JPL nominations; agitating for sanctions on JPL at every opportunity).

"because he has forbidden JPL from using the automatic notification system when nominating a Lugnuts creation" - Again, another false claim that's been made about me. How could I have possibly done that? Diffs please. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

1. Lugnuts' responses to deletion noms/PRODs/redirects. Here are my thoughts: things would go so. much. smoother. if, whenever these happen, instead of immediately contesting them he went and found at least one hard-to-dispute SIGCOV IRS on the subject and added it to the article first. Accusations of the nom not doing a BEFORE would ideally not be made at all, but if he really believes it he should back it up with GNG-satisfying sources or extremely strong reasons for why SIGCOV is guaranteed in specific offline locations.
2. JPL's AfD nomination reasoning and BEFORE searches. A substantial number of editors have brought up that his nom statements often imply he is only looking at the current sourcing on the page, and if any BEFORE is performed, it is superficial and not thorough. A <70% hit rate does suggest there's a deficiency somewhere in the process of searching for sources. I think a lot of the concern would be alleviated if JPL outlined exactly what his BEFORE consisted of and linked a few results that he has dismissed as not counting toward GNG (and why). Honestly this should be expected of all AfD noms.
3. JPL's prod rationales. Even more than the AfDs, these seem to be based solely on the current sourcing in the article. JPL knows that people scrutinize his deletion activities and will use any perceived failures against him. The best way to counter this is to ensure his PRODs are not facepalms, which he can do by performing a solid BEFORE even though it is not required by policy or even mentioned on WP:PROD or WP:DELETE. He should mention this in the PROD NOM too.
4. JPL's tendency toward overcommenting in discussions (*gestures vaguely above*).
5. TPH's arguably unsustainable prod/AfD volume, especially with how low his "success rate" is. I'd suggest the same thing here as I did for JPL.
6. Behavior of other participants at ANI and when interacting with the editors in question. I'm looking at the repeated aspersions, condescension, and PAs in the above thread and pretty much all the prior ones involving at least Lugnuts or JPL. JoelleJay (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• Hmmmm... one advantage to an ArbCom case request would be that the arbs and clerks wouldn't put up with the ... what, two dozen maybe? - discussion-derailing personal comments that multiple editors on both "sides" have made here. I've often derided the idea of the Civility Police, but even I am tempted to start page-banning multiple people from ANI for a week, to try to salvage something useful from this discussion. Come on, we're better than this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support an arbcom case, though I hope these two (or three now) editors aren't the only parties whose conduct Arbcom looks into. -- Vaulter 22:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
• Weak Support per JoelleJay, though I still hold out hope for the counterproposal, which I feel tries to thread the needle. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 23:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support ARBCOM whether one with all parties or three separate cases per OPRAH and washing hands of issues ranging back years. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support ArbCom case for TenPoundHammer for reasons listed above. No restrictions or warnings of the past stop him from doing what he is doing, nothing anyone says gets through to him. Dream Focus 02:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I have started 2 Arbcom cases, one about Lugnuts and one about Johnpacklambert. Anyone is free to start one about TenPoundHammer if they feel the need of course, but he isn't the focus of this discussion. Fram (talk) 09:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: TBAN JPL and Lugnuts from deletion and redirection

Proposed: JPL and Lugnuts are topic banned from deletion and redirection, broadly construed, appealable in one year.

• Support as proposer. Pretty much everybody reading this is an intelligent adult and experienced editor. Everybody knows that these two editors' participation in deletion and redirection processes has taken up a bunch of other editors' time at AFD, ANI and elsewhere. Some people think JPL's conduct is worse; others think Lugnuts is worse; does anyone think that either of their participation in deletion and redirection amounts to a net positive for the encyclopedia? Is their participation in these particular areas worth all of this editor time from others? This thread has already taken up much time from many people. We don't need to bring in another dozen arbitrators to figure out what's obvious. We don't need a months-long investigation. We don't need a forensic analysis to figure out what the problem is. We can all see what's wrong and we can all predict how an arbcom case would play out. Let's save ourselves and each other a bunch of time. Neither JPL nor Lugnuts are going to be harmed if they can't participate in AFD or redirect discussions for a year; but the rest of us will continue to have our time sucked up if we don't exclude them from these areas. This is a relatively quick and easy way to gain a year of peace and quiet. Levivich 22:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support. At some point the community has to protect itself, and Levivich is right: this is an enormous waste of everyone's time. Mackensen (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support. -- Vaulter 22:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support on waste of time argument. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:58, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support - Just on the basis that this is a massive waste of everyone’s time. I assume this includes redirecting and reverting redirects, PRODing and removing PRODs, commenting at AFD etc. FOARP (talk) 03:26, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support. I did a couple rounds of circular argument that had me wondering if this had become the new norm for WP; it's a relief to find out it's not just me! Stan (talk) 03:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. I understand where this is coming from; given the amount of time that we have wasted in discussion after discussion on this topic, both could be seen as a net negative within AfD. In particular their votes don't add much to the discussion, and sometimes cause disruption. However, they do both make reasonable nominations, and many bold redirects will go unnoticed if we don't allow Lugnuts to address them.

As such, I propose an alternative:

1. Lugnuts and John Pack Lambert are topic banned from commenting on deletion and redirection, broadly construed, including nominations they made and articles they created, appealable in one year.
2. For the duration of the topic ban, Lugnuts and John Pack Lambert are permitted to freely nominate articles for deletion, to freely prod articles, and to freely boldly redirect articles. However, they are required to conduct a WP:BEFORE prior to doing so. Failing to do so will result in the topic ban changing to deletion and redirection, broadly construed.
3. For the duration of the topic ban, Lugnuts and John Pack Lambert are permitted to remove prods and revert bold redirects, but they are required to ensure that the article includes at least one reference that a reasonable editor could believe meets the requirements of WP:GNG. Failing to do so will result in the topic ban changing to deletion and redirection, broadly construed.

This will address the three underlying issues; inappropriate nominations, inappropriate deprodding/redirect reverting, and disruptive commenting, but still allow them both to benefit the encyclopedia through their work in this area. BilledMammal (talk) 03:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

• I don’t see the need for the additional complexity here. Particularly a requirement for WP:Before is going to be very hard to enforce - except in cases where there is clear SIGCOV in an independent reliable source on the first page of Google results, how do you prove that it wasn’t done?

Levivich is right, this has become a massive time-suck and it’s time to cut the Gordian knot. Frankly Lugnut’s behaviour (repeatedly ignoring admin warnings and bans and continuing to engage in incivility for years) is long overdue for an indef ban, and with any other editor that’s what would have happened years ago. This isn’t an indef ban but it does at least ban them from the area where they are the most trouble. For JPL I’m just a lot less familiar with his behaviour but I’m happy to defer to the community on this. FOARP (talk) 05:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

For WP:BEFORE, I would expect it to be proven by providing sources that should have been found in a before. If such sources don't exist, then you can't prove that it wasn't done, but you also don't know that it wasn't done.

Regardless Lugnuts, the situation I want to avoid is us redirecting thousands of articles without any sort of check. Lugnuts provides that check, and so long as the consensus is that the encyclopedia is not better off banning him, and so long as can prevent him from disruptively reverting redirects, then I don't think we should stop him from providing that check.

John Pack Lambert is similar; his AfD nominations generally benefit the encyclopedia, and if we can address the WP:BEFORE concerns several editors have raised then I believe we should continue to allow him to make them. BilledMammal (talk) 05:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

The answer as to who should do these things if Lugnuts/JPL are banned from doing them is “literally anyone else”. I don’t believe that repeating the same redirect vote over and over is a productive use of anyone’s time or a valuable contribution. Indeed, getting editors engaged in the problem of fixing these poorly-sourced stubs will be easier if they are less likely to be subjected to incivility. FOARP (talk) 06:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

This would stop those votes, by topic banning both of them from commenting at AfD. I understand where you are coming from, and don't oppose the original proposal, I just believe that a more nuanced solution would be better. BilledMammal (talk) 08:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support the proposal of topic ban for both. This seems the best way to restore more light to deletion discussions and take away the heat. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I get the idea, but here's a hypothetical situation: some random newbie PRODS an article that is clearly notable. One of these two editors has it on their watchlist and, for sake of argument, no one else does so no one else sees it. It would concern me if neither could remove the PROD in that case. If the PROD is followed up by an AfD then, fair enough. But we risk losing articles unless we provide for that possibility.

I'm also not sure that a year is a fair first step tbh - 3 months might be more appropriate. And I'll say again, that I've seen changes in the behaviour of one of these editors as a result of previous discussions - and tbh I'm really not sure that the initial complaint here isn't a teeniest bit over sensitive. Yet we've ended up with a quite draconian solution. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

• The issue here is repeated bad behaviour from which the subject refuses to learn. Think of all the editors who have come across this board and received indef blocks for exactly that - far from being drastic, this is lenient. As for who can handle such Prod/deletion issues if not them, the answer is "literally anyone else". Particularly in the case of prods they will be checked by an admin before deletion occurs anyway, so if the scenario you identify occurs then the admin will refuse to delete. FOARP (talk) 08:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

• I'll repeat: I've seen significant changes in Lugnuts' behaviour, especially at AfD. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Possible bot assisted indiscriminate addition of a template by an IP

See [Special:Contributions/1.126.105.119]. @Largoplazo and Botterweg14: who have tried to stop them. Doug Weller talk 19:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I just blocked them. Too indiscriminate with some pretty odd ones at times. Doug Weller talk 20:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Reviewing their edits, finding what might be only an occasional glitch amid constructive edits, is likely be a nuisance. Their intent is clearly productive, carried out in connection with a discussion at Template talk:Infobox language#Add Language Endangerment Status, and, as far as I know, many or most of the edits are fine. But then you get something like this, where a caption reading "Big Bird" shows up under the map near the bottom of the infobox at Faliscan language. Largoplazo (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@Largoplazo many of these placed the UNESCO template incorrectly as the language is not in the UNESCO Atlas of the World's Endangered Languages.[66] User:Demetrios1993 has done a sterling job of fixing them.[67] It looks like he didn't have time to finish however as I can see others that aren't in the Atlas. I think it would be safer to roll them all back rather than have articles that aren't in the Atlas shown as in it. Doug Weller talk 13:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed on this, and thank you for taking care of it! Botterweg14 (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Doug. Indeed, i was planning to check all of the relevant contributions, but i had an appointment and couldn't finish. I just checked the rest of them. By the way, in the "Introduction" of the Atlas' third edition – that you shared above – the editor-in-chief Christopher Moseley elaborated that the degree of "extinct" used pertains to linguistic varieties from within the past couple of generations. Specifically, on page 11 we read:

The terminology of the degrees of endangerment has changed slightly since the first and second editions of this Atlas. Professor Wurm had established the practice of naming the five gradations as: vulnerable languages, where decreasing numbers of children are being taught the language; endangered languages, meaning that the youngest speakers are young adults; seriously endangered languages, where the youngest speakers have already passed middle age; critically endangered languages, which have only a few elderly speakers remaining; and extinct languages, marked in the previous editions with a black cross where they were last known to be spoken. Of course, the world is littered with extinct languages, and those included here are only those that have died recently, within the past couple of generations. In practice this means: since an awareness of their plight and imminent extinction was recorded. All trace of these languages has, in some cases, been wiped out for ever.

Thus, articles describing earlier linguistic varieties – which the IP edited – are unrelated. Demetrios1993 (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@Demetrios1993 you did a brilliant job, much appreciated. And thanks for the note about the introduction of the Atlas, very interesting. Now I hope the IP doesn't come back after the block and continue. Doug Weller talk 16:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

The introduction also says that that languages considered "safe" are not included in the Atlas (naturally enough). Languages are being given that designation based on absence from the Atlas. Kanguole 07:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. The fallacious premise is that non-inclusion always means "safe", rather than "safe" or "we didn't evaluate this one" or "we never even heard of this one". Largoplazo (talk) 10:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

IP sockpuppets of Jinnifer

Lots of activity from LTA Jinnifer tonight, the usual talk page harassment coupled with edit warring about how popular Spider-man is and decade sections for horror films. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jinnifer/Archive for some history. The IP ranges involved are unfortunately quite busy, but blocks on 2600:387:15:630:0:0:0:0/61 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) and 2600:387:C:7135:0:0:0:0/61 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) should cover it for the moment, if anyone is so inclined. MrOllie (talk) 02:27, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd appreciate a bit of action. My revert finger is getting tired. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Blocked the 64. Thanks my garden friend for flagging. I'm about to go offline so any admin can feel free to modify as needed. Star Mississippi 02:50, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Whacked another /64 which was being actively used. firefly ( t · c ) 10:15, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

And back again as 2600:387:15:637:0:0:0:8 This is AT&T mobile, the /64 isn't going to be wide enough. I again encourage a block on the /61 MrOllie (talk) 11:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell has placed anon block on the /32. Thanks, all. MrOllie (talk) 12:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

This indicates just how troubled this editor is. Drmies (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

202.79.51.241 - rollback needed?

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

---

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

Hi. This IP has added tons of unsourced height articles to BLPs of Nepalese people (footballers, cricketers, actors, etc). I've dropped them a note on their talkpage about WP:RS, etc, but I believe there is an issue with IP editors using their mobiles to edit WP in seeing such a notification. In the meantime, are these edits worth rolling back en-masse? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I've massrollbacked, without prejudice against any of the content being restored with proper sourcing. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 07:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and just noticed the timing on this, that they'd kept going after your warning. In light of that, I've added a warning of my own. I'll try to keep an eye on them, but if they return to this behavior, feel free to ping me. Aaaand never mind, they did that while I was writing this. Sigh. Blocked one week. Let me know if you spot them on another IP. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 08:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Will do, and thanks again. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Jackedano's unsourced additions

User:Jackedano has been on Wikipedia for 9 years and should be well-versed with Wikipedia's guidelines revolving around sourcing and verifiability. However, they have continued to make numerous unsourced additions past my four warnings and show no sign of remorse, stopping and improving their editing patterns. – DarkGlow • 15:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Please provide Diffs of these unsourced additions to allow others to evaluate your claims.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Here are some: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, all of which concern WP:BLPs. – DarkGlow • 23:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

IP 67.161.6.243 replacing sourced information with unsourced

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

This IP is making repeated changes to the taxonomy sections of articles on mammals (and, I believe, other animals), deleting sourced information and replacing it with contradictory, unsourced claims, and in some cases changing the article text so that it directly contradicts the source cited. Other changes are simply unsourced and, on examination, prove to be spurious. There is the odd legitimate edit in there, but the IP only communicates through edit summaries and continues despite warnings on their Talk page to at least provide sources for their claims so that they can be evaluated against the existing reliably sourced, statements.

Examples of problematic edits: [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74].

I note that a different IP (2601:647:4180:6010:0:0:0:0/64) was blocked for virtually identical edits on the same pages recently, so this could also be block evasion. Anaxial (talk) 09:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Does appear to have stopped with the problematic edits since I posted this. Might be worth looking into the possible block evasion, though, in case this returns? Or would that be better done at Checkuser? Anaxial (talk) 04:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Perneric sockpuppetry

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

---

User:Perneric is a sockpuppet of User:Farhan Rana Rajpoot Artist (previous investigations) as can be seen from creating Draft:Farhan Rana Rajpoot Director. Perneric also edits across multiple projects spanning Wikidata, Simple English, and Commons the same as previous confirmed socks. Please indef them. 0xDeadbeef 09:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

They have also uploaded the same image on Commons by previously blocked socks (See User:Wiki_Chumabu and User:Mazzulah Peel; blocked by @Magog the Ogre). 0xDeadbeef 10:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

 Blocked Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

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

User:DarkShineMan

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

---

DarkShineMan (talk · contribs) repeatedly adds unsourced content to and about BLPs. They have been warned multiple times by multiple users for this, and I recently blocked them, but they have returned to make the exact same edits. Please can somebody review? GiantSnowman 12:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked DarkShineMan. Any administrator is free to unblock if the editor agrees to provide references to reliable sources verifying their content changes. Cullen328 (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

thank you! GiantSnowman 06:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

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

WP:NOTHERE by 213.172.93.89

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

Right off the get-go, this new IP has been engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:TENDENTIOUS behaviour.

It is especially ridiculous how a (pro-)Iranian user, teaches us democracy here

Attempted twice to remove around 2k information by high-quality academic sources. These were his reasons; Added the file of the Royal Geographical Society. Erased inaccurate and misleading information. - The false statement is erased. Historical documents should be more respected than some Wikipedia users's opinion. Instead he has attempted to add a primary source from 1864 and even included his own commentary along with it (can be seen in the bottom [75]). These type of IPs appear every now and then, and have never shown any sign that they are here here to build an encyclopedia. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

• They seem to have calmed down a bit so I am loath to block right now. Also, NOTHERE is probably not the best term to use for an IP editor. Drmies (talk) 18:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Legal threats by a COI account

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

---

Theoriginallawoman (talk · contribs) is disrupting Slaughter & the Dogs, adding unsourced content as the 'band's representative' and threatening legal action. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Blocked by Bbb23.— Diannaa (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Indian Cricket Rocks

• Indian Cricket Rocks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm not sure this user his here to build an encyclopedia. Multiple reverts on this article, with edit summaries like this and this, this summary ("the whole article is clearly antisemitic") at Israeli war crimes, along with this claim from a "new" editor. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lugnuts (talk • contribs)

I self-reverted on each exemplified article. I did not and do not mean to be disruptive. I may have got wrong of stick on some things. No more summaries like that. Indian Cricket Rocks (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Checkuser needed ( Self-endorsed by clerk for checkuser attention):

• Indian Cricket Rocks (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Hindustani.Hulk (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Depressed Desi (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• MasterOfMetaverse (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Indian Cricket Rocks is probably Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Depressed Desi, based on their editing of the orphan article Israeli war crimes (created by Depressed Desi) shared interest in South Asian cricket, and clearly not-new behavior. Hindustani.Hulk likely is as well, for the same reason. If it's anything other than "unrelated" for these two, I'm prepared to block on behavioral evidence, but CU confirmation wouldn't hurt.

Furthermore, Depressed Desi's creation of the Israeli war crimes page was in violation of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4 § ARBPIA General Sanctions; however, Buidhe's subsequent addition to it makes deletion not a straightforward matter. Buidhe, do you have thoughts on that? If you don't object, I'd be inclined to redirect to Human rights in Israel § Military and security-related activity as a logged AE action. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 16:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

The Israeli war crimes article is clearly about a notable topic so I suggest just removing any edits that don't conform to the rules. Redirecting to Human rights article is not ideal because international human rights law is a separate body of law compared to international criminal law (which includes war crimes). I edited the page because I didn't realize there were any violations. (t · c) buidhe 17:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Buidhe: The issue is that "any edits that don't conform to the rules" is every substantive edit to the page except for the "See also" and "Further reading" and minor tweaks you added. I don't know what's historically been done when articles are created from the ground up in violation of the ARBPIA GS, but the way I see it, I could redirect it as an {{r with possibilities}}, ECP it, and note that any EC editor can restore it if they're willing to assume responsibility for the GS-violating edits under WP:PROXYING; delete it and do the same; or you can assume responsibility for it right now; or you or any other editor reading this can stubbify it if unwilling to assume responsibility thusly. I hope that's a reasonable set of options? I welcome correction if I'm misunderstanding how to apply the GS here, but I just don't want to create a situation where an editor can evade an ArbCom ECP restriction just by finding a title that hasn't been salted. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 18:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

It could be stubbed to the first sentence, which I wrote and is based on the sources I provided. That is better than a misleading redirect. (t · c) buidhe 19:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay. Stubbified, XCP'd, templated, logged at WP:DSLOG/2022. As noted in my edit summary, per WP:PROXYING any extendedconfirmed editor with an independent reason to do so may restore the content I removed, provided they are willing to assume responsibility for it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 19:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• This user tried to blank some content here. They did not appreciate my warning. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  And with this, I have issued an indef block. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

They clearly aren't a new editor as their first edit was to an AFD discussion and they referred to Wikipedia's standards for articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

•  Checkuser note:, answering the checkuser request, although I'm a bit short of availability to follow this through. Indian Cricket Rocks looks like both Evlekis and Boy 2022 to me (although that's a non-definitive response as I may have other ideas), and unrelated to the others, who could probably all fit within the same SPI. I would probably link Hindustani.Hulk and MasterOfMetaverse as confirmed. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  Hindustani.Hulk  Blocked and tagged per zzuuzz' comment and behavioral evidence. Given that Evlekis is a no-tags SPI and all involved are already blocked, not going to make any decision at this time as to whether Indian Cricket Rocks is Evlekis, Boy 2022, both, or neither, although no objection to another admin/CU/SPI clerk exploring that further if they see good reason to. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 22:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• I don't usually edit these pages. Where is the evidence that user:Hindustani.Hulk has been anti-Semetic? In my very limited dealings with them, they had the easy but unhurried intelligence of someone who knew a thing or two (see here) a far cry from the usual pseudo-Hindutva types, with only bias, but no knowledge, with Pakistani and Iranian names to boot, who have come to populate South Asia related pages. Are you sure? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Fowler&fowler: Short answer: The only one who said HH was anti-Semitic was Indian Cricket Rules, who is now blocked. I don't see any evidence of that being an accurate criticism.

  Long answer: I'm not saying that HH was anti-Semitic. I suspected that they were the same person as Depressed Desi, who I also thought Indian Cricket Rules was a sock of. ICR, to be clear, took an opposite editorial stance from DD: They argued that Israeli war crimes, created by DD sock MasterOfMetaverse, was anti-Semitic. (I don't think it was. Arguably anti-Israel, but kind of hard to write an article on Israeli war crimes and have it not seem anti-Israel.) Now, given the obscurity of the page and the shared interest in cricket, I suspected that DD was playing both sides: creating an article that reflects negatively on Israel, then using a sock to cry anti-Semitism. It turned out to be simpler than that—that ICR was a sock of a different sockmaster.

  But that left us with the question of HH. The fact that they edited the Israel war crimes article at all is notable: Since it's an orphan, one would have to go looking for it to edit it. Then [76] shows overlap on a number of quite specific pages; then note that DD and MM both edited about Pakistan Super League, while HH edited about Women's Pakistan Super League. So that's article overlap across Pakistani politics, Pakistani sport, and Israeli war crimes, plus projectspace behavioral overlap at WP:ITN/C. Supported by a CU finding of "probably... confirmed", I felt confident in placing a sockblock. But I welcome review of the behavioral evidence by others, and can request in a more thorough CU review if needed, given that zzuuzz said they're busy right now. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  I've had a second and closer look, and agree with what Tamzin just said. We can firmly put Indian Cricket Rules and anything they said to one side. I'm almost certain they're the person known as Evlekis, who is a troll. With the benefit of the extra analysis, I would now describe the other 3 accounts as confirmed to each other. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you @Tamzin and Zzuuzz: for going the extra mile. What a pity that people with some ability (which is what I though HH had in my brief exchange with him) waste it in such self-destructive pursuits. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Fowler&fowler: Sometimes I take a situation like this as an opportunity to say to a user, "I see that you have potential and if you can just wait the six months I can see myself supporting an unblock." A lot of potentially helpful users get caught up in early mistakes and then go down the vicious cycle of sockpuppetry. I'll confess that so far I've never had it work when I've tried this, but hope springs eternal. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 08:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone here for their help with this. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Violation of NPA and not here

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

---

75.134.90.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This [[77]] in response to this [[78]] because of this [[79]]. Also [[80]]. Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Just keeps at it: [81]. Agreed, very clearly WP:NOTHERE. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked by Canterbury Tail. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

  They may also need talk page access revoked if their latest (now reverted) additions are anything to go by. Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

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

• @Darkknight2149: Please don't close sections when there's an outstanding request for admin intervention. In this case, fortunately, Canterbury Tail did action the TPA revocation request a few minutes after you closed, but there's no guarantee that that will happen. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 17:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Legal threat

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

---

Ogom Chijindu was redirected after an AFD. 187lawyer has removed the redirect to restore the article and made related legal threats in the edit summaries. MB 17:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

This is an obvious legal threat, and obviously an empty threat, so the perpetrator should simply be blocked and ignored. I am, however, a little perturbed by the existence of this redirect. Would we have redirected a man's name to his wife's article in similar circumstances? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Reverted, protected, blocked. However I agree with Phil, the redirect is pretty weird. I would have deleted the article rather than do that. Black Kite (talk) 18:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

The argument, I suppose, is built on "girlfriend" status; we typically don't list "x is dating y" in the first place, but this is all prompted by her appearance on Basketball Wives. That probably explains the supposed lawyer too: fame and fortune are at stake. I was going to put it up at RfD but I can't guess what its fate would be, since there is ample sourcing (at least from last year) of her being his partner and being on that show. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Surely the obvious redirect is therefore Basketball Wives, not her boyfriend? Black Kite (talk) 18:10, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@Black Kite: I was thinking the same thing about the redirect target. —C.Fred (talk) 18:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

This redirect is even worse than I thought. I had believed that this was redirected to her husband's article, per one of the comments in the AfD discussion, but it seems that it is just someone she is dating, or maybe not any more. Unnotable people don't announce in reliable sources when they are no longer dating someone. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

A quick Google suggests they are still a couple, but that's not the point, so I have boldly redirected the article to Basketball Wives. Black Kite (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

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

 Comment: The edits by this user have not yet been revdel'd. Another legal threat at Discospinster's talk page has been removed; it is the responsibility of Discospinster to revdel this one. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

 Comment: Admins at the IRC have determined that no RD3 is necessary. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Turkish language

There is also a conversation above, but this was opened by another used in order to solve a situation in which I have accused him. Now I open this conversation, in order to solve the problem. To consume, there are violations at the page, where my edits are reverted each time without a serious excuse. Please, some administrator solve me this question: why at the Russian language the unrecognized state are put different, while at the Turkish language the northern occupied part of Cyprus (aka Northern Cyprus) is out normally like a state? Please, make the page following the Russian language page... Greek Rebel (talk) 19:14, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@Greek Rebel: That is a content issue, not something that requires administrator attention. —C.Fred (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@C.Fred: I think that violations are administrator issues. Anyway, where can I ask for help? Greek Rebel (talk) 19:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@Greek Rebel: Looking at the history of Turkish language, it looks like your bold changes have been reverted by other editors, and there is no consensus to make your changes at the talk page. Are you sure you want administrative action taken? —C.Fred (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

OP warned for edit-warring and page protection requested at RfPP. This seems to be a medium(ish)-term edit-warring issue. Involved editors should stop edit-warring and gain consensus for their changes on the talk page of the affected article, per WP:BRD. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:29, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I've partially blocked Greek Rebel from editing Turkish language for 2 weeks. If they resume the same disruptive editing behavior after the block expires, they should be blocked for a longer duration (or indefinitely, if appropriate). —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 13:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Given Greek Rebel's intransigence on his talk page, and his insistence that he is right no matter how many editors disagree with him, we'll be right back here a fortnight from now. At that time, I'll be quite down with an indef for him. He's not nasty about it, but it's plain that he just can't wrap his head around the notion of consensus. Ravenswing 17:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

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

---

• DudleyPuppyWasAPlainOldMutt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DudleyPuppyLikes2ChewHisButt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2603:8080:eb00:7a7b:b85b:13f3:4b38:58d2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The users above are all appear to be the same person. I have not reported yet for sock investigation, but pending the outcome here, I think that's also prudent.

The user refuses to follow MoS standards and as evidenced by their constant reversion of every edit by any other user, they have no interest in working collaboratively. Their behavior indicates WP:NOTHERE and DudleyPuppyWasAPlainOldMutt is now engaged in an edit war on Hamster and Gretel.

I tried to explain to them how they were using the infobox parameters incorrectly, specifically, using the first_run parameter as a date (it's supposed to be a country) [82]. The response I got was "it doesn't matter". [83] (That date issue is moot at this point because in the ensuing hours, first_run was made obsolete in Template:Infobox television anyway)

Some of their edits are simply nonsense:

• [84]
• [85]

Others are now just obvious vandalism:

• [86]
• [87]

ButlerBlog (talk) 00:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

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

Concern over Mrbeastmodeallday

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

Talk:United States (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Previously, user Meters and I encountered Mrbeastmodeallday at the article Athlete and its respective talk page, and because of the latter user's bludgeoning, was promptly handed a one-week ban. I revisited his contributions today to find he has not improved at all, with 102 results for his username on the talk page from April 2022, and even a discussion regarding restoring the article due to several issues such as WP:OVERLINK (I mean, the third paragraph in the lead is almost a sea of blue), the fact that new discussions are brought up before previous disputes are resolved: "Anyway we can resolve the ten other ongoing disputes before more edits are made and more Rfcs are posted? It's at the point that a full revert needs to be done to deal with the 100 reverts, the ongoing talks and forced in edits. Our academic editors are busy with other things and don't have time to deal with a mass amount of changes." - Moxy, etc. Constant reversions by other users prove fruitless as Mrbeastmodeallday seems to have the page locked into an iron fisted version of what he likes, violating WP:STATUSQUO. Normally I leave other users be but this sort of voluminous disruptive editing on such high-traffic articles is quite dicey. I appreciate his efforts & dedication to the encyclopaedia but restraint must be shown, especially with clogging up talk pages & user talk pages such Randy Kryn's talk page. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 03:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Any help at the article would be great....having to deal with thousands of edits, multiple reverts and talk after talk. There is no doubt that there are positive contributions...... but waiting through all the edits is impossible. We have multiple maintenance concerns to deal with.Moxy- 04:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't mind, we're having a good discussion, just not one I'll reply to quickly. Mrbeastmodeallday has probably done some very good edits at the United States article or else he would have been stopped much earlier, so hopefully he'll stop now and give non-regular editors time to go over his accumulated edits there. No need for a mass revert, that time may have passed. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

No way someone should be gaming the system in this manner.... bullying in the preferred version overwhelming the page and conversations. This would set a bad precedent.Moxy- 04:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes of course, I'm sure his intentions are in good faith, however, overloading discussion pages and pages with constant revisions is pure WP:BLUDGEONING and does not allow other editors to breathe nor get in their perspective/edits. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 04:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

We have multiple editors involved in multiple reverts and ongoing talks....but very hard for all to deal with walls of text and full time anount of hours in editing.....most of us have limited time. Moxy- 04:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Naturally, Moxy, me included. Which is why I brought this to ANI so we can have some sort of streamlined resolution to this as local discussion is clearly going nowhere. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 05:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi everyone, thanks for bringing this to discussion, I’m more than willing to take a step back and temporarily disappear from the United States article in tandem with @Randy Kryn:'s suggestion of doing a before/after comparison from an older long-standing version. I strongly suggest the sports section, since that is by far the singular topic I have the most niche and comprehensive and fanatical knowledge about. If you look at some of my way old edit histories, you’ll see what I mean. All of the concerns will be brought to light through the sports section, because it manifests the most “extreme” and “controversial” versions of my editing style. It should bring to light the underpinnings of the main overarching ideas that other editors are complaining about from me as an editor.

If there’s any one section that I’ve “controlled” or “dominated” or “owned” (the spirit of other editors’ concerns about me as an editor) it’s the sports section.

I’m not on as much during the weekdays, but I’ll make it a point to not touch the article or its talk pages at all this week during the weekdays until Friday. Basically “blocking” myself from that article.

However I would ask that any conversations that are only about me as an editor and not within the context of my edits be redirected to my user talk page, and I would be glad to discuss those concerns there.

Also one other big request is to use this image for “my” version of the comparison instead of the long-standing montage:

President Woodrow Wilson throws the first pitch in 1916, an ongoing time-honored American baseball tradition since the early 20th century.

(caption included, just copy/paste the source)

Please compare with a long-standing version from before I came around to the US article within the past 3ish months, maybe the beginning of this year or late last year, or whatever was literally right before my first edit to the sports section in this recent editing wave, which probably began around March.

I’m really not trying to attract attention to myself with any of this. I hope the comparison can be entirely about the edits only, and not making assumptions about me as an editor. I would like for it to be a pure non-distracted focus on the content only.

Again, I’m not trying to attract any undue or non-neutral attention by asking to have a second talk page about the issue if there’s distractions. I just hope that the individual discussions can be pure and unbiased.

I realize that me and many other editors are in a tough deadlock right now and I’ve been trying to find common ground to build consensus, if I take a step back and allow neutral parties to join in, I think that the admins with their experience and expertise will be able to find, blend, and build the common ground between us main editors.

Thank you admins for being willing to work with me through the issue. It’s much appreciated. Good luck in the discussion!

Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 04:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Mrbeastmodeallday, you seem to deeply misunderstand the purpose and limitations of this noticeboard. You say, I would like for it to be a pure non-distracted focus on the content only. What you need to understand is that this noticeboard does not adjudicate content disputes. Instead, we deal here with behavioral misconduct. You also wrote However I would ask that any conversations that are only about me as an editor and not within the context of my edits be redirected to my user talk page, and I would be glad to discuss those concerns there. This displays a misunderstanding of the fact that your behavior as an editor is under scrutiny at this noticeboard. You also wrote All of the concerns will be brought to light through the sports section, because it manifests the most “extreme” and “controversial” versions of my editing style. That comes off to me as an argument to pageblock you from editing this article at the very least, because your comment indicates an insistence to edit against the Neutral point of view, which is a core content policy. Editors who push an extreme and controversial point of view are blocked routinely. So, please explain to me why I should not block you right now? Cullen328 (talk) 05:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• REVISION* In the spirit of full neutrality, it’s probably best for all involved for the comparison to be done as a brand new talk page thread from scratch with zero mention of my username, aside from possibly an introductory reminder/hatnote for all comments about my general editing style with the article to be a different talk page discussion at the United States article.

Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 05:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

That is not how ANI works—this page discusses editor behavior. I have not yet examined the situation but the claim is that you are making too many edits (and, judging by the above, posting walls of text at talk). You must slow down at all pages. Johnuniq (talk) 05:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

You have literally just demonstrated what I am bringing you to attention for... No one has to understand your editing style, the editing guidelines/policies are quite clear in what you can and cannot do, and bludgeoning is an example of incivility, a violation of one of Wikipedia's five pillars. You also do not get to dictate whether this discussion is about you as an editor or the content of your edits. This isn't a content dispute, this is concern regarding your behaviour & conduct, specifically multiple violations of WP:BLUDGEONING, which you have been punished for in the past. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 05:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Addendum: I am simply incredulous that in the time I took to type another comment Mrbeastmode has managed to jump the gun on me and post another comment... ludicrous. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 05:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I’m totally on board with a temporary block to help the admins more neutrally manage the dispute in question. I intend to basically “block myself” from the US article until Friday anyways. If blocking helps admins more easily judge the overall situation with neutral eyes regarding all aspects of this overarching dispute as it has entered into the admin space, then again, I’m 100% on board, I have zero problems with it. Another 4-7 days block is totally fine by me, because I already planned to withdraw from contentious WP editing for that timeframe anyways.

If blocking me helps the whole discussion of all aspects be seen neutral and fair and unbiased and clear from the admin eyes, I’m totally supportive.

And this is not in a sarcastic or condescending tone even though it might read like it. I actually want to help move the process along faster and more clearly for everyone.

From the neutral admin/ANI perspective, all of these issues can be combined into one conglomerated case if that makes it valid or legitimate from a technical/housekeeping standpoint. And another 4-7 day block is totally fine with me if that makes this whole thing valid and legitimate from a technical/housekeeping standpoint.

If there’s anything else you want to know that I can do to make it easier for the admins, please let me know.

Thanks Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 05:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Please refrain on commenting unless you are defending yourself and providing diffs/policies and guidelines that reinforce your position. Do not tell the admins what they should/shouldn't do, that is their job. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 05:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with most of your content reply, but that is fine. We can agree to disagree, and I don’t have the need or desire to bring disputes about the things I disagree with because I don’t need or care for the last word. I trust the admins to be able to see the bigger picture of what’s going on between us right now, since I don’t wish to make this personal or contentious with you.

And I am not telling the admins what to do. I am making suggestions and requests that may help them understand my side of the story and my intent better, so that I can be judged as fairly as possible. The sports section comparison of the United States is pretty much the mini-section where the spirit of all the disputes and complaints and concerns about me as an editor can be revealed and assessed, every last thing. Again you can go through my edit history, and you’ll see that I’ve always done tons of editing on US sports topics.

By reading between the lines, the admins can literally see everything about my edits and the way I edit and me as an editor by looking at that proposed comparison, in a nice convenient all-in-one package. I know for sure that admins are incredibly skilled reading between the lines, it’s an absolute essential requirement for being an admin.

I don’t intend to cause undue burden on them. I have complete respect for them and the WP process. Which is why I’m completely willing to accept another short WP-sanctioned block to make their job easier, because my ongoing editing is one less factor for them to consider in the whole discussion when that factor is gone from the equation. I am offering that out of courtesy and respect, but I will not be mad or hold any grudge or think any less of them if I receive the temporary block and my requests aren’t satisfied. I’m totally willing to serve the short block either way.

I wish you good luck in the ongoing discussion and I will be signing off now.

Take care Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 06:08, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Mrbeastmodeallday: you seem confused about what this notice board’s about and what Admins do. When you say I’m totally on board with a temporary block to help the admins more neutrally manage the dispute in question you give the impression that you think admins “manage” content disputes. They don’t (at least not as admins). This thread is here because someone thinks your behaviour is unacceptable and that you should be sanctioned in some way. That’s really pretty much the only issue that will be looked at. The content dispute is separate and absent any behavioural problems isn’t really an “admin” issue. Unless you’re claiming that other editors’ behaviour should be sanctioned the only thing that’s going to be looked as is what should happen to you. You need to explain why you think you shouldn’t be sanctioned in this thread. DeCausa (talk) 14:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• Aside from edits to the article itself, Mrbeast has also been removing whole sections from the talk page [88] [89] [90] [91]. In that last edit, he admits not knowing the rules for talk pages, which don't allow deletion of such sections. -- Vaulter 15:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm attempting to stay away from Mrbeastmodeallday and am only minimally involved in the recent activity at United States. I simply undid some of the talk page blanking mentioned by Vaulter.

Mrbeast just does not seem to be getting it. After 11 years on Wikipedia I would expect more of him. He has just come off of a block for "Personal attacks/harassment, tendentious editing, bludgeoning discussions". Continued bludgeoning? Check. Tenditious editing? Check. Personal attacks/harassment? Not so obvious unless editors are aware that his block relates at least in part to Mrbeast's rapid-fire series of 11 posts to my talk page[92] (removed by an admin), Mrbeast's rebuttal on my talk page [93], my banning Mrbeast from my talk page [94], and Mrbeast then posting three more times to my talk page (including the false statements that I had deleted his posts from my talk page, that I was refusing to discuss the matter on the article's talk page. and his insistence that further discussion had to take place on my talk page) [95]. He comes off of his block, and within a few days he's back on my talk page [96], he comes back to ping me to my own talk page [97], and then thanks me for deleting his posts from my talk page [98]. So, yes I'm feeling harassed by this user, again. WP:IDHT. WP:CIR or intentional behaviour... whatever it is, in my opinion this user is a problematic time sink. Meters (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I think user Mrbeastmodeallday, just needs to take a step back and let all these recent edits settle over the article without pushing even more changes. I think user Mrbeastmodeallday's edit are in good faith, however as noted by other editors, they seem to be pushy and overly persistent. Great example of this is the sports thumb gallery, when the new images got reverted, the user then went ahead and decided to remove thumb gallery all together replacing it with the Woodrow Wilson image, missing the point that the new pictures were not necessarily better. --E-960 (talk) 18:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think we've established that his edits are in good faith. However, it needs to be reiterated that quick fire editing encompassing large parts of the article do not give other editors the time to review those edits. I think a sanction of x amount edits per day, perhaps 5, would encourage him to either bundle his edits into one or simply limit the rate at which he edits. Support or oppose? X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 22:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Support in principle per nom @X750:. No opinion yet on 5 or any other number Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 12:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Pause the vote due to a self-regulated (meaning I enforce it upon myself) version of this idea I had already thought of and crafted up long before finding the above comment by User:X750, which I will spell out the scope and details of in an upcoming main reply. Meanwhile, I ask that we wait until after my upcoming main reply is given and assessed. Since this discussion started, I have not been editing United States, its talk page, or any other pages central to this conversation, so time is not of essence, and I have not been engaging in any of the controversial activity that is key to this conversation. I am still in the process of drafting my upcoming main reply. Thanks everyone for your understanding. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 04:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary break Mrbeastmodeallday

• Comment: Please note User talk:Mrbeastmodealldaysandbox (uninvolved editor but linking here since somewhat relevant to the discussion). Spencer^T•C 22:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  I am really hoping this is not something that will appear on any discussion page. BUT there is a concern on that page.....are they saying they plan on making other accounts so they have to log in and out? Moxy- 01:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  Spencer, Moxy There is no döppelganger declaration... I am under the impression that is required? Considering User:Mrbeastmodeallday/sandbox already exists....and the creation of that account is quite recent and despite his written declarations of no ill-intent the creation of a whole account (when he has already created a sandbox page prior) is highly suspicious. Last modification to User:Mrbeastmodeallday/Sandbox: 06:49, June 7. Last modification to User talk:Mrbeastmodealldaysandbox: 09:09, June 7. WP:DG states that döppelganger accounts can be created with a username similar to your main account to prevent impersonation. It is unclear if that's Mrbeastmodeallday's intent, or what his intent is. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 01:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi everyone, popping my head in real quick for update and clarification:

I’m currently in the process of crafting my reply to the main discussion.

• As for the “break” with the side discussion, yes I saw the point about User:Mrbeastmodealldaysandbox, thank you for bringing that up. I was gonna come around here and notify you guys anyways but someone beat me to it. But it is a profile I made for sandboxing purposes only, not for talking with other users, or for editing “communal” WP pages such as mainspace articles, talk, and WP policy. Mostly because it’s better and easier for me to focus on thoughtfully crafting up edits without having notifications pop up on my screen about reversions and talk replies. It’s hard for me to do edit-crafting and talk/reversion stuff at the same time, so this makes it easier for me to focus on one at a time, to help improve my quality of both aspects. I figure it’s better for me to build and correct and test my own edits using the sandbox account, and using this account for talking and the simple formality of dropping my newly constructed edits into the mainspace articles. It’s easier for me to sort things out in my mind when the different functions are in different accounts. I tried to make everything there as self-explanatory as posssible. I’m fully aware of the sockpuppet rules from a general standpoint, I’d like to add some type of doppelgänger tag, but the extended description of the ones I found doesn’t match the purpose since my purpose has nothing to do with vandalism or being vandalized. I’m just trying to have separate functions under separate profiles for my own mental organizational purposes. But I’d like full disclosure of the relationship and function of the two accounts to be as transparent as possible to all editors in WP. I’ve added clear titles, descriptions, and hatnotes to make it as clear and unambiguous as I can. My usage of User:Mrbeastmodealldaysandbox falls under legitimate technical reasons for multiple accounts. Of the four bullet points, “maintenance” and/or “testing and training” are the ones in play. The sandbox account is one part of my overall plan to become a better WP editor from now, but I will get into that more in my upcoming main reply. I kindly ask that any ideological comments about the sandbox account be paused until I have put out my upcoming reply to the main discussion, because the full picture and context will be expressed there, but technical or housekeeping discussions regarding the sandbox account are fine in the meantime.

I’m still constructing my reply to the main discourse, but we’ll reconvene when I have that ready.

Thanks everyone Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 02:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't satisfy WP:DG per the fact you "couldn't find the sandbox" whereas you have a sandbox subpage on your main User account. Cullen328 requesting closure please, this is sapping my time and energy dearly. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 04:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Main reply from the user in question

Hi everyone, I have read and considered all the replies since I last was here.

As you all know by now, I was blocked not long ago.

I agree that my text volume in general is excessive and overwhelming for most editors in the discussions. (Unfortunately, for the purpose of this specific context, it’s impossible for me to explain my perspective succinctly, but I’m trying to be as reasonable as I can with brevity, while also providing clarity. For me, brevity and clarity is a difficult combination I haven’t mastered yet.) However, for now I have designated a sandbox-only profile User:Mrbeastmodealldaysandbox, which has a clear statement indicating that it won’t be used for mainspace or talk page activity of any kind. This helps with several key issues:

• Having time to draft my talk page replies so I can trim them down to only what is most necessary and important for the reply, instead of immediately firing off the first reply that comes to my mind when someone else is in a talk discussion with me, and focus more on responding to the overall big picture of the discussion instead of just that one reply from the fellow editor. I will only edit that profile from within that profile, and will not be using the sandbox-only profile for talk replies or mainspace edits.

• Being able to get my “ducks in a row” when putting in major edits. Admittedly, much of the United States article edit history is me cleaning up after my own “big idea” content revisions. It would be easier for all to see the merits of the big content ideas I’m adding to the article instead of being caught up in trying to figure out what’s what from a housekeeping standpoint, when they see 10-12 little cleanup edits immediately after every major big idea content revision. The added steps and work involved of having to log in and out of each account between going from “building/drafting mode” to “talk page reply mode” & “mainspace edit mode” in my mind is a self-reinforcing mechanism for me to be prepared and intentional about what I’m doing before I do it. Because it’s too tiring for me to log in and out of accounts back and forth 5x per minute just to fix a period or add a line indent. Again, this lets editors see both what I’m doing more clearly as an editor and what is happening to the page in the big picture more clearly. I think we can all agree that it’s a marked improvement if everyone sees 5 content revisions and 5 self-cleanups in the edit history in a day compared to 5 content revisions and 40 self-cleanups in a day.

• Having a place to work on constructive WP stuff while also having a chance to step back and cool off from intense discussions and look at it from the bigger picture, since I won’t be distracted by reversion/reply notifications that might compel me to react with immediate fire. I can take a look at the discussion when I’m ready to be more calm and see everything from the full context and look beyond just my own ideas and be able to factor in what other editors are thinking and proposing from their perspective.

• There are other useful functions as well and possibly other clearer ways to explain it, but I don’t wanna keep adding more, so I’ll keep an eye on this discussion from afar, and poke my head in to add a quick clarifying or explanatory comment if I feel it would help the discussion gain traction, especially if there seems to be a misinterpretation.

As for my role in WP from a community/social/interpersonal standpoint, I used the week of my previous block to reconsider my strategy regarding my social role among the greater community in talk pages and edit summaries.

Pre-block, I often used the talk pages as my own personal battleground, which is frowned upon in Wikipedia, and I was often looking to “take a side” and argue for my side when others disagreed.

Post-block, my approach in the talk pages and edit summaries changed as I came with a fresh new underlying philosophy in how I conduct myself in the community/social perspective. Instead of a “my way or the highway” approach that had me fighting war in the battleground everytime there’s a disagreement, I discovered and implemented new roles such as “consensus-seeker”, “concensus-discoverer”, “clarification-asker”, “progress/tradition blender” (finding ways to blend progressive improvement and long-standing concensus into one singular change).

I might still be a battleground guy every now and then, but if I’ve went from battlegrounding in 50%-70% of disputes/reversions against me pre-block, to battlegrounding 10% of disputes, then the trajectory has improved, and this “self-block” has allowed me a chance to step back and assess what might be behind that 10%. Ideally I’d like to be a battleground guy 0% of the time, but my own humanity will likely still have it happen every now and then. But if I’m a battleground guy only 1-2% of the time, it’s much easier to bring attention to those incidents and have individual discussions on those 1-2% of disputes, and see what may be underlying in the content or other editors of that specific situation. It’s easier for everyone to get a good read on the general pulse of the raw individual battleground situation if I’m only battlegrounding once a month compared to 30-100x a month.

Pre-block, I had issues with committing personal attacks. Post-block, those issues have disappeared.

As for bludgeoning and wall of text concerns, I’d like to clarify a key distinction between the two terms. Bludgeoning is on the basis of persistence arising from user behavior. Wall of texting is on the basis of length/quantity/volume that affects other editors from an technical accessibility standpoint. My recent talk additions to Randy Kryn's talk page is a perfect example of the distinction. With my sandbox account, next time I put something like that, I can use the sandbox account to draft up talk replies and maybe whittle it down from the original 100 lines to 25 lines instead, and then in that situation both the wall of text and bludgeoning concerns are gone, whereas the current talk discussion there still has a wall of text concern.

My bludgeoning in talk discussions has markedly decreased post-block; I have generally not been aiming to beat a dead horse, upon clear indication that something I propose runs afoul of established concensus and other editors’ concerns they explain. When other editors disagree or oppose me, I have been willing to move in tandem with their ideas and opinions (like a dance), and seek out common ground between me, the other editor(s) involved and the long-standing consensus, and use said common ground to implement new ideas in a blend that fully honors all three of these factors:

• my ideas
• the other editor’s ideas
• the long-standing consensus

You can see examples of this in my recent caption additions to the mass media and health images in United States:

• For mass media, my two major WP-based concerns were that nothing in the original body text or caption indicated why New York Times was a representation of US media over Wall Street Journal or Washington Post as they were all displayed on equal footing in the text with nothing indicating “supremacy”. And another editor maintained that it was a long-standing image which is why they believed it should stay. However, from a neutrality standpoint, nothing was stopping 100-500 edit autoconfirmed users from dropping by once or twice a month and being like “hey why is New York Times represented here? That’s not fair, it should be NBC” However, the long-standing insisting editor presented that it’s the most read newspaper in the US. I went to the NYT page to explore and see if that or any other “supremacy over all other American media” statistic could be found and sourced to give the image a strong foundation that will keep it longstanding and kill any potential neutrality disputes. Lo and behold I found the statistic about Pulitzer Prizes, which is the biggest national mass media award in the US, and how NYT has 130-something pulitzers and second place is around 60, and the other 3rd-5th was 20-40. So I’m like “hey this will give the image rock solid foundation to stand on so it won’t be wiped away monthly with NBC” while also addressing other editor’s concern about New York Times being long-standing image while also my original WP policy-based big idea of “hey is this really a a neutral point of view? It looks like it arbitrarily promotes New York Times over Washington Post and Wall Street Journal” and “hey is this undue weight? Does NYT really represent the national scene when others are commonly reading the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post?” So the Pulitzer Prize figure satisfied that for my own WP-policy backed concerns, and the other editor’s idea about NYT being the long-standing image and “image over montage”

• You will see the same thing with the health image. It had the Texas Medical Center in Houston, sometimes with an unsourced caption “one of the largest in the world”. I put a national life expectancy graph to equally represent health all around the US instead of just in Houston, and another editor insisted that it’s “image over graph”. But when it’s been “image over graph”, guess what? Once a month there’d be a “drive-by” autoconfirmed editor potentially thinking “Hey why is Houston represented? Why not Miami? That’s not fair. I’m putting Miami there because it’s the biggest hospital I’ve been inside of”, and that editor isn’t wrong because they could say “One of the largest in the world” unsourced and it’s ambiguous as to whether it’s true or not. And the Miami hospital will stay, because again, the merit of the edit not wrong. And a month later, a more experienced editor might think “wait a minute, this wasn’t here last month, let’s restore it to how it’s been for the past X years” and puts back the Houston image. Perhaps someone from New York will put in their New York hospital thinking “hey NYC is the biggest city so the biggest NYC hospital should be represented, it’s also one of the country’s largest” and again, they’re not wrong. And someone else will think “hey, Washington DC is the capital, so the biggest DC hospital will go here”, and again they’re not wrong in accordance with an unsourced “one of the largest hospitals in the country/world” claim. How many are included in the “one of the largest” cutoff? 2? 5? 10? 80? 500? Nobody knows or can agree on that. And there’s no national healthcare system or national healthcare headquarters
  • So then I’m like “ok how can I cement this Houston hospital image?” after noticing the monthly drive-by hospital image swap problem. And I find a reliable source claim that unequivocally indicates Houston hospital is the “largest hospital in the world”. Well now the other editors’ concerns about keeping the long-standing image are satisfied, my concerns about WP neutrality and undue weight are satisfied, and the drive-by autoconfirmed users’ “not fair for Houston to be here over Miami” spirit is now irrelevant and those grievances are put to rest in a way that fully honors and responds to their potential “Houston over Miami unfair” concerns.

You’ll see a similar change in my style in how I edited Ben Wallace, the new disambiguation, especially considering how its original move request was a major theme contributing to my block last month.

Instead of coming back fresh from the 7-day block, reloaded with more ammunition to fire for “team basketball” again to shoot down “team politician”, I instead notice the current situation as if I’m looking down on it from above, and I’m thinking “hey we’ve got an edit war problem here, four people are going back and forth about about how to set up the new page with ‘team page hits’ and ‘team chronology’, and they’re not backing down from each other or negotiating or willing to budge from their sides of the war.” I don’t join the battle based on those “teams” (nor do I join based on my original pre-block extremist “basketball is the only primary” team). But I also don’t make any new revolutionary edits that are meaningfully different from anything proposed by the disputing editors. I simply say in the edit summary “hey we’ve got a ‘primary group’ here (a small group version of a primary topic) when the DAB has a much larger list of entries, look at Richmond, George Bush,Battery, and Power for examples”. If you look at that current page and its recent edit history, you can see how the results in that community played out.

Instead of going “my way”, *reverted*, “no you’re wrong, my way”, *reverted* etc etc like I did pre-block, in this newer post-block period I have tried to consider all of the opposing and conflicting viewpoints in inspiring my next moves in the Wikipedia space in response.

I’m totally aware that the general tone of this may be too reflective and philosophical and “story-telling” for the purpose of many editors to work with this discussion based on the mainstream Wikipedia culture, and I’m almost certain that it’s very much against the grain of how these things go, but I’m trying to explain how my framework as an editor ties into Wikipedia guidelines as much as I am able to, because it certainly does, I have no doubt that it does, I’m just not always the best at communicating how they tie together, I’m not as well-versed in that language as the bulk of regular editors out here.

If there’s a general spirit out here of confusion or uncertainty among the body of editors about this reply, or if this discussion looks like a deadlock from the start, it’s totally understandable. In such a case, it might be useful to ask Randy Kryn if he could put in the first word to get the ball rolling on this, as he is a long-standing well-respected editor (200k+ edits) with a squeaky clean record who seems to have a knack for bridging the gaps between seemingly opposing people and places, and identify common ground from which we can all work from. He also may be able to help interpret across “my language” and the “admin language” if the underlying translation isn’t very clear to the body of editors here. He seems to naturally feel out the pulse of the entire big picture in any situation. Some of us might disagree with each other, but I think he can get us all to agree to disagree, and at least we’re all on the same page at that point, and we can work from that.

(Side note: I would be shocked if he has any enemies)

Thanks everyone, I will leave this piece here and keep tabs on the discussion from afar, and I’ll also keep an eye on my talk page, if anyone has clarifying questions about me as an editor, I’d be happy to answer there. Good luck with the ensuing discussion, and thank you all for your time and willingness to help me, it’s much appreciated. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 07:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

P.S. At the United States talk page, I had a post-block run-in with User:Metres, who has shared their side of that whole story in one of the comments, (events linked with numbers 118-120, the last three edit history links, starting with “He comes off of his block…”) I haven’t added mine or mentioned it at all, but if that situation rises to any significance in the ensuing discussion, I will share my side of the story, so a neutral analysis can be done. Our two sides of the story are very very different, so I’m just pointing that out here for the record. For now, I won’t add my side to avoid making this reply even longer, but I’ll share my side of the story upon request.

Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 07:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

P.S.S.If that story comes up again anywhere in the discussion, I’d greatly appreciate if someone could please ping me before the community dives into that story, I’ll add my side of the story, and then I’ll step back and let the community begin an analysis of it with the perspective of seeing both sides of the story Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 07:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

P.S.S.S. Per X750’s sandbox account concerns, (also tagging Cullen328 since they’re tagged in that comment) that account was created for the general concept of having a sandbox outside of this account to work in, not necessarily the literal WP sandbox per se. I was improvising with the infrastructure I’m familiar with and using the talk page as a de facto sandbox to draft this reply and get it out here ASAP out of respect for people’s time, so editors aren’t here waiting per your concern, instead of spending extra time trying to learn the technical nuts and bolts of how to install a new sandbox into that profile. I’ve had this account 11 years or so and I don’t even remember when or how I created the actual WP sandbox in this profile, but it was a long time ago. If anyone can remind me how to add a sandbox, (which would be greatly appreciated), I’ll note it and do it the next time I’m over there, and use that as the core of my sandboxing work.

(For added context, I have basically zero outside non-WP experience with computer programming, software programming, etc etc, I have no fancy computers. I do 100% of my edits on mobile, almost always source editing since that’s more intuitive to me than visual editing which is kinda clunky to me, and so I learn as I go. All the stuff like infobox and hatnote and references and taglines, I learned from scratch entirely in the “mobile + source” combination without having anyone teach me. There’s probably 30% of Wikipedia infrastructure I’m very familiar with and that’s what I work with in pretty much everything I do, and the other 70% of WP infrastructure is like rocket science to me. For example, most of the stuff the bots do, and even occasionally some of the maintenance/housekeeping edits I’ve seen others in this thread do, I have zero concept of what’s going on. I work within the infrastructure I know, but am willing to learn new things as I go as well. When I made the new sandbox account yesterday, I assumed the sandbox would already be there since I don’t actually remember how or when I installed it in this account. I say this to lay the groundwork about technical stuff involved in my profile that might look suspicious to others. Let’s try to keep the spirit of the discussion focused on the main topic at hand, I don’t think the side stuff is helpful in us all finding consensus together. Thanks for understanding) Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 07:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Full disclosure and transparency, I have just made one (1) edit at United States about 20 minutes ago, anyone in this thread is welcome to review and/or revert it, and I will not object to it or bring it up further in this discussion, whether it stays or whether it’s reverted. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 11:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry Mrbeastmodedaily, there is no reason within imagination that you need to type up a sixteen kilobyte reply, if you cannot express it succintly it may be an issue with your summarising skills. The worst I can imagine is "for personal reasons which if disclosed could compromise my identity", in which case you can email an administrator. Second of all, I'm just impressed you have not addressed a single concern, you have literally bludgeoned ANI, with 55 edits since this thread was posted two days ago. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 19:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Also for crying out loud stop replying!!!!! Every time you add some redundant text like pretty much everything you've written will not speed up the process! It makes it hard for other users to see what is being discussed and where the consensus is being established! Also, the consensus being formed is not your call. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 20:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Anyway we can get you to not delete or make things out of chronological order. Best to leave a rope out and have this in the order that was originally posted so make sense to all who are just joining the talk. Moxy- 22:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Sanctions

• Support ban per lack of any understanding of the problem as seen above. Timesink for our editors. Moxy- 11:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - The above post by User:Mrbeastmodeallday is too long, didn't read, and I will comment in support of restrictions after further tedious review. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support ban I came across MrBeast at Saudi Arabia and its talk page and really couldn’t make any sense of what he was trying to say or do there. Just odd. Then this thread came up. I don’t know what to make of it. A lot of what they write, apart from WP:WALLOFTEXT just doesn’t make any sense. Is it WP:CIR, or WP:TENDENTIOUS. I don’t really know what it is. Just…odd. But what’s clear is it’s a waste of everyone's time with no apparent benefit for WP. DeCausa (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support ban Mrbeast appears to not fully understand WP:Bludgeoning and WP:Wall of text. Sure, most of their contributions appear helpful, but even I cannot read the sheer volume of text that they place almost everywhere, from their edit summaries to talk page sections. Since they were previously told to slow down on Talk:United States and yet continue this behavior, I believe a penalty is justified. The user needs to learn that all these posts are harmful to the Encyclopaedia. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  Have put their new rfc today on hold Moxy- 22:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

There's been some weird editing of this section, and as an outside observer I can no longer tell what sanctions are being !voted on. Singularity42 (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Original non leading non directional version restored.....that is just a section title. You are free to recommend any sanctions you wish or non at all. Moxy- 00:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Note

I will block myself from Wikipedia for the next 7 days exactly (beginning from my signature time stamp), to let the dust settle and give all fellow editors and the admins some breathing room, to hopefully see the biggest picture possible about this whole discussion. You will not see any activity from me for the next 7 days, and anyone here can check my contribution history/log to hold me to that (including my sandbox account). Goodbye for now Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 23:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

My position in 30 words or less (3 to be exact)

@Jim Bobs Doo Doo: I don’t need 30 words, three is enough, but thank you very much for the offer. Please keep the other 27 words to say something kind to someone and uplift them, whether within Wikipedia, or in the offline physical world.

Meanwhile, here’s the three words I’m keeping:

"this vs this”

Word #3 does this trick where it leads to other really cool numbers like:

• -48
• 13:52
• 162,963 (I call this one "bamboo" because it just keeps growing, so watch out!)

Those are some numbers beyond 30 that might explain my position better as well. And I’m not sure how to explain my position in -48 words but it might be fun to try. Anybody have advice?

I hope you enjoy playing that numbers game, everyone else is welcome to play too, I hope we can all win that game together and there are no losers.

Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 09:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

P.S. (As a courtesy, can we please consider appealing to the powers that be to unblock Jim Bobs Doo Doo? as the "trolling" edit summary shows a very clear example of assuming bad faith, and the reversion was completely unnecessary. I don’t consider that trolling at all, that comment was the catalyst of this entire comment of mine, and I nominate it as the most valuable comment in this whole discussion; I genuinely appreciate the assistance and feedback given. To me, that doesn’t merit an indefinite block. Without that “trolling” comment, none of this would’ve came to my mind.) Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 09:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, I didn't block them for that comment. I blocked them for very blatantly being a troll. If that comment did prove helpful for you, good; I can't imagine that that was their intention, though. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 09:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@Tazmin:Tazmin@Tamzin:Tamzin Well if you and I can together agree that the “explain in 30 words or less” was not a very blatant troll comment, and had even the tiniest sliver of merit, perhaps we can be compassionate enough to consider unblocking the user even for just one day, inviting them to see this discussion, and seeing where things go. Cheers! Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 09:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Respectfully, MBMAD, I'm not going to unblock a trollsock just because they said something you found useful. Look through the 13 edits they made. Basically every one was calculated to disrupt, and all show that this is clearly not a new user. They are welcome to appeal their block through the normal channels... Although I'm guessing, when next we see them, it will more likely be under some different (probably also scatological) username. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 09:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh and since you asked via edit summary: The reason you're failing to ping me is that you're tagging Tazmin, whereas my name is Tamzin. Rhymes with "yams win". See Thomasina. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 09:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I think it’s because I’ve seen so many “Jazmin”s but not any “Jamzin”s haha. I’ve never done strike-through on a typo before but this has a funny story behind it Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 10:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Repeated removal of Talk page comments

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

---

Can someone please remind Dmc213‎ that it's inappropriate to delete others' comments from Talk pages? They have repeatedly deleted my comments in Talk:Doctor of Education. I left them a friendly note on their User Talk page advising them that isn't acceptable but they deleted that message and have continued to delete my comments in the article's Talk page. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 05:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

The user's comments disparaged me publicly and did not follow standards for appropriate dispute resolution. That is not an appropriate means of resolving conflicts. ThI have done the following in an attempt to resolve this conflict:

1. Contacted the user offline to inform him of my concerns.

2. Acquiesced to the user's comments concerning Dr. Cosby's inclusion in the Notable person's list. Dmc213 (talk) 05:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

You are going to have to explain yourself a bit better, Dmc213, because I see nothing in what ElKevbo has written that warrants you deleting it. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

It has been reposted, and instead, I have simply replied in a comment. Further, I commit to not deleting it. Is that an acceptable resolution? I do not want an extended conflict over this, and apologize to the user for deleting his comment on the article's talk page. Dmc213 (talk) 05:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! I appreciate the apology and I'm okay if someone wants to close this discussion at this point. ElKevbo (talk) 05:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

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

Iphone5Sgold

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

---

Iphone5Sgold (talk · contribs) repeatedly adds unsourced content to and about BLPs. They have been warned multiple times by multiple users for this, and they have been blocked, but they still do it. Please can somebody review? GiantSnowman 06:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

thanks to @Drmies: for reviewing. GiantSnowman 18:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

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

Canvassing at greek WP for an article at en.WP

@Greek Rebel: had a discussion at Talk:Turkish language. Discussion begun 29ht of May, this year. At 4th of June, he asked for "Some help" at el.WP.[99] (title in Greek "λιγη βοηθεια" translates to "some help". He asked for assistance, because two users prevent him from fixing a POV issue. In a following post, in the same section, he says [100] "Διότι οι οπαδοί του Ταξίμ κάνουν καλά την προπαγάνδα τους εκεί που προφανώς οι άλλοι δεν δίνουν δεκάρα. Αν όμως πάμε 5-6 και πούμε το αυτονόητο, θα αναγκαστούν να ασχοληθούν" which translates roughtly "Taksim's supporters [ref to Taksim (politics) ] they are doing propaganda, because most users do not care. But if 5-6 of us, go there [at en.WP article] and say what is profound, they will have to take notice". Cinadon36 10:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• Greek Rebel certainly merits a trout slap, but so far any canvassing hasn't had any effect on the Taksim (politics) article -- the most recent edit on the article that wasn't merely cosmetic was nearly six years ago, and the article hasn't had any edits in nearly a year. [101] As far as the Turkish language article goes, I'm happy to be an extra set of eyes, but I already see that RandomCanadian is on it ... Ravenswing 10:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
• Note also that Greek Rebel opened a thread at ANI seeking changes to the content of Turkish language. I had been approaching this user as if they just weren't familiar with Wikipedia processes. Going to another Wiki to canvass, and with the nature of that message, makes me wonder if this user isn't actually trying to push their own POV into articles. —C.Fred (talk) 11:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
• This is now the third thread related to this user's conduct, I didn't want to comment here earlier as like C.Fred, I thought that the user was just unfamiliar with our processes so I was helping them file an RfC correctly. This sort of behaviour, however, changes things. I think commenters might be missing out on the cultural context here, but on the Greek Wikipedia thread Greek Rebel is essentially engaging in ethnically laden personal attacks against Beshogur and me. Their accusations about being "taksim supporters" and "two-state solution proponents" essentially equate to randomly calling a British person that you disagree with a Nigel Farage supporter, but only worse because of the ethnic acrimony involved (Ravenswing: the reference to taksim is not a call for edits on that article, it merely serves as a personal attack). This is clear WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, I certainly don't want to be engaging with an editor who feels free to cast ethnically laden aspersions on me, and seeing this user's overall editing profile, I really don't think they're here to build an encyclopaedia. I think this merits more than just a trout slap. --GGT (talk) 11:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  You've got a definite point. I've just been taking a spin through GR's modest contribution history [102], and it's clogged with Greek nationalist edits, edit warring on other articles, and frequent edit summaries accusing other editors of vandalism and propaganda [103][104][105][106][107][108]. With only 63 mainspace edits, whatever genuine contributions this editor brings to the table sure seems outweighed by the disruption he causes. Ravenswing 11:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  A cursory scan of the user's contributions shows no such ethnically-based personal attacks on en.wiki from 29 May to the time of this post. —C.Fred (talk) 11:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  You're right - whilst the user has personally attacked users on en.wiki (accusations of nationalism, for instance), the only clear ethnically-based attack has been on el.wiki. That discussion, however, is a direct extension of the user's editing here and it does reveal their fundamental battleground attitude - I don't believe such conduct can be ignored just because they've surreptitiously avoided being so explicit on this language edition. GGT (talk) 11:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  Had there been such an attack on en.wiki, I would have left them a very clearly and sternly worded warning about how such behaviour is unacceptable anywhere on en.wiki and especially in conflict areas such as Northern Cyprus–related articles. I am not sure I want to do that preemptively, though another user or admin may certainly caution them or give them guidance about the importance of civility and WP:AGF. —C.Fred (talk) 12:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• I believe there should be some sanction if Greek Rebel failed to respond to the report. GenuineArt (talk) 11:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  I think it's more a matter of what their next actions are. If they edit civilly and in observance of consensus and other guidelines, then there's no problem. If this current pattern of behaviour continues...I'd say topic ban, but given that the vast majority of their edits are to topics related to Greece and Cyprus, it might as well be a siteblock. —C.Fred (talk) 11:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

True for most situations but now Greek Rebel should really address their behavior. Yes, an indef block and subsequent unblock with the understanding that they won't repeat this NOTHERE behavior will be fine. GenuineArt (talk) 12:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

To all the users that take part at this conversation: I do not understand, why it's not "legal" to ask for help in another page of the Wikipedia foundation. Did I broke some rules? If I did that, I am really sorry. But I cannot leave the accuses against me of "vandalism", "nationalism" etc... Why I am a vadal? Did my edits are against the rules of WP. No they are not. I didn't had consensus but my edits were completely right according official papers and sources. And I would suggest you again to see the Russian language page. This is exactly what I suggest at the Turkish language page. How could "Turkish language been spoken at Turkey, Cyprus and Northern Cyprus"? Northern Cyprus is a part of Cyprus according the UN isn't it? What do we care of if it's a de facto state, we are talking about an occupied territory belonging another RECOGNIZED state. Abkhazia, Donesk etc are also de facto states, but at the Russian language page are mentioned only at the infobox as "partially recognized states". So why am I vandal? And why am I a nationalist? I do not allow to accuse me of nationalism, only because I defend the International Law! Greek Rebel (talk) 12:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I've partially blocked Greek Rebel from editing Turkish language for 2 weeks. If they resume the same disruptive editing behavior after the block expires, they should be blocked for a longer duration (or indefinitely, if appropriate). If there is consensus to apply a sitewide block or a longer duration block, please feel free to override my block. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 13:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Scottywong: I have made an unblock request, where I actually response to you... Some things are not as it seems to be. I think that you should see more carefully the situation and understand what I am saying. Because I still think that all this is unfair. Greek Rebel (talk) 13:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

No one has (yet) accused you of vandalism, Greek Rebel. Kindly reread my previous post: it is that you routinely accuse other editors of vandalism. Ravenswing 13:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ravenswing: Oh ok I am sorry... But you didn't respond me about the others... Greek Rebel (talk) 13:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Well ... you've asked me some of the same questions here, on your talk page, on MY talk page, on the Turkish language talk page, and there are only so many venues on which I care to respond when I'm pretty certain you aren't likely to listen to anything we're saying. But to copy what I just posted to the same questions on your talk page, "And come now ... don't bullshit us. You are a Greek edit warring over what nomenclature is being used in terms of Northern Cyprus, and your edits are heavily devoted to topics involving Greek political and ethnic action groups. Of course you're engaging in nationalist editing." For the most part, we are none of us fools here. It would serve you quite well not to believe us to be one. Ravenswing 14:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Anti-Iranian disruption by IP (possibly a sock)

2A02:A458:447B:1:CDE0:6D17:3460:C95D/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This IP keeps removing sourced that has anything to do with Iran, I have good reason to suspect it's an IP of recently indeffed user User:WatanWatan2020, who also showed signs of anti-Iranian behaviour and spoke very similar to him.

I have already filed an SPI against him [109]. However, that may take some time, and he is still at it with his non-constructive edits (as well as comments).

Some examples:

Stop inserting that Iranian nationalist content, stop claiming that heritage like that.

Stop inserting this Iranian nationalist stuff.

6 November 2021 - Removed sourced mention of "Persianized"

26 May 2022 - Replaced sourced mention of "Persian" with "Arabic"

5 June 2022 - Replaced sourced mention of "Turco-Persian" with "Turkish"

6 June 2022 - Removed sourced mention of "Iranian"

6 June 2022 - Removed sourced mention of "Persian"

--HistoryofIran (talk) 12:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I do not know about the other entries, or whether the IP is a sockpuppet, but I would like to point out that the work on Rum is correct. Rum is a Greek term from self-identification as Romoi "Romi", from "Roman" (in Greek), not a word from Persian origin, and this is well attested in the scholarly literature. PopulationGeneticsLevant (talk) 13:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Whatever you think is correct, doesn't give you the right to remove sourced information [110]. This is no more disruptive than that of the IPs edits. If you think the information is WP:UNDUE, then you should take it to the talk page to show proof. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Orlando IP range vandalizing rapper bios

• 2603:9001:1206:9CED:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

The Orlando, Florida, IP range Special:Contributions/2603:9001:1206:9CED:0:0:0:0/64 has been vandalizing rapper bios, for instance changing dates or nationality.[111][112] Can we put a temporary stop to the disruption? Binksternet (talk) 16:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours to prevent further disruption. Oz\^InterAct 16:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

User: Tvx1

Tvx1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
[113]

User:Tvx1 has been using a confrontational style with loaded language in his replies to me. I would point out the passages but i suggest to read the whole section, it's not long, because there are few comments uninvolved.

• Here a first example of loaded language [114], following that with personal attacks about my understanding of "basic" English language [115] , attacking my behaviour over a page move [116], writing confrontational and rude reply shouting sentence in capslock [117]. To those i replied in a neutral and politely way [118], saying what was the offense and to cease to write those again[119].

I was told by an admin [120] to put up a RM to solve the content problem, which was stalled by the time, and Tvx1 gamed the system [121] ( i say so because i didn't went shopping for favourable opinions elsewhere, which was his accuse, after starting the RM i posted right away on the project talk page and in bold characters that discussion was moved there [122]. No two discussions, then, just moving the same there to have more discussion and exiting the stall as admin adviced me) by forcing a downgrade from the RM of the talk page of the tournament [123] back to the stalled discussion onto the project talk page, (never ever seen such downgrade happening before), with the help of another admin [124] (at this point i was confused about which rule rules and which doesn't because everyone is barging in and reversing what the prev admin said).

• After that comment with loaded language and false accusations over me [125] forcing a indirect defense by the advising admin above [126], i went on the talk page of the user Tvx1 and gave him a personal attack warning [127], trying to take the tension off the project talk page, and to remind him that criticism over topic is allowed, personal attack onto contributors are not by wikipedia policy, only to have that deleted with an egregious edit summary in which he called me names ("Stop being a..." ) [128]. So it was clear to me there was a failure of communication on his part, he refused to listen and to try to stop being rude and personal attacking me. He was on a crusade, so to say, against me. In fact he went straight at me, chasing my previous edits. See the next paragraph.

[129]

• While i was looking around for advices on how to exit the stall abovementioned, i was alerted that user Tvx1 went straight from the above troubled discussion into WIKIHOUNDING me (he made not other edit inbetween, see his contribs page [130] at 11:10 and 11:50 of 6 June ), reversing a merge i did, on the basis they were two different tournaments when in fact there were double references on both articles and it was confirmed by history of past finals of the tournament's official website [131] ( see 2011-2014 years) confirming that this tournament [132] is part of this one [133]. I told Tvx1 about it in my revert edit summary [134] but he ignored it and reverted it again with an egregious edit summary [135] showing he knows better, as if he "owns" the article, and proceeding to deleting those years altogether from the page.
  

After this hounding i cannot simply disengage anymore, because he has showed an escalating behaviour on top of his over-the-top confrontational style, making a 2 times reverse which is harming wikipedia, thus evolving from a problematic user into a disruptive one. And since i have tried everything, disengagement, public advice to stop personal attacking other users, resolving the dispute on his talk page, i have only this ANI left as my last resort choice. --Opencross (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

This editor has been indef blocked once before in 2019 for, it seems to me, the same type of behaviour. They were unblocked a week later after some dispute resolution. Due to it being 3 years ago, I want to hear from @Tvx1 first. Please chime in, otherwise it's very easy to assume you have learned nothing from the last time, even though the context was different. Oz\^InterAct 16:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Inter, that is a very unfair characterization of me. It feels to me like you only took a quick glance at my block log and made assumptions based on there being an indefblock and didn't actually look into the whole case to see what actually triggered my block. It was not only a different context, but also a completely different "type of behavior". It was the result of a dispute regarding non-free content, which is a very sensitive subject considering the potential legal consequences for the project. I was wrong, apologized for it, accepted the restrictions that were placed on me and have respected them ever since. In fact I have hardly made any edits on that subjects. The fact that I have not been come even close to being blocked in the three years since is a clear sign that I have learned. I'm really disappointed to learn that three years of good faith edits seem to mean nothing.

As for the issue at hand here, it is actually Opencross, not me, who started to make this rather trivial issue personal by starting to falsely accuse me of bad faith on 5 June claiming I had taken an IDONTLIKEIT stance. They have continue to accuse of different kinds of bad faith ever since (e.g. ownership tendencies, WIKIHOUNDING), while portraying themselves as a simple victim. On top of that they went on to execute their requested move, even though the discussion on the subject had not received consensus and they had not even received any support. When they initiated a formal RM, I merely closed the section on the talk page of the article on technical grounds with the sole intent to let the RM take place at the place the discussion was already taking place so that already expressed opinions by multiple editors could be taken into account, per WP:FORUMSHOP and WP:MULTIPLE. Why this is characterized as "downgrading", I don't understand. The discussion can take place properly over at the WikiProject. I don't understand they claimed it "stalled" either. In the meantime, with some help from others, I managed to fix the tags so that the process is no properly working. As for my edits earlier today, I was simply watching the grass court tennis tournaments of this week as they are getting underway (Stuttgart and Rosmalen) and decided to check Wikipedia's coverage of the grass court season, when I noticed that two of the articles on the different Nottingham tournaments had been merged without any form of prior discussion. Thus I decided to revert, while I couldn't care less who had actually merged them. Though I admit it was unfortunate that the reverted edits were from Opencross, I can assure I didn't matter at all to me that they had made those edits. As with the other issue, I have no problem to take part in a proper discussion on the subject. I'm not on any personal crusade here whatsoever. I honestly cannot see how this editor expects others to react gratefully to continuous false accusations of bad faith. If anything, they are the ones causing harm here. I also find it somewhat strange that a user who joined Wikipedia just over a month ago is so well acquainted with behavioral policies like WP:HOUND.Tvx1 18:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

No, I read all the diffs provided and found them concerning. Then I checked the block log finding the incident three years ago. On this noticeboard we learn very quickly to look for patterns in user behaviour. Now for the incident at hand - Like I said, I read all the diffs provided and to me it's not at all clear to me that you are the innocent party here. Why the aggressiveness towards the other editor? Why not try to resolve this amicably? On the other hand, OpenCross seem to think you are "after him" which you say is not the case. What we have here seems to be a classic failure to communicate. @Opencross would you be willing to resolve the dispute over on content dispute if that calms things down? Oz\^InterAct 18:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I will admit I haven't looked into all of the details but I was a part of the conversation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis#Change "Rosmalen" into "'s-Hertogenbosch" in the ATP Tournament Rosmalen Grass Court Championships' title. User:Opencross proposed a page move based on his interpretation of Wiki policy, User:Tvx1 opposed the move based on his differing interpretation of Wiki policy, and then Opencross went ahead and moved the page anyways. That then started the back and forth between the two. I suggest both just take a step back and try to resume communications. User:Opencross should take a break on moving pages and contribute to the discussion and User:Tvx1 can be more polite in his messages. No need to escalate things or waste people's time. Adamtt9 (talk) 18:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

As I said before, I'm perfectly capable and willing to take in part in a civil manner. I just don't appreciate the multiple false accusations of bad faith that were directed at me.Tvx1 18:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Inter, as I pointed out before, there is no pattern. The incident from three years ago was something completely different. It's clear now that just checked the block log, but not the actual incident. Moreover I have kept my nose clean in the three years since, so why is that ignored? As for this issue, I didn't and I won't claim I'm simply innocent here. I probably reacted a bid badly to the false accusations, so pardon if I don't take kindly to such kind of things. Why I'm merely trying to point is that Opencross is not simply innocent victim they portray themselves to be. I'm more than willing to take part in dispute resolution if that is what it takes, though I'm convinced that just letting the RM run its course should suffice. What I'm not willing to take part in, is being subject to a continuous barrage of accusations of bad faith.Tvx1 19:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Nor is probably anyone else here. And nowhere did I say the incident three years ago has anything to do with the current issue and as it has played out, it doesn't matter either. If Opencross can avoid moving pages without consensus and you being open to a milder approach, I think we can lay this incident to rest. @Opencross what do you say? Oz\^InterAct 19:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Just for clarification, I looked to see if there were any patterns. That's the only relevance. Oz\^InterAct 19:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, i was reading your comment. Before answering your question i need to respond to the one from Tvx1 about my knowledge of wiki policies and templates, at a level unexpected from a new user. He is right, i didn't know about them, i had to do a crush course because he made me do it, which is what i was unexpecting coming into wikipedia. Maybe some advices here and there (and i have gathered a good number of them), some confrontation? Sure. But it has been 3-4 days i 've been perusing every page of wikipedia to find the right policy and even this very place to post about this trouble. He made me do all that by not listening to my thoroughly attempt to resolve the dispute, as i explained above.

So, Oz, do you think this can be solved as a content dispute? I was asking myself that very question before posting this ANI, i was considering if posting another message to Tvx1 over the topic would have solved the problem, and while doing that and looking around for admin to give me advices i was alerted bythe hounding Tvx1 was doing.

My understanding is that this user is wearing criticism up his sleeves, he utterly refused any compromise, on top of that he tried to reverse the table while persisting in insulting and attacking me personally multiple times. I am 100% sure he still doesn't understand that ijustdontlikeit policy is not personal attack. He thinks it is, he just says so. So, your proposal would do nothing about wikipedia, if he doesn't show he understands the personal attack, the game the system and own policies and would not resort to them in the future. What would matter if he resolves the dispute with me and go ahead and continue to make the same errors with others? If you will just give him a condoning card, a free pass what do you expect he will do?

After 2 "technical" admins went his way on the first article about the RM move he exchanged pleasantries with them ( see his last reply there) and went straight to hound my edit. Right away. That is he felt encouraged to persist into his bad behaviour, not only that, he escalated it into hounding. This is very troubling, given that he also made reverse damaging wikipedia, just for the seek of retribution for my warning on personal attack on his talk page.

Sure, we can solve this content dispute, he then will move on on another crusade toward someone else. Do you think this is presumptuous? That this is a content dispute escalated only against me? Well, let's take a different point of view. Tvx1 said he is on a good behaviour in the last three years. I took it as ".. because no other else has been posting an ANI on me meanwhile". Well, the fact anybody didn't post it doesn't mean he's on a good behaviour either.

I would just point out this case not involving me, on the 2022 Wimbledon page Tvx1 drafted a couple of days ago. I saw that page firsthand, he posted about it asking for advice on the project talk page, and i advised him and wished him good editing [136]( so to say i was not prejudiced against him or other editors), but that page needed a good and deep cleanup, even on a grammatical level, i saw that, but seeing already his confrontational behaviour and answers to me, following my disengagement attitude i stayed away from that.

Let's see what happened there: an IP user made a obvious edit cancelling a repetition [137] and Tvx1 reverted it. Not only that, but he was constantly checking the article edits and answering almost every other editor.

The IP user has not posted since then.

So, are we sure Tvx1 is on a good behaviour or has he been swiping away who knows how many editors who got their edits reverted (thus damaging wikipedia) and don't want the trouble of perusing every wikipages and start an ANI? We are not. No one is going to check all his previous edits, also he is replying here with an IP, a little bit strange he didn't log in. Maybe he doesn't want this on his record, i don't know, i don't want to check this too, on top of what i have already red before writing this ANI. I found it strange, nonetheless, but maybe it's nothing to worry about, just a glitch.

The trouble here, Oz, are two: first he has this bad "own" attitude on every article he got invested, and second he doesn't take criticism well, and i mean the neutral and over the topic, i can't imagine what will happen if anyone would attack him personally.

What i know is just what i reported, what i have seen firsthand in the last couple of days, and how he walled my attempts to solve his bad behaviour toward me, he didn't listened at all. So, i am not interested in solving the content dispute. What does it make for other users he would clash against in the future?

As you can see from his answer above, he still thinks he is on the right side, didn't do any attack to me, didn't own, etc.. he is on refusal mode.

If you want to condone his behaviour for this time, that call is on you. I am not interested in making the page move anymore (sure maybe i rushed it when i made that page move on my part. This justify Tvx1 aggressive and multiples comments on that? No).

I was expecting a "sorry". He didn't even said that. Why? Because he thinks he didn't make any mistake.

This speaks volume to me, i don't know about you. You're condoning him this time, he will go out of this emboldened and with a free card and will do what he did today after two "technical admins" went his way, when he successfully gamed the system to downgrade the RM, which is damaging wikipedia in a rampage of reverts. You will make him even more troublesome. I just showed you so in the diffs above, if history is of any evidence to you. You'd better not to be in the shoes of whoever editor will cross him next time. I wish you to take a good decision on this. Cheers. Opencross (talk) 20:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Thing is, we hold people to their word here, regardless if they started an incident or reported it. Since they have said they are willing to milden their comments towards others, we want to assume good faith and hold them to their word. If they do not, it's on record and action taken against them will be based on broken promises. I want to reiterate that we advocate to assume good faith everywhere on Wikipedia, which of course also includes ANI. At least in my view I do not block anybody if there is a chance of resolution first. This is why I have used the language I've used in this incident so far.

What we have here is failure to communicate between two editors who have run into each other with opposite views of both content and approach. Words were exchanged, they were taken the wrong way by both, as both seem to accuse the other of the same thing. My proposal is that you either 1, avoid each other in the future or 2, have a discussion on one of your talk pages about how to better understand each other. Oz\^InterAct 20:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Just noting that I'm the editor who originally advised Opencross to start an RM on the talk page. I was mistaken, and instead should have advised them to add the RM template to the existing discussion, but this was quickly rectified with the help of Tvx1 and another editor. (Though I'm not an admin, as the opening post suggests ) DanCherek (talk) 19:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. To me this seems like a non-issue now and with some better communication in future, we can move on. Oz\^InterAct 19:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Possible block evasion by editor Gamer-Giri

Can a blocking-savvy admin please take a look at the contributions by Gamer-Giri in relation to previous edits by blocked editors Kana-gyud and Believing-two? It seems to me that these may all be the same editor. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty clear edit-summary tell there to clinch it. Blocked indef, sans TPA in light of past abuse. Will tag all. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 18:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive user Vehbikerem2010

Vehbikerem2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
User Vehbikerem2010 behaves in a disruptive and rude manner. User added non-sensical and unsourced information to both Lancia Musa and Fiat Idea articles.
Musa: Special:Diff/1091824891, Special:Diff/1091835647, Special:Diff/1091836809, Special:Diff/1091836901, Special:Diff/1091838686 (I have refrained from edit warring at this point, but wanted to discuss the matter further on user's talk page and added tags to discuss it)
Idea: Special:Diff/1091836625, Special:Diff/1091838092
Boring car facts: Lancia Musa was based on Fiat Idea, but had changed bodywork and tweaked interior and sold under a different make. The infobox field 'related' is just for such information. Noone ever uses field 'also called' for such information as those two cars are related but are not the same nor are just 'badge engineered'.
When those edits were reverted by me, user proceeded to continue to add the same information over and over again. This was only based on user's opinion that I quote: "Why Fiat Idea And Lancia Musa Are Basicly The Same" Special:Diff/1091840316
I have added 'Dubious' tags to those statements, which without any discussion were just removed by the user. Special:Diff/1091846458 and Special:Diff/1091846505
When I wrote on user's talk page, user rudely warned me, and I quote: "DONT EVER RUIN MY SESSION AGAIN!". Special:Diff/1091837736
I suspect the user does not grasp what cooperation is on Wikipedia and presents battleground mentality. YBSOne (talk) 20:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Millie Bobby Brown

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

---

On the talk page I just read under the heading Removal of personal life article, I was wondering if an admin should review, I found the first paragraph written by Uricdivine effectively WP:FORUMish and frankly it grossed me out reading that, some of what people wrote that made me feel sick, don't know if it needs redacting out. The other thing on her personal life, from the article history, I am not sure, but it seems like a long-term edit-war has been happening there. Govvy (talk) 23:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I see a healthy debate there about balancing a young person's privacy with reliable-source coverage of her private life. Some of that does get into the rather uncomfortable subject of sexualization of minors, but I don't see anyone encouraging or making light of that, nor falsely accusing others of engaging in it, which is what we'd be concerned about as an administrative matter—unless I'm overlooking something. And it doesn't violate NOTFORUM to post an explanation of why one has made an edit, even if that explanation is partly based on external factors. (This is not an endorsement nor condemnation of the removal of the section.) As to the article's content, while there have been a fair number of reverts, I don't see outright edit-warring (personally I draw the line there at "Are people making reverts that they know will be reverted in turn?", and I don't see that here). If there's content that you think should be revdelled, please post the diffs to #wikipedia-en-revdel ^connect or email any available admin (like me). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 23:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I hope it's a healthy debate, maybe I thought I read something in the text that wasn't there. I alway think its good to have a second set of eyes look over it. Govvy (talk) 23:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

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

@Iamreallygoodatcheckers: No, you're completely wrong, I was never posting about a content dispute, I was posting because I felt the talk page talk was over the line and felt WP:VULGAR. Govvy (talk) 07:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Credit One Bank article. Corporate and/or PR firm influence

I did some research today and found some strong direct/circumstantial evidence that the Credit One Bank article has corporate and/or public relations firm editing going on. Specifically, there has been scrubbing of the unflattering/negative information in the article and the addition of unsourced promotional/positive material.

Recently, I edited the article citing high authority sources like the Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg News and the Better Business Bureau so the article more reliably reflects reality.

In the past, I caught another company's employee editing Wikipedia to remove negative information using the IP address (A fellow Wikipedian awarded a "The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar" in relation to this matter). So I know Wikipedia has to guard against this type of thing.

Wikipedia admins, please do what you can to prevent the article from being scrubbed of legitimate negative information concerning this company.

Below is some research I compiled today that shows direct/circumstantial evidence of corporate and/or PR editing.

Editors who only did edits to Credit One Bank article at Wikipedia

• LongJumper23

• Brentydaman

• AreAreDubya

• JumpyJoker18

• Grapebomb

Editors with very few edits to Wikipedia who edited the Credit One Wikipedia article

• CreditOne

• Mobashshirrehan

• Ziffel

Unflattering information removed (unsourced)

• Unflattering information removed (unsourced)

I hope this information I compiled is helpful as far as maintaining the quality of the article. Knox490 (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

All of this belongs on the talk page of the article, Knox. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

OK. Knox490 (talk) 04:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• You may want to also raise this at WP:COIN if discussions on the talk page of the article seem to be going nowhere. --Aquillion (talk) 08:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Gravedancing and outright harassment

Today I was stunned to see SerVasi WP:GRAVEDANCING on a topic-banned editor's talk page and calling them a "dog". [138] SerVasi has been warned numerous times to refrain from such behaviour and has been blocked for it on multiple occasions. If this isn't a personal attack and disruptive behaviour I really don't know what is. How is this anywhere near acceptable? Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 00:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Amanuensis Balkanicus: This incident, in itself, is worthy of an ANI, but what were the alleged previous edits similar to this one?

Sadko was topic-banned from the WP:ARBEE topic area in 2021, and this action is logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2021#Eastern_Europe. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Almost every interaction SerVasi has with other users is confrontational and contains insults. This has been going on for years, but this incident is particularly jarring. Some of SerVasi's past comments are even worse, but weren't reported at the time. I don't have time to go over all of SerVasi's personal attacks but here are a few examples.

"I would tell you to swim away but then i remembered the great serbian coastline. [...] Still waiting for a valid counter argument. Provide it or tractor away." [139] An obvious reference to Operation Storm, in which hundreds of thousands of Serb refugees fled Croatia, many using tractors. On another occasion: "Sorry, didnt know you were jewish." [140] "Are you or Goran Bregovic jewish by any chance? Because im at a loss to explain your recent edit." [141] FYI, the dispute had nothing to do with Jewish people. Bizarre non sequitur. Also, implying an administrator is using drugs. [142]

I have also been called a dog in the past by SerVasi, specifically a hound. [143] Also an "off-brand Sadko". [144] There is more, but that's all I can remember off the top of my head. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 01:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

A quick note before the actual respone. Editor Amanuensis Balkanicus (AB in further text) has some kind of personal vendetta against a blocked editor (i believe its Crovata or something like that). For some reason AB believes that's me. I became a target of slander, wikihounding (in reference to AB complaining about being called a hound) and doubious petty reports like this.

-

My note at Sadko's talk page didn't just come about randomly. I actually made my first edit on the serbian wiki. Yay me!? It was on the Ivan Gundulic article. According to wiki it lasted a whole 6 minutes before Sadko reverted it. He was topic banned on the english wiki so he continued his disruptive work on others. AB's bias is quit obvious in the fact that he is focusing on the "dog" when my statement was "the same old dog" which is quite a bit different and topical. AB and Sadko often teamed up so no wonder he is protecting his pal. My jokes that AB conveniently cherry picked are a response to their vandalism (which Sadko was banned for) and AB's annoying wikihounding of me. For example the jewish joke explanation is still up on my talk page in response to the editor OyMosby. I would like to know why was that even mentioned lol. I guess mentioning the jews makes me a nazi (this is also a joke AB (and this too)).

P.S. AB likes to whitewash pages that revolve around genocide of albanians in serbia so i don't think im the suspicious one.

Cheers and happy editing

SerVasi (talk) 02:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@SerVasi: So to be clear, your defense to the charges of gravedancing and harassment is "Yes, but he had it coming?" -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

No, not really. He came to me first, not the other way around. This was just the continuation of the interaction. He is still disruptive and i am allowed to comment on that when he messes with my work. You could call me out on the fact that i didn't do this on the serbian wiki but as i said im new and still getting used to it so i figured it would be easier to do it on the english wiki as i don't even have the cyrillic keyboard with me at the moment.

SerVasi (talk) 04:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

The Sorry, didnt know you were jewish edit summary is from December 2020. If it had been more recent I would have indefinitely blocked SerVasi. There appears to be plenty of reason to perform that indefinite block but let's see how SerVasi responds after this. @SerVasi: Wikipedia requires collaboration and is not a place to conduct battles or poke opponents. If there is any repetition of the kinds of edits/comments reported here, you will be blocked. That includes poking Sadko. Johnuniq (talk) 05:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the "Jewish" stuff is beyond the pale and would be definitely be blockable if fresh. SerVasi should consider themself on notice and formally warned. Cullen328 (talk) 05:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Editor Mathsci deleting my comment

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

---

Mathsci on the talkpage of "Race (human categorization)" claims there's a consensus race is a social construct. This is demonstrably false, and I pointed out that the only consensus about this was among a clique of Wikipedia editors. Somewhat ironically, Mathsci keeps deleting this comment.[145] Is that fair practice, to delete comments that disagree with you? I would notify him but his talk page is locked. Liquoricia Borgia (talk) 10:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Given that 100% of your edits so far are with the goal of causing trouble in a DS area, and given that your own comments strongly suggest that this is not your first account (2nd edit is to accuse another editor of COI), I have blocked your account indefinitely. If you can show improvements you'd like to make unrelated to race and intelligence, and no one comes along and finds a sockmaster to tie you back to in the meantime, I am open to downgrading to "just" a TBAN from that topic area. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 11:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Johnuniq already deleted these edits. My user talk page has been protected for many years by arbitrators because of prolonged Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Mikemikev. The statements by this user are incorrect and as I have made no statements to that effect. It would be a waste of time for checkusers like TamsinTamzin to examine recent occurrences of sockpuppetry; thanks to TamsinTamzin for indefinitely blocking this disruptive user. Motions of WP:ARBR&I address precisely why my user talk page has been semi-protected by arbitrators or former arbitrators (e.g. user:Doug Weller). WP:DFTT have been used by arbitrators in this context. Mathsci (talk) 12:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC) (refactored)(re-refactored - OMG!)

Alas, I am not Tamsin Amelia Jones, Ph.D., who last edited in 2005, when I was 9. I did spell my first name that way for a time, but learned I was the only person in the United States who knew how to pronounce it, so switched the ess to a zee (zed for the ENGVARphobic). "Tamsin" lives on as the name of my partner's cat in Stardew Valley... well and also as the first name of Dr. Jones, who as far as I know is alive and well, and may someday log back in to a surprising number of pings intended for me. I'm also not a checkuser, although I'd hesitate to put an "alas" on that one; it seems like a lot of work. What I am is willing to call a spade a spade and a disruptive SPA a disruptive SPA. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 12:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Fixed now (I had been more careful with you previously). Many thanks again for the deletion and for Johnuniq's help. Mathsci (talk) 12:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC) (refactored)

You are also doing it elsewhere as well, see below. Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Note that one of the comments you removed was posted almost an hour before you removed it, [[146]] so in answer to that edit summery, my common sense fails to see (therefore) how an edit conflict could have occurred, it took you an hour to compose a post? Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I was about to point out (on their talk page, when I saw the ANI notice) that they did it here as well [[147]] nor can an edit conflict be involved as at least one of the posts they removed was added almost an hour before their removal of it. Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

and here [[148]], is this a deliberate attempt to get banned, if so we should accommodate them. Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: the amended motions of discretionary sanctions for WP:ARBR&I do not permit the restoration of edits by banned editors, in this case Mikemikev. It is very rare for a racist editor to attempt to edit my user talk page, because of its semi-protection. user:Liquoricia Borgia has stated that they tried to do so.

Administrators User:Johnuniq and User:Tamzin have already dealt with the disruption by this suspected sockpuppet of Mikemikev. In this context, it might be an idea to read Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Mikemikev, which User:Doug Weller helped update. These did indeed involve edit conflicts (simultaneous edits to content on two volumes of the Cambridge History of Science during the ANI notification for Tamzin): that was clear from the carefully passage. Comments like is this a deliberate attempt to get banned, if so we should accommodate them are in bad taste. Mathsci (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC) (ec, refactored)

Mikemikev did not post any of the comments you removed in my two links, so I fail to see what this has to do with anything. Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Also (the date stamp on)one of the posts you removed here at ANI was 04:24, your edit was at 12:05, which is not simultaneous. Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven I wish that edit conflicts were so simple, I’m not convinced that your conclusions are correct. Maybe, bit I’ve had weird Jim so things happen with edit conflicts. Doug Weller talk 13:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Too fast for me to follow, Doug. Mathsci (talk) 13:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

jps/SA restored the content, resulting from an (edit conflict).[149] That was kind of him. Mathsci (talk) 13:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Maybe, but how many times in an hour did this happen? At least that means they need to take more care, rather than remove comments added hours earlier. Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

One edit during an edit-conflict, that's all. With his background in astronomomy and its history, jps had the intelligence to sort that out. While editing I was alerted by Tamzin about the disruptive SPA with the indefinite block. Normally I cannot edit simultaneously in two venues at the same time, because of speed issues related to stroke. Mathsci (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

And your removal of edits by Amanuensis Balkanicus, LaundryPizza03, SerVasi, Johnuniq, and Cullen328 here at ANI? Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Clearly not deliberate and a result of an (edit conflict), as mentioned. Fram noticed that. The OP has now been labelled as a suspected sockpuppet of Mikemikev (mainly because of its very rare occurrence), as has been done previously by Doug Weller, maunus and me. In the past AGK has advised people to keep their heads below the parapet. Mathsci (talk) 14:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

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

Sanction censor

• i cant no more this is censorship

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:MobileDiff/1091834748&markasread=248797480&markasreadwiki=enwiki Baratiiman (talk) 01:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

The link above is diff referring to an edit at Portal:Current events/2022 June 6 that reverted the addition of "US and Arab states issues new sanctions on Quds Force.Jerusalem Post". A quick look at page history suggests it was a single revert and there is nothing on talk. That would not warrant a report here, see WP:DR (after trying the portal talk page). Johnuniq (talk) 01:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Do not accuse reverts of your content as being "censorship" without evidence. Assuming good faith is not optional on Wikipedia. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 04:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• I do not see anything in this report requiring administrator action. Stifle (talk) 09:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Blackshod

Blackshod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making a lot of unsourced and unexplained edits to London Guards, some of which remove content, e.g. [150]

They rarely use edit summaries, and do not respond to messages on their talk page. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS by Gigggdy

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

I have already warned this user twice on his talk page to refrain from these type of comments. To no avail however;

Please take your biased anti-aramean propaganda to the talk page.

"How pathetic of you to consider this "attacking". I hope you get out of whatever issue you're invovled in with Arameans and quit spreading false propagandas one day. If you're going to consider this "rude" as well, I hope you know how pathetic your accusations are."

"What you're doing is spreading a dangerous propaganda" / "People like you hinder the possibilities of the oppressed christian minorities in the middle east to ever survive what they're going through because you are belittling their voices by spreading this false propaganda. This isn't an accusation, you clearly do promote this propaganda by constantly pushing *YOUR* ideas into the spotlight." / "You are the only person in the article Arameans that is editing the article out of impulsiveness that come from your "personal feelings"."

--HistoryofIran (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Remove Talk Page access for blocked user Kim_Taehyung_boo

[here] Bentogoa (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Sorry, but I don't think this requires revocation of TPA. It's the first kinda uncivil comment they've made. I think a notice or warning should be enough. weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 17:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Korean nationalist engaged in WP:NPA

User:Zessede engaged in WP:NPA with users User:Qiushufang and User:Esiymbro.

Consistent and habitual accusations based on race, ethnicity, and supposed political affiliations. See edit summaries, [151], [152], [153], [154], Talk:Goryeo#Chinese_editors_sabotaging_page, Talk:Balhae#Sources.

Zessede consistently deflects by accusing and insulting others of political and ethnic affiliations including being part of the CCP, state sponsored historiographical projects, being wumao, being Chinese, and coordinating together because they are Chinese buddies.

Probably also WP:NOTHERE based on this edit summary:

• Bent on a mission? When in fact Chinese users like Qiushiubang and Esiymbro sabotage Korea-related contents, for instance, other wiki pages of Korean kingdoms, ranting in demand of 'no primary sources' and 'no Korean and only English sources'. When in fact foreign scholarly works done on the Later Three Kingdoms or other eras of Korean History are minor and near to none. Simple fact is, Han Chinese folks have less to do with Balhae than Korean people who are actually tied via blood, culture etc [155]. At no point did I insist that Korean sources not be used. Zessede was originally the one who removed an English source [156].

Insult and accusation of being Wumaos:

• Wonderful coordination between two Chinese buddies keen on disproving Balhae's role in the Unification of the Later Three Kingdoms and the Founding of a unified Goryeo. Keep up the good work, Wumaos. [157]

Insult and accusation of being Chinese ultranationalist as well as deflection:

• Hurts much? You can't even refute a single statement I make and outright brand me an ultranationalist when in reality you're the one sabotaging Korea-related contents. If you aren't an Chinese ultranationalist, then answer my two question. Do you think Tibet and Uighur are genuinely Chinese? And what do you think about the Tiananmmen Massacre? Thank you. [158] Qiushufang (talk) 02:53, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
• For my part, I strongly believe that Tibet and Xinjiang should have the right of self-determination, that the Tienanmen Massacre decidedly happened, that the PRC's rewriting of history is highly objectionable, and in all the other proper talking points. So stipulated. But it does not therefore follow that Chinese editors are by definition incapable of following Wikipedia guidelines and policies or editing in a neutral fashion, debarred from editing Korean-related articles, or set beyond the protections of WP:NPA that every editor enjoys. If Zessede has charges to make and evidence to support them (beyond "I don't like their edits"), let's hear it. If not, they can stifle. Ravenswing 03:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Qiushufang and Esiymbro on Korea-related contents undoing lengthy edits backed with verified Korean sources both academic and primary without provision of detailed explanation as to why. Korean sources are main and foremost when it comes to Korean History. This idea is aligned with mainstream academia as well. Both users are inconsistent with their demeanor on Wiki Policies regarding the preference of secondary sources and non-English based evidence. They are active on only on pages of Korean Kingdoms that have become politically sensitive since China's state-led Northeast Project such as Goguryeo,Balhae,Buyeo,Goryeo and use wiki regulations as an excuse and tool for their own ends. The Northeast Project is one of the CCP's state-led historiographical policy based on revisionism for political interests concerning Communist China. The idea is basically about laying claim on Northern Korean kingdoms that have held territories within modern-China despite accumulated academic work and historical accounts that proves otherwise. The point is to solidify China's grip on Manchuria and strenghen the rationale of their motives on North Korea. The same is concurrent with Tibet, Uighur, Inner Mongolia, and Vietnam. Qiushufang and Esiymbro have been causing disorientation through the spread of misguided information that are highly debatable in mainstream academia and are likely aligned in idea, if not direct affiliation, to the CCP and Wumaos that are present in almost every corner of the internet. Not to mention that calling one a 'nationalist' and one's editing a 'nationalist' source was first fired from the other side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zessede (talk • contribs) 03:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

• Show us some diffs, then, supporting your charges. (With that, both Qiushufang and Esiymbro have been editing on the English Wikipedia a lot longer than you have, and there is no policy nor guideline canonizing Korean sources as somehow more valid than those from any other nation ... rather an odd stance to take from someone who resents the implication that he's a nationalist.) Ravenswing 03:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

This comment by Zessede illustrates some of the problems working with him. My suggestions to him to stop personal attacks and reduce reliance on primary sources were not heeded. His responses were similar to his comment here: [159], [160]. Not once did I mention Uyghurs, Tibetans, ethnic minorities, or the CCP. Afterwards he continued to edit war at Goryeo and has been reported for edit warring. Qiushufang (talk) 03:23, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

《If you think that "primarily working on Chinese sources based on works of China-based scholars" is a reason for deletion, then do not add any Korean source on controversial topics. The article's reference list is already heavily biased towards Korean sources. Either way, we don't need any more unverifiable Korean ultranationalist claims as in your edits, especially considering that some of the claims are clearly not mentioned in the sources. Esiymbro (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)》 > Tell me, since when did the original Korean narrative on Korean history become 'ultranationalistic' while the Chinese state-led ones became 'objective' and 'non-biased'? Branding someone an 'Ultranationalist' was the first move you forwarded on me and not the way around. The Korean narrative on 'controversial' topics as you put it, in Korean history, like Buyeo-Goguryeo-Balhae-Goryeo, have always been consistent (=Korean History; while Balhae stands as a multi-ethnic Koreanic Kingdom led by Korean elites) and no one argues with that. I remember you and Esiymbro's editing and undoing of my revisions on the Buyeo page before when I cited Korean sources. Of course, they were all undone by you and Esiymbro. Pulling off the same 'vassal' or 'under jurisdiction' statements when those texts that have not been attested thoroughly by western scholars reflect something different than historical accounts. Your understanding of the difference between a tributary and vassal is thin. And your sources for them were primary sources from classical Chinese records. So I guess the usage of primary sources is only allowed for Chinese users it seems? You see, unlike Chinese or Japanese history, Korean History is relatively minor and new to the western world and it is rarely covered. Researches and works and accounts that laid the foundation for Korean History Studies, like anywhere else with their own national history, are built upon native academic sources. Not to mentioned the aforementioned Korean kingdoms weren't even conceived as Chinese or Tungusic but Korean by Chinese folks themselves (until the state-led Northeast Project spearheaded by the CCP that is). Your peoples' claim and theft of Korean history, cuisine, culture, entertainment, copyrights, and sovereignty are off the charts and beyond imaginable in scale and space. I remember the Hanbok page going under revisionism caused by Chinese users when it came to its 'origins' of which you people claim are Chinese (which isn't). Your president Xinnie the Pooh even make false statements on diplomatic grounds about Korea being part of China. A clear lack of understanding of their own traditional code of diplomacy that was standard in ancient, medieval Asia, shared by most of the Sinitic states. My edits on Goryeo highlights the legacy of the Unification of the Later Three Kingdoms of Korea which cannot be explained without Balhae. In fact, the role and amount of Balhae refugees that came to Goryeo are significant. They, along with the Goguryeo people who founded Goryeo, are considered focal highlights that marks the importance of the unification that took place back then by Korean academia, in the sense that Goryeo was the first Korean kingdom to actually forge a singular identity shared amongst Koreanic people of different backgrounds. Which of course includes Balhae. And yet, you undid every edit I made to make underline that point. You and Esiymbro don't even consider Korean Academic researches to be verified because they're 'Korean' when in fact the history and foundation is deeper than your own on Korean history. And you and your 'buddy' Esiymbro post primary Chinese sources + narratives, or leave them be on the Buyeo page? You guys might fool some innocent Western people who are generous enough to allow you do what you do but know this: your government are culture-less barbarians with their own hands destroyed every historical, ideological connections between the people and their past, now seeking to do the same with other countries. One of them being Korea on an especial sense after Korean culture became recognized worldwide only recently. Your government and people who blindlessly follow state-fed crap is what happens when the intellectuals get killed off and red guards loyal to their dear leader fill in the void. Like 1966. The qualities of creativity that comes from studying your own classics and humanities are gone. You burnt them all down. Hence the theft of copyrights owned by Korean companies and an Ultranationalist narrative that believes everything that was in China was Chinese + China must be Great Again.

Now tell me, why not add some useful English-based, non-primary sources as citations for the Later Baekje page I was worked on a while ago? Since the Korean sources are unverified, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zessede (talk • contribs) 04:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Another lengthy deflection and I'm not going into the obvious lies in Zessede's post here (such as "Branding someone an 'Ultranationalist' was the first move you forwarded on me and not the way around." when the editor have been making personal attacks on ethnicity/nationality since months ago [161]).

But let us be clear: Zessede's content cannot represent the actual "Korean narrative" at all, only their own imagination. Zessede's edits have a consistent pattern of adding false citations to otherwise unsourced content. This, along with consistent attempts to remove Korean and western sources cited by others, is at the root of every edit war involving them, not the "Korea vs China" controversy as Zessede claims. I've listed some examples of this behavior over several months at the DRN thread and there are very clear examples of deliberate false citing in several articles.

In both cases it was impossible to engage in any meaningful discussion with the editor. They immediately resorted to personal attacks when challenged, much like what they are still doing right now. Esiymbro (talk) 05:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

To keep it short this is another deflection. The immediate incident began on Balhae on 6 June over a source in English that was neither in Chinese or affiliated with the Chinese government. This was the trigger. There was a three day gap between this and their previous edit. Everything since has been Zessede weaseling out of what that source says, which is that there were possibly less refugees from Balhae to Goryeo than originally believed. See their reasoning for why it is invalid: [162]. Part one of the argument is that it does not use enough Korean sources and that the author does not specialize in Korean history. Part two is an ad hominem attack on users regarding their stance on Tibetans and Uyghurs. Now Zessede is accusing Esiymbro and I of using primary Chinese sources (I have not) or Chinese government sources (I have not), when the original dispute was Zessede removing a source that was neither. Qiushufang (talk)

• Ooof. To be honest, I'm somewhat indifferent to whether Qiushufang and Esiymbro are engaging in "anti-Korean" edits or not. Zessede's response here, choked with personal attacks and insults, combined with the pervasive hostility of his edits and edit summaries [163][164][165][166][167][168][169][170], make it clear that he's here to push an agenda. With a paltry 88 mainspace edits, it isn't as if he's got a body of work remotely offsetting his battleground behavior, and as such, I propose an indef site ban until such time as he can convince the community he can collaborate with others, even they are from nations he hates. Ravenswing 07:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The primary sources for the Buyeo section that says Buyeo was under 'jurisdiction' of the Xuantu Commandery, go and change it now then with the same reasonings you used on me. And don't get me started with the texts regarding Queen Uihye since previous citations were outdated sources that have been rebutted. And you Chinese folks didn't answer my question yet. You call me an Ultranationalist but then again what are your opinions on the Tienanmen and Tibet/Uighur Issues? Do you condone it? Yeah, I figured not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zessede (talk • contribs) 08:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Zessede you must sign your comments with 4 tides ~~~~ 223.226.219.15 (talk) 08:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)