Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1101

“Romandy will take all of Switzerland […] the Nation needs to be French”

Despite multiple warnings on their talk page, MinecrafterDE15 (talk · contribs), who thinks Switzerland should be French-speaking only keep making disruptive edits ([1][2]) either with their account or under German IP addresses.

Quick history, MinecrafterDE15 has this fantasy that France and French-speaking Switzerland form an entity called "FCH", "Frach", "Romandy" or "Switzerland" ([3][4][5][6]) and that German-speaking Switzerland and Liechtenstein form another entity called "German Switzerland" or "Liechtenstein", they then go on their way making weird edits such as these: [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] and other weird edits: [21]...

FYI: there was a previous request about this user but was denied.

For the anecdote, this user was banned from several animation-themed FANDOMs (under another nickname) for their behaviour and sockpuppeting. --Thibaut (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Looks like a troll. I got a good chuckle but looking at his editing patterns, I still think an indef block for this editor would be the best route to go. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 21:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Thibaut (talk) 21:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I also did a mass rollback, since I checked a few live edits and none of them were useful. On the off-chance there's a constructive edit in there somewhere I certainly don't object to a legitimate editor reinstating it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Mathsci at Double group

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Double group is a (very) technical article that has been created as a redirect on 27 February 2009‎, and as a true article on 17 March 2022‎ by Petergans. This article belongs to the relationship between advanced group theory and some physical sciences, especially magnetochemistry and theoretical physics. This may explain the difficulty of resolving content disputes, because of the lack of editors competent in these scientific areas, who are also competent in dispute resolution. In particular, the disruptive behaviour of Mathsci may be difficult (for non-experts) to distinguish from content disputes.

Disruptive behavior of Mathsci comprises but is not limited to

• WP:OWN and WP:GETTHEPOINT: every other's edit of the article is either reverted or rewritten in his own style. If editors disagree, he continues an edit war until the other gives up.
• WP:edit warring not only for content questions, but also for for removing maintenance tags without addressing the issue ([22], [23], [24], [25]), for restoring his personal attacks ([26], [27]), moving or hiding replies to these personal attacks ([28], [29], [30]; note also the strange comment in this last edit: in 2013 at AE, they wrote "I think that the arbitration committee should be informed of the recent disruptive behavior of Mathsci here and elsewhere. This behavior consists mainly in flaming (at least) anybody who disagrees with him, whichever is the subject of this disagreement. " - at that stage user had enabled sockpuppet troll edits of User:Algebraic Jordanian), or against a short description that is not his own work ([31],[32], [33], [34]).
• Personal attacks (generally by accusing others to be incompetent) in edit summaries as well in the talk page. This includes judgements on the professional works of other editors
• WP:IDONTHEARTHAT: When something is discussed on the talk page, he rarely discusses the point; instead he gives mathematical courses that are not clearly relevant (see User talk:D.Lazard#FYI), accuses others to be incompetent, or boasts his own mathematical competences (alleged article in inv. math. and talks at ICM and in Paris). An example of this behavior is Talk:Double group#Expert tag, and, in particular, the paragraphs entitled "Puzzlement" and "Observations".

The effect of this behavior is that there is no way to improve this very confusing article, since all editors that are competent in the subject (except Petergans) are discouraged to edit the article, as they are immediately reverted or their advices on the talk page or in the previous AfD discussion are systematically ignored.

This behavior of Mathsci is not new. It is at the origin to an IBAN and several editing block. It has been also the subject of many discussions here, at WP:AE, and at WT:WPM; for example, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1045#D.Lazard and Differential geometry of surfaces. Each time, Mathsci avoids a ban by promising to stop his behavior. After so many promises without effect, nobody can believe in any future Mathsci's promises. So, its time to definitively ban Mathsci from English Wikipedia. D.Lazard (talk) 11:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

ReviewingTalk:Double group, it seems Mathsci has contributed over 90% of the quality analyses concerning what the best available WP:RS have to say on the topic. Accordingly, it's quite reasonable that Mathsici is mostly getting his way in shaping the main article. If you want to change that, then rather than trying to get Mathski permabanned, you could try engaging in serious & open minded source based discussion. Alternatively, you could just take the article off your watchlist - sometimes finding another article to edit is the pragmatic solution.

@ Mathsci, while I find the proposal for a permaban rather ridiculous, this doesnt seem to be an entirely meritless complaint. You do seem to invoking WP:CIR a little too often, perhaps it's as you are too clever for your own good. My own UG research project, for which I got a first, was on a related field (albeit over 30 years ago) and I also find much of the article hard to understand, with difficult concepts under explained. WP:CIR does not apply to readers! The Double group article could be improved if you'd be more receptive to the points made by various other competent science editors on both the talk page & the AfD, rather than doubling down by claiming various complex sub topics are "not specialised". Still, I think a light trout slap is the worst you warrant here, and some might think you deserve a barnstar for the quality improvements you’ve made to the article. FeydHuxtable (talk)

@Qflib, Dirac66, Chalst, Mark viking, Oaktree b, Trovatore, Xxanthippe, and DePiep: Notification to editors who have manifestedtheir interest by commenteing on Talk:Double group or on the old AfD discussion. D.Lazard (talk) 13:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Survey: site ban Mathsci

• Support I don't think this latest flare-up is the most egregious conduct by Mathsci, but I fail to understand why we allow any of it given that Mathsci has demonstrated time and time again they simply cannot collaboratively edit an encyclopedia with others. The name of the game is ownership, stonewalling, word salad, time and time again. His grudgematch with Francis Schonken goes down in one of the top needless ANI timewasters I've seen over the years. More to the point, they were unblocked in 2016 with a pretty straightforward promise: I would be far more careful not to overreact. I would state problems with edits dispassionately and carefully avoid any personal comments about editors. I would be careful to show that my edits on talk pages are there to help other editors as much as to discuss improvements to the article. I would strenuously avoid giving the appearance of belittling other editors with different skills. Who can look at that statement and look at Mathsci's conduct in the years since and say with a straight face he has followed that promise? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Someone needs to make a WP:HIPAA essay. I am extremely sympathetic to health problems, but it has no bearing on the issue at hand as usual with Mathsci's comments. Arkon (talk) 20:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support Per nom. Way too much time wasted over the years on trying to manage one editor. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 21:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
• I'm not involved in any of this but because I happen to be wheelchair bound I made a neutral observation on a recent thread and it has been on my watchlist since. It's not related to this ANI case, but it may shed some light on Mathsci's style of collaboration in general. His comments there appear, IMO, to possibly be Harassment. What no one seems to have noticed there is that the Words to watch talk page is under Discretionary sanctions, as plainly warned in its header notice and there may be a case for invoking it. I have not investigated further and I don't intend to, nor to post here again, but I hope it helps others to reach a decision. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
• On Talk:Double group, back in April, Mathsci wrote, Using a sandbox to create a preferred version of an article is an example of wp:own, contrary to wikipedia policy. This is an ... unusual interpretation of policy; working on a significant revision of a page by creating a draft in one's own user space is often a good idea, and one from which Mathsci could actually benefit if, for health reasons, he works by adding up many smaller edits. Later, Peterganz wrote, The background that is covered by the cited articles is certainly of interest to students of mathematics, but is all but unintelligible to others. For example, I don't know what GL₂(F_p) and SL₂(F_p) mean. In response, Mathsci invoked the Competence is required essay. It seems to me rather confrontational to imply an editor lacks competence simply for failing to recognize one of the many different notations used in a subject. Elsewhere in the same talk page, Mathsci uses, for example, PSL(7) rather than PSL₂(F₇); he quotes the notation T*, 0* and K* and in another place breaks out the Fraktur letters and writes ${\mathfrak {A}}_{4}^{*}$, ${\mathfrak {S}}_{4}^{*}$, ${\mathfrak {A}}_{5}^{*}$. Mathsci implied that Peterganz lacked knowledge taught at UK sixth forms for maths A levels (when modular arithmetic is at best a prerequisite for a prerequisite to the article topic). When Dirac66 pointed out that Peterganz had simply not recognized an unfamiliar notation, Mathsci's response was, The articles general linear group, special linear group, projective linear group and field are all easy to find — essentially, "If you already knew what the notation meant, you could have looked it up and learned what it meant." This is simply not a reasonable way to have a discussion. The topic is one that is naturally approached from multiple directions by specialists with differing backgrounds. Consequently, writing about it requires not just expertise, but an even temper and a willingness to recognize that what is familiar to you may not be so to another editor. XOR'easter (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

  Support I've been trying to get straight answers to simple questions, and the only result is further demonstration that productive conversation is impossible. XOR'easter (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nom, Fuchs, XOR, etc., per a history of disruption going back years, and mostly per WP:CIR. I don't think Mathsci has the competence to collaborate with others on this project. For example, when I posted a message on Mathsci's talk page about not stalking RC, Mathsci removed it from their talk page and then responded on RC's talk page instead. Now, AGFing that this wasn't intentional harassment of RC, it seems Mathsci lacks the competence to even understand a simple thing such as "leave so-and-so alone". Reading Talk:Double group, and Mathsci's comments here, I don't even understand what Mathsci is saying most of the time. I'm almost to the point of questioning their English fluency. The comments are non-responsive to whatever others are saying and instead are a string of mathematics vocabulary words and phrases. Again, AGFing that this isn't trolling, an intentional attempt at deflection, a passive-aggressive attempt at intimidation, or anything bad-faith like that, it seems Mathsci lacks the competence to communicate effectively with others. This failure to communicate contributes to the WP:OWNership problem that others have raised. I can see in the history that these problems have been re-occurring for years, there were previous blocks and unblocks... nothing has worked to raise the level of Mathsci's competence. While I appreciate the hours of volunteer work Mathsci has put it, unfortunately not everybody is suitable for collaboratively editing an online encyclopedia. It's time for Mathsci to cease volunteering here, because their participation is ultimately counterproductive to our goal of building an encyclopedia. Levivich 19:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
• Please add what this is a survey for at the top of the sub-section? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:15, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Rhododendrites, it's a CBAN proposal (see the intro above the "survey" section) but I'll ce the section header to specify. Levivich 19:29, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
    • I know, and probably could've just updated the heading myself, but it was sitting there kind of awkwardly (including some opinions which aren't clearly weighing in on a cban, and not including others, like Fram's, which clearly are). No big deal. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - I encountered Mathsci on the United Kingdom talk page a while ago, and they appear to be a grumpy, strange, cantankerous, argumentative individual. They fit right in here. What seems to be the problem?  Tewdar  19:35, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
• Weak oppose "Weak" as I don't know much about Mathsci's history here, so I put weight on the fact several editors I respect seem to view it as significantly problematic. But I've re-read the Talk:Double group and I'm still strongly of the opinion mathsci's conduct & sourced based arguments were generally good. Granted XOR'easter's criticism is valid, but I feel mathsci was to a degree provoked, and in a certain limited way, his raising of WP:CIR may have been justified. (i.e. in the sense of someone may be competent in nuclear physics but incompetent in ballet dancing - obviously not in the wider sense, as the other editors there are clearly also good editors in an overall sense.) Mathsci is a cultured and erudite editor who has created almost a hundred articles - some of them really nice such as Symmetric cone, and he's expanded countless others. We should not lightly take down such an editor. 20:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)FeydHuxtable (talk)
• Strong support I think Levivich's comments above in particular are exactly correct Gumshoe2 (talk) 20:15, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
• I participated at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Wheelchair_bound, where it does look like Mathsci was hounding Smasongarrison, who has been going around to edit articles to bring disability/illness-related language in line with e.g. WP:WTW, WP:SUFFER, WP:TONE, MOS:DISAB, etc. Here's the interaction report. All of Mathsci's edits there, even after this discussion, are to do things like change "reliant on a wheelchair" to "confined to a wheelchair", insist that "mental retardation" be in Wikipedia's voice, change "intellectual disability" back to "mental retardation", change "had Asperger syndrome" to "suffered from Asperger syndrome", etc. There are dozens of these, across a variety of articles, many of which Mathsci has never edited before starting to follow Smasongarrison, and all the while simply insisting that he's right when, in nearly all of the cases I can see, he is not. If you're going to hound someone, you really need to be right. Smasongarrison made a few mistakes in there, making the same edit more than once in a couple instances, but otherwise has tried to engage on various talk pages and requested not to be hounded to no productive effect.
  I don't know Mathsci well, but I've seen the name around often enough to know we're talking about a particularly difficult kind of case: someone who has a lot of expertise and has done a lot of great content work but just can't seem to treat people with the respect that this collaborative project requires. Sometimes a certain amount of hostility + dogged determination gets things done, as with dealing with a persistent group of POV pushers, but other times it drives away otherwise productive editors and saps a huge amount of community time. Looking at the long record of blocks, etc., I guess it's time for the age-old question: do we opt for a really-real, totally-seriously-this-time warning until the next time, or are we past that point? No boldtext vote from me at this time until doing more research, but figured the diffs may help. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

  Support a 2 week break I had been going back and forth but reading this behaviour makes a huge difference to me so I am now of an opinion that giving them a 2 week break is the way to go. Gusfriend (talk) 06:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support Both Levivich and XOr'easter have summarised the main points well. I don't know if there's an underlying reason, or whether or not that even matters. From my own brief experience, and reading the experiences of others, consensus building with Mathsci is tedious at best. From the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Wheelchair_bound I'm quite concerned at how Mathsci brought up the university of another editor seemingly without context to the rest of the discussion. In isolation it could maybe have had a good faith answer, but as Mathsci has been blocked before for harasssment and outing (2008), and is subject to at least two IBANs, I regretfully think it's probably best for all of us, Mathsci included if he is CBANned. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I am the user that Mathsci has been hounding and has been a central part of the conversation on Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Wheelchair_bound. I stumbled into Mathsci while using AutoWikiBrowser in early May. [35] I tried to disengage with him when it was clear he had strong opinions over specific wording [36][37]. And at some level, I get why I raised concerns, given my overzealous applications of AWB in 2018.

But, he started to follow my edits [38], without actually considering the issue [39] [40] [41] [42]. It was relentless. I asked him to leave me alone [43]. Warned him [44]. It was endless. [45]. It was distressing [46]. Sought admin help. [47] Offered to avoid the term stroke [48][49]. It seemed to work, for a while.

Then, I accidentally set him off again, by editing the page that started it all [50]. (It was an unintentional revert. I was going through pages I had edited before to make sure that all my edits had made grammatical sense. It was my error for not paying attention to the specific page. ).

But it didn't matter to him that it was an accident. He started following my edits, calling them silly. [51]. I tried to be responsive.[52] I tried engaging with him on his user talk page to understand why his was taking such a strong stance on ableist language [53], as well as on the content's talk page [54]. My hope had been that I could clear up his concern as I had with other editors. I never got the chance to point out that even NHS discourages the use of those phrases [55]. I tried to get guidance on whether I had misunderstood MOS:EUPH for wheelchair related phrases because I was assuming goodfaith on mathsci's part [56] I tried to engage with him [57]. I tried to apologize [58]. But he seemed to avoid engaging in the issue. [59]

Frankly, his behavior toward me scares me. [60] I started looking into his history on this website, and it is deeply troubling. I hesitated to even say anything on this ANI because I am worried that he will follow me off-wiki, more so than he already has. I want him to leave me alone.

In terms of my thoughts on the broader issue, I have many conflicting ones. And unfortunately, after learning more about his history, I think that he's done things like this for a long time and I think he will continue to behave like this, unless something changes.

As Mathsci has pointed out, I am not a medical doctor. And, I am a not the kind of psychologist who diagnoses people. Instead, I am a psychologist who specializes in applied statistics. Nevertheless, he has a long history of this kind of behavior and I don't see any recognition on his part on his behavioral issues.

At minimum, I'd like a one-way interaction ban WP:IBAN, and some sort of recognition and apology. I think that there could still be a place for Mathsci on Wikipedia. But, I think he needs to engage with others constructively, and respect consensus. I need to do some more soul searching on the bigger question. But right now, I'm considering things like only allowing him to use talk pages. But again, I need to spend some more thought on this, now that I've finally gotten some relief from hounding.

Smasongarrison (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Just to add- you are not the only user he has been hounding, there is also RandomCanadian [61] Gumshoe2 (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Support WP:CBAN I really, really, really didn't want to support this. I can't emphasize this enough. I've been pondering this for a while now, trying to think of someway through this mess that could yield a positive outcome, and that Mathsci could continue here. I was very much on the fence about this, until Gumshoe2's 17:07 post just above this one. Follow along, if you will please:

• 16:10 23 May 2022: As Gumshoe2 notes, Levivich makes a post to Mathsci's talk page with clear evidence of Mathsci stalking RandomCanadian's edits. See [62].
• 17:11 23 May 2022: Mathsci removes the above post from their talk page, tacitly acknowledging they have seen it [63].
• 21 May 2022: RandomCanadian initiates an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hungarian Nobel laureates. Mathsci has never edited the article in question, nor its talk page. Nevertheless, Mathsci !votes in opposition to RandomCanadian's stance at the AfD [64]. Pure coincidence?

• Of note; the same behavior happened before the warning Levivich made on 19 May 2022 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dundee City Council wards. I.e., the warning had no effect; the behavior from before continued after the warning.

• 29 May 2022: RandomCanadian makes a series of edits to Königsberg. Mathsci has never edited the article or its talk page. Nevertheless, less than 2 hours after RandomCanadian's last edit in the series of edits, Mathsci takes an interest in the article and begins editing it [65]. Pure coincidence?
• 29 May 2022: RandomCanadian makes a series of edits to Lübeck (last diff). Mathsci has never edited the article or its talk page. A day after RandomCanadian's last edit, Mathsci shows up and starts editing the article [66]. Pure coincidence?
• 2/3 June 2022: RandomCanadian makes a few edits to Astrology (last diff). Mathsci has never edited the article or its talk page. A few days later, Mathsci shows up at the article and started editing it and its talk page [67]. Pure coincidence?
• 8 June 2022: RandomCanadian makes an edit to Kelly Hecking [68]. Mathsci has never edited the article or its talk page. 15 hours later, Mathsci shows up and makes an edit to the article [69]. Pure coincidence?

To me, what this shows is that despite Mathsci being warned about the stalking [70], despite it being brought up in an earlier WP:AN/I thread, Mathsci continued the behavior unabated. This behavior strikes me as another iteration of this IBAN violation and subsequent block; in that incident Mathsci was directly and unequivocally warned about continuing IBAN violation. Yet, just three days later Mathsci was at it again, violating the IBAN. Mathsci is subject to six different IBANs on this project. Another IBAN isn't going to help. The behaviors that caused the prior IBANs are still happening. Mathsci doesn't seem to care about warnings. Despite the seriousness of the accusations against his behavior made at the beginning of this thread, to which I gave advice, he simply didn't seem to understand it or hear it, instead thinking this all had to do them creating content [71]. The lack of ability to understand what they are doing wrong, nor even begin to grasp that their behavior might be a problem, undermines any ability of this project to emplace corrective actions that could turn this around. I strongly value Mathsci's contributions to the content of this project, but the behavior issues are overwhelming. Combined with the inability to understand the impact of the strong, negative behaviors they have displayed, I unfortunately see no other option than a WP:CBAN. Seriously, seriously disappointed, --Hammersoft (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Hammersoft: I checked one of your "facts". I had looked at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of Nobel laureates by religion and made a comment about Muslim laureates, raising a point about Indian Nobel laureates. (IRL I have taught Salam's son and have known Ramakrishnan's father as a neighbour). RandomCanadian commented. At that AfD I then asked a question about Israeli, Russian and Hungarian laureates, knowing their religion (e.g. Wigner).[72] I later commented at ANI,[73] Only afterwards did RandomCanadian start adding those three lists and others (all of which were kept). Also Hammersoft, if somebody has received a posting on their user talk page and deletes it, it means nothing. Indeed 0xDeadbeef made a complaint at ANI[74] which came to nothing. I edited Lübeck (because of Buxtehude and because I've used images of the Music Dept there); and Königsberg, well known for it mathematical connections. As for astrology, as a former fellow of Christ's College, Cambridge, I knew Roy Porter (history of medicine and honorary fellow) as well as many research fellows in the History and Philosophy of Science. With access to the university (are you to prohibit that?), why would I not read the two relevant volumes of Porter's series and then add a relevant sentence to the article? I have been a regular watcher of FTN from 2006. I wiki-know Itsmejudith and jps/SA, including his astro background. If there was a posting about astrology on FTN, why should I not participate?

@Smasongarrison: I am sorry if I have upset you. Although I have not fully understood your method of editing, clearly you are editing is good faith with the sole goal of helping others. That has been the case for over 10 years. Even if I see articles coming up on my watchlist, I will ignore them. Mathsci (talk) 21:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@Mathsci: I am really empathetic. I have seen the harm a stroke can do. You hounded me. You mocked me. You chased me. You bullied me. You did all of this as my grandmother was dying from a stroke. And yet, refused to engage in a dialog to understand.

But, your behavior is what you should be sorry for. Your actions, your choices, your words. You've done real harm. Read through my requests. Read through my responses. If you want my forgiveness, you need to do better. You need to understand. Words matter.

My sense is that you take a literalist interpretation of many things. We have choices in the words we use. The words we use reflect how we think about others. But they can shape how we think about others. Words matter. Actions matter. Look through the what is happening here. Take the perspective of others. Wikipedia is a community of readers and editors and admin. You need to understand that this issue is about your actions in their community. If you find that this is something you cannot do, please find a trusted friend. Ask them to explain what they see. Ask them to be as honest and direct as possible. And most of all, you need to make an honest effort in understand the perspectives of others. Or at the very least, recognize that others have a valid perspective. Smasongarrison (talk) 22:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@Mathsci: Do you dispute that WP:REMOVED says "If a user removes material from their talk page, it is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents."? Are you now saying you just deleted the comment without reading it? Why would you delete it without reading it? Is Levivich banned from your talk page? Further, are you now saying that you did not see the stalking concern raised at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1099#User:RandomCanadian canvassing at AfD even though you posted to that thread after the concern was raised? I have no issue with you editing Lübeck, Königsberg, Astrology, and Kelly Hecking. The issue isn't the edits. The issue is that you showed up to those articles not long after RandomCanadian had been editing those articles. Those articles and their talk pages were ones you had never edited before. Are you asking us to believe this was all curiously coincidental? My comments stand. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:12, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

It is really hard to assume good faith given the long history of removal of comments from other editors at Mathsci's talk page, especially with edit summaries like "unread" for a revert in response to one of my comments at their talk page. 0xDeadbeef 13:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think you have to assume or not assume good faith. Let's just go with the facts. At least as far back as 12 years ago, Mathsci knew about wikihounding people, in asserting they were a victim of it [75]. Mathsci is well aware of the Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding policy. Yet, they chose to violate it anyway. Simply because Mathsci removed the stalking warning [76] doesn't mean they have permission to violate it. I'd also like to point out that per the terms of their unblock back in 2016, Mathsci wouldn't be editing the 2016 Nice truck attack again. See also this extensive AN/I thread on the matter. I haven't looked at every archive everywhere, but I don't as yet see any place where Mathsci was cleared of that requirement. Given that, I find these edits, which were done after that conditional unblock, rather curious; [77][78][79][80]. This alone should have been grounds for another block. @Bishonen: I don't mean to drag you into all of this, but perhaps you can shed some light on whether this requirement to not post to the Nice attack article was waived? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

It was never waived AFAIK, Hammersoft. But the diffs you give are four very small edits (one of them a revert of vandalism) in February-March of this year. I wouldn't feel right about having those edits play any part here, today. De minimis and all that. Bishonen | tålk 16:28, 17 June 2022 (UTC).

I concur. I wouldn't block for that alone, but rather give a very stern warning, perhaps something similar to what I gave here. It's worth noting that Mathsci violated that warning, as well as this warning on the Nice attack. That combined with not heeding the warning about hounding RandomCandian goes to a show a pattern of refusing to abide by restrictions and not heeding warnings when those restrictions are broken. This further cements my opinion that the only option available to us at this point is a WP:CBAN. Bishonen, thanks for commenting. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: Mathsci is clearly a valuable editor. A strong warning will hopefully be enough to correct the bad behaviour. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 21:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Ficaia, can you point to one example when a warning corrected Mathsci's bad behavior? Because I gave him a strong warning that he read on May 23 about stalking RC, and as Hammersoft's diffs above show, he continued stalking RC after receiving that strong warning; it did not correct his bad behavior. Levivich 21:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

    So why not give him a final warning? If he fucks up again, then sure, ban him.

    Who knows, maybe he'll repent; then we won't have to ban a valuable editor 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 21:34, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

    Because we already gave him a final warning. Multiple times. He's been blocked multiple times, twice just last year [81]. I just gave him a warning 3 weeks ago and he ignored it completely and continued to harass one of our colleagues. He has proven that warnings and blocks don't change his behavior. Aren't you and I and RC and everyone else also valuable editors? Is Mathsci more important or what? Sorry, but saying "give him another warning" here is just endorsing and enabling Mathsci's behavior, which is appalling. He is literally following another editor he had a dispute with from one article to the next. Levivich 21:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Ficaia, Mathsci is subject to six different WP:IBANs. A year ago, he came back from a three month long ban for violating one of those IBANs. It should be blatantly obvious to anyone in such a position who desires to remain on the project that their methods of interacting with other editors on the project must change. Yet, here we are. Adding on another IBAN won't work. They haven't worked in the past. Adding on another final warning about their behavior won't work. They've been given such warnings, and it's had no effect. You are of course welcome to your opinion, but I fail to see how yet another warning is going to modify their behavior. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:18, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support Per Hammersoft, pretty clear that warnings have not had any tangible effect. Arkon (talk) 21:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support Mathsci clearly won't stop stalking people's edits, has been warned about it multiple times and continues to do so. No matter how good an editor is, this cannot continue. WP:UNBLOCKABLES, after all. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 21:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support site ban of Mathsci. This behavior has been going on for decades and his promises to reform never eventuate. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:44, 15 June 2022 (UTC).
• Support Previously sanctioned by Arbcom, including a siteban from 2013 to 2016, in WP:ARBR&I and its amendments due to long-term conduct similar to what we're seeing here. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support per Hammersoft. (I seem to be saying that a lot lately...) Ealdgyth (talk) 01:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose site ban that is not time limited. Mathsci is difficult, periodically aggressive but also usually highly valuable. I would support a site ban of one month, together with workshopping a longer term approach appropriate to this case that would ensure that editors do not have to fear that ordinary editing conflicts could turn into harassment. — Charles Stewart (talk) 06:44, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

  "But also usually highly valuable" I'm gonna be blunt here, but so what? Is it really worth it to keep someone around who's behavior hasn't improved in over a decade? Continuously WP:HOUNDING people (with two examples in this thread alone), and numerous examples going back years and years as other people have pointed out. As Hammersoft points out, Mathsci is subject to six IBANS. A month slap on the wrist isn't going to do anything. An indef hasn't fixed the behavior. The only recourse I can see is a CBAN, with an unban contingent on Mathsci not harassing people anymore, which I kinda doubt will happen. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 07:07, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

  I would like to remind that although harassment of users is very significant (and for more than ten years no remotely successful solution except being banned has been found for mathsci's stable repetition thereof) it is only part of the problem. As discussed by myself and others here, his inability to communicate (or what we see as such) - evidenced extensively throughout his own comments on this very thread - makes editing with him extremely taxing and practically impossible. In my opinion it is completely unreasonable to ask editors to keep putting up with it, even supposing that a magical solution could suddenly be found for his long-term temperamental problems. Gumshoe2 (talk) 07:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Many of Wikipedia's mathematics articles desperately need to be reworked by editors who are able and willing to explain complex ideas to non-expert readers. While Mathsci's battleground ownership of such articles, and his hounding off of other experts who might be better at explaining things, persists, that will not be possible. I find many of the comments above, particularly Hammersoft's, persuasive. After all these years of trying warnings, final warnings, multiple IBANs, blocks... I really can't see that anything would work short of a community ban from the project. It needs to be indefinite, in that there should be no possibility of its being lifted without a clear and convincing commitment to seriously adjusting Mathsci's long-term troublesome approach. A fixed-term sanction has no chance of changing anything, not after more than ten years of the same issues. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support When you have an editor who causes problems whichever topic they edit in (lest people think Mathsci's problems are solely in the Math area, take a look through the archives) this is ultimately the only solution that respects other editors time and contributions, in the way the problematic editor impacts on them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom. starship.paint (exalt) 14:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support All other solutions seem to have been tried or are very unlikely to help.Lurking shadow (talk) 16:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support No one person is bigger than the project. Six IBANs, multiple blocks, continued harassment. There is no need for this at all. Mathsci, I'm sorry but this is a community project, and you have shown you cannot work with the community. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support. About time. How long will the community tolerate MathSci's toxic behavior? Site ban is the only solution.--Darwinek (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support - In initially thought a short ban was the way to go then I remembered that indefinite does not mean infinite. As a general comment as it has been on my mind recently, we should be encouraging those who can understand something enough to transform it into well written prose even if they are less of an expert than others editing on the same page.Gusfriend (talk) 02:56, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Just so you are clear on what your support is supporting, "indefinite does not mean infinite" in the context of blocks/bans refers to indefinite blocks (indefinite being 'no fixed period block' as opposed to a fixed term block), where any admin can unilaterally lift the block at any time providing they are convinced the problematic behaviour will not re-occur. Blocked editors are still part of the community. This is a proposal for a community ban which is by default a fixed term of infinite unless another community discussion to lift it happens at a later date. Banned editors are banned and the chances of rehabilitation are slim-to-none in most cases when banned by the community, largely because to get to the point where the community wants to ban an editor, the editor will have caused extended long-term disruption in many areas. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Unfortunately I am still supporting the proposal whilst wishing that it was not needed. Gusfriend (talk) 11:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support. We can't keep adding IBAN's; at some point, we need to recognize that the user currently cannot contribute in the manner required for a collaborative project - whatever the reason for this inability, it isn't fair on the editors that they interact with to continue permitting them to edit. BilledMammal (talk) 11:50, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom. 0xDeadbeef 12:49, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support On one end, I do find Mathsci to be a valuable editor in terms of their technical knowledge; however, there has to be a point where we can no longer tolerate this kind of behavior. The strong comments by Smasongarrison and RickinBaltimore above are exceptionally convincing. Curbon7 (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Comment

• D.Lazard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Double group

I had stroke while editing wikipedia on 29 December 2017; there were several periods of hospitalisation, one of which was recorded was mentioned in 2019 in an arbcom case. My "email this user" account changed several times due to post-stroke complications; I now use a gmail account in my real name and mathsci.wiki@gmail.com. Administrators User:Johnuniq and former arbitrators such as User:Doug Weller, User:Drmies and User:Newyorkbrad know my real name. User:Charles Matthews and User:William M. Connolley also know me from wiki-meetups in Cambridge. User:Elonka knows my name because we had a meet-up in Aix-en-Provence around 2008. User:Roger Davies also knows my name because of WP:ARBR&I and my connections with Marseille. Music editors such as User:Smerus and User:Gerda Arendt know my real name. user:Graham87 knows my real name.

In July 2018, when I was too ill to edit wikipedia , a mathematician and a theoretical physicist created a BLP on me. Historically in 2009, there was an ANI report by User:A.K.Nole (Elonka backwards) that originated from a well-known sock farm going back to User:Echigo mole. That started with the article Butcher group. The sockfarm also disrupted arbcom cases and as a result there was a motion about enabling sock puppets. Eventually, A.K.Nole's activitied stopped in May 2013 and he apologised,[82] revealing at the same time disclosing previous unused sock accounts to checkusers (Deltaquad, Timothycanens?). At the same time, when I was creating material on Jordan algebras and Hurwitz's theorem (composition algebras), A.K.Nole was disrupting edits as Algebraic Jordanian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

D.Lazard has a record of making negative comments about mathematics articles. That goes back to 2013, and I am too tired to unravel the comments D.Lazard has made previously. One quote from 2013 was, "I think that the arbitration committee should be informed of the recent disruptive behavior of Mathsci here and elsewhere. This behavior consists mainly in flaming (at least) anybody who"disagrees with him, whichever is the subject of this disagreement". D.Lazard has edit-warred on Talk:Double group and shown no knowledge of the subject on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Double group. In Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive134#Discussion_concerning_D.Lazard, D.Lazard disclosed facts about himself. Some of the history is here.Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive/2013/May#Posting_by_D.Lazard

My real identity is Antony Wassermann. It can be rev-delled if necessary.

D.Lazard's comments are odd. Presumably he has access to mathscinet, so could work out what "double group" meant. At no stage He has D.Lazard made any mathematical comments on Talk:Double group. Mathsci (talk) 13:39, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Apart from baseless sock accusations, pointing to a frivolous AE report you filed in 2013, and weak accusations of edit warring (what, someone removing your personal attacks and objecting to your hatting of their comment?), it is very hard to see what this "comment" has to do with the accusations, apart from giving you the opportunity to link to a lot of users you have better experiences with? Fram (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I have not had the time to discuss this in detail. The sockpuppets of user:Echigo mole were all indef blocked in 2013, mostly done by checkusers. Which personal attacks are you referring to? I have hastily copy-pasted links and that's all I have had time for. I have not recovered from stroke, so cannot respond very quickly. My stroke consultant at Addenbrooke's Hospital is aware of that. As a courtesy, given the Fram case, could you please not intervene? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 14:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

"Given the Fram case"? You mean Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram/Evidence, where someone posted my block of you as "evidence" of some issue, but everyone agreed that this was a normal block and not "evidence" of any issue? Why would I "not intervene"? Why do you think linking to a lot of people you know in real life (i.e., canvassing), is acceptable, but someone with previous negative experience (someone who correctly blocked you) should "not intervene"? Fram (talk) 14:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Mathsci, comments like these (that Fram is somehow not allowed to comment) will get you indef-banned in no time, since it's such a blatant attempt to deflect. I don't quite understand how you have time to write up a bunch of long paragraphs including personal history, but find not a single minute to devote to the actual issue: ownership, in that article and in general. Come on now. BTW, I'm not aware that I knew your real-life identity, but it's not relevant here anyway. Drmies (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I was aware of some of the issues being discussed in this thread with regards to Mathsci, via their recent contributions at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Wheelchair bound. One thing that struck me there, as it is again now, is the sheer amount of non-sequiturs in Mathsci's replies. While I have no doubt surrounding, and great sympathy for his health problems, I do not see why they nor why details about his name, or which hospital his consultant is at are relevant to this discussion. Nor at the discussion at the WTW talk page, what relevance organising conferences at the university another editor graduated from, or helping of French exchange students with internet problems had to that conversation.

While I naturally want to assume good faith on this, so I don't want to speculate on whether it's as Drmies has said a blatant attempt to deflect, I'm reminded of the essays Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy and meta:Wikipedia is not a convalescent center. Is it possible that these non-sequiturs are perhaps symptomatic of some other health issue that may be unknowingly impacting on Mathsci's ability to contribute in a cooperative manner? Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Considering the behaviour at and highlighted in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Wheelchair bound from last week and this week, it seems that this is (again) a common occurrence for Mathsci. E.g. at Pearl Harbor (film), an article they never edited before, they started edit warring to reinsert text they preferred with the reason "nothing to choose bertweev" the two words, and knowing well that the other editor prefered to other version as less ableist and potentially hurtful. If you have no reason to prefer one or the other, you have no prior history at the history, and still you feel the need to edit war to prevent someone from using a word they believe to be less hurtful, then you are just WP:HOUNDING for the sake of it. I would therefor concur that enough is enough, and support ban of Mathsci. Fram (talk) 15:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Drmies: That was careless shorthand and I apologize to Fram, who has been fair. I have not yet read D.Lazard's statement (I have not slept so that does not help). I did email you in Feb 2021 with my real name gmail account, but as you say it's irrelevant. As far as Double group is concerned, and the claims of WP:OWN, I have not removed any statements by User:Petergans, but added mathematical content only fairly recently because it was not available on wikipedia yet. There was no claim to being original: I did glance over graduate courses I gave in Cambridge in the 1990s and 2000s to jog my memory. That included the character tables for the double icoshedral group and icosahedral group. Petergans deleted the character formulas, stating they were wrong. However, they can be checked in multiple sources. I do not WP:OWN the article – I am just preparing a small amount of preparatory content; I know this material well, having won the Junior Whitehead Prize for it in the 1980s. As far as adding content on "Definition and theory" (not complete), that's the normal way of adding mathematical content. The only other material that is still lacking is the statement that the representative functions form a Hopf algebra; or equivalently, that the pointwise multiplication and convolution are compatible in the sense of Frobenius algebras. From that the Peter-Weyl theorem follows along, along with Frobenius reciprocity. That implies the branching rules from irreducible representations of SU(2) to those of its (double) finite subgroups. That is how it's reported in physics and chemistry texts that are in the reference section. That ties in with the original paper of Hans Bethe and other texts. Previously Petergans has disgreed with standard content on mathematics, e.g. for articles related to convolution: he has created forked articles which were inaccurate and were deleted.

The trolling by Echigo mole socks was properly dealt with here.[83] User:Salix alba removed sockpuppet interventions; the BLP is inaccurate as it does not include my period at the University of Liverpool where I was appointed as "new blood" lecturer in 1983 (at the same time as Mary Rees) until leaving for the University of Oxford in 1999 as a Royal Society URF; I played piano duets with Peter Giblin. In these diffs,[84][85] D.Lazard questions the blatant sockpuppetry of Hyperbaric oxygen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The diff of D.Lazard I wanted is here.[86] In that case, D.Lazard inserted himself into an WP:ARBR&I discussion writing, "This behavior consists mainly in flaming (at least) anybody who disagrees with him, whichever is the subject of this disagreement. Although WikiProject Mathematics lacks of good mathematics editors, his behavior has led a good editor, .... , to retire from Wikipedia. I know that all of this is unrelated to the present case, but the systematic use of bad faith (in my opinion) arguments by Mathsci makes me suspicious about his arguments in this discussion. In that case on 14 May 2013, D.Lazard was enable the socktroll Hyperbaric oxygen. Mathsci (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Maybe you should spend your time reading the filing instead of the useless paragraphs you posted above? How do you have time to post counterclaims and talk about how important everyone knows that you played piano with Peter Giblin is and not read the ANI filing? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:41, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: this content is still being created, nobody else is producing the missing material (i.e. defintions). The references were created to be compatible with the language of quantum mechanics and representation theory. Charles Matthews' comments are correct are about the lede, which at the moment needs tweaking, because it duplicates material in the lede and section "Definition and theory". Like me, Charles must have learnt Part IB QM and Part II Rep Theory in the Mathematical Tripos. In turn, I taught the material as a lecturer in Cambridge. Charles' summary is accurate; we last bumped into each other in June 2018. Because of stroke, I cannot write in a spontaneous way, so it probably comes across as stilted. In the time-scale of edits, I have made 90 incremental edits.[87] I am slowed down because of stroke; the material on "group theory and quantum mechanics" is standard and that has been the approach adopted. As Charles correctly comments, this is how I would normally edit, but slowed down. Mathsci (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

My name was mentioned above. I have known Mathsci in real life, for many years: not that well, since I left mathematics around 30 years ago. He is a distinguished mathematician, who has suffered serious illness. What I know of D.Lazard is only from WP discussions; where his contributions have seemed to me to be well argued. (I should also note that in the past I have blocked Mathsci.)

This discussion is not heading in a direction likely to resolve the dispute, such as it is. I have looked quickly at double group, which may fall between two stools in terms of expository style, since there is the scientists' way of looking at double covers, and the mathematicians'. The lead section should be hammered out, probably, to clarify the topic.

I can quite see how anyone would be annoyed at being addressed by Mathsci here in a certain tone he adopts. That aside, the subject matter of the article is not really contentious, and content discussions on the Talk page should be the way to go. Talk page guidelines should be adhered to, of course. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

In 2005, representation theory of SU(2) looked like this.[88] The corresponding QM theory looks like angular momentum operator. Mathsci (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

The subject matter of the article is not really contentious, and content discussions on the Talk page should be the way to go. I disagree: there are really contentious content disputes. One of the main ones, and the least technical one is whether the article must be written for pure mathematicians only or for an audience that includes physicists and chemists. For every question where somebody disagree with Mathsci, the discussion is truely impossible on the talk page because of the disruptive behavior of Mathsci. In fact, this is the main reason for this thread, since I do not really worry of personal attack against me. D.Lazard (talk) 18:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I know what you mean. But I don't call disagreement on expository style a classic "content dispute". If the essential content is mathematics, and I believe it is here, we have in this case the situation where the mathematical facts are not at issue. The way to do the exposition cannot be settled under the heading of verifiability, in other words.

So my position here is that, from an encyclopedia point of view, it can be OK to insist that the main burden of the article is to state the mathematical facts. In other words compile reference material, rather than trying to write textbook material.

This topic is close to the theory of spinors, and I remember a London meetup where I got into a discussion of spinors with someone whose background is in physics. It became clear that he might be just as happy with an intuitive, geometric treatment, as with a definition. This is really no surprise; on the other hand spinor algebra exists as "pure" mathematics, independent of the physical applications. It is troublesome to get into arguments about the "essential nature" of something like a spinor. (Before 1950 there were many ways of looking at this aspect of the geometry of rotations, and personal notations. This is an area where Bourbaki did good work, believe me.)

I am a strong supporter of the basic behavioural guidelines on civility and ownership. Onsite, I wish people always used a measured tone for difficult discussions. My meetup conversation ended on a friendly note, even though I remember saying something like "that is meaningless, that is meaningless, that is meaningful but wrong ..." There are two sides to what goes on here, and I can see that this particular topic may well be the source of debates where both sides feel they have a strong case. But I don't think we do "equal time" in this case. There is some mathematics, and some applications of the mathematics, and "tail wagging the dog" is not, in my view, what should be in Wikipedia. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I have not contributed to Double Group page, but have interacted many times with mathsci on other math pages. I am in complete agreement with D.Lazard on what it is like to interact with mathsci, to the extent that I will almost never edit a page if I see that mathsci has contributed to it at any time in the past - since virtually every time it leads to exactly the impossibilities that D.Lazard says (most recently here [89] as a result of him following me to the page). As a separate matter, I am also aware that he has egregiously wiki-stalked some users, as recently as RandomCanadian (talk · contribs) a few weeks ago [90]. Gumshoe2 (talk) 20:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Previously at WP:AN, Gumshoe2 was in agreement with D.Lazard about Symmetry of second derivatives, with claims of WP:COPYVIO. Diannaa did not agree that there was a copy-vio.Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive324#Steps to resolve a mathematics content/conduct dispute Gumshoe2 also wrote, "Mathsci's talk page behavior and commentary is simply far too erratic; it usually feels like conversing with a loquacious AI trained on a few stock phrases and a database of math textbooks." "Egregious stalking" contradicts the 2008 article on Riemannian connection on a surface, which gives the standard existence proof of a Riemannian covariant derivative of do Carmo and Kobayashi & Nomizu. It's the same as the proof in the 1998 Part III course on the Atiyah-Singer Index Theorem. Other courses dealt with loop groups, boson-fermion correspondence, etc. Some bits of the representation theory were common to all. The SU(2) theory was routinely taught using raising and lowering operators (i.e. the usual QM method). My colleagues and friends have been Peter Goddard, Richard Borcherds and the late Vaughan Jones. Mathsci (talk) 22:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I do not understand the relevance of your having worked with Borcherds et al., nor do I understand the phrase "Egregious stalking" contradicts the 2008 article on Riemannian connection on a surface. The remark about wiki-stalking concerned your interactions with RandomCanadian, who has never edited that page or its Talk page. Moreover, I do not see the relevance of a dispute from 2020 about whether part of a math article was too closely copied from its source. D.Lazard and Gumshoe2 both had concerns (see the comparison of passages here). It looks like their concerns were addressed, not by another user saying the text was fine, but by your rewriting the section in a way that both of them were satisfied with. XOR'easter (talk) 23:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I created that content. D.Lazard edit-warred out content on the basis of WP:COPYVIO. But the content was added by me in a shortened version.[91] I asked Doug Weller about copy-right issues[92], and got straightforward answers – in the end I decided to condense the content myself from the same source. To be self-contained and elementary, care with iterated integrals was required (some version of Fubini's theorem).[93] Mathsci (talk) 11:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I understand the history of that discussion. What I do not follow is why it is relevant here. XOR'easter (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Your first paragraph is great; I particularly like the direct way you chose the wikilinks so that A, D, E appears. You have rescued an orphan. Thanks! Mathsci (talk) 17:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad I could make a constructive contribution to the double group article, but I still don't understand the relevance of any of the things you mentioned to the topic at hand. XOR'easter (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

These seem to be small complaints. One article that R.e.b. suggested I helped with, was Tomita–Takesaki theory, because I knew it well (cf Séminaire Bourbaki, No. 800). The easiest case is the the commutation theorem for traces: D.Lazard argued about that at Hilbert algebra, a disambiguation page. For type III factors, the theory is complicated: there are both left and right Hilbert algebras these require unbounded operators. Bratelli & Robinson and van Daele & Rieffel found a trick to reduce the theory to bounded operators.

Returning to "Double group", there's always a choice got finite groups of Lie type – Ian Macdonald writes GL<sub<n(F) and Sandy Green writes GL(n,F). For zonal spherical functions, the notation is usually SL2(R) and SL(2,C). Mathsci (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I asked about three things: (a) Why does it matter that you worked with Borcherds et al.? (b) Why does your having created an article in 2008 have anything to do with your seemingly following RandomCanadian around Wikipedia in 2022? (c) Why does a discussion from 2020 about whether a page was too closely copied from its source relevant now? So far, you have provided answers to none of these things. XOR'easter (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I believe mathsci's response here, containing not a single word of relevance to the message it is replying to, is good evidence of my belief that it is not possible to have discussions with mathsci. Gumshoe2 (talk) 00:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

• As a regular reader of ANI I find the presenting of real name, email address, medical history, academic history, etc. and finding myself in possession of that information somewhat confronting and wonder about the thinking behind posting something where you feel the need to say It can be rev-delled if necessary. I also wonder about the relevance of such information to the discussion.

As a separate note I realise that the name is probably grandfathered and may have been previously discussed but the username MathSci can easily give the impression that it is an account tied to MathSciNet or the American Mathematical Society and an official source of information leading those with a mathematics background to be wary of changing a page when they see the username in the page history. In fact, for the first few weeks when I saw the name that is exactly what I thought. Gusfriend (talk) 07:17, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

This goes back to 2009 troll sockpuppet edits by User:A.K.Nole[94][95] - see Talk:Mathematical_Reviews. The spelling is different. There was also a long 2009 post on ANI related to this.[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive550#Block_review - uninvolved admin request]] A.K.Nole, user:Abd, etc. Mathsci (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Maybe you missed in Talk:Double group where Lazzard stated your mathematical competences ... do not matter here, and cannot be verified, as Mathsci is not your real name. Mathsci is demonstrating the contrast between Lazzard & himself. Mathsci is a prize winning mathematician who has done specialist work closely related to the topic. As per the AfD, Lazzard seemed to know nothing about double groups beyond what he'd gleaned from a quick google search. Yet he's been interfering with Mathsci's improvements, without even mentioning a single source that supports his thinking. AGF is not a suicide pact - it seems quite possible Lazard is motivated not by any desire to improve the article for our readers, but by ill will towards Mathsci based on their past interactions.

There would be no need for mathsci to boost his credentials if other science editors would only concede that Mathsci clearly has the best understanding of double groups. Or at least that he's best representing what the quality WP:RS have to say on the subject. Sadly though, few seem to have the good grace to do that, and seem to prefer kicking a man when he's down. I'll concede that while his credentials may be germane, 70%+ of what Mathsci's wrote above is irrelevant. It's not typical of his on point talk page discussion so it's not caused by his stroke alone. More like the stress of being subject to an ANI witch hunt, which would unnerve all but the coolest. I remember back in the naughties when we used to have a tolerant culture, and used to try to solve problems with minimal sanctions. These days permabans are handed out left right and centre. While most of these are admitedly for socks, more indeffs are now handed out in a few months than our total number of (reasonably) active editors. Bah! FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your accurate comments here which I appreciate. The naughties were different. All those requests for comments on users ... Mathsci (talk) 10:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion on my competence and my motivations, but they are not the subject of this discussion. If you have some doubts on them or on my desire to improve the quality of mathematical articles you may consult the history of my edits or ask any member of WP:WikiProject Mathematics. May I ask you which mathematical competence do you have to judge the mathematical quality of Mathsci edits. It is very strange that, generally, the Wikipedians (like you) who talk of the mathematical quality of Mathsci's edits are not mathematicians and are not involved in the improvement of mathematical articles. D.Lazard (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Wrong on several counts. If you start a thread trying to permaban a quality contributor like Mathsci, you open yourself up to scrutiny, and can indeed become the main subject of the dicussion. See WP:Boomerang. I already indicated my relevant experience in the comment I made yesterday. To expand, said research project involved heterometallic compounds & digital storage. As to your competence, I hadn't ventured an opinion on that - only your apparent lack of knowledge on Double groups. In fact, a quick look at your contribs suggests that generally you're a most useful maths editor. I think Mathsci was wrong to raise WP:CIR on the talk page, as already indicated in my first post. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Mathsci's high-quality research work from the 80s and 90s is barely relevant to the editorial problems at hand, since exactly analogous conflicts have come up with him several times before, even for extremely non-research matters, see for instance the edit histories/talk pages of symmetry of second derivatives and differential geometry of surfaces and fundamental theorem of Riemannian geometry and many, many others. Many times it may superficially look like he is engaging in discussion on a talk page while in reality he is saying nothing relevant or of substance. The situation in every one of my interactions with him (on mathematical material) is exactly like his responses on this very ANI thread.

As for the present troubles on the double group page, we can look as an illuminating example at the first section on talk page, "Three deletions". Petergans and KeeYou Flib say there that they cannot see the relevance of certain of mathsci's writing for the double group page. Mathsci responds by saying that the basic theory of SU(2), SO(3), and finite groups are well-known, that there is a well-known theorem on subgroups of SO(3), that Petergans' home university has/had experts on the questioned material, that Petergans' original article was not good and did not contain sufficient mathematical detail, that he has previously used good sources on editing Henry VII of England and John Cabot wikipages, that a research paper of mathsci's had previously reprinted some character tables of certain groups, and asks whether his interlocutors know group theory. Even if you don't understand the mathematics (and I don't know if you happen to), you can see that none of this - not a single word - actually responds to the questions raised, which are specifically about whether certain material on McKay correspondence and character tables of crystallographic point groups belongs on the double group page. This is 100% par for the course with mathsci. Gumshoe2 (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I draw an almost opposite conclusion from Talk:Double_group#Three_deletions. I think it shows Mathsci doing the better job at discussing matters in a thoughtful, engaged and source based way. A key bit of context is the very first post on the talk page (also repeated at the AfD) where , leaning on good F. Albert Cotton, Mathsci expressed his view that "double groups" concern the character theory of the double covers of the finite subgroups of the SO(3), so finite subgroups of SU(2). Cotton does indeed set out such a position, including character tables in his appendix.

The next bit of context is that the "Three_deletions" section relates to this subsection deletion by Petergans, where discussion of character tables, SO(3) & its double cover SU(2) were removed. Petergans even declared the section was "completely irrelevant to the topic of the article", which could be taken as implying an editors OR opinion should override a quality source like Cotton. Generally, others were just making terse replies, totally devoid of mathematical content or reference to WP:RS. Whereas Mathsci kindly deployed his masterful knowledge of the sources to the benefit of all - if folk actually took the time to read his posts and have a basic understanding of things like lower order special orthogonal groups, that is. So totally fair play that Mathsci gave some basic examples of the importance of sourcing, such as the fact he used citations in edits to Henry VII. All that said, while I think Mathsci's posts were mostly excellent, I agree parts of his wider talk page engagement were problematic. Cant fault the criticism XOR'easter made here. I'd even admit I found the Petergans version of the article much more comprehensible, especially before XOR'easter's recent improvement to the lede. But IMO none of that adds up to even a tenuous case for a permaban, even accepting Mathsci may have had a long problematic history. Still- it's the community at large and whatever admin who finally closes this thread that will decide Mathsci's fate. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Gumshoe2 raised a question about the relevance of double groups. In April, I found a reference to a 1996 Chem. Phys. Letters article by Krishna Balasubramanian entitled. "Double group of the icosahedral group (I_h) and its application to fullerenes". As explained below, I linked it to bucky balls and Carbon 60. Balasubramanian's letter indicated that he thought those character tables had not been determined; Frobenius had calculated them in 1899 and various physics/chemistry references from the 1930s refer back to Frobenius (and Schur, Wigner, Bethe, see below). One of the key points in the applications involves "correlation tables for the spin-orbit states of metallo-fullerenes" (these are relevant to the discoveries of R. Curl, H. Kroto and R. Smalley). Those "correlation tables" encode how the irreducible representations of SU(2) restrict to finite subgroups Γ, in this case the double icosahedral group. This had been previously been determined in 1957 by B. R. Judd at the Clarendon Laboratory ("A crystal field of icosahedral symmetry"). Balasubramanian empiricially (i.e. without proof) found out recursive formulas allowing the correlation coefficients to be determined. Because of the contributions of Bertram Kostant and T. A. Springer concerning the McKay correspondence, the correlation coefficients can be computed in closed form (using Poincaré series). Carbon 60 is just one example; the theory of double groups has been used by in many branches of physics, chemistry, materials sciences, etc. The theoretical ingredients (although not the interpretation) have common elements: the finite binary polyhedral subgroups; their character tables; their tensor product rules; and their correlation tables, i.e. branching rules. The ideas underlying the combinatorics do indeed from theoretical physics and string theory; they are not needed for practical applications in physical chemistry (such as vibrating molecules). Many scientists (not just physical chemists) use double groups and their generalisations (e.g. replacing SU(2) by SU(3)). Mathsci (talk) 19:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect, I did not raise such a question. I commented on your abysmally poor communication on the double group talk page. Gumshoe2 (talk) 20:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

You wrote whether certain material on McKay correspondence and character tables of crystallographic point groups belongs on the double group page. K. Balasubrimanian, in his note in Chem. Phys. Letters, suggested that the character tables, the tensor rules and the branching rules of the double icosahedral group could be useful for the explaining the theory of metallo-fullerenes and Carbon 60. There are fairly recent mathematical articles by Kostant, Sternberg and Chung on that stuff. I started editing in 2006 at R.e.b.'s suggestion. I'm not quite sure why you are writing things about the 80s and 90s or about reprints. Why have you written that? I created zonal spherical function (the easiest case of Plancherel's theorem in the non-compact semimimple case). Nobody has complained. Similarly Concerti grossi, Op. 6 (Handel). Similarly Great Eighteen Chorale Preludes. Similarly Herr, gehe nicht ins Gericht mit deinem Knecht, BWV 105, Vieille Charité. Mathsci (talk) 22:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I was clearly discussing the content and character of your existing comments on the double group talk page, so these comments are of no relevance on this thread. And the entire second half of your new message does not even superficially rise to the level of being relevant to discussion. This is absurd, and should show anyone how impossible it is to carry out discussions with mathsci Gumshoe2 (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you're quite right Mathsci. It was most disappointing to see XOR'easter question what string theory has to do with Ionic chemistry, previously I'd thought he had a good handle on this topic. Obviously one can view Ionic (or covalent) bonding through the lens of string theory, though as you rightly say it's not needed in most cases. The extra effort only yields results one can't get with standard models in special cases like high energy heavy-ion collisions, which is more regular physics than physical chem. Still, next to no scientists these days are good at seeing interconnections between fields like your man Poincaré. I'm reminded of a Dyson source I recently [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hermann_Weyl&diff=prev&oldid=1081661335 added to Hermann Weyl]. If only Dyson had had been familiar with your work, he might have said that you too embody that old 19th universalism.

That said, while its a great privilege to discuss these things with a master like yourself, I'd advise against you posting any more maths, even if you see folk making annoying false assertions. At least if you want to reduce the odds of this thread ending with a ban. If so, I'd advise you consider focussing mainly on 1) making a statement saying you'll redouble efforts to avoid questioning other editors competence. Perhaps you could say that next time you find yourself getting annoyed with other editors not engaging with the maths, you could simply find another article to edit. 2) Making a statement saying you'll avoid any further cases of following other editors about. Look, I undertand the reactio to editor Smasongarrison - my first thought when I saw him make a big edit to one of my articles with a "rewriting problematic phrases" es was 'Grrrr! As if an SJW could write with greater sensitivity than an ARS editor like myself. Bah!!!". But looking more closely, many would see his changes as improvements. His generosity in this thread by suggestion you're still welcome here prove that he's actually a SJP (social justice Paladin), not a pesky SJW. I'd suggest apologising to Smasongarrison , or at least committing to a 1-way ban with both him & Random Canadian. Plus making a commitment not to indulge in any more following of any other editor. Again, no need to write any more about math, no ones questioning that fact you have great skills in that area. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are supposed to be organized, not indiscriminate random walks through the universe of ideas: double groups include the double covers of the Platonic solids' symmetry groups, which provide an example of an ADE classification, a topic that has been studied using D-branes and orbifolds, concepts used in string theory, a theory which physicists have tried to apply to quark-gluon plasmas produced at the Brookhaven National Laboratory, a particle accelerator facility that continued to be funded after the cancellation of the Superconducting Super Collider, which would have been built in Waxahachie, Texas, a state once claimed by Spain, a name derived from the Latin Hispania used by the Roman Republic after they conquered it from the Carthaginians during the Punic Wars, in which a Roman soldier killed Archimedes, who enumerated the Archimedean solids, which can be constructed by truncation from the ... Platonic solids! It's all connected!

Reasonable questions were raised at Talk:Double group that the article read too much like, well, that, and Mathsci's replies only made the situation worse — a problem that has spread from there to here. XOR'easter (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Mathsci's responses there are basically cogent in and of themselves, but they cease to make any sense when understood as responses to certain specific concerns. It's as if they are lifted in from an entirely different conversation about double groups. As I say many times, in my experience this phenomena is a virtual constant in discussing with mathsci. Gumshoe2 (talk) 20:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I would like to cosign with comment (without venturing an opinion on the larger question): I have never seen anyone in any context engage in the level of cogent-but-entirely-unresponsive nonsequitur that is routine from Mathsci. JBL (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I've read that discussion twice today, and I can't figure out how any of Mathsci's replies actually pertained to the complaints that were raised. For example, the first thing deleted was a Reference to the article by Bethe, because Petergans was unable to verify whether the cited article contains material relevant to double groups or not. The response was not to explain the contents of Bethe's article, but to treat merely listing it as sufficient: On wikipedia, the standard process, when editors question the relevance of references, is to list those references on WP:RSN—in this case the five text books and Bethe's 1929 article in German and English. That's not the purpose of the Reliable sources noticeboard, and it doesn't help resolve anything. Sorry, but I can't see that as "kindly" or "to the benefit of all"; it's just a failure of communication. The deleted section on the McKay correspondence was a ramble through half a dozen different mathematical ideas, ending up in string theory. What does string theory have to do with the chemistry of metal ions? It's like taking the fact that the mathematical concept of "double group" relates to the Platonic solids and using that as an excuse to give a biography of Plato. Just because one can take a walk from one concept to another doesn't mean that one should. XOR'easter (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Petergans deleted both Bethe's German 1929 article and his English translation multiple times. There is a second English translation in the 1968 reprint by Cracknell, "Applied group theory". I've mostly used Bethe's English translation, checking the footnotes for Wigner and von Neumann. Petergans wrote many times that those references were "irrelevant". I was the person who added content about Carbon 60/Fullerene and Quasicrystals. Most references to the classification of finite subgroups of SO(3) have pictures of the 5 platonic solids; see for exmample page 46 of Cotton's 1971 "Chemical Applications of Group Theory" with "TABLE 3.2 The Five Regular Polyhedra or Platonic Solids". Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

The claim "I was the person..." is misleading. It was Peter Gans who contributed the sentence "When a cerium(III) ion is encapsulated in a C₆₀ cage, the formula of the endohedral fullerene is written as {Ce³⁺@C₆₀^3-}". Mathsci merely added a second citation. Petergans (talk) 07:55, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

The first mention of fullerene or the Buckyball was on 23 April of the article talk page, after an extensive literature search by me.[96]

Response to Petergans. Mathsci (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

In response to a comment of Charles Stewart, I wrote: Normally on wikipedia, I avoid editing content directly related to my research; on this very rare occasion, as mentioned on Hammersoft's talk page, my own knowledge/expertise has come into play, as stated in the AfD. Because I don't wish to discuss this on wikipedia, I have used the usual method of summarising WP:RSs that can be verified. Mathematically the character table of the binary icosahedral group corresponds to that of SL2(F5), the binary octahedral subgroup to that of SU2(F9) and the binary tetrahedral group to that of SL2(F3): all of these were calculated by Frobenius in 1899; and later independently by Schur and H.E. Jordan in 1907. Later presentations have used the oscillator representation (for finite fields) of André Weil. The character table of the double group of the icosahedral group appeared in "Stability of Polyatomic Molecules in Degenerate Electronic States II —Spin Degeneracy", H. A. Jahn, Proc. Roy. Soc. London (1938), pages 117–131. This has later been applied in Material Sciences to fullerene; see J. R. Heath, S. C. O’Brien, Q. Zhang, Y. Liu, R. F. Curl, H. M. Kroto, F. K. Tittel, and R. E. Smalley (1985). J. Am. Chem. Soc. 107, 7779 (three chemistry Nobel laureates). The character tables of the double group are given in K. Balasubramanian (1996). Chem. Phys. Lett. 260, 47, along with many, many other mathematics/physics books or articles. See also, "Case, K. M.; Karplus, Robert; Yang, C. N., "Strange particles and the conservation of isotopic spin", Phys. Rev. 101 (1956), 874–876".[97] Whatever the interpretation, this is fin du siècle mathematics: it has been forgotten or misremembered many times, only to be reinvented in different guises; nobody can claim to be an expert. Mathsci (talk) 04:56, 23 April 2022 (UTC) As mentioned above the 1938 Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. article of H. A. Jahn gives the spin characters, accurately citing Frobenius (1899), Frobenius-Schur (1906), Bethe (1929) and Wigner (1932).[98] It is Part II of the 1937 classic Jahn-Teller effect. There's also Judd's 1955–1957 Proc. Roy. Soc. Lod. work, "A crystal field of icosahedral symmetry" in which the character table of the icosahedral group and its double appear. Judd gives the reduction of Vj to $A_{5}^{*}$ for j ≤ 8. This is explained in books of the Janner-Teller effect, such a 1997 Princeton University Press book by C. C. Chancey and M. C. M. O'Brien, "The Jahn-Teller Effect in C60 and Other Icosahedral Complexes" which are available on jstor[99]. Judd's branching rules are given there and on pages 173–174 the character tables of $A_{5}\times C_{2}$ and $A_{5}^{*}$ are given, along with complete tensor product rules for the latter. Other up-to-date versions can be found elsewhere, e.g. the paper of Lisa Everett & Alexander Stuart, "The Double Cover of the Icosahedral Symmetry Group and Quark Mass Textures in Physics Letters B. The reference if Krishna Blasubramanian was mentioned above. In 1996, writing in the context of metal-containing fullerene, Balasubramanian wrote that "the character table and the correlation tables relevant for the icosahedral double group, Ih2, have not yet been obtained apparently"; in fact, the character tables have been known since 1899, but possibly not the restriction or branching rules. Balasubramanian states that χj, the character of Vj restricted to the double subgroup, satisfies a recursion rule of period 15 for j half-integers, and 30 for k integers: χj + 15 = χ29/2 – χ1/2 + χj and χk + 30 = χ30 – χ0 + χk. As mentioned on 5 April of Talk:Double group, "Bertram Kostant has given a uniform branching rule for determining how irreducible representations of SU(2) restrict to Γ." Kostant did this in 1984, and there is a simplified published version here: The Coxeter element and the branching law for the finite subgroups of SU(2). This is encoded in a Poincaré series that has been explicitly computed by Kostant and T. A. Springer ("Poincaré Series of Binary Polyhedral Groups and McKay's Correspondence", Math. Ann. (1987)). The number 30 occurs because the Coxeter element has order 30 in this case.

I came here not knowing a great deal about Mathsci, and after having a very minor brouhaha with him over at Pachelbel's Canon. My intention was to come and stand up for his good faith, though he can certainly be prickly. That is still my stance, however, the responses here trouble me. Mathsci, if you are still editing here when all is said and done, you really need to stop deflecting and start editing collegially -- which certainly means sometimes your preferred version of an article may not win out in the short term. I will leave it to the great and good of this site to decide what to do, but I have to say that reading this section did not inspire great confidence in me. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I've been having a hard time articulating a problem I am seeing here, but I'll try. On this AN/I thread and in other places, I am seeing a distinct lack of ownership of problems on Mathsci's part. Example; on my talk page (begin with my 13:11, 14 June 2022 comment), I raised the issue with Mathsci's of their edit warring on the Double group article, where he performed 4 reverts in 5 hours. This was also raised at the beginning of this AN/I thread (2nd bullet point). Maybe I'm missing something (I would be glad to hear I have), but I don't see comments from Mathsci anywhere, neither here on AN/I nor on my talk page, where they addressed the edit warring issue, why it was done, some understanding of what they did wrong, and what they intend to do in the future to avoid it happening again. I think David Fuchs noticed this as well [100]. Mathsci has twice been blocked for edit warring. They were called out for it in arbitration proceedings in 2013 (see this finding). Yet, here we are nine years after that, and we're still having the same problem. And Mathsci's response to this problem being raised? <crickets>. I think it likely this thread will conclude with Mathsci havving a WP:CBAN placed on them. @Mathsci: Assuming that's the case, any attempt to come back from this CBAN is going to have to show clear ownership of the problems you have created in the past, sincere apologies for the disruption caused, and clear plans for how you intend on contributing to the project while avoiding (at all costs) coming even remotely close to these problems coming up again. Right now, I'm seeing no ownership, and instead seeing a lot of attempts to explain/excuse your behavior or even not address it at all. Any entreaty to come back from this CBAN is going to have to do a complete 180 on this approach. I hope you do, and I hope it works. I really do. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:57, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, I was getting the same feeling as I read through Mathsci's responses, here and at other places. I'm really just seeing evasion, and responses to the wrong thing. There's an example above, where he's presented with a list of articles where he's clearly been stalking someone else's edits. In response, we get an explanation of why he might have a reason to edit those articles, *not* how he arrived at them by stalking. Just about every response I've seen misses the point that's being raised. So yes, we need a serious change in that style of responding. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:39, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Alternate proposal: Confinement to Draft space

User:Mathsci is blocked and banned from editing any namespace, except Draft. Mathsci is banned from editing any page in draftspace, except drafts created by Mathsci. Mathsci may create drafts, edit these drafts as long as they are in draftspace, and submit them for creation(movement to article space).

Uninvolved adminstrators are, if Mathsci acts disruptively in draftspace or evades this ban, empowered to issue indefinite sitebans to Mathsci.

I noticed that Mathsci has created articles in the past. Confined to draft space, and with little to no interaction with others, mathsci can still do something constructive. This is only a very small step from a site ban, and the provision about admins saves the community time if Mathsci continues to be disruptive.Lurking shadow (talk) 10:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. The multiple problems discussed above are really not about creating articles, so this proposal is as close to a full CBAN as makes no difference. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:39, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, the problems are not about creating articles. But Mathsci has created some articles. This proposal bans nearly everything but creating articles. Mathsci has not been accused of creating bad articles. Why do you oppose? Lurking shadow (talk) 11:06, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

  (Non-administrator comment) That sounds punitive rather than preventative, which isn't the aim of whatever action will be taken. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 11:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

  I see no point in carving out allowed niches which only constitute a tiny fraction of an editor's activity. What we need is something that forces Mathsci to finally, properly, get his head around his poor behaviour and address it. And I think a full CBAN, until he can convince the community that he will reform his appalling approach to community cooperation, is the best hope we have of that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

  I think this restriction could be a pathway back for him eventually after convincing the community. This niche would be broad enough because he'd be able to propose edits to existing articles as well. But as I pointed out in response to his apology [101] he needs to do some serious soul searching and I woul dneed a much more detailed explanation beyond "I am sorry if I have upset you." Like, I made it very clear I was upset. Heck, I'm probably never going to go near Cambridge after this because he and I are both professors in real life. I'm having a meeting with my department chair on friday about this entire case. Just in case he does anything off wiki. Smasongarrison (talk) 14:49, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

  Smasongarrison, I feel the need to say I am sorry the way you have been treated on Wikipedia, and while I am highly doubtful anything would occur off-Wiki, the fear is not unreasonable. Mathsci's behavior is far beyond the pale, and as Hammersoft notes above, his unwillingnes or inability to see that is both galling and utterly unacceptable. Dumuzid (talk) 15:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks @Dumuzid. I agree that he's unlikely to do anything off-wiki. I've done several off-wiki things like that (as in meeting with my department chair). I felt that they were necessary because we're both in the same profession AND he has very strong feelings about my field (behavior genetics; I specialize in the modeling aspects, not the content. But that nuance gets lost often.) Smasongarrison (talk) 16:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose (this is also an answer to Lurking shadow). If Mathsci create drafts, they would likely be about high mathematics. As usual with him, they will not be written in an encyclopedic style, and they will be much too WP:TECHNICAL than needed by the subject. So, either the draft will be accepted by an editor who does not understand the subject, and this could lead to a time consuming AfD; or an editor with good mathematical competences should spent a lot of time on an article with a narrow probable audience, instead of improving the numerous mathematical articles that require expert attention. So, "confinement to Draft space" does not avoid disruption.
  What I have just written is not speculation: most of the content of Double group was created by Mathsci. Until 12 June [102], the lead was a bunch of historical and technical assertions that could be understood only by people who know already the subject. If the current lead [103] is conform to the manual of style (MOS:LEAD and MOS:MATH#Article introduction), this is not not the result of Mathsci edits. The current lead has been written by XOR'easter after a discussion on the talk page, without, fortunately, any interaction with Mathsci. "Fortunately", since any interaction with Mathsci would have needed much more time. D.Lazard (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

  A very good reason. Thanks. Switching to Oppose.Lurking shadow (talk) 16:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

  If you oppose your own proposal, it means withdrawal, right? 0xDeadbeef 13:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

  Oppose as everything D.Lazard says here is exactly correct Gumshoe2 (talk) 17:07, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

  Request/Question I'm not very familiar with how unbanning works. So this might be totally obvious. But, can we include one-way IBANs for Mathsci for me and for RandomCanadian that will be in place even if he is successful in an appeal? Smasongarrison (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I would start a separate sub-thread to this one if you want that. However, I don't think an IBAN would be very useful. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@Smasongarrison: Specifying unban conditions at the time of a ban discussion (other than in general terms about what would need to change) isn't usually the way it's done. Specific conditions and restrictions are usually decided in the later unban discussion, should there be one. I suggest you watchlist Mathsci's user talk page so that you'll know when any unban request is made, and you can have your say at that time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Hammersoft and Boing!_said_Zebedee! I appreciate the information, as this is not typically something I deal with. I'll keep an eye on Is there anything that can be done about some of his personal attacks from words to watch talk page? He's claiming [104] that my "misguided edits" are a "deliberate choice." That I’m not "following wp:consensus". That I'm "harm[ing] wp:featured articles." They've claimed that "Smasongarrison has never created substaintial content on wikipedia." And the implication in this statement [105] "At no stage has Smasongarrison explained why they are 'disabled'" which effectively asks for me to prove I'm disabled with disabled in scare quotes. I mentioned my disability status to highlight how absurd the situation was and because Mathsci seemed to find bringing up health status to be relevant. Those are the worst ones. Smasongarrison (talk) 17:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Speaking abstractly, from experience, it's nigh on impossible to expect a retraction/apology from someone who has violated WP:NPA here. Given the overwhelming support for a WP:CBAN seen above, I think it extremely likely Mathsci will be community banned in the near future. That being the case, you need not worry about any future attacks upon you, unless they decide to make such statements on their talk page. If they do, I'm sure they will lose talk page access in short order. There are number of things here that went off the rails. We're not going to be able to right these many wrongs. But, we can prevent them from happening again. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Hammersoft. That's comforting. Smasongarrison (talk) 17:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Side tangent

Since Mathsci voluntarily claimed to be a person with a Wikipedia article in this AN/I discussion, is it okay to list him on WP:Notable people who have edited Wikipedia? I asked Mathsci himself on his talk page but he has not responded. I believe that since he voluntarily proclaimed his identity all on his own volition, posting it on WWA would not be a WP:OUTING, but I just want a clarification. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:07, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think his intent was to permanently out himself. He wouldn't have mentioned, "It can be rev-delled if necessary", if he was fully committed IMHO. I think it is better to wait until this case is settled. Smasongarrison (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
  • ...and then AFD the article because he's not notable. Levivich 21:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I only came to know of him via his wiki-activity, and none of my mathematician friends who I've asked have heard of him either (none of them being in his particular field), but although he may not be widely known outside his own field of research, his research career was small in quantity but very distinguished and I think it's extremely reasonable to regard speaking at ICM as a wikipage-warranting honor Gumshoe2 (talk) 22:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

• N-O NO!. Do not reveal Mathsci's identity. EEng 21:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
• Absolutely not, no! He's only self-identified here temporarily for the purpose of this discussion. And in any case, there are BLP concerns over using a Wikipedia article to highlight that he has been banned from the project (which is the way things are going). Let's just carry on with the ban discussion, and try to do no harm to anyone in real life. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:55, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Kinghabibi72 reported by User:Mvcg66b3r Re:WDVM-TV

Wholesale changes in content without consensus; use of press releases as sources. Also, logged-out editing. [106] [107] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:17, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I work for the station and was asked to make these changes Kinghabibi72 (talk) 00:19, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. Gusfriend (talk) 00:38, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

@Kinghabibi72: It is against Wikimedia terms of use to edit for payment without carefully disclosing such on your user page. Please see the notice left to you on your talk page on what this means, and how to correctly disclose your status. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 04:17, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Apa07012022

Apa07012022 (talk · contribs) is "the head of IT department of the HCAA." They have written exclusively about the Hellenic Civil Aviation Authority. They have failed on 4 occasions to choose another username which represents them personally. As I've responded as a renamer I'm referring my switch of the soft block to a hard block for review. There's a recap at User talk:Apa07012022#June 2022 2. Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 09:36, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

• Seems like a good block, as much for CIR as anything else. I'm generally of the opinion that if someone wants to edit Wikipedia for a reason not necessarily aligned with our encyclopedic mission, it's on them to absolutely nail it. It's not our job to teach people how to make their bosses happy. Lots of COI editors edit quite uneventfully and constructively by RTFMing first. This is... not that. Sidenote, the most recent edits of 185.16.164.7 are interesting to have come from the same /24 as a civil aviation organization, though I don't see reason to think it's the same person. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 09:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Odd edit farm, unsure if sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry

So I noticed the editor Claraclarc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) over a week ago, they were doing picky and often low grade disruptive edits on film related articles. I've warned them a couple of times and was just keeping an eye on them. However today I noticed something new, their edit comments had changed and there were many, many, other accounts doing the same kind of comment and edits. Now I originally thought that I would have to make a huge case here, but I've found at least 10 different accounts that I cannot determine if they are sockpuppets or meatpuppets, but there's 100% a connection between them. I'm not going to go overboard on diffs, all you need to do is click on their contributions and you'll see exactly what I saw.

• Claraclarc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• AuntElizabeth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rangeofpersons (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Awkwardbg19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rerert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Standbrave (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WorldMaximum! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Omagakvaga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ShanSaac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Credfuind (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

They're focusing on film articles, but also in a very obviously collaborative way. Today around 5pm a load of them hit articles on George Lucas's films and made similar edits and similar edit summaries "from a screenplay...", "produced by...", but the most telling is that slightly earlier today all the accounts hit articles on movies by Akira Kurosawa all with comments similar to "Deleted [[]] in cinematography line', "the screenplay by Hideo Oguni and Akira Kurosawa was", "Deleted "[]" around "Mieko Suzuki" and "Choichiro Kawarazaki"", "Deleted unnecessary [[]] brackets". The really curious thing is that all these edits are not happening simultaneously, but seemingly consecutively from the timestamps which feels more of a sockpuppetry than a meatpuppetry. A lot of the edits are low grade disruption, moving things around, overlinking United States, removing redlinks that could reasonably be an article, but not all. Some of their edits have been reverted by many other editors in the past, and all of the accounts were created this month. I'm tempted to just block them all outright, but wanted the community's input. This could be some kind of odd editathon (like they never cause issues), but I don't think so based on the seeming rolling timestamps of the edits that often show patterns at different times of the day. Now I shall go and add ANI notices to 10 talkpages, just in case. Canterbury Tail talk 23:49, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

What purpose (positive or negative) would a sock farm have with editing Akira Kurosawa-related entries? Maybe they're all gaming to get to autoconfirmed but didn't know what the number of edits required was. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

poorly managed editathon? Poorly organized class? —Floquenbeam (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

• These are socks, and someone should file an SPI and request a CU to look for others.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

SPI filed. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 00:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Other than not naming the oldest account as the master, which is not a big deal and can be sorted out later, you did fine. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Huh. I already got suspicious of one of them and ran a check almost a week ago. I guess I can another one. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I stream private lectures (mostly screenwriting) and usually invite my subscribers to supplement, discuss or use my information in practice (including on Wikipedia).

A couple of times I showed how to make edits, however, I expected their contributions will be more useful than rearranging the commas, so I apologize.

We are preparing larger edits and have a plan to create several new articles, but so far I have been lecturing for less than a month and now I see that my subscribers are not ready yet.

Will you give us a chance to prove ourselves? ShanSaac (talk) 08:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Well that’s interesting. I would say you shouldn’t be streaming and teaching people how to edit Wikipedia when your own edits are not up to snuff. About half the edits you’ve made have been reverted by various users and you seem very unaware of our policies and guidelines. You’re editing heavily in the film space but are clearly unfamiliar with MOS:FILM, in addition to WP:OVERLINK and WP:REDLINK. Additionally many of your changes are creating sentences that no longer flow naturally such as moving years out of the sentence and into brackets inside the sentence etc. If what you say above is true, then all you’re doing is teaching others your bad editing practices and lack of experience and creating work for other editors to clean up. Canterbury Tail talk 10:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer: prods and AfDs

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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 [108]. 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". [109] Then at [110] 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 [111] with the message (Removing link(s) to "Search Engine Watch": unlikely to be saved.). The AFD for the article ended in Keep. [112]. 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. [113] [114] [115] and many others. Other television articles he sent to AFD ended without everyone else saying Keep. [116] [117] 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)

  [118] 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 [119] and he then redirected it again and I reverted him again [120] he then sent it AFD where it ended as Keep. [121] 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! [122] 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 [123] [124], acknowledgments that pages don't meet notability policy but votes that they should be kept anyway [125], voting to keep spam articles sourced to press releases, paid coverage and database entries [126], claims that blogs are usable sources because they have more than one contributor [127], supporting keeping an article on a marginally notable person on the basis of an interview after the subject had requested deletion (WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE) [128] 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? Finally, I strenuously oppose making WP:BEFORE something mandatory (ie. giving it teeth by sanctioning people who ignore it), since that would clearly violate WP:BURDEN - it is never the responsibility of people who want to remove something to search for sources for it, fullstop. It might be a nice suggestion but it should never be treated as a hard requirement, since that would be backwards and lead to there being no real incentive for anyone who wants stuff cited to actually cite it. --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)

Soft delete is, well, soft; it can be easily undone by anyone who objects and who wants to improve the article, without losing anything. I don't see that as a problem. --Aquillion (talk) 04:22, 9 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)
• Oppose incredibly restrictive for an editor that helps to clear WP of long abandoned articles w/ 0 sources and 0 editors willing to pitch in. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 03:14, 12 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 [[129]], 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 [[130]].

  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 [[131]] 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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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 [132]). 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)
• Support (any sanction). This idea that TPH is doing what needs to be done is precisely the point: really? How do we know? The only way is via careful AfD analysis and the community can not deal with this volume sufficiently. I realize people are in a hurry to clean up Wikipedia but that's not how Wikipedia works. -- GreenC 03:51, 16 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.” [133].
• 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.“ [134] - 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.” [135]
• The word “useful” is added. [136]
• 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?” [137] - 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.” [138] - 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. [139]
• Another one of the mentioned book sources turns out to have an entire chapter on the subject [140] “Nothing on Google books” is thoroughly busted, this will never be acknowledged.
• At this point there are removing chunks of the article as “unsourced”. [141], 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)

I wasn’t sure where to put this but I feel the end here is recent enough to say I’ve had experience with their tendency to lie for their reasoning in proposals, in this case a merger on The Fairly OddParents: Fairly Odder, and they were parroted for it. They were debunked, but my worry is that such deception will be overlooked when it becomes time to close CreecregofLife (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

He does that in AFDs at times as well, insisting that everything is "press releases", even when they are clearly not. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Inspiration,_Please! he made that claim and it was refuted by the first person to respond. Dream Focus 19:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

A wider limit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vandalism?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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 [142]. 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)

Currently they are mass nominating categories, which I guess is a different form of deletion discussion. Artw (talk) 23:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Another TPH Deletion Issue

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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 as involved as I voted to overturn the early closure. 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)

  You have been given a straight answer, several in fact. 1. Policy says the person starting the AfD shouldn't close it. 2. It was only open 16 hours, not enough time was given to allow more editors to weigh in. 3. There is no rush to delete, leaving it open for 7 days...or until an admin comes in and closes it early...hurts nothing. The fact that you don't understand these "straight answer(s)" is troubling. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  Then maybe the policy is flawed. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  That might be true, but as a Wikipedia policy it is the current consensus of the community and you are obliged to follow it if you want to remain a member of said community. I really dont get why you are pushing this here, every single person in this section, including multiple people who above opposed sanctions, agrees your closure was improper. You can feel otherwise, but just saying all yall wrong and Im right wont get you very far in a collaborative project. And your deleted response below, at ANI in a discussion in which sanctions are currently on the table, is just dumbfounding. nableezy - 20:26, 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)

  He post an angry reply and deletes it immediately so no one can respond to it, but knows many will still see it. [143] His reply to you was posted and deleted the same minute. Dream Focus 18:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for flagging @Dream Focus.vWhat happened to I'm going to let it stand as overturned. @TenPoundHammer. Take it/me to DRV if you like and think every single one of us who have told you the same thing is wrong, but this conduct is not productive. Star Mississippi 18:28, 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)
• Support Refuses to admit he did anything wrong. Past cases where he was told not to close things were superior examples than this one. But his response to everyone in this threat convinced me he can not be convinced to stop doing this sort of thing without sanctions. Dream Focus 15:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Per obvious reasons. JoelleJay (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support - just arguing about this displays a lack of understanding. Wtf cares if it stays up 7 days before it is redirected, why are you getting angry about that? If it bothers you so much then move on to something else in the meantime. nableezy - 18:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support. The lack of acknowledgement of disruption makes the need for this sanction quite obvious. MarioGom (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support per MarioGom. starship.paint (exalt) 13:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support Seems much more sensible than the alternative. This is normally reserved for administrators, especially when adminstrative closure is required. At the same time, there are occasional problems in commenting on other users' !votes in their own AfD's, such as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuperCars Exposed. If the two Arbcom case requests concerning XfD conduct are merged, then the issue can be brought up there. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support These issues are going beyond frustrating; per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shep Unplugged, they are now moving into troublesome WP:BLUDGEON territory when everyone agrees on a course of action and that a topic exists, and TPH continues to try to force a deletion consensus by badgering those who don't support the nom. Nate • (chatter) 20:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

  Maybe if people would stop going "la la la I can't hear you" when I press them for sources... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support - sorry, who is it going "la la la I can't hear you"?? Johnbod (talk) 00:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

  All the people asking "Shep Unplugged" to be redirected with literally no proof that it even existed. Unless a blogspot blog and a forum are proof now. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

  Did you check for video of the halftime show? http://voices.washingtonpost.com/soccerinsider/2007/07/conflict_of_interest.html confirms he did a show then, and one person quoted they hit the mute button when he starts his "unplugged" segment. You might be able to find a transcript somewhere or footage of the game and its halftime show. I don't think anyone else doubts this is a real thing so they aren't going to spend too much time trying to prove it was, so why not just agree to the redirect and find something else to argue with everyone about? Dream Focus 01:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

  A blog that literally links to the content on MSG's site that refers to Shep's halftime show which verifies it to the extent needed for a redirect, which is the only thing folks are advocating for. You're not even arguing in good faith anymore, which is disappointing. Star Mississippi 03:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support Seems reasonable and I hate badnacs. scope_creep^Talk 08:58, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support Not closing your own AfDs (unless to withdraw them and speedy keep, when you've realized you're wrong) seems incredibly elementary. It's not like waiting a few days for a non-involved editor to close the AfD makes any difference one way or the other. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 00:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support TPH clearly has no business closing XfDs of any kind if they don't see the conflict of interest in closing their own nominations, and the disruption chronicled in the course of this extremely long ANI multi-section entry makes it clear that they are incapable of stopping such inappropriate behavior on their own. An XfD topic ban is warranted. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support provided that there is a specific length of time for the ban. No editor should close an AFD where they are involved, no matter how obvioius it is. Seperation of duties is important.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

• Reply - @Paulmcdonald:, while I do not disagree, we must balance both onerous amounts of AFD nominations with preventing the creation of unsuitable articles. I have listed all of the discussions under Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#TenPoundHammer: prods and AfDs at WP:CR. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support, shouldn't be necessary but clearly it is. Stifle (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support, I took a speedy close justified as a WP:SNOW case by TPH to a deletion review here, it was quickly overturned. It is disheartening to see that it is not an isolated incident and this person has continued making bad calls with inappropriate closes, with plenty of WP:IDHT behavior to boot. 14:26, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ArbCom?

In my statement to ArbCom asking them to consider a case on conduct during deletion discussions, I have asked them to include User:TenPoundHammer as a party, largely because this matter remains unresolved. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I think that might be required as he is now once more mass redirecting articles for television shows, even when they meet the general notability guidelines. [144] He eliminated an article for a television show with the edit summary (reviews are not enough if no other sources exist). This of course is not true. The article meets the general notability guideline. Can others look at this specific issue and comment please? Dream Focus 03:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Note that's not the only one. Just so many of them to sort through at once. [145] and [146] for instance. And previously I and other reverted him on this same issue. Dream Focus 03:38, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

reviews are not enough if no other sources exist?!?!?!

That is one of the dumbest and worst rationales I've ever seen as an attempt to remove article content. Silverseren^C 03:39, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

• He has lied in his edit summaries. [147] Claims there are only a couple reviews, but there are four. At [148] he has the edit summary (only two reviews, one from a personal blog). I responded when reverting him (three reviews. IGN and AV Club are reliable sources.) At [149] his edit summary is (not notable, just a couple token reviews) I reverting him with the edit summary explaining (those reviews mean it passes the general notability guidelines. Also the show had 10.49 million viewers). Can someone just explain the WP:GNG to him? With him doing this to so many articles at once, in the same way he did before, its hard to look through all of them. Dream Focus 06:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

  Just found and reverted another of his redirects. [150] His edit summary is (has a couple reviews and placement on a "best of" list, but this is insufficient given the lack of reliable sources beyond this) The reviews were from The A.V. Club and IGN, both reliable sources. If enough people could just tell him that these two reliable sources mean the article passes the general notability guidelines, maybe he'll stop trying to eliminate articles. If not, sanctions or arbcom might be required to make him stop doing this. Dream Focus 06:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I tried to go through them to filter as well, but the sheer mass of redirects makes it difficult to sort through. Are we soon going to also consider restrictions on making redirects, or is that too much? Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 00:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Miscellaneous question

Yesterday, TPH used MfD to propose a prohibition of WikiProjects ranking articles as A-class. When Robert McClenon pointed out a WikiProject that used the A-class, TPH refused to notify the named WikiProject. Is his failure to notify the WikiProject acceptable? — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:41, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Could you link where he refused to notify the WikiProject? If he did refuse then that's not ideal, but surely it could easily be rectified by someone else (such as you) notifying them? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I've looked at the page history of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, and it seems like TPH has never edited it at any point during the MfD. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:15, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Alright, posted on the WikiProject talk myself. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:19, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that before I did. I'm no great fan of TenPoundHammer myself (I just wish he would slow down a bit and think), but there's a big difference between "refused to post" and "did not post". Phil Bridger (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposal - modification of language in AfDs and Prods

Based on recent observations and interactions I have two suggestions which, if voluntarily adopted by TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) or imposed upon them via sanction, would reduce some of the drama in AfD and Prod related discussions.

1. If a prod was contested TPH should restrict themselves to commenting “The prod was contested”, avoiding further claims. Currently they frequently make snippy comments like “The prod was removed without comment” and almost as frequently that turns out to be false. If no claim is made nobody has to waste their time verifying the claim or arguing about the claim.
2. TPH should not make any negative claims about the availability of sources. Currently they frequently make claims that nothing is available via some search or other that when followed up on turns out to be false, to the point where any such claims from them are untrustworthy. Best to leave it at stating whatever they have found, if anything, and whether or not it would help with argument improvement.

This would not fix any of the problems related to frequency or accuracy, but it would remove the most frequent causes for contentiousness in the conversations. Thoughts? Artw (talk) 00:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

So if I genuinely do get no results on ProQuest for a thing, how am I supposed to convey that? The second point seems counterintuitive. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:02, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Per the proposal you would avoid making such a claim regardless of if you thought it was genuine or not. Artw (talk) 01:17, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any reason for the second half of my claim. If I get zero hits, then I get zero hits. What makes you think someone would get totally different results entering the exact same term on the exact same search engine? I've tried to spell out my searches more thoroughly. Perhaps if I did that more instead? (E.G. "I found four hits on ProQuest. Hit one had this, hit two had that, etc. etc.") Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:28, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

The point of the suggestion would be to remove the possibility of your making a false claim, by accident or design, which as noted in the conversation above has been a very frequent occurrence. Artw (talk) 01:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Why do you consistently get "no results" when others (including myself) find citations (sometimes within 5 minutes of you putting an article up for PROD or AfD or REDIRECT)? Clearly there are issues with the way you do a BEFORE that no one else experiences. Perhaps you need to take a break from all 3 until you can figure out why your searches yield "nothing" and others find substantial sources. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:25, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Another TPH issue - Redirecting a page that previously survived an AfD

The article Spaceman Spiff was redirected by TPH to Calvin and Hobbes on June 11. This article was put up for AfD in 2005 and ended in Keep. TPH decided that in his opinion it was "completely unsourced OR" (this edit [151]) so he redirected it without discussion.

I noticed the redirect on June 18 and reversed it with this edit [152]. My comment was "AfD it" simply because it was already sent for discussion once and survived. So, I am concerned that TPH doesn't care about consensus and wants his opinion to rule.

When TPH noticed that the redirect was reversed he put it up for AfD (which I agree was the way to go), and when another editor questioned why TPH would, "redirect it if there was a prior AfD? That’s clearly not appropriate." [153], his reply was "By what policy?" [154].

His deletion rationale included the comment "Previous AFD was in 2005, when rationales for keeping were vastly different than they are now." While this may very well be true, to decide on his own that the article should be eliminated is inappropriate and shows a lack of regard for Wikipedia consensus.

How much longer will we allow TPH to run rampant over Wikipedia PRODding, AfDing, and REDIRECTing articles on his deletion spree? DonaldD23 talk to me 11:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Just to note although kept at an AFD 17 years ago, this was a redirect between 2006 and 2019. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:11, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Using a 17 year old AFD to restore completely unsourced content is absurd. You take responsibility for your edits, and if you think this is an acceptable edit for an encyclopedia, then we have an actual problem that ANI should address. That is an atrocious edit, and the whinging about "run rampant" when you are inserting material that does not meet the very lowest bar for inclusion here is amazing in its lack of self-awareness. nableezy - 15:31, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Bounding on an unfounded personal attack there, mate - nothing wrong with restoring a non-consensus redrirect on a sourced article. Artw (talk) 16:47, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Correction - not currently sourced. Artw (talk)

So not unfounded, not a personal attack,but rather an accurate statement about a user seemingly obstructing TPH for the sake of obstructing him. nableezy - 17:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Still a legitimate edit, still in response to one form TPH that is less than so. Also if we really wnat to nitpick the article had at least one source mentioned in its text, just not in citation form. Artw (talk) 17:30, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

TPH redirected it, DonaldD23 reverted it, and now it's at AFD. That's how things areeamt to work isn't it? - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:38, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Sure sounds like an attack on me. Restoring a page is not an "atrocious edit". It was redirected at the discretion of one editor (TPH), and restored by another one (me), and now it is at AfD where it should have been all along. Keep personal attacks at home nableezy. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:42, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Request closure

There is one proposal that has consensus above, the rest seem to me to clearly not, and besides there is now an open ArbCom case with TPH as a party. Is there a reason this should be open now? nableezy - 15:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

It mould mean new ones almost immediately being openened given TPH's continued pattern of behaviour, so it would be depend how you feel about that. This one seems to have stalled out so it might be a good thing to get fresh eyes. Artw (talk) 16:43, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Theres an open ArbCom case, if you have issues related to it then take that evidence there. nableezy - 16:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Close it, seeing as Arbcom has taken on the matter. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Comment am not seeing any indication of any engagement between the Arbcom linked and TPH beyond some offhand mentions, it doesn't really seem to be a case about them at all. Artw (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose TPH is only offhandedly mentioned at the ArbCom case. It really seems to be about other editors. This needs to be kept open until a resolution is agreed upon. Not just simply closing it for the sake of closing it. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment close this and the others. If TPH isn't mentioned in the arbcom case, well it's about behaviour at AFD and someone can get TPH added. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:17, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

  TPH is already a party in the open arbcom case. Levivich 18:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer lying in edit summaries

[155] TenPoundHammer erases singles from the list with the word "no", gets reverted by Northamerica1000 and then erases it again with the edit summary (no singles), I then reverting him again pointing out (Undid revision 1093844156 by TenPoundHammer (talk) the singles are there, and link to their own articles about them!) [156]

This exact thing happened also at [157] [158]. Dream Focus 19:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lugnuts at AFD

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)

• This edit summary, today. At best, it's an unhelpful dig at John Pack Lambert, at worst, it's casting aspersions. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:38, 9 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. [[User:LugnutsLugnuts]] ^{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)

Unlike AFD there is zero need for anything like a BEFORE check before redirecting. Yes, it is a good idea but nowhere close to as !required for an AFD nom (that is, even at AFD BEFORE is not required but it is strongly recommended to avoid unnecessary AFD discussions). Masem (t) 15:29, 8 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)

  Except Juni Bek was a ruler of an indepdent polity. Our rules for inclusion of such people are very different than rules for people who competed in a sports competition. John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:43, 17 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. Finally, I particularly oppose the implication that JPL has some sort of obligation to search for sources on Lugnuts' behalf before putting articles up for deletion - WP:BURDEN is a more important policy than WP:BEFORE and takes priority here. Lugnuts is the one who has to find sources for material he wants to add or retain, not the people who object to it. --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)
• Support two-way interaction ban and oppose one-way interaction ban. Between Mr Lambert's hounding and low success AFD rate, and Lugnut's chronic snark, a one-way ban is neither workable nor warranted. A two-way IBAN is the most pragmatic solution. Darkknight2149 07:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose This is not the correct solution as it is too broad.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
• Strong Support two way IBAN or else we will back here again. Both seem to irritate each other. Also, it is not necessary for JPL to police stubs created by Lugnuts. Other editors are fully capable of determining if such topics merit inclusion on Wikipedia. And Lugnuts needs to rationally discuss with editors who change his articles into redirects rather than willy nilly reverting. Such changes to redirects are not personal and are carried out in good faith. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:24, 18 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)
              • That in response to a question about what you have done, you say "It is not my fault that Lugnuts falsely assumes..."--and that is precisely the problem. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 9 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)
• Opppose This doesn't solve the long-term issue at all, it only makes modificaitons to the current state. I might support "specifically banning Lugnuts from reverting a redirect" down the road, but not at this moment. Preventing any editor from proposing discussion at AFD is not the right move. I personally think that Mr. Lambert does a lot more AFDs than I like; I personally think that Mr. Lambert doesn't like sports articles; and I admit that I have personally become frustrated at times from the volume of AFD discussions brought forth by Mr. Lambert on the articles that I do like. And none of that matters. As long at it remains civil, not disruptive, and otherwise avoids policy violations (BLP, Copyright, etc.) anyone can propose a discussion on anything.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposal – stubs at AFD

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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)
• Oppose This is simply punishing editors for not agreeing with consensus--it could be a simple mistake, it could be that they are incorrect in their understanding or whatever. And it's a lousy precedent. Editors are free to disagree. Now, if they violate WP:3RR or something like that, then we take action--but we don't need "another rule" to take care of the "one that's already in place" -- and if 3RR is now no longer adequate, then we discuss 3RR (or whatever else we need to apply). Too focused, no benefit, slippery slope.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:19, 14 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. Anyway, as I've said elsewhere - the gist of my position is that WP:BURDEN is what takes priority here, which means that the requirement to find sources is on the person who wants to retain text, never the person who wants to remove it. This is needed because otherwise we end up with nobody motivated to find sources and unsourced stubs lingering for ages (as they, in fact, are.) The suggestion that someone should be able to create a stub or remove a PROD without having to search for sources, while implying that the person who places the PROD has some requirement to do so, is a clear inversion of WP:BURDEN and per the logic behind that would lead to undesirable outcomes. --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)
      • @Drmies: - "what were you thinking" - well my blunt answer is that he isn't thinking, and this sort of behaviour continues, such as redirecting this article, his one and only redirect since you posted your question. So add WP:HOUND to WP:CIR the WP:IDHT issues already highlighted. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
        • Now JPL has nominated that article for AfD too. And it's a good hour inside the one AfD per day limit too. I wonder if I would still be editing right now if I had continued this path of tenacious editing. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:30, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: - It's clear JPL continues with this, despite what's been said here, with another AfD. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
    • Lugnuts, I agree that this is disruptive, but it's not up to me--obviously. Drmies (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
    • This edit summary in reverting the redirect leaves a lot to be desired, especially in light of the persistent civility issues being raised again here and now. Also, "one per (calendar) day" is not the same as one within any 24 hour period, and the nomination clearly falls within that (someone else advised you of this recently on your talk page). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:08, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
      • I don't see a problem in that edit summary. Drmies (talk) 20:49, 15 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 [159]. -- 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)
• Oppose the problem isn't that the editors extend their discussion. The problem is that those discussions become uncivil and/or disruptive. Both parties can write giant responses for all I care as long as they are civil and otherwise not disruptive.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Mr Lambert's editing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Start 2 Arbcom cases instead

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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 -- mixed this up with his characterizing other editors' automatic notices as harassment) with "tick tock it's Lambert o'clock" edit summaries and "current stats" on JPL nominations; agitating for sanctions on JPL at every opportunity).
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. JPL's tendency toward overcommenting in discussions (*gestures vaguely above*).
6. 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.
7. 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)

"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)

Oh, sorry, I got him mixed up with the other editors you've banned from posting AfD notices or or other automated templates on your page. JoelleJay (talk) 17:06, 8 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)

Thank you, User:Fram. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

  BilledMammal's proposal is fairly solid, but the BEFORE part is too ill-defined to be workable. That said, I think this is on the right track might be the start of the right thing. Hobit (talk) 21:21, 10 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)

• Oppose. An arbcom case is better than this. Trying to close a discussion like this because the conflict is annoying instead of trying to solve the problem properly is not good. This section has no chance on actually passing because most oppose votes for the other proposals above are definitely also oppose votes for this - at least those that see no problem or call less intrusive actions too harsh.Lurking shadow (talk) 11:23, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose I have been trying to make reasonable contributions to deletion discussions. I have tried to respond to imput and change my behavior. This is far too broad and all encompassing a decision. I also do not think it is a reasonable response to the issues at hand. I have been doing lots more work on studying the background of articles before nominating them. This is far too broad a rule, that would impact way to much behavior that has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - for better or worse, content creation is down to practically zero. The crux issue is whether we're attempting to create a vertical project (more than just a single sentence/paragraph of information), or a horizontal project (creating as many articles as possible, thus creating the impetus for further article fostering). And while we are disagreeing on this matter, there is no way to continue. I could name half a dozen serial article creators who have been discouraged from creating articles and have thus left the project. The crux of this issue is, what are we attempting to achieve? And the fact that we are talking at cross purposes shows what we have become. (Not a criticism of any individuals). Bobo. 12:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I have added sources to at least 3 articles in the last day. I think the claim of little content creation is over stated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I have tried to consider advice on how better to contribute to AfD discussions and am trying to do so with more deliberation and consideration of more issues than I have at times in the past. I feel that imposing such a braod, long lasting and inflexible ban at this time is not justified. For example on Moulton-Udell High School I looked up more sources and proposed a solution other than outright deletion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
• No, sorry--I think it's best for the project if JPL is banned from deletion discussions unless it's about something he created. This very thread, or this umpteenth subthread, indicates well enough just how disruptive JPL is, and how little he understands what his behavior is causing. Throughout this process at ANI he's been commenting on almost every aspect with an astonishing level if IDHT, there's comments on tons of user talk pages trying to goad others into sympathy, and while all this is going on he's nominating Lugnuts's articles for deletion and, when he gets called on it, starts talking about the merits of their nomination. If JPL is bothered by Lugnuts's behavior on AfDs, why nominate one of his articles in the midst of all this? It's mind boggling. And it's part of a pattern, it looks like a persecution complex, and it just sucks up energy. Edits like this one are ill-advised already (and it's the fourth in a series), but when you throw in the edit summary it's obvious to me that JPL simply does not understand (or care to understand) what it is we are doing here, why we have sanctions, or what is expected of editors. Lugnuts's behavior at AfDs or elsewhere--it doesn't even come close to this level of disruption. No, enough already. And someone who produced Read Elding, Adeyemi I Alowolodu, Enrique Muñoz Arístegui really shouldn't be participating in AfD in the first place. Drmies (talk) 13:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
  • All three of those articles meet our inclusion criteria for policial leaders by quite wide margins. I have added another source to the article on Read Elding. I would like to see better sourcing on them, but they clearly fall into a section of coverage where we have agreed we will keep articles as long as we can verify their content. The use of the phrase "Lugnut's articles" is not justified. I nominated one article for deletion, and no one has argued to keep the article, so it is not like it was at all an unjustified article, not that nominating an article that others feels should be kept actually shows that the nomination was in error.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
    • Multiple editors have affirmed above that my nominating stub articles on Olympic competitors that do not meet our current inclusion guidelines for deletion is not unacceptable behavior. I am not seeing why such a nomination, which no one has voted keep on, is being treated as such a problem.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
      • Keep in mind that the nomination I am being attacked for above Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raúl Antoli even has one editor saying that it should have just been done unilaterally as a redirect (I think we really need to avoid encouraging that, and develop a better way to discuss redirects in the same forum as deletions) and has another editor calling for a snow closure. This is an article that no one is supporting remain an article, and thus to use this nomination as an example of bad editing makes no sense at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
      • An unverified article cannot meet any guidelines. You still don't understand that when you are in a serious conflict with an editor, and you started a thread that's taking up huge space on this board, you should probably lay off of nominating their articles for deletion. Again, this is not about the actual articles; we're not here to judge whether you are nominating for the right reasons. We're here to see what the disruption is, and your continuously arguing about other things is a huge deflection and thus a disruption. Drmies (talk) 17:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
        • @Drmies, which thread did JPL start? JoelleJay (talk) 17:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
          • Oh, yeah, second time I made that mistake. I guess I keep thinking that because of the many contributions from JPL. Drmies (talk) 01:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
        • @Drmies Unless I'm misreading something, this proposal would ban JPL from deletion discussions. -- Vaulter 22:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
          • Sure. Why not? Drmies (talk) 01:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
• Question, if passed, would this mean that Mr. Lambert is no longer allowed to comment on/open AFDs and Lugnuts would no longer be able to comment on AFDs? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I think is the intent, but it may not be as clear as it should be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
    • Oppose, although I am not a fan of Mr. Lambert's views on inclusion v. deletion, I do not see how this would help WP, as most of his AFDs seem valid (and he has a 97.2 match percentage ([160]) in the past 200 AFDs commented on). I also oppose sanctioning Lugnuts; I do not see anything that should warrant a one-year ban. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
  • To answer your question, yes. A TBAN from deletion, broadly construed, would include all of deletion: opening, closing, commenting on AFDs, tagging/untagging PRODs and CSDs, etc. A TBAN from redirection, broadly construed, would include redirecting articles and reverting redirected articles. Regardless of who started or editing the article at issue. BTW, in my view it doesn't matter what either of their AFD match rate is, because their participation in these areas is disruptive, even if they "match" the consensus result. Both of these editors have been editing for 10+ years. Whatever they're doing, they're doing it wrong, because it causes all these ANI threads. 99% of editors are able to participate in AFD and redirection -- and have a perfectly fine match rate -- without any of this disruption. We have 12-year-old editors who edit less disruptively than JPL and Lugnuts. I don't think it's too much to ask that they both figure out how to conform their editing styles so that they are less disruptive than the average 12-year-old editor. They've both been given ample opportunities over 10+ years. Levivich 16:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The existing restrictions on them (stub creation for one and <1 daily AfD for the other) are probably already doing their job if the complaints brought here against either side consist of such things as 'niggling' (OP wording), poor English, and low-quality voting on AfD. The latter isn't an issue since the two don't even have bad AfD stats overall. As for the rest, I'm sure someone will go on about how some policy on 'personalizing disputes' or 'civility' is being violated, but I can't bring myself to make a big deal out of occasional unfriendliness between two editors who will never like each other anyway. Filing a report based on 'niggling' was a silly idea, and whoever likes to write entire walls of text on this cannot complain about 'community time' being wasted. At the very most an interaction ban or a restriction on redirects, reversions and prods, but a total ban on AfD participation for either is not justified atm. Avilich (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think we'd need a much more focused discussion on what the actual issues are with these editors' deletion behaviors before jumping to ban them from such a broad area. The thread right now jumbles the AfD/PROD/redirect problems into a sprawling mix of allegations of targeting, allegations of allegations of targeting, claims of incivility and incompetence, personal attacks, and numerous proposals and subproposals to address some or all of the above. So I don't think it's reasonable to interpret lack of consensus for any particular proposed sanction as evidence that these editors are incapable of improving. I especially think JPL would be much more receptive to an explicit, un-nuanced outline of adapted expectations on his AfD/PROD noms rather than arbitrary restrictions. JoelleJay (talk) 18:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support. The sooner the better, it’s only getting worse. Jacona (talk) 22:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, as it does not truly address the issues at hand; for example, Lugnuts persistent incivility and John Pack Lambert's bludgeoning are not confined to deletion issues. It also ignores the good work they (at least try to) do in this area – they are both in good faith trying to improve the encyclopedia. I would rather see measures that seek to prevent these time sinks reoccurring, i.e. in 12 months time when restrictions expire, or before then when the problems occur outside of deletion issues. Kicking the can down the road is precisely why we're (still) here. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - we shouldnt sanction people without actually identifying what they have done that merits a sanction. And that isnt done here, on either side. Its just a pox on both your houses without being able to justify it outside of "they're wasting our time". No, if you dont want to waste your time on ANI threads about JPL or Lugnuts then dont do that, if you choose to waste that time you cant then say oh no you wasted my time. If somebody wants to say because of X, Y, Z actions done by either JPL or Lugnuts they should be sanctioned that might well make sense. But there isnt any rational basis for any sanction in this proposal. nableezy - 13:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. An arbcom case is better here since there are mutiple long term issues. If we TBAN them, the problems will just continue elsewhere. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 16:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - in their hugely different ways both are productive editors and neither of them is anywhere close to being a net negative, although JPL seems determined to make himself appear so. I think the fairest and probably also the least ineffective measure is the two-way IBAN proposed somewhere up above. I must add though that the background to this is the continuing war of attrition between deletion and inclusion in certain areas, at the moment especially sports, which is independent of these two, and that will not go away. Ingratis (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. The proposal goes too far and is not warranted. Cbl62 (talk) 04:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with Cbl62, this goes too far and is not warranted.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
• This comment is probably superseded by the ArbCom case request, but it might be useful for @John Pack Lambert: to hear it. I'm sort of surprised a community ban for JPL hasn't been suggested, as he repeatedly doesn't seem to care about feedback from the community unless there is a block threat attached to it. JPL has already been indef blocked several times; those blocks were not determined to be wrong, but undone after he agreed to restrictions. He currently has several active editing restrictions, to which we might be adding others. He has seen a very large number of people insist/suggest/wish that he lay off the Lugnuts nominations, but continues to do so even in the face of a majority (perhaps not yet a consensus, I haven't attempted to determine that, because it doesn't affect my point), while an active ANI thread is going on. After his previous indef block, I attempted to intervene on his behalf because he appeared so distraught that he was indef blocked, but he does not seem willing to change the stubborn behavior and thin-ice-skating that could lead to another indef block. I won't actively propose an indef block/ban here, because there is an active ArbCom case request and that would complicate the discussion too much. But JPL should not be surprised if he is indef blocked should he keep this up, and I will certainly never attempt to intervene on his behalf again; it doesn't make sense that I put more effort into preventing him from being distraught than he is, and I certainly in retrospect feel like I've been played for a sap. If he does not want to be indef blocked, he needs to stop testing his boundaries. Now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

  Dammit. Not 100% my fault this time. Signature doesn't match username. repinging @Johnpacklambert:. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

  • You are ignoring that the 93,547 articles created by Lugnuts are a huge percentage of articles and that a huge number of them are short articles. So you are saying no matter how unreasonable the claim of targeting, just making it should be enough to force another editor to stop nominating that editors articles for deletion. That does not seem reasonable. I have been doing my best to throghly research the background of all these articles before nominating them. I decided to help implement the decision that non-medaling Olympians were not notable. I have nominated articles for deletion that were not on such Olympians, and I have nominated them. This ANI was not against me, but against Lugnuts for falsely accusing me of hounding him. It has gone on now for over 2 weeks. During that time yes I have nominated two more articles created by Lugnuts for deletion, but that is because the problematic behavior is not the nomination but Lugnuts trying to treat any attempt to delete any of the 93,457 articles he has created as an attack on him. Maybe I should have help off, but I was not under the impression that falsely and uncivilly accusing another editor of targeting you meant that every article you ever created could now not be nominated for deletion by the person you falsely accused of targeting you. I will hold off on nominating any other article created by Lugnuts for deletion until this ANI is over. I do not think someone falsely claiming that such AfDs are "harassing" them should be a way for them to get another editor to stop nominating articles they created for deletion, especially when the total number of articles is in excess of 93,000.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
    • I'm not ignoring anything, and like everything else, you're saying the exact same thing 5+ times in different places (and over and over again in the same place). It seems very, very important to you that people know what you think. It seems very, very unimportant to you what other people think. Do not pretend to be upset when you are next indef blocked. You had a dozen chances to prevent it, and you didn't take any of them, so it must not actually be as important to you as you have claimed before. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
      • Stop accusing other people of faking and lieing. No one until you talked about an indefinite block, and no one has said "Mr. Lambert, if you while this ANI is in progress nominate any of the 93,547 articles created by Lugnuts for deletion, this will be considered grounds for indefinete block." You are making this up now, with no good reason. There is no rule anywhere that says "an editor cannot nominate more than x number of articles for deletion creted by another editor." In fact, no one has even proposed such a solition. SOmeone could have proposed "Mr. Lambert should be blocked from nominating any articles created by Lugnuts for deletion" or "Mr. Lambert should be blocked from nominating more than x articles created by any other specific editor over y period of time". No one has even proposed these solutions. So to try to punish me with absolute banning from editing Wikipedia at all because I am not abiding by a rule that does not exist and no one has even proposed is just unreasonable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
        • [So]meone could have proposed "Mr. Lambert should be blocked from nominating any articles created by Lugnuts for deletion" or "Mr. Lambert should be blocked from nominating more than x articles created by any other specific editor over y period of time". No one has even proposed these solutions. Johnpacklambert, why haven't YOU proposed such solutions? Levivich 16:03, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
          • Because I think they are horrible solutions. Because they do not address the actual problem. Which is rude attacks on other people for perfectly acceptable nominations for deletion. I am just saying if people want to punish others for not abiding by some rule, they first need to propose the rule to began with. I think both are very bad solutions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I read through what is listed on an interaction ban. I do not see anything listed there that would make it so that one cannot nominate an article created by the subject of the interaction ban for deletion. None of the things listed there meet anything said there. If one actually reviews my nominating edit at the deletion discussion for Orla Olsen, I see now way that that could be construed as violating an interaction ban. Yes, I am participating in AfD, which would be disallowed by the proposal above, but someone is not held to abide by a proposal that is not even in place. At least per the definition of interaction ban that we have, I see nothing that would make it apply to banning any deletion nomination for any article created by the other person. At least that is not within the scope of "revert" edits as I understand it. If I am misreading this. I take a "revert" edit to mean that one person makes an edit, say changing the listed nationality to match what is listed in the source, and then another editor comes a long and changes it back to what it said before. Nominating an article for deletion is not actually an interaction with any past editor of the article. Is there something I am missing that actually says that nominating articles for deletion by another editor is covered in the scope of an interaction ban?John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:49, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

  Yes. If there's a two-way IBAN enacted, you would not be able to nominate articles created by Lugnuts for deletion, nor would they be able to nominate ones you created. If you're doing the extensive BEFORE, that shouldn't be an issue. I realize you don't want to hear what many of us are saying, and you believe this is about Lugnuts and not you, but I recommend you really read and understand @Floquenbeam's comments. It's very helpful. Star Mississippi 16:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

  • I see this at Interaction ban "===Interaction ban===

The purpose of an interaction ban (IBAN) is to stop a conflict between individuals. A one-way interaction ban forbids one user from interacting with another user. A two-way interaction ban forbids both users from interacting with each other. Although the interaction-banned users are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other.

Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to:

• edit each other's user and user talk pages;
• reply to each other in discussions;
• make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly;
• undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means;
• use the thanks extension to respond to each other's edits.

A no-fault two-way interaction ban is often a quick and painless way to prevent a dispute from causing further distress or wider disruption." - I do not see how nominating an article created by someone else constitutes anything that is listed there. I could see if some mention was made of the creator, but one can nominate an article without mention. Now it could be added in an expanded interaction ban, but no one has even proposed such (nor has any interaction ban been imposed), but I do not see under what rational it would be such. Unless the interpreation of "undo each other's edits to any page, wehtehr by use of revert function or by other means" is interpreted so broadly it means one cannot nominate a page created by someone for deletion. If it is that broad, would it also mean that I could no nominate any page ever edited by Lugnuts ever for deletion?John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome to take up that question if/when an IBAN is implemented. I already said I would not be taking admin action, so I wouldn't be the one making the decision. However if they allowed you two to keep editing in the same AfDs it is my personal opinion we'd just be back here in five minutes when either of you didn't like the other's conduct, so I would hope they make it clear what each of you is allowed to do. You could show good faith that it wouldn't be necessary, but by nominating their articles durng this very discussion, you show you have no interest in doing that. Star Mississippi 16:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Holy fuck. Do you really think that, if you get an interaction ban because people think you're redirecting and afding too many articles Lugnuts created, that - just because it isn't listed as an example at WP:IBAN because it's not an issue in most cases - that you'd be able to continue to do so?
  Even if you're 100% in the right, the best thing you can do right now is to stay entirely away from articles Lugnuts touched and stop trying to defend yourself here. Law of holes. You're making it very difficult for anyone with any sympathy at all for your position to continue, and just about impossible for anyone who doesn't to get any.
  You're already going to be getting a hearing at arbitration. That's a better opportunity than most people getting raked over the coals at ANI have. The only chance the pending arbitration case won't get opened is if you talk yourself into an indef block before then. At this point, I don't think there's an admin on the site who'd be willing to unblock you. —Cryptic 16:33, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

(ec) A level of common sense is assumed, and every single way that you can't interact with another editor is not listed there. If you were interaction banned with me, for example, IBAN also does not specifically say you couldn't create the username User:Floquensucks and then welcome that username; it does not say you cannot edit the articles Florida, London, Oslo, Quebec, Uruguay, England, Nogales, Botswana, Erie, Australia, and Morocco in that order. It doesn't forbid you from posting "OnquenbeamFlay uckssay" on your userpage. But all of those things would be obvious violations of an interaction ban. The basis of an iban is that the community is exhausted dealing with your interaction with the other editor, and insists that you stop doing anything to further the dispute. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

• So if an interaction ban extends to nominating articles created by a person for deletion, would it also extend to nominating articles that the person has ever edited for deletion?John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
  • For you, about Lugnuts? Absolutely. Most assuredly. Yes. —Cryptic 17:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
    • Do you even realize how many articles Lugnuts has edited.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
• Do these ANIs ever close, or are they just left open idefinately? This proposal was made 10 days ago, and the last time someone actually cast a vote on this proposal was 3 days ago.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: One-way IBan for Lugnuts

Given Lugnuts' continued hounding of JPL over AfD noms [161][162][163][164][165], I propose a one-way IBAN prohibiting Lugnuts from interacting with JPL, with the exception of a single vote per AfD which may not contain any personal comments about JPL. –dlthewave ☎ 18:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support We need to do something to stop the false accusations of hounding.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment the "hounding" wouldn't be happening if JPL would find stubs started by someone else to AfD. There is no reason Orla Olsen, for example, needed to be AfDed during the course of this discussion, or by JPL. This is a two way problem which is why I think the only answer is a two-way ban or other ArbCom remedy Star Mississippi 18:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
  • This is a false claim. There is nothing wrong with the nomination. The article was clearly a stub, and my search in multiple places found no sources that had any prose on it. To allow Lugnuts to make it so another editor cannot nominate articles Lugnuts began for deletion just because Lugnuts throws a big fit over it and acts uncivilly would be to give Lugnuts carte blanche to throw big fits at every editor who tries to nominate articles on Olympians for deletion. I actually nominated one of the few Olympic stubs created by another editor for deletion as well. This was an article on a person who did not even finish the one Olympic race he was in. There are literally thousands of articles on Olympians that are micro stubs and created by Lugnuts. To act like his going around claiming that nominating such articles for deletion is an "attack" on him is not a problem, is just to ignore his actual conduct. Nominating this article was not at all problematic, and to act as if it was just reinforces Lugnuts in treating other people in the way the links above show. This is not the type of behavior that will create a community. We really need to do something about this type of behavior.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

    It is not a false claim. @Johnpacklambert this is not a BLP in such bad shape that you *must* AfD it while there is an open conversation about both of your conduct. That's pretty tone deaf. @Dlthewave he's limited to one AfD per day. There's no reason that article can't be one someone else created. If it would cut the drama, JPL is welcome to use my creations as a source of possible nominations. I don't know how many articles Lugnuts has created, but there are what, six million articles here? 365 AfDs a year could be someone else's stubs. I also see nothing wrong with Lugnuts' tone as it relates to this issue. Star Mississippi 20:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

    • On what grounds does Lugnuts get to throw a fit about someone nominating stub articles he created and then make it so that the person he threw a fit against can never nominate those articles at all? That is not a reasonable thing to do, and rewards his uncivil behavior of attacking someone for nominating articles he created for deletion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

      which is why folks are saying it should be a two-way ban. Neither one of you has clean hands @Johnpacklambert

      @Cryptic I'm well aware of the backlog work JPL is doing, and it's necessary. But to use your 1899 births for example. They are almost certainly dead. These are longstanding, non BLP articles where JLP could a) wait for the end of an active discussion or b) let someone else make the nomination. These aren't crises that need solving now. Star Mississippi 22:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

    • I don't know how many articles Lugnuts has created You could, y'know, look. JPL has been working through stubs backwards by year of birth for a long time; for the period he's currently in, Lugnuts has created a wide plurality of them. In Category:1899 births, for example, he created 354, more than the six next-most-prolific editors combined. Restrict it to just stubs in Olympian categories, and Lugnuts created nearly half (214 out of 433). If anything, I'd expect more of JPL's afd nominations to be of pages Lugnuts created. —Cryptic 21:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

  • I don't think it's reasonable to ask JPL to avoid these noms just to appease Lugnuts. AfDs aren't usually considered personal attacks; they're only being treated as such because Lugnuts is complaining about them. –dlthewave ☎ 19:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The hounding is clearly one-way from JPL. Barkeep49 has suggested inacting the two-way Iban in the Arbcom case, for the duration of the case. The two-way Iban is the best solution, or at least the least-worst solution for JPL. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose one way band for reasons Star Mississippi stated. Dream Focus 18:58, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Star Mississippi. Should be two-way if anything is done. Kante4 (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose please don't gaslight the community by claiming that editor A is hounding editor B merely because editor A points out that editor B keep's nominating editor A's article creations for deletion. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
  • It is the tone and way that he does so, including describing these nominations as an "attack" on him that should not be accepted. The whole set of comments also are ignoring the incredibly large number of articles created by Editor A.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

    I have no objections whatsoever to his tone. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

  • I have yet to see a valid explanation of how nominating articles for deletion constitutes harassment. –dlthewave ☎ 19:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

    • So Lepricavark, you think it is totally acceptable for an editor to describe a nomination for deletion of an article they created as an "attack" on them. How does such a view correspond with the fact that people do not own Wikipedia articles?John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

      In the midst of an ugly, drawn-out megathread dealing with the fact that you and Lugnuts can't/won't get along because of AfD, you continue to nominate articles created by Lugnuts for deletion. I do not consider it unreasonable for Lugnuts to feel harassed, and I do not believe he should be punished for saying so. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

      • His tone is excessively rude. He is the one who has from the beganning been attacking me for nominating articles he created. He has created literally thousands of articles that have been clearly defined as outside the scope of inclusion. Due to the amount of articles he has created, his view that he is being harrassed, especially when it had been over a week since I had last nominated an article created by him for deletion, is not reasonable. Nominating articles for deletion is not a form of harassment, especially when they fall into a group of articles that is clearly outside the scope. Especially when I also nominated an Olympic article created by someone else in the interim. His claims that the nomination of an article is in any way an attack on him are unreasonable and a clear show of an attempt at ownership.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:19, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not generally in favour of one-way IBANs so am reluctant to support one here. I will however note that these incivility issues are precisely why Spartaz raised this thread here. A large proportion of basic one/two-line stubs sourced only to a wide-ranging database were mass-produced by Lugnuts, and resultant cleanup work will inevitably affect these stubs proportionally – given previous discussions, it would be entirely reasonable for someone to single out Lugnuts work for cleanup, likewise with any other prolific low quality stub creator, but that is very clearly not what is happening here (even if it were, it wouldn't on it's own constitute hounding or harassment). As such, the accusations being made by Lugnuts are baseless and must stop. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Nominating articles for deletion is not "harrassment". Words have meaning, and a nomination to delete an article is not harassment. My nomination of the article on Orla Olsen did not even say anything about any editor who had been involved. There is no way to interpret that as "harrassment". Words have meaning, and a word like this disrupts community. If I had said anything about the actions of the creator of the article, there might be some arguments, but my nomination of the article on Orla Olsen mentioned no such thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I notice that many people above are avoiding facing up to Lugnuts actual words. In the AfD nomination he claims that very nomination is a form of "harassment". That is a very strong claim, and since there was no mention of him at all in the nomination itself, it needs strong support. Words have meaning, and there is no way to see this as harassment.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose It really shouldn't need multiple other editors to say "it's not really a good idea to keep nominating articles for AfD which were started by someone who you're in a dispute with, while that dispute is being discussed". It should be obvious. Black Kite (talk) 12:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
  • According to his user page Lugnuts has created 93,547 articles. The fact that he thinks that nominating 43 of those in over 6 months for deletion, when I made over 90 deletion nominations during that time, and when most of my deletions were focused on Olympic competitors who do not meet inclusion criteria, is "harassment" is not on me. I picked Olympic competitors because A-we have recently changed the inclusion criteria, so they now say non-medaling Olympic competitors are not notable for that and B-These are a very large source of 2 sentence articles that rely on one source that is a sports table. As in hundreds of articles per birth year. The fact that a large percentage of these articles are created by one editor should not be gounds to claim "harassment" and stop reasonable nominations on the mater. Nor sholuld people be misusing words and claiming "harassment" when there is none. Falsely claiming "harassment" is uncivil conduct. People should not be able to use uncivil conduct to disrupt reasonable processes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
    • So 1% of articles created by Lugnuts would be 935. 0.1% would be 93. So this set of articles I have nominated constitute less than 0.05% of the total articles Lugnuts has created. And that is spread out over more than 6 months.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

    The guy who not long ago spent weeks whinging that people who used the word "Mormon" were posting hate speech and religious slurs has no business complaining that anyone else is "misusing words." 166.149.176.48 (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

    We don't need to go the ad hominem route. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't see you can call the diffs at the top of this subsection "hounding" and not view JPL's actions the same way. JPL is restricted to starting one AFD per day. That he continues to use that one AFD to target articles created by a certain user while both of their behavior is under the microscope of this board and now arbcom is audacious. -- Vaulter 16:24, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
  • 2 of the about 15 potential AfDs, when the user has created 93,567 articles. This ANI has run over 2 weeks.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
    • For your own sake, stop bludgeoning. -- Vaulter 16:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

2 of 15 is not proportional to 93,567 out of 6,500,000. You damn yourself, it would have been better to say nothing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:39, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

That might make sense if I was randomly searching through all of Wikipedia. I am going methdically back through birth year categories, and am currently in Category:1898 births. The propotions of stub-articles in that category created by various users is very different than the proportion of all articles in Wikipedia created by various users.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Unless the proportion of stub-articles in that category created by that user is 2/15 you still have an issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

It actually is (326 out of 2220, roughly 2 out of 13.6). But at this point it doesn't matter because the optics are still terrible. —Cryptic 16:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

In that case I retract my previous assertion, Johnpacklambert would not have been better off saying nothing they should have said more and actually brought more data to the table! That is the best possible defense to the terrible optics. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose We need a more narrow tailored response. Interaction ban I think is being interpreted more broadly than need be. I think we would need to spell out exactly what cannot be done.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

  What needs to be done is you avoiding nominating anymore of Lugnuts' articles for deletion. You don't think that, given the bad blood and history between you two, that someone else should be nominating his articles for deletion like Drmies said awhile ago? If I was in your shoes, given the history that you two have, I'd avoid each other's articles period. You can find potentially millions of other articles on Wikipedia that you can nominate for deletion that have nothing to do with Lugnuts. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 18:42, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

  • • Does this same rule apply to Lugnuts reverting edits I do to articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

      Sure! In my opinion I think an IBAN between you two is going to be on the table as a potential option at the ArbCom case anyway, so c'est la vie. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 21:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose as long as the ARB request/eventual case is ongoing. While I'm still fairly confident that John Pack Lambert is not in the wrong here (given the general consensus emerging at the most recent AfD discussion, among others), it seems useless for the community at large to keep litigating this if ARB is going to take it on. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 09:15, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to close the ANI as no decision

• No proposal made on this ANI has even gotten majority support, let alone enough support to show it is a community conseus. I think at this point we should just close it and hope that people will avoid attacking each other, and do reasonable amounts of research before making edits. I do not think there is anything that we could do in this ANI that would get support, and its very being opened is not helpful. I think we should just close it and move on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

• This is illogical coming from an interested party in this dispute. — TREY MATURIN has spoken 18:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

• I am technically the person who was the subject of the behavior that sparked this ANI, but was not the nominator. I feel that we are not going to accomplish anything by keeping it opened, and that it is time to close it. I do not see how such a view is illogical.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support. The drama has been overlong, and an Arbitration case has been opened. Now, this thread has served its purpose and now becoming a vent for all parties involved. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:25, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support Let ArbCom do its job. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support, seeing as Arbcom has taken on this matter. GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

• I was just about to do this anyway, it simply is not desirable to have this extremely long discussion, that has not resulted in any admin actions, carry on when the matter has been escalated to the committee. I think that's fairly obvious and probably does not require a formal vote, so I'm going to go ahead and close it, but in my capacity as an individual admin, it is not to be considered any sort of official ArbCom action. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing by GamingGrape20000

GamingGrape20000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editing disruptively on multiple automotive articles. Reverts any reversions of their edits and generally ignores warnings. Instead they just make nonsensical comments about blocking the users who warn them, even after 2 final warnings.

They spent the 17th of June making edits then reverting them straight away, which is rather odd to say the least.

Now they are engaging in mass changes, and refusing to WP:GETTHEPOINT, choosing to ignore those who are trying to give advice to them. At least a short block is needed, to stop this nonsense, and try to get some dialogue out of them. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DavidWittas. It seems that this editor is evading a block. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Blocked indefinite. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 13:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Making dummy edits to become auto-confirmed

I've noticed a new user whose first ten edits were adding and deleting spaces to an article - after which they started editing a semi-protected article. Their edits don't appear to be destructive, but it does seem to be a way to trick the system into becoming auto-confirmed. Is this worth reporting, or is it probably better to just leave it? — Czello 12:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

They only need 4 days and 10 edits to be auto-confirmed, which is a pretty low bar to reach. I think we just let it go. — Maile (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Better to see what they do after obtaining autoconfirmed. Many make legitimate edits. If someone was gaming the higher 30/500 bar, that might warrant action. 331dot (talk) 13:40, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Disruption trend flooding edit histories

Has it always been common for the type of editing seen in the following diff to happen? [166] In this diff, there are 21 straight edits adding exactly one byte to the page, then 21 straight edits that remove those added bytes, resulting in nothing being added to the page and the page history being flooded with useless edits. I patrol recent edits that trigger edit filters and so when IP editors trigger filter 1199 it catches my interest. I've observed this type of editing from both IPv4 and IPv6 editors, so I feel it might be a recent trend of disruption and not an LTA editor. Is it possible for filter 1199 to be set to disallow for edits that repeatedly add a small amount of bytes to the page? This should prevent rapid edit history disruption while allowing legitimate mass edits to be made. Mori Calliope fan talk 20:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

There's a large range doing this across multiple articles (2001:4455:0:0:0:0:0:0/32). I'll see if I can come up with some range blocks to prevent it until the filter is adjusted.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:26, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Wait, it's all confined to the /64 range, which makes it much easier. NinjaRobotPirate blocked it while I was poking about.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:30, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it was mostly on a /64, but then I noticed it's been spread throughout a /40 for the past few months without much collateral damage. So I blocked the /40 for a few months. I doubt anyone will be affected, though I probably should have left account creation enabled. I'm so used to disabling account creation that I usually forget to try that first. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

MicoKovalevski

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

Attempted thrice to remove sourced info about the Kurdish origin in Tahmasp I [167] [168] [169] claiming that they "were Turks and not Kurds". When replying to the AA2 warning he received for those edits, this was his reply, I'm not quite sure what he meant by "diseases"; If you see my last edits,you can understand that I am not interested in Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict. My last edits are about diseases.

Recently he has been attempting to remove sourced information about the puppet state status in Azerbaijan People's Government [170] [171], claiming that "it is not a puppet state".

It seems that this user prefers his own opinion than that of academic sources. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:38, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Mahabad republic and Azerbaijan peoples republic in Iran were not "puppet" states. I do not expect any historical correction from Iranian nationalist.

https://kurdishpeople.org/kurdistan-republic-mahabad/

https://www.britannica.com/place/Mahabad MicoKovalevski (talk) 11:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

You can't just remove credible academic sources saying one thing and then claim the opposite without reliable citations. Also the "Iranian nationalist" PA seems a bit familiar... MiasmaEternal☎ 11:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

In terms of Tahmasp 1, He was Turk as you know Safavids were Turkic.

The Mongol invasions that began in the 13th century drastically reconfigured the Islamic world. Not only did the invasions bring about the end of the Abbasid empire and leave the centre of eastern Islamdom fractured, but the arrival of new Turkic peoples and dynasties throughout much of Islamdom shifted the axes of power into the hands of Turkic clans. The Ṣafavī order at Ardabīl, however, was distant enough from any political centre to remain neutral, allowing the Persian mystics to build a strong following of their own.

from britannica MicoKovalevski (talk) 11:45, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

• From your own link to Britannica [172], "Shortly after World War II, the short-lived Republic of Mahābād, with a Soviet-backed puppet government, was declared by the Kurds.". You also appear to be confused between Azerbaijan People's Government (puppet state) and Azerbaijan People's Republic (also known as Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, not a puppet state). Black Kite (talk) 11:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Kurdishpeople is not WP:RS, and Britannica is barely WP:RS [173], and it doesn't justify you removing sourced information either. You're not doing yourself any favour either by randomly calling me an "Iranian nationalist" and saying I'm unable to do "historical correction". --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

This is MicoKovalevski's latest comment, which they for some reason wrote to me in their talk page; @HistoryofIran board of wikipedia. Please consider wrong historical arguments of nationalist people and their pan-nationalistic sources. So basically more his opinion > academic sources. I honestly can't see how this user is here to build an encyclopedia, they remind of various other new users who have been blocked for the very same behaviour. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

31.183.147.235

Moved from WP:AN

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Vandalize the page! Chinese sockpuppets: 31.183.181.66 and 31.183.180.48  ☀DefenderTienMinh☽  (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

KhanhCN Defender1st Minh, no full evaluation, just noting: In Special:Diff/1093742143 you seem to request sources for the removal of content, while WP:BURDEN normally works the other way around. The revert may be justified, just the edit summary is suboptimal for reasons beyond "Dude". I'm moving the report to WP:ANI, which is a more suitable noticeboard.

• 31.183.147.235 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 31.183.181.66 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 31.183.180.48 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Potential Sockpuppetry at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Valparaiso earthquake

Could someone take a look at this? I am seeing a large number of WP:SPAs voting at this AFD. I am also seeing several new-ish accounts that all edit on earthquakes, which may or may not be socks. Perhaps someone who is good at looking into socks could help with a report? Thanks.4meter4 (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Natural disasters such as earthquakes, like professional wrestling or cars, seem to attract lots of very strong opinions, which lead to ownership behaviour by those who hold them. This may be the case here rather than sock/meatpuppetry, but either way I think that a reminder is needed that Wikipedia:Notability (earthquakes) is not a guideline, and conflicts with our actual notability guidelines. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger One of the SPA accounts has made only one edit (Melimoyu), and it was at this AFD. Several other accounts were all created around the same time and have edited in the same content area, sometimes the same articles, so I am pretty certain that it is sock puppetry. I just am uncertain who the puppet master is. 4meter4 (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

That's still consistent with special-interest editing. If you would like to start an SPI, you may, but I would encourage you to make sure you have evidence differentiating this from people interested in the same topic, as SPIs of the "Everyone's super-interested in this topic that tends to attract strong interest!" variety are usually declined if they don't have such evidence. As to figuring out the sockmaster, just make your best effort to find the oldest registered account; if you get it wrong, I or another clerk will correct it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:30, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I went ahead and filed a report. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

And I've closed it without action. There was nothing to differentiat[e] this from people interested in the same topic. As noted in my closing statement, there was probably canvassing here. There's usually there's not much to do about single-offense canvassing of new/low-activity users other than ignore their !votes, which has already happened here. But if someone wants to send out warnings to the particularly new/low-activity ones, they're welcome to. (I don't think we even have a "You were canvassed" template, just a "You canvassed" one, but one can always write something by hand.) And any evidence of off-wiki canvassing can be sent to ArbCom. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 22:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Disruption trend flooding edit histories

Has it always been common for the type of editing seen in the following diff to happen? [174] In this diff, there are 21 straight edits adding exactly one byte to the page, then 21 straight edits that remove those added bytes, resulting in nothing being added to the page and the page history being flooded with useless edits. I patrol recent edits that trigger edit filters and so when IP editors trigger filter 1199 it catches my interest. I've observed this type of editing from both IPv4 and IPv6 editors, so I feel it might be a recent trend of disruption and not an LTA editor. Is it possible for filter 1199 to be set to disallow for edits that repeatedly add a small amount of bytes to the page? This should prevent rapid edit history disruption while allowing legitimate mass edits to be made. Mori Calliope fan talk 20:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

There's a large range doing this across multiple articles (2001:4455:0:0:0:0:0:0/32). I'll see if I can come up with some range blocks to prevent it until the filter is adjusted.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:26, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Wait, it's all confined to the /64 range, which makes it much easier. NinjaRobotPirate blocked it while I was poking about.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:30, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it was mostly on a /64, but then I noticed it's been spread throughout a /40 for the past few months without much collateral damage. So I blocked the /40 for a few months. I doubt anyone will be affected, though I probably should have left account creation enabled. I'm so used to disabling account creation that I usually forget to try that first. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

MicoKovalevski

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

Attempted thrice to remove sourced info about the Kurdish origin in Tahmasp I [175] [176] [177] claiming that they "were Turks and not Kurds". When replying to the AA2 warning he received for those edits, this was his reply, I'm not quite sure what he meant by "diseases"; If you see my last edits,you can understand that I am not interested in Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict. My last edits are about diseases.

Recently he has been attempting to remove sourced information about the puppet state status in Azerbaijan People's Government [178] [179], claiming that "it is not a puppet state".

It seems that this user prefers his own opinion than that of academic sources. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:38, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Mahabad republic and Azerbaijan peoples republic in Iran were not "puppet" states. I do not expect any historical correction from Iranian nationalist.

https://kurdishpeople.org/kurdistan-republic-mahabad/

https://www.britannica.com/place/Mahabad MicoKovalevski (talk) 11:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

You can't just remove credible academic sources saying one thing and then claim the opposite without reliable citations. Also the "Iranian nationalist" PA seems a bit familiar... MiasmaEternal☎ 11:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

In terms of Tahmasp 1, He was Turk as you know Safavids were Turkic.

The Mongol invasions that began in the 13th century drastically reconfigured the Islamic world. Not only did the invasions bring about the end of the Abbasid empire and leave the centre of eastern Islamdom fractured, but the arrival of new Turkic peoples and dynasties throughout much of Islamdom shifted the axes of power into the hands of Turkic clans. The Ṣafavī order at Ardabīl, however, was distant enough from any political centre to remain neutral, allowing the Persian mystics to build a strong following of their own.

from britannica MicoKovalevski (talk) 11:45, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

• From your own link to Britannica [180], "Shortly after World War II, the short-lived Republic of Mahābād, with a Soviet-backed puppet government, was declared by the Kurds.". You also appear to be confused between Azerbaijan People's Government (puppet state) and Azerbaijan People's Republic (also known as Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, not a puppet state). Black Kite (talk) 11:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Kurdishpeople is not WP:RS, and Britannica is barely WP:RS [181], and it doesn't justify you removing sourced information either. You're not doing yourself any favour either by randomly calling me an "Iranian nationalist" and saying I'm unable to do "historical correction". --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

This is MicoKovalevski's latest comment, which they for some reason wrote to me in their talk page; @HistoryofIran board of wikipedia. Please consider wrong historical arguments of nationalist people and their pan-nationalistic sources. So basically more his opinion > academic sources. I honestly can't see how this user is here to build an encyclopedia, they remind of various other new users who have been blocked for the very same behaviour. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

31.183.147.235

Moved from WP:AN

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Vandalize the page! Chinese sockpuppets: 31.183.181.66 and 31.183.180.48  ☀DefenderTienMinh☽  (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

KhanhCN Defender1st Minh, no full evaluation, just noting: In Special:Diff/1093742143 you seem to request sources for the removal of content, while WP:BURDEN normally works the other way around. The revert may be justified, just the edit summary is suboptimal for reasons beyond "Dude". I'm moving the report to WP:ANI, which is a more suitable noticeboard.

• 31.183.147.235 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 31.183.181.66 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 31.183.180.48 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Potential Sockpuppetry at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Valparaiso earthquake

Could someone take a look at this? I am seeing a large number of WP:SPAs voting at this AFD. I am also seeing several new-ish accounts that all edit on earthquakes, which may or may not be socks. Perhaps someone who is good at looking into socks could help with a report? Thanks.4meter4 (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Natural disasters such as earthquakes, like professional wrestling or cars, seem to attract lots of very strong opinions, which lead to ownership behaviour by those who hold them. This may be the case here rather than sock/meatpuppetry, but either way I think that a reminder is needed that Wikipedia:Notability (earthquakes) is not a guideline, and conflicts with our actual notability guidelines. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger One of the SPA accounts has made only one edit (Melimoyu), and it was at this AFD. Several other accounts were all created around the same time and have edited in the same content area, sometimes the same articles, so I am pretty certain that it is sock puppetry. I just am uncertain who the puppet master is. 4meter4 (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

That's still consistent with special-interest editing. If you would like to start an SPI, you may, but I would encourage you to make sure you have evidence differentiating this from people interested in the same topic, as SPIs of the "Everyone's super-interested in this topic that tends to attract strong interest!" variety are usually declined if they don't have such evidence. As to figuring out the sockmaster, just make your best effort to find the oldest registered account; if you get it wrong, I or another clerk will correct it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:30, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I went ahead and filed a report. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

And I've closed it without action. There was nothing to differentiat[e] this from people interested in the same topic. As noted in my closing statement, there was probably canvassing here. There's usually there's not much to do about single-offense canvassing of new/low-activity users other than ignore their !votes, which has already happened here. But if someone wants to send out warnings to the particularly new/low-activity ones, they're welcome to. (I don't think we even have a "You were canvassed" template, just a "You canvassed" one, but one can always write something by hand.) And any evidence of off-wiki canvassing can be sent to ArbCom. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 22:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Edit-warring and likely sockpuppetry on McKinsey & Company

Since March 2022 there has been an ongoing edit war on McKinsey & Company, involving multiple users and IPs (some of them likely being sockpuppets with a conflict of interest), over this sentence: "It has consistently been recognized by Vault as the most prestigious consulting firm in the world."

• 4 March 2021: the first addition of that text, by Dexter2304 (talk · contribs). This account has made a bunch of other promotional edits to this article.
• 5 March 2022: removed by Muchasz (talk · contribs)
• 05:51, 6 March 2022: restored by AnonymousCEO (talk · contribs) without an explanation. This is the only edit made by this account.
• 12:41, 6 March 2022: removed by MrOllie (talk · contribs)
• 18 March 2022: restored by Tomatobasilhaddock (talk · contribs) with edit summary "This is relevant to the firm in a rankings-sensitive industry". This account has made a bunch of other promotional to this article.
• 6–8 April 2022: removed by two IPs
• 16:07, 8 April 2022: restored by Dexter2304 (talk · contribs)—"Reverting to how it was before"
• 16:11, 8 April 2022: removed by MrOllie (talk · contribs)
• 10 April 2022: restored by 83.226.57.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)—"added relevant rank in a ranking sensitive industry"
• 12 June 2022: removed by Kleinpecan (talk · contribs)
• 14 June 2022: restored by 208.127.240.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) without an explanation
• 15 June 2022: removed by Kleinpecan (talk · contribs) again
• 17 June 2022: restored by 208.127.243.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)—"long time standing relevant reputation in a ranking-sensitive industry"

Kleinpecan (talk) 01:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

• Checkuser needed ( Self-endorsed by clerk for checkuser attention) for:
  • Tomatobasilhaddock (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Dexter2304 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • AnonymousCEO (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• If it's not socking, I'd still lean toward pblocking TBH and Dexter from the article. The IPs are ducks (be that as LOUTSOCK or MEAT) to TBH. 83 is a residential IP in Sweden; 208 is a Google Cloud IP, and I've {{webhostblock}}ed 208.127.240.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for a year accordingly. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
• @Tamzin: Tomatobasilhaddock and Dexter2304 appear to be  Unrelated to each other from a technical standpoint. AnonymousCEO is  Stale. Mz7 (talk) 05:13, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks, Mz7. Gah, cuStaleness.js has spoiled me to the point that I can't do basic date math, apparently. Pblocked both accounts (dormant, but have returned from dormancies in the past), also gave {{uw-paid1}}. If someone thinks a more serious sanction is in order, I have no objection, but this seemed the bare-minimum response. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 05:47, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

• Umm, with all respect for the challenges of fighting UPE or other COI promotional editing, I think this is an overreaction. Given the nature of the consulting industry, I think the Occam's Razor explanation is not coordinated promotional editing by UPEs or anything nefarious, but keenness and pride by a mixture of random McKinsey employees (not incentivized to market McKinsey, just proud of where they work) and some of this year's new consultant hires, who will have received offers a few weeks ago, are graduating about now from college/university, and keen to start work as a prestigious employer shortly. So I suspect there's about as much COI involves as by students at a university editing their university's page with a bit of a pride as bias. As to the substantive edit that is being edit-warred about, as an uninvolved editor I think it's reasonable to include it, but will take that to the article talk page rather than here. Martinp (talk) 11:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Repeated copyright violations by User:TharaHere

This user has not made a single edit that was not at least partially a copyright violation. I warned them after catching a copyvio they did on Pollution on June 13, and promptly found every single edit they had made up to that point was also a copyright violation. Today, they created List of NFT Games which is a blatant copyright violation as well. On top of that, they first created Draft:List of NFT Games and then performed a copy paste move to article space. All attempts at communication have been ignored. The only solution is a block at this point to prevent further copyright violations. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely for persistent copyright violations. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Edit War on XCOPY (artist)

User User:Noone.eth (and possibly some of his sockpuppets/friends?) are repeatedly edit-forcing content on XCOPY (artist) page, claiming edit wars. Always assume good faith, but they clearly don't seem to understand how Wikipedia works. The repeated usage of WP:TTD, WP:NOT, WP:PRIMARY, WP:NPOV, WP:WBA H:WT and lack of WP:RS has been all over the page, including the exaggeration of unnoteworthy, irrelevant or jargon content which has no place on an encyclopedia Wikipedia. Experienced users like User:Notcharizard have been already trying to revert their edits, but they seem to not stop; on top of that, they are claiming that I'm reverting edits for no reason, so I'm opening this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyCoal (talk • contribs) 16:10, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I have blocked Noone.eth because their repeated use of "we" indicates that this is a shared group account. Cullen328 (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Page protected. (edit conflict) Clearly some disruptive editing and likely socking going on. Previous protection failed to deter so I have protected x 2 weeks. Ad Orientem (talk) 16:40, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing/edit-warring from IP

IP 50.67.38.208 continuously repeating the same (or substantially the same) non-constructive/disruptive edits at Abbasid architecture that apparently push a particular POV (i.e. removing or degrading in some way any statement of Iranian/Sassanian/Persian role in the article lead). It started with these: [182], [183]. Then the article was semi-protected for about a week to put a stop to it, as another IP had also joined in (this one), but the original IP has since returned and has been edit-warring ([184], [185], [186]). Has received plenty of warnings on their talk page for this article and for another article they previously edit-warred in. R Prazeres (talk) 04:28, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Blocked x 72 hrs for disruptive editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:23, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing/edit-warring in Rio de Janeiro

The MaBahS (talk · contribs · count) account insists on adding unnecessary tables without sources in the article Rio de Janeiro (see here). Chronus (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

• No evidence of any attempt to communicate with this user. No evidence of any formal warnings. No evidence of the required notification of this discussion. An examination of their contrib log shows that this is not an experienced editor. Please see WP:BITE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:22, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Talk page sections by Jim Michael 2

Jim Michael 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been unnecessarily changing article talk page sections of discussions not started by him and has not stopped since I told him to on his talk page. I've told him on his talk page last month in May to not change talk page section headings for discussions that he did not start. I stated, "We leave these alone regardless of any errors they might have." However, he continued to do so many times. I gave another warning sixteen days ago saying while warning about an ANI, "Changing the edits on others or what they post and on talk pages is not appropriate. Read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. And no, not a single one of these reverts were of your 'correct edits'". Jim states that it is allowed since "Many long-term, regular editors improve them if they're wrong, unclear, misleading, too long or not neutral." The only reason I didn't do it was because he had stopped changing title sections for a period, and I figured that it was not going to be an issue again.

Bear in mind this is his other Wikipedia account. He says he lost the details to log in for Jim Michael. But with this former account, there has never been any issue that I found from when he was editing with this original account changing title sections on article talk pages.

The guidelines state for section headings, "It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate, e.g., one more accurately describing the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc. Whenever a change is likely to be controversial, avoid disputes by discussing a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible." He goes on his talk page stating that he changed the title section on Talk:Manchester Arena bombing because it was "a misleading, badly-worded section heading." Even if it was, the discussion that takes place was about making improvements to the information of the article, not speculation. For Talk:2022 Buffalo shooting he changed the title claiming that it was a BLP violation. Apparently, the talk page heading which has a question mark at the end is an editor asking a question seeking advice and answers from other editors, to obviously correct or improve the information about the article subject, is somehow a violation of policy. But the editor who started the discussion is in fact seeking answers and two other editors reiterated that it does not violate the BLP policy. But I have to ask how can one user alone determine a better title when he never asked any editor who started a discussion on these talk pages if he felt there needed to be an improvement to avoid any issues? He only started asking about the title section after I reverted him, not prior. He could have added to the discussion to maybe change the section title first, then a change to it could have happened.

On Talk:Robb Elementary School shooting, he changed several section headings and was told by another user, Darknipples, to not do just that, while it was a section heading, and not the comments by a user, this was a discussion started and titles of discussions are left alone.

He thinks I'm following him which is just false. He and I have edited articles that have been listed as a current event around the same time, and I edit talk pages of articles using the current events project banner, as I've noticed the past few months many talk pages using that banner which weren't current events or are no longer a current event and I remove them from the talk page. But I feel this has been extremely disruptive to the point where an ANI had to be brought.

Pointing out two other users who thanked me for reverting Jim's changes to the discussion headings. Such as dying on Talk:2022 Sitakunda fire for the headings "apparently cosmetic edit" and "day of the week" which dying had created. And Davide King on Talk:Robb Elementary School shooting for two edits. 1, 2.

On Talk:List of Peep Show episodes, he did the same thing, even going to revert me by again making these claims that I'm following him. Second, he's done it again by adding a question mark at the end of the title of dicussion. Again he did not start this discussion. A small thing, sure, but, talk page guidelines state, "It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct others' spelling errors, grammar, etc. Doing so can be irritating. The basic rule, with exceptions outlined below, is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission." In my view, I doubt anyone would be confused by the title not having a question mark. It's a very minor thing on a talk page. On article space, definitely an improvement.

On Katy Perry, he's been trying to re-add Perry's relationship with Orlando Bloom with the original edit being "Perry has been engaged to Orlando Bloom since 2019. She gave birth to their daughter in 2020." to the bottom of the lead. He changed it to this. He's been reverted by two other editors, SNUGGUMS with this edit. And Apoxyomenus, where his edit summary states "While both are public figures, beyond personal life, this doesn't impacted Katy Perry's career or something similar. Info already present in the infobox". Adding it back again for a second time. I reverted this explaining that his explanation for including it on the talk page didn't lead to a consensus and recommend he turn it to an Rfc and a vote can be had on it. Adding back the relationship information after three explanations, I think constitutes edit-warring. But normally, it involves more than one person. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Pinging Darknipples, dying, Davide King, SNUGGUMS, and Apoxyomenus who can add to this. Making up for failed ping. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Just want to chime in here re: the Buffalo shooting talk page heading. I do not doubt that change was made in good faith, despite the fact that I disagreed with it. Ultimately, Jim Michael 2 seems to have accepted the arguments of myself and (more likely) Swarm, and so far as I know, that was that. That rambling introduction is merely my way of saying that I think Jim Michael 2 is operating in good faith, but I wish he would set a higher bar for these changes. Unless it's a blatant BLP issue, please seek consensus rather than changing unilaterally. Cheers, and Happy Friday! Dumuzid (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Describing a suspect as the killer is undoubtedly a blatant BLP issue.

WCM has been stalking me for weeks, by looking up my contributions, then going to many articles (most of which he would otherwise not go to) simply to revert me. The fact that he very frequently edits articles very soon after I do, merely to revert me, shows that he's following me. He also reverts other types of edits of mine. He repeatedly wrongly insists that improving section headings on talk pages is a serious wrongdoing, despite it clearly being allowed. He even sent a link to me which he said prohibits changing section headings on talk pages, but it actually says the opposite. He's saying here that I'm breaking the rule against changing comments, but I don't change comments, only headings which should be improved. No-one else harasses me this way & I never follow anyone. I edit exactly the same as I did as Jim Michael, and no-one followed & harassed me for the over a decade that I used that account. I only stopped using that account because I forgot my login details & was unable to use my previous laptop because stopped working, which I was permanently logged onto with. No-one but WCM follows me on this account. It's only since I started this clear replacement account later on the same day as I became unable to use the old one that he's been following me. He didn't suddenly become a Peep Show fan today. One of the changes I made was to remove a BLP vio which stated that a suspect was a killer. Another wrongly stated that an attendee of the Manchester Arena bombing died at another concert. None of my changes to talk headings are controversial, and they all fit the legitimate reasons for changing them. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Needlessly changing section headings can be disruptive. There are countless links all across the wiki to talk page sections, and your cosmetic edits show up on editors' watchlists, causing unnecessary clutter. Unless there's an actual reason to change the headings, it's best to just leave them as is. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

• This seems like much ado about nothing, and seems very likely to do nothing but cause hurt feelings and waste time. I would encourage both of you to not respond further to each other, and only add to your comments here if someone uninvolved has questions. JM2: changing section titles for a good reason (i.e. BLP, genuine confusion) is fine, but please don't change them for trifling reasons (i.e. to add a question mark). When you change the section title, people clicking the section title in their watchlist don't get taken to the right location anymore. If you just dial back your bad-section-heading-meter about 2 clicks, I think we'll be fine. Also, be careful you don't edit war. WCM: changing section titles for a good reason (i.e. BLP, genuine confusion) is fine. JM has been here for 12 years and has made 135,000+ edits, with a clean block log. I am confident they don't need someone tracking their edits like you would a problem user, and following them to pages you've never been to before. If they occasionally change a section title that doesn't need changing, let's just let it go, ok? I'm saddened by how much time you probably spent on documenting stuff that is really not a big deal. And all this pinging is a little disappointing; if the people you pinged come here to add to the complaint, does JM2 get to ping half a dozen people that like him? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed - thank you for your response to this ridiculously exaggerated complaint by the only person who harasses me on WP. Him following me, harrassing me, then unjustifiably making distorted allegations against me, threatening me, reporting me, then canvassing people who tend to be on his side in regard to other matters is ridiculous. I don't know why, after over 12 y of regularly frequently editing here, he decided to fixate on me. If he didn't follow me, he wouldn't even know of the large majority of my edits, just like he didn't during the previous 12 y, in which my editing was similar. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

WCM is undoubtedly doing what they think best; being gracious even when you feel maltreated is an uncommon skill (I don't really have it either), but would be more likely to result in this thread going away faster. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I initially assumed good faith, but can no longer do so because he alone is without a doubt following me & frequently being hostile towards me. There's no good reason for him to have started following me, let alone having habitually done so for weeks after I asked him to stop doing it. He repeatedly falsely claimed that there's a outright rule against anyone changing a talk heading that they didn't write. As I said to him weeks ago, it clearly states: No-one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate. He is therefore habitually reverting & berating me for what's clearly allowed, falsely claiming that I'm breaking the rules when he knows I'm not. As is also clear from the way he talks to & about me on here, my talk page & elsewhere, he's acting as though he has authority over me. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@Jim Michael 2: with the greatest respect, you're really taking the wrong message from Floq's thoughtful comment above with this escalation of hostility. Both you and WCM are guilty of minor indiscretions - yourself for changing section headings that don't need changing (aside from the BLP violations), and WCM for being over obsessive about watching what you were doing. But the solution to that is as Floq says, dial it down. Both of you stop baiting each other. These are not issues to get worked up about on either side, even though the OP complaint is mildly valid and your counter claim of stalking is mildly valid. Both of you dial it back and we can move on with our lives. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

He's undoubtedly following me, then going to articles & talk pages that I've recently edited merely to revert me. The amount of time & effort he devotes to harassing me is ridiculous. This report is the latest escalation of that. If he wasn't following me, he wouldn't even be aware of the large majority of my edits. Without any doubt, every day, he chooses to look up my contributions in order to follow & annoy me. He shouldn't have started doing that & should permanently stop. I never follow anyone. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Even while this discussion has been happening, you've been making the same edits [187] that triggered this report in the first place. I have no doubt your intentions are good but this is basically the same as correcting someones grammar or spelling in a comment and generally not something we do. It's not like these section headers are malformed and in reality, they really are part of the OP (of any given talk page section)'s comments. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I made that change before I was aware of this report. Also, I didn't change comments - only headings. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe you read what I said. When you change headings for inconsequential reasons, ie. correcting grammar, spelling, adding punctuation, it's effectively the same as editing someone's comment for the same reason. The only time a heading should be changed on a talk page is if it's going to be removed (vandalism) or malformed. What value did you adding a question mark have? PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:09, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

That's certainly not the only time it should be done. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate, eg one more accurately describing the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc.

The question mark is to indicate it's a question. Adding a question mark often significantly changes a sentence's meaning. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

That's just being pedantic. You're effectively correcting other editors grammar which is obnoxious. What you're quoting is more about making sure the topic is readable and relevant, you fixing minor grammatical and punctuation errors isn't. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

And your responses here are rather lackluster, you've got a handful of good faith editors telling you it's disruptive and annoying, but you still insist you're right. Will you commit to not messing with talk page headers anymore? PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:15, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Most weren't grammatical corrections. I've already said that I'll only change talk headings when it's permitted, the specifics of which I've already quoted from the relevant guideline. I can't see what more I can say about that. I'm baffled that no-one other than me is refuting the clearly false, repeated claim by WCM that it's never permitted to improve sections headings unless you're the person who wrote them & that no-one other than me is explicitly telling him to stop following me. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 05:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

• Jim may have a point. Editor Interaction does show some questionable following. Along with the unnecessary warning about multiple accounts, there does seem to be some hounding here. Also possible this is a preemptive ANI in response to Special:Diff/1093604541. Slywriter (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

What that list doesn't show is that most of the editing he did shortly after me on those articles were solely reverts of my edits. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Jim Michael 2, are you willing to agree with Floquenbeam's excellent advice: If you just dial back your bad-section-heading-meter about 2 clicks, I think we'll be fine? Also, are you aware that when you repeat your indignant complaints over and over again, in essentially the same words, that it detracts from your argument? Cullen328 (talk) 20:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I'm willing to do that. The most important thing that I want in regard to this issue is for WCM to permanently stop following me. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

[188] Ironically, I accidentally removed others comments in a thread about not changing other editor's comments. In response to Jim Michael's earlier comment "I initially assumed good faith..." There is a rule, see WP:TPO. This does not seem to be about an issue of WP:OWN, it's seems more about following rules that keep editors from violating WP:DE. If they are unable or unwilling to act in good faith it could become a serious problem, and may require serious consequences. Changing TP title headings and other editors comments is a huge NO, and basic Wiki rules 101. I'm in agreement with my fellow editors above on this issue. My best advise is for them to put more effort into WP:AGF, not just with WCM, but with all editors here in general. They have nothing to gain by setting off false alarms. At this point, I would suggest thinking twice before even giving the impression of taking their patience and time for granted. That is what I am guessing led us to this point. Trust me, this place (ANI) is like a hospital, the sooner you are out of here the better your chances will be. In addition, and on the same subject, the perception of WP:BATTLE is also usually a red-flag that they may want to consider. As they are hopefully aware, being able to edit and collaborate on Wiki is a privilege, not a right. The key word here is COLLABORATE. Wiki is a collaborative project, after all. Moving forward, I kindly recommend that they give themself some time to step back and go over all the basic rules WP:TPG again, and look at how more seasoned editors communicate with others. Think about how responses may or may not be interpreted. That's all I have for now. Cheers. DN (talk) 21:19, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

The guideline is: It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate, which is far from a huge no. What you (along with most of the people in this discussion) aren't acknowledging is that changing talk headings is allowed in various circumstances. Many long-term, constructive, regular editors do so. They usually aren't berated for it or brought on ANI. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Surely there's better use of your time than faffing around with whether or not question marks/other punctuation marks are in section heading titles. Who ultimately cares? ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 21:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I kindly suggest you read WP:IDHT and stop trying to move the goal posts around. Or, you can continue this type of behavior and see where that gets you. At this point, the popcorn is looking very tasty with extra salt. DN (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what your cryptic references to popcorn & salt mean. I've already agreed to only change headings when needed. All I want is to no longer be followed by the only editor who does so. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:01, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Then stop quibbling over when Talk Page topic changes are acceptable because your legitimate concern is getting buried. As you said "who ultimately cares", so acknowledge it could be seen as disruptive and leave them be from now on. Slywriter (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, I haven't been harassing or stalking Jim whatsoever. I've only brought this because I saw his edits on talk pages to be disruptive. And maybe he's just ignoring the fact that he and I have edited articles around the same time because of these articles have been tagged as a current event. And I've been responsible for removing outdated current events project banners from talk pages. He hasn't truly explained why he makes edits changing letters to be capitalized at the beginning and linking to articles within the heading. Maybe he thinks that there is a proper way of editing when starting a new discussion section for the title. But there is no such format. And he should refrain from these further false accusations of stalking. As if I'm only on here to monitor his edits. False. I have things to clear up on my sandbox for the purpose of improving Wikipedia and nothing else. For Talk:List of Peep Show episodes, I'll avoid changing his changes to the title sections because it would a pointless back and forth, and I'll leave it up to another editor. But he can do the least which is to remove the question mark at Talk:2022 Tulsa hospital shooting#Tulsa hospital shooting or 2022 Tulsa hospital shooting?. But it should be noted he's only citing the guidelines that fit his argument rather than the other I guess helpful reminders if you will about talk page editing. I'm not going to repeat everything else as I've already said it above. But I said all I wanted to. And I'm done. So hopefully, no more hard feelings further. Let's enjoy the weekend. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

There's no doubt that you're following me. You edit a high proportion of the articles I edit, within hours or minutes of me doing so. I haven't changed my editing signficantly during the past 12 y, but you've only been frequently editing articles which I do since I started my new account several weeks ago. Not all of those edits are about recent/current events. In those 12 y, you've done more reverting of my TP edits than all other editors have combined. If you're not following me, why did you choose to edit Talk:List of Peep Show episodes for the first time, hours after I did so, only to revert me? That's the talk page of an episode list of a UK cult sitcom which you probably hadn't heard of before today. Unlike me, you didn't edit that article, merely the talk page. You didn't edit any other Peep Show-related articles, so even if you were to claim that you suddenly became a Peep Show fan today, it's not plausible that you'd edit only the talk page of the episode list. I didn't say that you're only on WP to follow me, but you've clearly chosen to frequently follow & revert me for the sake of it. You edit many articles only to revert me, without editing them in any other respect. If you're interested in improving those articles, you wouldn't edit only their talk pages. You haven't said whether or not you'll continue to follow me, or even admitted that you do so. I said what the guideline is regarding changing talk page headings to refute your repeated false claim that no-one other than the original writer of them is allowed to change them. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:49, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, we are aware of your conviction that WCM is "following" you. You do not have to repeat the same accusation over and over and over again, in your every post to this thread. We heard you the first half dozen times. Ravenswing 23:49, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

  I just wanted to mention that changing a talk page heading, even just adding punctuation, makes it harder for those watching a talk page and mainly interested in a particular section as it will show up in their feed under a different name when someone replies. Gusfriend (talk) 00:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

  I would also like to note that since this discussion about editing the talk page edits of others on the page Talk:2022 they have edited one of their comments [189] to remove some text after it had been there for over 15 hours (added at [190]). According to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing own comments this should be avoided (note that there are the usual exceptions) and strikethrough and inserted used instead. The updated signature ~~~~~ should also be used to indicate a change.

  Whilst looking at the page I noticed that they changed previously changed the reply level of someone's !vote at [191] (which can change the context of what they wrote) and gone back to add wikilinks after their post had been replied to at [192].

  Those are just some recent edits (i.e. last couple of days) on a single page but I think that their talk page approach is disruptive.

  I am also uncertain of mentioning this as it was a change shortly after posting before anyone had replied but they actually changed something in this discussion (see [193]).

  I can understand wanting to improve something that you have written or style that you don't like but that is best kept to the public pages. I also want to say that following someone on Wikipedia is not appropriate and do not plan to follow this user in future.

  Gusfriend (talk) 08:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I removed part of my sentence because it no longer applied. Hours after I wrote it, the conclusion of the Whisky War was added to 2022 in Canada & 2022 in Denmark. I didn't think of striking through it & there's no downside to removing it.

During this discussion, as in many others, I improved comments after having written them. Many thousands of editors do that & there's no rule against it. If you write out a long comment in one go on a page as frequently edited as this, it's highly likely you'll lose it all in an edit conflict, so many thousands of editors write their comments in stages. There's no rule against adding links to your own comments, nor should there be, because it's helpful.

WCM is repeatedly denying following me, despite a great deal of evidence that he's been doing so for weeks. Not admitting it means that he's not going to say that he'll stop doing it. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

You mentioned that part of the sentence no longer applied and there was "no downside to removing it" but the text that you removed may have been part of the reason that people agreed on a particular course of action or didn't involve themselves in the conversation and removing the text means that the page, as displayed, is no longer a record of the discussion which I would argue is a downside. It also goes against the statement Once others have replied, or even if no one's replied but it's been more than a short while, if you wish to change or delete your comment, it is commonly best practice to indicate your changes. in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing own comments.

I agree that having links in a comment can be a very good thing, but again, if you go back at a later time (i.e. more than a short while) to add links then you can change the context of the following comments which had been made before there were links.

I realise that these might seem like minor things but for those that have been involved in the conversation on the talk pages it can make things just that little bit harder.

Gusfriend (talk) 10:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

The only way in which the removed text could have influenced anyone is by encouraging the addition of the event to the year by country articles, which is one of the reasons I wrote it. Once it had been added (on the same day), the removed text was no longer true or relevant, so I removed it. Only one edit has been made to that talk page since then, which is in a different section & completely unrelated to it.

None of my additions of links changed the context of any of the comments in their section. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I have only been editing since last year but I have learnt that Wikipedia is all about consensus, part of which is about getting a sense of what other people think. Even the existence or not of wikilinks can help get a sense of what the editor thinks is important. I realise that editors are encouraged to be bold but we are also taught to work together Your initial edit indicated support for the addition but removing it could be seen as removing support for that change. It could certainly cause someone to waste effort double guessing themselves.

I realise that my comments may not be sufficient to explain why I have a concern and are unlikely to change your existing practices when it comes to talk pages so I will be stepping out of the conversation now. I would however like to note that the effect your actions may have on other editors as it may be bigger than you realise. Gusfriend (talk) 11:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I left an edit summary explaining my removal of the few words in question; there's no way that it could be misconstrued. Leaving them there after the event had been added to the year by country articles would have been misleading. There's also no chance that adding links could have changed the context etc. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Edit summaries only help if people are actively looking through the page history. Folks just reading the Talk page will have no idea the comment has been changed, which is why you should absolutely not alter your post once others have replied to it. Instead you should strike through the words that are no longer relevant, so folks can realize it's been changed & see the current context. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

No-one had replied to that comment, and still haven't, so that's not relevant. None of the other comments in that section are replies to that comment. I removed a small portion of my comment because it had become no longer true or relevant. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

• ANI is a place where if you report a murder and a grammatical error, everyone will spend the whole time debating whether or not it was a grammatical error (including the person who was murdered). Levivich 03:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

  Your it has an unclear antecedent. EEng 05:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

  It's uncircumscribed. Levivich 05:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

  So it's a gentile antecedent? Dumuzid

  Penis jokes, just what we needed in the frat house 2600:1700:12B0:300F:2CF6:872A:911D:531B (talk) 22:31, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

  We'll be happy to supply some vagina jokes for balance. EEng 19:15, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

  Bike shedding at its finest. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Possible WP:LTA related to Albert20009 (talk · contribs)

2001:448A:10CE:1B97:E503:EEE6:8EBC:7F0D (talk · contribs) appears to be traveling well-trod territory in Malaysian media articles. 2601:188:180:B8E0:0:0:0:D869 (talk) 00:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Magherbin pov-push behaviour

There is a content dispute @Talk:Tewodros, there are significant differences, and lack of involvement by other editors, that could help in this dispute. This ANI is however not about the content, but about the behaviour of this user. In a ongoing unresolved content dispute, this user is misusing the edit summary [194] misleading other editors, telling this is the outcome per third opinion, which is not the case. [195] Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 03:09, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Who are the random IP's and users that keep reverting to your preferred version? U just dont like the outcome of the 3rd opinion and now requesting another one. The statement was on the article long before you showed up on the page, I merely reverted back to that version with references. Magherbin (talk) 03:31, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Are you implying i'm sockpuppeting? Then don't be dodgy and say it. The direct quote says Walashma princes, so ips/editors that can read the source are reverting/editing to my version. I took upon the 3RO provider [196] to take out a second 3rd opinion, i assumed this was possible, maybe it's not. Then i will look for another avenue for this content dispute. But the issue of this ANI here is your behaviour in misleading other editors with your edit summary in a ongoing unresolved dispute. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 03:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

The third opinion was requested by you and you didnt repond to it hence I assumed you agreed with it. You only began editing when I made the revert. The provider asking you take out another 3rd opinion was not to be taken seriously. You posted on my talk page to provide references and when I did you removed them now. Magherbin (talk) 04:15, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

@Magherbin: The third opinion wasn't in your favor either, the one who gave the third opinion wasn't knowlegdeable enough about the subject to say either or. ( this part about behaviour, not content) Yet you somehow got the idea it's okay to mislead other editors in a edit summary about the outcome of a third opinion, amids a ongoing dispute? Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 04:40, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

The filing party also filed a request at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I have closed the DRN request as also pending here. I have not looked into whether this is a content dispute, a conduct dispute, or both. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Off-wiki canvassing by User:TruthGuardians at the Talk:List of best-selling albums

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Before the RfC was filed on May 23, 2022 for the following discussion "It is time to raise Thriller’s claimed sales to 100m", multiple inactive users had added their support to raise the current 70 million for Thriller to 100 million. The accounts that were most likely invited through an off-wiki channels are User:Fancypants786, User:PinkSlippers, User:Vacamiera, User:Jimcastor. Even after the RfC was filed, the discussion still continued adding supporting votes by inactive users including User:Factlibrary1. Notice how some of the inactive users at Talk:List of best-selling albums have briefly become active also in other previous discussions such as this, including User:Factlibrary1.--Harout72 (talk) 13:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

These are false allegations levied against me. I don’t know any editors beyond Wikipedia. I have asked Harout to stop with the false accusations time after time. His clear violations of WP:GOODFAITH have contributed to a unfriendly and even hostile place on Wikipedia. He’s attacked many of the editors on the page because they disagree with his position, not because there is any proof to these false accusations. TruthGuardians (talk) 14:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

It may be unclear if it's you specifically, but there's clearly something going on here. It's too much to just be a coincidence. Any time I've observed similar situations, it's always been some sort of sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, and/or off-wiki canvassing... Sergecross73 msg me 14:22, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Not sure If I can comment in this space and I assume good faith that "semi-inactive" users exists in terms of edition, and time to time they could review their watchlist, and for a particular reason a RfC is a quicker way to participate. But respectfully, I also noticed what Sergecross73 and Harout72 said. Adding the peculiar creation of at least one account after the RfC, and with MJ-related contributions. Particularly, with a notion of a previosly acknowledge of how Wikipedia works. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 15:47, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

You aren’t the gate keeper on how often someone should be using their account. There’s no point being proved here. TruthGuardians (talk) 19:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with coincidence. These accounts mentioned above always follow Jackson related discussion per their edit history. That ain’t new. Im unfamiliar with Vacamiera, or maybe not seen them around as much, but to me there is nothing abnormal about their edit history. Editors follow other editors all of the time, even have their pages set to alert them when that editor posts. That’s not new or strange behavior. What’s strange is how I am being falsely accused of canvassing with zero evidence of it. This isn’t this user’s first time harassing me on the admin board because he disagrees with how a consensus or RFC is going. The editor acts as though they are a gate keeper to all things music sales on Wikipedia and becomes very hostile not neutral, new, or long terM editors. You didn’t see me come to the admin board when the same group of followers that alway protect his narrative showed up in support of him and accuse him of canvassing. Why? Because I assume they follow each other’s edits on Wikipedia. I don’t know. What I do know is that I don’t have proof to make similar accusation against Harout. TruthGuardians (talk) 14:47, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

To each their own, but I don't think I've ever been wrong when I take info like this and send it through SPI... Sergecross73 msg me 14:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Honest truth, I don’t know if any editor was ever canvassed for anything. I can only speak for myself when I say that Harout’s accusation against me is unequivocally false. I think 1 or two of the editors above have had to defend themselves in the past a couple years ago from the same accusations that they have made very clear here on this administration board that they are not involved in any canvassing. My question is how many times must an editor be falsely accuse of the exact same thing and how many times must they defend themselves from the exact same allegations before it is clear that it’s not true. Nothing came of the accusations then for a reason. TruthGuardians (talk) 15:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Isn't this a pot calling the kettle black?

In that RFC there are five users who flocked together before

taking the position similar they take in this RFC, to keep sales numbers for certain artists lower on wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Janet_Jackson#How_many_millions_sold?_Revisiting_the_math

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_best-selling_music_artists/Archive_42#Uniformity

Should we accuse Harout72 of cavassing Binksternet Apoxyomenus Bluesatellite and Markus WikiEditor then?

He actually did on-wiki canvass Bluesatellite and Binksternet on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_best-selling_music_artists/Archive_44#Whitney_Houston

I have nothing to do with the accounts Fancypants786 PinkSlippers Vacamiera

but I do remember seeing two them on Jackson-related votes before.

I follow the edit history of other Jackson-editors including TruthGuardians and check Jackson-related RFCs.

None of that is against the rules, and as you can see with Binksternet Apoxyomenus Bluesatellite Markus and Harout if a group of editors are interested in the same topic chances are they will show up for talks and RFCs related to that topic. That doesn't take any off wiki canvassing. castorbailey (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

That's an accusation without peer mostly motivated because you don't like that someone is against your POV-on MJ. Ofc, I tend don't generalize things, because all-sides could have valid and invalid points, but yours edit histories speak volume. Contrary, and for example, @Binksternet: or @Markus WikiEditor: are a pair of long-time music contributors and among the most neutral, and collaboratives. And I know they follow several wiki-pages and artists-related articles. Same goes with all that you mentioned. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 20:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

That is an accusation based on the fact that all five of those users took the same position on similar topics before

(records sales of certain black artists) before and now doing the same here, while obviously they would deny that Harout canvassed them, and they would say they found this RFC independently from Harout.

The point is he can't have it both ways. And them being "long-time music contributors" does not mean they don't have a POV on the subject of this RFC and the very similar discussion about Janet Jackson here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Janet_Jackson#How_many_millions_sold?_Revisiting_the_math

Let's just say their history on this subject speaks volume.

I could make the same argument that Harout started these accusations because he doesn't like how the vote turned out. BTW how do you know so much about Binksternet and Markus WikiEditor? castorbailey (talk) 22:06, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

• Truthguardian is an SPA as it seems. Why not just indef block or at least topic ban from anything related to Michael Jackson per general sanctions of this area? The long term disruption by this user needs to be met with sanctions now. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 15:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

  I don’t know you. More false accusations. I hate to break it to you, but have you seen my edit history? Have you seen the edit history of the user falsely accusing me of canvassing? But yet am a SPA? Okay. I would like to see proof of this “long term disruption.” TruthGuardians (talk) 16:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I left two DS alerts on your talk page in 2021 and I am aware of your activities since. I don't think that it is worth pursuing that Thriller sold more than 100 million copies but this is not the only one example where you have attempted to engaging in WP:POINTY editing. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 17:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh thanks. I remember that now. So you mean to tell me you left a message on my page for a non-Jackson related topic and accusing me of SPA all at the same time? Man oh man. Thanks for the reminder. TruthGuardians (talk) 20:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can see all of your editing activity relates to Michael Jackson. That is the definition of a single purpose account (SPA). There's nothing wrong in itself about being an SPA, but when the activity spills over into advocacy for the subject rather than an objective look at the sources it is a problem. And do you really believe that the user name "TruthGuardians" does anything but bring suspicion on you? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

It’s my username. I don’t care what people think of it. Furthermore, look harder at my history. TruthGuardians (talk) 19:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

How hard does one really need to look? I'd say about 195 out if your last 200 edits were MJ related. And while your username doesn't violate any policy, there's a general belief that people with words like "Truth", "Justice", "Facts" are often here to "Right Greats Wrongs" - in other words, generally POV push. You don't need to change it, I'm just letting you know the first impression/vibe you give off to regulars with such a name. Kind of an "unforced error" of sorts. Sergecross73 msg me 19:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

You could say that about every single fan who is editing wiki, including the Madonna fans who are voting in this RFC. Obviously, they will try to make wiki present an accurate picture of their favorite artist, and accurate is often subjective, especially when there are conflicting sources. If that was not the case such RFCs would not even exist, since everyone would agree about everything. castorbailey (talk) 20:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I would equally take issue with an editor named "MadonnaFan1993" who did nothing but make obviously pro-Madonna edits and proposals with a bunch of similar accounts. Not really sure where you're going with this. If anything that's a more relatable example about what I'm getting at here. Sergecross73 msg me 20:13, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

No need to have the username MadonnaFan1993 for it to be obvious if an editor is a Madonna fan. This RFC has quiet a few of them too, their username won't hide that. The point is: username is not indicative of whether someone is factual or not. castorbailey (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Don't get your point. What is suspicious about that username? castorbailey (talk) 19:56, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

@Jimcastor, it's sort of the equivalent of someone saying "You can trust me." People claiming to be here to guard the truth are generally here to push a POV. Pretty much every experienced editor rolls their eyes at usernames like that. valereee (talk) 20:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

That itself is a POV. You don't know where that username comes from and what that user even meant by that. It's actually pretty childish to pick on that username. And I have seen experienced editors without such usernames pushing POVs left and right so that part sounds like appeal to authority fallacy. castorbailey (talk) 21:39, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

@Jimcastor, you asked, I explained. You can disagree with it or think it's unfair, but that's reality. valereee (talk) 21:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

You really don't get it? "Truth" is suspicious, "Guardian" is suspicious, and the "s" on the end is suspicious. I don't recall ever seeing a user name with three reasons for suspicion before. As Sergecross73 said there is no need to change it, but I can't believe that anyone would trust a user with such a name, who is also clearly an advocate for another person. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

If he can't back up his arguments with sources and logic, then he can't. And if he can, his username won't make his argument less valid. castorbailey (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

You're free to feel that way. From ample experience I think it's likely that the vast majority of us are suspicious of an editor with such a username. Nil Einne (talk) 04:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

It's not a question of feelings but reason. I'm pretty certain the is no wiki rule that you have to evaluate arguments here based on usernames. castorbailey (talk) 12:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

There are no wiki rules period so that's a silly comment. Nil Einne (talk) 20:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Looking into it, I also think there is something going on. I don't think Vacamiera is involved, but there appears to be too many coincidences among the rest; editors turning up to support each other at various discussions, often after long periods of inactivity. Jimcastor and TruthGuardians have an extensive interaction history, and while it starts out appearing like two editors who happen to have similar interests, later activity suggests some level of meatpuppetry or stealth canvassing.

The two interact at Talk:Cultural impact of Michael Jackson in a way that I would not consider suspicious. From 17 February 2020, Jimcastor goes inactive, and the returns on 22 March 2020; they make four minor Star Trek edits and then go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural impact of Michael Jackson (2nd nomination) to support TruthGuardian's position. This could be a coincidence, but given future events I think it is the start of off-wiki communication.

Jimcastor then makes intermittent edits to Star Trek articles, but is inactive for three weeks prior to returning to support TruthGuardian at Talk:Square One: Michael Jackson#Jordan Chandler is the accuser not Evan Chandler. The court case is well documented to prove it was Jordan, it's not debatable.

After some intermittent activity, and non-suspicious interaction, Jimcaster, Pinkslippers, and TruthGuardians all participate at Talk:Michael Jackson Video Vanguard Award/Archive 1#Requested move 31 August 2020 to oppose the proposed move. Jimcaster has been inactive for three weeks, having stopped editing 12 hours before PinkSlipper made their first edit. Jimcastor then goes inactive until January, with the exception of an edit on the 12th, an edit identical to the one they made in August. Both of these edits are identical to a sequence of edits made by PinkSlipper on the 12th of September - example.

After several months of inactivity, Jimcaster then comments at Beyonce to support TruthGuardians position. However, this may be a coincidence; the votes were a month apart. Jimcastor goes inactive again, but returns two weeks later to support TruthGuardian at Talk:Janet Jackson/Archive 4#How many millions sold? Revisiting the math. Fancypants786 also supports TruthGuardian, taking a break from making a large number of similar edits on History of Greece. This pattern, of making large numbers of similar edits to the same article, with the same edit summary, in rapid succession, is similar to PinkSlipper's behaviour at articles like Knight Rider (season 1).

A month later, all four participate at Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 38#Inclusion of statements by people that Michael Jackson did not molest them. Prior to the discussion, Jimcastor had been inactive for a month; Pinkslipper for five months, and Fancypants786 for a month.

This pattern continues at various discussions, but I haven't looked deeply into those discussions, as I think there is sufficient evidence here to support the claim that TruthGuardian is covertly canvassing Jimcastor, who controls Pinkslipper and Fancypants786 as sock puppets. BilledMammal (talk) 16:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

You came up with quite a conspiracy theory here, check my IP all you want. I am not Fancypants, or whatever their name is or Jimcastor and I vote in RFCs about Michael Jackson because, guess what, I am a Michael Jackson fan. I follow his pages and follow other fans who edit their pages. Is that against the rules? I don't think so. PinkSlippers (talk) 00:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)As for the who is active and inactive you think only editors who live on wiki every day should have the right to edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PinkSlippers (talk • contribs) 00:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Their edit patterns is not evidence that I am canvassing anyone. I will request a SPI. I will also like to see proof of this off wiki canvassing. I keep requesting proof and that the false allegations stop, but here we are. TruthGuardians (talk) 16:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I have requested a check user. BilledMammal (talk) 18:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I am sick of this. I have made my position clear in the past. Want to know what it is, find it. The fact that I have to keep defending myself over this because a single editor or two is having a tantrum over losing and RFC on Wikipedia is ridiculous. I vote in Michael Jackson related RFC’s, among others, so be it. I’ve done it in the past and will continue to do it. I would also like to know how I am being canvassed off of wiki when my social media accounts are private? How does that work? I would appreciate if I am no longer harassed about this issue. Fancypants786 (talk) 16:44, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Is not a matter to win or not, a RfC. Non-involved users to these discussions have noticed that modus operandi or pattern with all these accounts related to MJ-agenda. Its something that can't be overlooked as emcompasses many things like disruptive, particular interest, etc. You said I am sick of this. I have made my position clear in the past (guess refer to SIP accusations) Your contributions are less than 500 from 2020 to 2022, and in a briefly view from spaces of talk pages, there is not something related to it about your comments. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 16:59, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I also cannot find anything in Fancypants comments about either canvassing or sockpuppetry. However, I can find comments about canvassing in the edit histories of Pinkslipper and Jimcastor, at Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 38#Canvassing concerns. Fancypants786, if both Apoxyomenus and I have missed a comment, please link it. BilledMammal (talk) 17:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Apoxy, what can’t be overlooked is the fact that you, blue Satellite, Markus, and Harout have all participated in the same RFC’s, same consensus, etc. if somehow this is evidence of canvassing and other Wikipedia rules being violated, you guys are leading by example. TruthGuardians (talk) 17:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

• Just wanted to chime in that this case looks eerily similar to this RfC from the Michael Jackson page last year. General sanctions were authorized on Jackson-related articles in 2019 after a community discussion at AN uncovered evidence of off-wiki canvassing and meatpuppetry by Jackson fans. I'm seeing a lot of the same red flags I saw in the 2021 Jackson RfC. An RfC emerges fully-formed out of nowhere over something that there seems to have been little to no dispute over. Multiple users come out of month or year-long hiatuses just to give a support and then throw temper tantrums when eyebrows are raised by outside editors. I believe this should be taken seriously, as POV-pushing is a real problem when it comes to dealing with this topic. JOEBRO64 18:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

  Let’s talk about the results to that one, there as actually sock puppetry discovered, but it was an Elvis fan who had created multiple accounts to oppose Jackson edits. It wasn’t any Jackson Fans. POV is not the discussion for debate here, and and admin determine then, as they would now, POV did not exist, reliable resources did though. I think it’s his was that discussion, could have been another. But even then, no one was accusing me of what I am being accused of now. TruthGuardians (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

  Not entirely sure where you're going with this or if you're following him. He's not talking about the results, he's talking about how there seems to be some coordination between accounts in these Jackson debates. Sergecross73 msg me 18:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

  JOEBRO64 himself was caught being very likely canvassed on that very RFC, so it's quite rich for him to complain about that. See: Note to closing admin here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Jackson/Archive_38#Canvassing_concerns castorbailey (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

  To be clear, it doesn't appear anyone UNINVOLVED actually suspected him of being canvassed, nor does JoeBro exhibit any traits of an SPA, so this strikes me as a...frivolous at best accusation. Sergecross73 msg me 20:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't have the links now, but TruthGuardians have commented he emailed MJ's people (Estate of Michael Jackson) for reasons such as his certifications/sales. Not sure if they have registered accounts here, but certainly, all of the accounts always oppose to music editors community when it comes to having neutrality, and tend to have a very notorious biased-favor on MJ pushing it to the top. The same pattern was addressed in 2019 about meatpuppetry across Michael Jackson articles. SIP or not, what are doing are a serious thing, including being disruptive over and over again, mainly led by TruthGuardians. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Point? I've emailed Recording Industry Association of America and the email has been submitted on talk page as well. Are you going to says that I'm representing RIAA too. Performing my research off Wikipedia is not against a Wikipedia policy. Again, it’s not disruption. Show proof of the disruption that exist? What have I done? Oppose your view? Used Wikipedia as it should be used? I’ve not anything to do with any policies being broken. My edits have only made articles better and more sourced. I will continue to edit as I have. TruthGuardians (talk) 19:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Not particular problem with RIAA, but it was MJ's people that you talked/emailed with them. Along that you've a particular push of point regarding sales, and as it was noticed at the RfC, you said: "Without question, and without object it is time to raise Thriller's claimed sales to 100m minimum". Later you opposed that I opposed to that (I was the first "vote" there). Non-involved users have notice that over-celebratory view on MJ, which is not allowed and of being an account with a particular interest and for which your history of contributions speaks. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 20:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

And your points, JOEBRO64, were readily debunked in that RFC as well, along with pointing out the curious nature you showed up for that vote. Based on your own logic you were canvassed by Popcornfud there and neither you or Popcornfud provided an alternative explanation. See the section "Note to closing admin" here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Jackson/Archive_38#Canvassing_concerns castorbailey (talk) 19:21, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Both are long-term editors who edit a wide variety of subjects and are in good standing in the community. Stop trying to muddy the waters and misdirect the discussion into other areas. This is thinly-veiled "whataboutism". Sergecross73 msg me 20:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

What’s considered long term? What’s considered different subjects? Your points are subjective and points to no proof of off wiki canvassing. Where is the external link that points to these accusations? How is it okay to falsely accuse me and Castor of canvassing, but unable to defend ourselves with historical facts? Their logic is I have canvassed others based on their edit history and because we have shared past RFC etc. well, so have the editors throwing around the false accusations. It can’t be considered okay for them, but not okay for me because I’m being followed or they are falling these pages, or whatever the reasoning is. TruthGuardians (talk) 20:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

That's a silly false equivalency. A vast majority of your edits are related to the very slim content area of pro-MJ editing, of which these editors in question frequently support you in. Then we've got Joe and Popcorn, who edit across many content areas of music and video games for 5-10 years...and also both disagreed with you once on one dispute a year ago? Can you really not see how that's different? Sergecross73 msg me 20:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Joe and Popcorn editing other pages won't make them more objective or factual when it comes to Jackson than TruthGuardian. In fact Joe curiously showed up for anti-Jackson votes / comments when Popcorn and/or Binksternet are present too, with the same anti-Jackson position even though his history does not show any particular interest in Jackson. In this case, Binksternet posted an opposing vote in the RFC and Joe shortly after showed up here to support the idea that TruthGuardian canvassed users:

Binksternet 15:49, 20 June 2022

JOEBRO64 18:17, 20 June 2022

He also cited a previous RFC where evidence was shown that he was the one who was canvassed by Popcorn:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Jackson/Archive_38#Note_to_closing_admin

So the irony of this is quite ironic. castorbailey (talk) 22:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Repeatedly screaming "no u" when I bring up concerns (note concerns, not accusations) of canvassing isn't helping your case. JOEBRO64 23:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I only brought this up because you mentioned the previous RFC as if you didn't know full well that there was evidence there, you were canvassed by Popcorn. And just like on that RFC, you are not actually refuting that evidence here either (and Popcorn's "explanation" was another lie as his talk page had no info about that RFC) And you repeat the same falsehood here again, that that RfC emerged fully-formed out of nowhere, when you know full well it was preceeded by a talk page discussion in Dec 2019. All that was explained

here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Jackson/Archive_38#Note_to_closing_admin

Moreover, while there too you accused users of being canvassed, when the evidence pointed to you doing it, here again you show up soon after Binksternet voted, a user who also happened to be in that previous RFC, taking the same position as you.

Binksternet 15:49, 20 June 2022

JOEBRO64 18:17, 20 June 2022

The point it: the pot should not call the kettle black. castorbailey (talk) 00:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

This is nothing but I'll-conceived deflection. Sergecross73 msg me 23:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

It's not a deflection as it's about the same issue. You de facto denied Joe and Popcorn were canvassing despite much stronger evidence existing of that than to speculation you engage in here.

I find Jackson related discussions both by looking at the RFC list page, Jackson related pages and following other Jackson expert editors like TruthGuardian. My history shows that I have a keen interest in the subject, Joe has no such interest but curiously pops up for anti-Jackson votes and comments when Popcorn and/or Binksternet are also present with the exact same position. You also have no issue with

Harout72 Binksternet Apoxyomenus Bluesatellite and Markus WikiEditor curiously gathering in this RFC with the same position they all took in this thread

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Janet_Jackson#How_many_millions_sold?_Revisiting_the_math

and this, where Harout72 canvassed Bluesatellite and Binksternet

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_best-selling_music_artists/Archive_44#Whitney_Houston

and here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_best-selling_music_artists/Archive_42#Uniformity

If you accuse users of canvassing based on such overlaps only and not actual proof, do that against the users who side with you in the vote too, not just against those who are against you. castorbailey (talk) 00:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I didn't mention SPA. I said he had no history of editing Jackson related pages, but then he showed up for that RFC taking the same position as Popcorn and repeating his provably false allegations almost verbatim. So no, it's was not a frivolous allegations, take a look at the evidence:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Jackson/Archive_38#Note_to_closing_admin

certainly an almost verbatim copy of a provable false allegation that the RFC came out of nowhere posted by a user who voted just day after Popcorn without a history of interest in Jackson is more evidence of canvassing then users with common interest not being active for X amount of time and voting in an RFC related to that interest. castorbailey (talk) 22:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

@Castorbailey: don't know about the Popcorn part. But the whole point of RfC is to try an encourage editors who have no previous experience in editing the page or related pages to offer their opinions in the efforts to come to consensus. So by itself there's nothing suspicious about an editor with zero involvement joining the RfC, it's what we want and hope for. Nil Einne (talk) 04:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say that that by itself it's suspicious. I said "he had no history of editing Jackson related pages, but then he showed up for that RFC taking the same position as Popcorn and repeating his provably false allegations almost verbatim". Those three factors together along with Popcorn's obviously false explanation that Joe stalked his talk page, which had no info about the RFC at all makes it pretty obvious that Popcorn canvassed Joe. castorbailey (talk) 12:21, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

If those arguments are on the same talk page I see how the fact they are being repeated demonstrates there was canvassing. I don't understand why Joe is expected to know why Popcorn showed up or why they're offering any explanation. Nil Einne (talk) 21:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) I have removed a personal attack by User:Factlibrary1 which accused editors on the "other side" of this dispute of being racist. Further edits like that will be met with immediate blocks. Black Kite (talk) 14:21, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

RfC attract editors who have an interest in the topic at hand. There is no evidence of canvassing, and as Jimcastor pointed out, the behaviour exhibited by Harout72 should be analysed as well. Israell (talk) 20:13, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

• I am not seeing evidence of canvassing here sufficient to raise this to an issue that can be resolved at ANI. BD2412 T 20:25, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Canvassing or not. There are other serious things that these users has repeatedly made. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 20:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

It’s not though. You have yet to show me my “disruptive editing” proof my my off wiki canvassing. And explain how does someone frequency of editing articles is my fault. TruthGuardians (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Such as? castorbailey (talk) 22:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

• Nevertheless, there's clearly something going on here. Looking at the "Support" votes in that RfC;

• AnneDant87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - new editor, created after the RfC started
• Guitarjunkie22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - 600 edits, comment at the RfC was first edit for 8 months
• MraClean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - new editor, created after the RfC started, lots of MJ edits
• NE0mAn7o! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - new editor, made 3 edits in April then nothing until after the RfC started
• Factlibrary1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) <100 edits, mostly MJ related, previously accused of being a canvassed vote in 2021 issue
• Alessiorom13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 227 edits, mostly MJ related recently
• Vacamiera (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 44 edits, edit to RfC was only 2nd edit since February
• PinkSlippers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 600 edits, but only 7 this year
• Fancypants786 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 293 edits, apart from 1 edit in January nothing in 8 months, only became active again once the RfC had started

• It's also really noticeable that a number of the accounts made a few "normal" edits when they started editing (or reactivated) before heading for the RfC, almost like they'd been told what to do. I note that three of them are now at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jimcastor, but I think this goes much further. And I strongly suspect this is off-wiki co-ordination rather than sockpuppetry, in which case an SPI would be useless anyway. Black Kite (talk) 23:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

How does me having 600 edits but only 7 in this year prove anything? What should be the number of edits someone has before they can vote in an RFC without being accused? PinkSlippers (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

It proves precisely nothing (about you, or any other specific editor for that matter). However, when there are a significantly large number of accounts acting in concert on one particular RfC, most of which are either new or have been inactive or semi-inactive, it clearly suggests a problem. Experienced admins and editors have been here many times, for many different articles. Black Kite (talk) 18:41, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• And this is exactly what I'm talking about. I can't think of a single time in the past where there's been so much smoke but no fire... Sergecross73 msg me 23:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

  I don’t know any of these editors beyond Wikipedia and have yet to see evidence that they know of each other. The problem is the grouping together of “support” voters as a monolith when it’s clear that the oppose votes have a longer history of voting together, and commenting on talk pages. But is that going to be ignored? TruthGuardians (talk) 01:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

  Im so confused here. I wake up to this wiki mention, and I have no idea where this is coming from. So Im a newer editor and have edited MJ pages. Yeah. So what. Ive edited lots of other pages too . And voted on other rfcs. So anyone who vote on MJ rfcs are now fake now. ? Get out of town. Then I could say the same about votes everywhere here on wiki. For all editors whos newer. Leave my name out of this. Is it allowed that editors throw false claims around like this ? Im just wondering. This is so weird and frankly a bit scary. And I thought Wiki was a serious place. not a place for harassement. ! MraClean (talk) 08:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

If there was one or two of them adding their support, I'd believe it's coincidence, but we have multiple inactive accounts all of a sudden running to the discussion to support. They can argue all they want that they supposedly follow each others edits, one of them might, two might, but all? Some of them go on without making a single edit for weeks and months, and suddenly when there is Michael Jackson discussion, they all are present. Not only it's obvious that there is off-wiki canvassing that took place in that discussion, but lot of them seem to have written what they were specifically instructed to. Harout72 (talk) 01:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Inactive, active, editing once a year, or editing everyday. An editor’s history have nothing to do with me. You have made these false allegations against me with no proof. If you were concerned about their edit history you should have accused them of socking or canvassing. Not me. I am in my 40’s and don’t have time for the drama or false accusations levied against me. I am not a leader of a secret group of editors organizing to come partake in editing Wikipedia for my benefit. It even sounds crazy to say that out loud! This is what I am being accused of for crying out loud. TruthGuardians (talk) 01:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

But you certainly had the time to have spent in that discussion. And I'm not the only one seeing enough proof of what this report is filed for. Harout72 (talk) 01:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

You’ve yet to actually provide proof. Only you have accused me of being a secret leader of Wikipedia editors. Proof is an external link to where this off-wiki canvassing has taken place. There is no proof. This report was falsely filed against me. Other editors have been accused of socking and meating. Again, they have nothing to do with me. You have falsely accused me of canvassing and I am wanting to see the evidence against me, not the edit history of every Tom, Joe, and Harry who have disagreed with you. TruthGuardians (talk) 01:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@Harout72

Based on your own logic you canvassed users to vote on your side

Can you explain this?

Harout72 Binksternet Apoxyomenus Bluesatellite and Markus WikiEditor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_best-selling_albums#It_is_time_to_raise_Thriller%E2%80%99s_claimed_sales_to_100m

all same position

all against higher numbers for Michael Jackson

Harout72 Binksternet Apoxyomenus Bluesatellite and Markus WikiEditor

same position

all against higher numbers for Janet Jackson

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Janet_Jackson#How_many_millions_sold?_Revisiting_the_math

Harout72 Bluesatellite Binksternet

same position

all against higher numbers for Whitney Houston

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_best-selling_music_artists/Archive_44#Whitney_Houston

Harout72 Bluesatellite Binksternet

same position

all against higher numbers for Michael Jackson

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_best-selling_music_artists/Archive_42#Uniformity

Coincidence? castorbailey (talk) 01:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Do you see any of those accounts being inactive for months in a row and suddenly having added their comments? Harout72 (talk) 02:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

That is not an explanation, naturally there will be editors who don't care about wiki beyond their favorite artist,

who may follow related pages, talk pages, active editors' history, RFC list page to see if there is anything that comes up. But it's telling that you did not give a straight answer. So here it is again:

is it a mere coincidence that those five users, who otherwise don't have a history of focusing on Jackson, just happened to show up here with the exact same position as previously in other discussions about black artists and sales? castorbailey (talk) 02:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• I see Israell commenting above[197] after not editing Wikipedia at all for the last 16 days. He is yet another off-wiki recruiter as admitted by one of the canvassed user before.[198] Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the comment @Apoxyomenus: made on above, @TruthGuardians: himself sent a message to me saying that he had been in contact with the Michael Jackson Estate and that they themselves had confirmed to him that the Thriller sales had passed 3 million in Brazil link. He and all those users who voted "Support" in the RfC about Thriller look a lot like an user who was banned for inflating Michael's sister's sales years ago (User:Isaacsorry and User:Encoreameya) and in addition, made videos on Youtube attacking me and other users of Janet Jackson's page.--Markus WikiEditor (talk) 22:35, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes I contacted the estate. So what? I’ve contacted BPI, RIAA, IFPI, and other entities as well. False accusations of being a sock puppet now? Keep them coming. I welcome an SPI investigation of my account. Also, you forgot the word “allegedly” when discussing inflation of Janet Jackson’s sales. Were your interactions with them as racists as your recent ones when recently talking about the Fugees album? TruthGuardians (talk) 23:01, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Jimcastor and TruthGuardians

Looking at only these two editors, and looking at all discussions Jimcastor participated in since the 20 March 2020, as that is when the activity that I see as beyond coincidence begins, there is a clear pattern of Jimcastor arriving to support TruthGuardians, particularly on articles related to Michael Jackson.

Caption text

Discussion	TruthGuardians	Jimcastor	Notes
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural impact of Michael Jackson (2nd nomination)	08:09, 22 March 2020	12:22, 22 March 2020	Both editors !vote "Keep", Jimcastor was inactive for three weeks before returning to participate in this discussion.
Talk:Square One: Michael Jackson#Jordan Chandler is the accuser not Evan Chandler	16:11, 24 May 2020	22:22, 26 May 2020	Both editors disagree with the editor who opened the discussion, Jimcastor was inactive for three weeks before returning to participate in the discussion.
Talk:FBI files on Michael Jackson/Archive 1#This article is about the contents of the FBI files	19:55, 9 July 2020	01:02, 10 July 2020	Editors appear to take a similar position. Note that both editors had edited this talk page prior to 20 March 2020; example is included for completeness, but by itself it would not be suspicious.
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 192#FBI files on Michael Jackson	-	-	Both editors participate in dispute resolution related to the above discussion, but both are listed as parties so not suspicious.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Jackson impersonator (2nd nomination)	14:04, 13 July 2020	19:27, 18 July 2020	Both editors !vote "keep", both editors are active during this period. In the absence of other evidence, would not be suspicious.
Talk:Michael Jackson Video Vanguard Award#Requested_move 31 August 2020	13:41, 31 August 2020‎	16:16, 31 August 2020	Both editors oppose the proposed move. Prior to this discussion, Jimcastor was inactive for three weeks.
Talk:Beyoncé/Archive 14#RfC: Should the subject of this article be defined as a songwriter in the lead?	13:29, 1 December 2020	22:09, 2 January 2021	Both editors !vote "yes"; TruthGuardians also makes an edit on 25 December 2020. Prior to this discussion, Jimcastor was inactive for three months. The time gap makes this less suspicious, but given the other interactions it does suggest that something is happening.
Talk:Janet Jackson/Archive 4#How many millions sold? Revisiting the math	22:59, 9 January 2021	23:56, 14 January 2021	Both editors support the current figures; prior to this discussion, Jimcastor was inactive for two weeks.
Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 38#Inclusion of statements by people that Michael Jackson did not molest them	19:04, 25 February 2021	11:30, 26 February 2021	Both editors support the inclusion of the content; prior to this discussion, Jimcastor was inactive for six weeks.
Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 38#RfC: Should this sentence be removed from the lead?	01:48, 12 March 2021	01:05, 9 March 2021	Jimcastor comments before TruthGuardians in this discussion, opening the RfC. Canvassing concerns were raised in this discussion.
Talk:Star Trek: Deep Space Nine#Question about episode intro in the leads	-	23:44, 20 March 2021	No interaction. Included for completeness.
Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 38#Guitar chord stuff	13:26, 29 March 2021	13:39, 29 March 2021	Both editors disagree with Popcornfud. Both editors were active at this time, including on that talk page.
Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 39#WP:URFA/2020	17:25, 10 April 2021	14:29, 11 April 2021	Both editors were active at this time, including on that talk page.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martok	-	11:15, 14 May 2021	No interaction. Included for completeness.
Talk:Dangerous (Michael Jackson album)#Requested move 27 May 2021	03:05, 29 May 2021	14:52, 2 June 2021	Both support the move. Both active around this time; Jimcastor was away for two weeks until fifteen minutes after TruthGuardians response at this move request, but did not respond to the move request for another few days.
Talk:List of people known for extensive body modification#Michael Jackson?	12:54, 7 June 2021	15:44, 7 June 2021	Both opposed proposal.
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Core biographies#Add Michael Jackson	16:01, 12 July 2021	15:06, 13 July 2021	Both supported adding Michael Jackson
Talk:Trial of Michael Jackson#Introduction of Robeson’s change in claims	-	19:34, 18 July 2021	TruthGuardians had previously commented on this talk page, but did not participate in this discussion.
Talk:Honorific nicknames in popular music/Archive 8#King of Pop	04:30, 31 July 2021	08:17, 31 July 2021	Both supported being more restrictive with who nicknames are applied to, in a section started by TruthGuardians.
Talk:Bob Dylan#Unproven allegations	13:25, 18 August 2021	14:13, 18 August 2021	Jimcastor was inactive for a week before returning to join this discussion. However, the two editors appear to have different positions.
Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 39#Adding Philanthropy	21:56, 14 August 2021	14:48, 18 August 2021	Both supporting adding philantrophist. Jimcastor was inactive for over a week before returning to make this comment, as well as the comments at Bob Dylan and a few edits on their user page, before going inactive again.
Talk:Britney Spears/Archive 17#Songwriter	12:34, 30 August 2021	02:38, 31 August 2021	Both editors support adding songwriter. Israell pinged TruthGuardians as well as OnMyRadar, TruthGuardians, TheWikiholic, Bgkc4444, and Binksternet. They attempted to ping Jimcastor, but was not successful. Of those editors, only Binksternet and OnMyRadar had edited the talk page or the article, but the rest had interacted on articles related to Michael Jackson, suggesting some level of canvassing.
Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 39#Children	13:51, 14 October 2021	15:13, 14 October 2021	Jimcastor returns after two weeks of inactivity to comment on these discussions; both disagree with Posiepixels99.
Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 39#Wife's	13:47, 14 October 2021	15:15, 14 October 2021	Jimcastor returns after two weeks of inactivity to comment on these discussions; both disagree with Posiepixels99.
Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 39#Posthumous child sexual abuse allegations	00:34, 31 October 2021	06:11, 31 October 2021	Jimcastor returns after two weeks of inactivity to comment on this discussion; both supported the inclusion of the sentence.
Talk:1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson#Such blatant bias	13:56, 2 October 2021	13:43, 1 November 2021	Both editors disagree that the article is biased. However, the connection is more likely to be with the discussion on leaving neverland.
Talk:1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson#Mentioning Leaving Neverland	13:17, 1 November 2021	13:58, 1 November 2021	Jimcastor returns after two weeks of inactivity to comment on this discussion; their positions aren't identical, but they are similar; TruthGuardians supports reducing the further allegations section, Jimcastor supports removing it.
Talk:1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson#Demand for a film production deal	14:20, 14 December 2021	19:19, 14 December 2021	Both supported the inclusion of the claim. However, this is not an example of Jimcastor following TruthGuardians; the discussion was prompted by edits Jimcastor made on 13 December to the article.
Talk:MJ the Musical#Whitewashing of negative reviews:	14:36, 30 April 2022	15:36, 30 April 2022	Jimcastor returns after two months of inactivity to comment on this discussion; both oppose including the reviews. Canvassing concerns are raised in this discussion, but against those who support including the reviews.
Talk:List of best-selling albums#It is time to raise Thriller’s claimed sales to 100m	14:44, 17 May 2022	17:47, 20 May 2022	An hour after TruthGuardians opens this discussion, Jimcastor makes their first edit in two weeks. Three days later, they make a second edit, to support TruthGuardians position.

Not all of these are strong evidence on their own; in particular, all the interactions on Talk:Michael Jackson can easily be explained by it being on Jimcastor's watchlist. However, looking at the complete picture, including all the talk pages which following a long break they edit for the first time to support TruthGuardian's position, I am confident that there is meat puppetry or stealth canvassing taking place. BilledMammal (talk) 02:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

This does not prove I have canvassed the user. Nor does it prove we know each other. The user admitted that they follow my edits. You should do I side by side of Harout and the editors mentioned there. You’ll find the same thing. So What? In fact, you should break down every accused editor’s history compared to mine. I welcome it. Also, I get notifications on various talk pages. No one has ever canvassed me because I don’t know editors outside of Wikipedia. I am confident that you are complicit in the false allegations against me. TruthGuardians (talk) 03:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

This sort of correlation between accounts, especially with ones that go inactive for weeks at a time, is not normal nor common. Sergecross73 msg me 03:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

That’s on them, not me. Don’t lump other editors with me. Their uncommon inactivity has nothing to do with. I am my own person, not a group. TheWikiholic and I agree on many RFC’s too. I follow his edit history from time to time as well. Im sure if there was a side by side chart it will look the same. If you put Apoxy and Harout side by side they will have same feelings on talk pages. This proves nothing other than this editor votes when I vote, and we tend to agree with one another. Just like the accusing editor, Harout, and his Wikipedia pals. TruthGuardians (talk) 03:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Their uncommon activity isn't the problem, it's the way that they just happen to be busy the same time as you. Over and over again. I'm sure you could cobble together some sort of false equivalency chart that shows how any given two editors you don't like in these discussions both edit at 10pm every night or whatever. But this is just far more coincidental than that. Sergecross73 msg me 03:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

One of the editors said they followed my tweet. Another editor said the have watchlist on. How is that my fault? How am I responsible for what is going on. Even if there was a Reddit post with an MJ Fan club leader pointing out what was happening on Wikipedia, and they are sending editors here (unlikely) that still have nothing to do with me. I edit pretty frequently, so you are here at the same time I am as well. What’s the point there? It would not be a false equivalency chart, it would be the same logic being used against me here. It’s actually not uncommon for editors to partake in a discussion on a talk page that is a topic that they are familiar with. Harout does it all the time with his pals. Check his history, discover how common it is. When it comes down to it, I don’t care about any other editor here on Wikipedia or what the hell happens to them or their account. I don’t know them. What matters to me the most is that the false accusation against me are stopped. There is no evidence that amount to off-wiki Canvassing or sock or meat puppetry (that I am aware of), that I have been involved with. There is no evidence because I am not involved in these activities. If other editors are, that’s on them, not me. TruthGuardians (talk) 03:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I considered the possibility that they were following your contributions without your knowledge, but that doesn't match the data - there are too many times that they are inactive for extended periods of time, but happen to return to activity minutes or hours after you contribute to a discussion that they then contribute to in support of your position. The explanation that fits the data is that you are informing them of the discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 04:29, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Inactive does not mean I am away. You know that you can see wiki pages even if you don't edit, don't you?

The only example you showed where the difference is minute (13 to be precise) is the one where I spend a lot of time on wiki, as you noted both of us were active. And the only two other examples where it's less than an hour is where we did not agree, contradicting your accusation.

Just out of curiosity, how much time should pass between I find something interesting in TruthGuardian's history and the time I comment on it to satisfy you? 10 days? 20 days?

And where is the wikirule that you have to edit consistently to be allowed to comment or vote on certain issues? castorbailey (talk) 07:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@BilledMammal You were also confident that I am a sockpuppet and PinkSlippers and Fancypants are me.

I don't know what's your point with this list when I made it clear above that I watch TruthGuardian's history and Jackson related pages. If you check the times you can see that with one exception my edits where I agree with TruthGuardian come hours, one day or days after he submitted them. The only other examples where it was less than an hour were where I disagreed with him. So what's your theory? He told me to quickly come here to take a different position than he did?

Hours or days later could be suspicious if an editor didn't have a history of focusing on that particular subject.

But you know full well I do. So what is strange about me following another Jackson editor's history with similar views?

Contrary to your terminology, I do not go away and return. Inactive means not editing, but I check wiki, with some exceptions, multiple times, daily. Sometimes I'm logged in sometimes I'm not. If I see something TruthGuardian commented on and I find important enough I will comment myself. I don't know why you are surprised that I mostly agree with him, you could literally find millions of people who would agree with TruthGuardian on those subjects too. If you are against that, you should equally oppose those who have a repeatedly anti-Jackson stance on wiki.

Since you included where I commented on a talk page, but TruthGuardian didn't, for completeness, why didn't you also include

where TruthGuardian commented and I did not, including many Jackson-related discussion, for completeness?

Your theory is that he was not interested in canvasing me for these?

Talk:Michael Jackson ‎ →‎Adding Philanthropy

Talk:List of awards and nominations received by Michael Jackson ‎ →‎Billboard Awards

Talk:Honorific nicknames in popular music

Talk:List of best-selling music artists ‎ →‎What about these countries?

Talk:Michael Jackson ‎ →‎Record Producer

Talk:List of best-selling music artists ‎ →‎Math, claimed sales versus certified sales, and sources

Talk:Samata (fashion entrepreneur) ‎

Talk:Health and appearance of Michael Jackson ‎

Talk:Charles Thomson (journalist) ‎ →‎Grandiose claims of winning awards, commendations, and shortlists

Talk:FBI files on Michael Jackson ‎ →‎Removal of Unbalanced tag

Talk:Cultural impact of Michael Jackson ‎ →‎Jive Talkin'

Talk:Cultural impact of Michael Jackson ‎ →‎Puffery Tag

Talk:List_of_best-selling_music_artists/Archive_44#Whitney_Houston

Talk:List_of_best-selling_music_artists/Archive_42#Uniformity

Several of your examples are factually wrong:

1. The last one: you say I made my first edit in two weeks 1 hours after TruthGuardian started the RFC. Except you didn't bother to check what that edit was: it was adding Won to the musical's page, as they won best choreography at the Outer Critics Circle Awards. I edited it right after I saw it reported that they won and if you google it you will see they were announced on May 17 2022. My edit had nothing to do with TruthGuardian's RFC. Where I only voted 3 days later, and in this case I didn't learn about the RFC from his history but from this RFC list page, which, as I said I check regularly.

2. My comment on the Musical's page and Square One and FBI files talk pages were the result of me watching those pages. I would have made those comments whether TruthGuardian commented there or not.

3. At the RFC I started the allegations was not that I canvassed TruthGuardian. Actually it's not clear who was accused of exactly what but the supposedly canvassed users did not include TruthGuardian who voted there days after it started and you really can't be surprised that an editor like him would find a Jackson related RFC on his own.

4. My vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Jackson impersonator (2nd nomination) also had nothing to do with TruthGuardian. The votes are 5 days apart, I learned about it by checking the page myself.

5. You said, regarding the vote on the Beyonce RFC, "something was happening". Yes, indeed. I saw Talk:Beyoncé ‎ →‎Votes in TruthGuardian's history, I was curious, checked it out and voted yes because objectively Beyonce is a songwriter. The date shows this was 1 months after TruthGuardian voted there.

6. Why do you include my comment on Trial of Michael Jackson when TruthGuardian was not even there? My comment had nothing to do with him. castorbailey (talk) 07:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• Sorry but this strikes me as "whenever Jim carries an umbrella, it rains, therefore Jim's umbrella causes the rain". Correlation is not causation, and that's not a lot of examples given it's over a two-year period. What about the examples when the order is reversed? How many discussions has one commented in that the other did not comment in? If these two categories have zero examples, then that might mean something, but without broader context, it's not unusual that two people would comment in discussions and it's not unusual that someone would break a period of inactivity because a new discussion started. Levivich^[block] 12:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

  I posted 14 discussions TruthGuardian was in and I wasn't, and two of those BilledMammal posted , we did not even agree in. castorbailey (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

  It could be a coincidence, but I am wondering how Jim knows to bring an umbrella. He claims that it's because he is watching TruthGuardians contributions, but I find that difficult to believe - he's too inactive for me to believe he is watching them regularly, and he is too quick to respond to new discussions to be watching them infrequently.

  There are some discussions that TruthGuardians contribute to without Jimcastor also responding to, but I don't find that convincing - TruthGuardians doesn't need to canvass Jimcastor to every discussion for canvassing to be occurring.

  Overall, it comes down to how do we determine the difference between consensual hounding and stealth canvassing - and when does either of them become disruptive to the consensus building process? BilledMammal (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

To the accusation above by Abhishek0831996, there is no obligation for editors to constantly be editing, and if you happen to be aware of this discussion, so can I. I have certain articles on my watchlist, and you compared my presence here to a past separate incident that was already dealt with (an admin had brought it to my attention) and never repeated itself. @BD2412: As other users have noted, such accusations are a form of harassment. Israell (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't accuse y'll to be inactive. BD2412 only made one comment here, and was about canvassing that other actually noticed something happens. Me, like most of other commentators here, are arguing the way in you come in talk pages, RfC etc. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 15:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@Apoxyomenus: Sorry, I meant Abhishek0831996. Israell (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

So one question on this then, just curious. How did you know about this discussion taking place here? Canterbury Tail talk 15:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Am I asking you how did you know about this discussion taking place here? I have been editing Wiki since 2006, and I do monitor pages even though I do not edit all that often. Israell (talk) 16:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

No one is saying there's any obligations to editing frequency or activity. (That's a bizarre take away from these discussions.) The point being made was there were a lot coincidences in editing activity. Maybe it's valid, maybe it's not, but it's certainly not harassment. It's a common thing to look at when people are suspected sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry/canvassing etc. It's no different from noticing that two editors both use a common phrase or misspell the same word when they write. Making typos on talk pages isn't against any policy, but it can still be a giveaway of coordinated activities, abusing multiple accounts, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 15:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

The RfC that started this issue off

It's fairly clear that Talk:List_of_best-selling_albums#RfC_on_using_100m_claimed_sales_for_the_Thriller_album is, if not invalid, certainly has the possibility of being tainted. What should be done with it? My suggestion is that it should be closed as such, especially as a number of the Support !votes copy each other's "arguments" without providing any reliable sources for doing so. There is a section above the RfC posted by TruthGuardians, which claims seven reliable sources for the "100m" figure. One does claim it (but is the weakest source), one doesn't mention it at all, and the other five are all Error 404. No problem with a new RfC, but it needs to be couched in far better terms than this one, which basically suggests a change to the article without providing any reason why that should happen. Thoughts (especially from uninvolved editors and admins)? Black Kite (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• The RfC should be closed and arguments by canvassed editors should be ignored. All these editors who have engaged in canvassing including Israell should be alerted of General sanctions on Michael Jackson and any other instance of disruptive editing should be met with topic ban. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 18:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

It seems that I'm part of some kind of suspect list. And I wonder why? I registered as a Wikipedia user less than a month ago, I've participated in several RfCs, in which even unregistered users can participate by signing the messages with the IP address. However here the registration dates, number of contributions and many other things are being checked. Isn't that changing the rules of Wikipedia? And all of this is the result of this discussion started by Harout72. One only has to dig into the history of his messages to realize that he's been systematically opposing any increase in Michael Jackson's sales for over 10 years now. If other users are being regarded MJ fans here, how should Harout72 be regarded then?

And now there are users saying that the RfC should be closed and keep the current figure. Why? Because some users on the opposition side don't like the result? Because in the "suspect list" there are 9 users, including me, so I reduce the number to 8 (when maybe the real number of wrongdoers is not more than 2 or 3). But even if those 8 users were only one person (which is unlikely) there would still be a majority of users who support increasing the figure. Is that not going to be taken into account? Is the RfC going to be invalidated without definitive proof? Because if the "proof" is the same that has led to my name appearing among the suspects, then that would be directly an attack on democratic values. It's like if a president who wants to remain in power falsely claims that there was a fraudulent voting when elections are held (or even simulates it or deliberately allows it), and so if the result is not to his liking, he states that the voting is invalid, and that nothing should change and he should remain in power.

A lot of things have been checked so far, which seems that a rigorous handling is intended, so check as much as necessary, but this RfC should have a trustable and serious end. AnneDant87 (talk) 01:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Racial Bias

The RfC that started the false allegations

I believe that Harout72 is making these allegations because I did not withdraw this RFC even though he appeared to have asked to to “wrap this”. I also believe Harout72 has started this new discussion on the talk page to influence the closing editor of the RFC. Finally, just like TheWikiholic observed on the talk page, I now suspect there could potentially be racial bias against black artist, music, and editors of color. There was such an incident there as you can see here. Harout72 was excusing the editor’s biased comments where black artists and black music was belittled. The discriminatory tone is greatly concerning and not the first time used. Due to the triggering nature of what was being said, I was forced to take a little time away from Wikipedia.TruthGuardians (talk) 01:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, which link above is supposed to be evidence of racial bias of Harout exactly? The only example you linked to that even remotely reference race is to a different editor, not Harout. You'd better have better evidence than this to make such an accusation. Sergecross73 msg me 01:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I said Harout agreed with the person making the comment. I didn’t say he made the comment. TruthGuardians (talk) 02:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I should scold you for not linking to actual evidence of that claim, or just cut to the chase and recommend a WP:BOOMERANG for attempting such a half-baked, ill-conceived attack on another editor. The community isn't going to have patience for crap like this. Sergecross73 msg me 02:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

My apologies for the confusion. I added the incorrect link and used the wrong verb to describe his actions. He wasn’t defending the racist comments being made, he was excusing and virtually ignoring the racial bias. It was called out by other editors, whom I assume are also editors of color where then he replies, “ I think Markus clarified what he was saying very well. His actions seem to be of a person who's unbiased, in fact he's the one that downgraded the claimed figure of Bat Out of Hell just days ago.” Then there was a reply to him clarifying why it wasn’t okay. You can read it for yourself now that the correct link has been added. TruthGuardians (talk) 03:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

The links you're providing simply aren't backing up your case at all. Sergecross73 msg me 03:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

TruthGuardians, you would start making major progress at least here on wiki if you stopped believing what you think you believe. I'm not sure what you believe you're going to accomplish by using this idiotic racial accusations against me. As for Markus, he clarified in that thread what he was saying, he was clearly speaking about a group of people editing a certain genre. Harout72 (talk) 02:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I am proud of the tremendous progress that I have made on Wikipedia in my spare time. There’s been a lot of consensus, improvement, and articles created by myself. I said you agreeing with his comments were hurtful. You certainly do not get to blacksplian to a person of color what discrimination is to them and how they are negatively impacted by it. TruthGuardians (talk) 02:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

All your actions point to the fact that you're a disruptive editor, of course you can't see that, that's why you're proud of yourself. As for me, I'm glad we have appropriate boards such as ANI, and I'm hoping that a decision will be made by admins to put an end to your continuous disruptions once and for all. Harout72 (talk) 04:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• The funny thing is, Harout made this question because he helped in implement the same system of certifications column with albums in the section 20—29 million, as it shows article's edit history. Most of y'll, complained about inflated sales of some albums at the RfC, without even helping in providing sources in that effort. Unlike, others including Harout and Markus. You've made assumptions about racial bias in the past, both in Janet and Michael Jackson pages and even, talking that there exists a bias related to MJ. Ofc, one try to be neutral, but the different that many of y'all came with a pro-MJ Argumentum ad populum feelings: "because is Michael Jackson" and "because is MJ's sister" that source (higher sales than the currents) "is true". "If xx source stated Thriller sold 300 million is true" and those who opposed to it, are MJ-haters. Perhaps are hyperbolic examples, but something like this pretty much happen. Even, a Janet Jackson fan posted a video on YouTube complaining about Wikipedia's "lower" sales. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 02:21, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Block over false accusations

TruthGuardians above falsely accuse another editor of racial bias right after another editor (Factlibrary1) was warned for making same false accusations.[199] Why there should be no block for TruthGuardians who has been already blocked before for similar misconduct? Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:17, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Double standard

Wubslin is an editor that has 153 edits, all made in the last 7 days on their new account: here. This is their first RFC where they agree with with Binksternet’s point of view. The two editors share this edit history in common. Binksternet is also known to frequent talk page discussions with Harout72. Here is the very lengthy and fully coincidental shared edit history of the last 5 years. In fact, you can see the same coincidental edit history between Binksternet, Harout72, Apoxy, Markus (Marcus88) and other "Oppose" votes editors on the RFC that brought us here. Is there going to be an SPI investigation against the new editor? Are they going to be accused of being canvassed? What about the opposing editors who always caucus together? Is there going to be meat puppetry allegations levied against them for the same reasons that are being levied against the editors that cast "Support" votes? Note: I'm not accusing anyone. I'm just pointing out the double standard presented by these accusations. Israell (talk) 02:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay, this is just further evidence that you simply don't understand how the website works. There is no double standard here. Anyone is free to open an SPI case on anyone. Do you have a good-faith concern about sockpuppetry? Open up an SPI case yourself. That said, be mindful of WP:POINT, and of potentially having repercussions if you repeatedly suggest cases with bad evidence. Sergecross73 msg me 02:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

nationalistic vandal

• OrionNimrod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) great removal of sourced content, without conesus at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Trianon and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Romania. Vladdy Daddy Silly (talk) 02:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Not a vandal. See WP:NOTVAND and use talk page to resolve your dispute. So far neither of you have used any talk page.[200][201] >>> Extorc.talk 03:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing: User:Vif12vf

This user went through my page reverting edits where I was correcting articles and adding translations for names in their native languages, as is quite common on here. he only left the comment "no Indic scripts" which I could not find and basis in wikipedia guidelines for. I see he also has a lot of other complaints on his page for disruptive editing and edit warring. Not sure if he is some kind of troll but I would like mods to take a look. I would like to come to a resolution as I really don't understand this guys motives or if there was some kind of confusion going on. Many thanks.

edit: I just found the rule on it, and though I don't quite understand it it seems to only apply to articles on India. Four of my articles edits that were reverted were on non-Indian topics. User:Vif12vf has indeed acted outside the bounds of wikipedia conduct

This avoidance of Indic scripts only applies to articles that are predominantly India-related and is excluded from, among others, articles about Hinduism, Buddhism, or any of India's neighbouring countries. It is a divergence from the usual practice of including non-Latin script in leads when it is arguably relevant (e.g. "Athens ... Greek: Αθήνα ..." at the article Athens).

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josepherino (talk • contribs) 03:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC) 

@Josepherino: I don't know and frankly don't care who's right, but why on earth are you at ANI rather than discussing this with the editor concerned? Nil Einne (talk) 04:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

His page is full of people contesting his edits and he doesn't seem to respond to them. I've also tried to contact him and nothing went through. Josepherino (talk) 04:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

@Josepherino: Unless you've carefully analysed each specific case, you have no idea what went on so what other people may have done is irrelevant. And you contacted them less than 1 hour ago. People aren't expected to live on Wikipedia, it's ridiculous to expect an editor to respond in 7 minutes (the time from when you posted to their talk page to when you posted here) to a dispute which is in no way urgent [202]. I'll be blunt, if you aren't willing to discuss disputes with people before escalating things to ANI, including giving them adequate time to respond, then sorry but Wikipedia is not the place for you. Nil Einne (talk) 04:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm new to this so I'm not yet aware of the protocols, I'll delete this, revert the edits that wikipedia rules allow, and then I'll discuss with him. thanks Josepherino (talk) 04:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

@Josepherino: yes, there are many guidelines to keep track of – yet another one is this one, which says that in most cases, you shouldn't delete talk page or notice board discussions where other editors have responded. The thread will be archived in a few days if nobody posts to it. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 07:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

its like stepping through a minefield here! Sorry though, didn't realize. I'll have to pay more attention Josepherino (talk) 07:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Ed Sadler page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, I've spent my whole day working on an article for the singer Ed Sadler and it's now deleted. Someone has made it redirect to one the artist's bands, Fear Zero. I strongly disagree with this decision. Can someone please revert it? My article contained a lot of different sources and information which added quality content to Wikipedia. I have no idea who made that change that's why I'm contacting you directly. --Ryzen2014 (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Just for reference the article is now at AFD. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
• I have since sent it to AFD after my attempt to redirect it but this doesn't belong here. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ovid99

• Ovid99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2603:6010:DE3D:3FF6::/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The 2603:6010:DE3D:3FF6:* IP range and then Ovid99 have made about a thousand edits across 49 articles since 17 May, adding content which is largely original research and often involves the Goths in England. Their edits have been reverted by Spinney Hill at Basingstoke here, XyNq at Basingstoke here, Erp at Godalming here and here, Mako001 at Godmanchester here, Dudley Miles at Kingdom of Kent here and here, Discospinster at Meonwara here and Murgatroyd49 at Winchester here.

I explained original research to the editor at User talk:2603:6010:DE3D:3FF6:5476:8A0C:8792:7BC1#Information not supported by a reference and User talk:Ovid99#June 2022 and started a discussion about the edits at Talk:Anglo-Saxons#Meonwara and Wihtwara, later moved to Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms#Meonwara and Wihtwara, which confirmed that other editors view Ovid99’s edits as original research.

For example in the history section of Meonwara the IP editor added on 28 May that the Meonwara "appear to have been part of the defence of the Sub-Roman polity of Cair Guinntguic",, here The source wikisource:la:Historia Brittonum just lists Cair Guinntguic as one of the cities of Britain, it doesn't say that the Meonwara were part of its defences. Also, the reliability of Historia Brittonum is debatable.

On 16 June Ovid99 edited the sentence to remove "of Cair Guinntguic " and the Historia Brittonum reference here. This is still original research, not supported by the references at the end of the sentence to the Antiquary and the Encyclopedia of Barbarian Europe. The Antiquary Google books link is from 1894 and thus not up to date scholarship. The relevant section is probably ‘’Traces of the Jutes in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight’’ on pages 100 to 104, which mentions the Meonwara on page 101. The Encyclopedia of Barbarian Europe Google books link does not mention the Meonwara and only mentions the Jutes on pages 34 and 361.

Another example is the etymology section of Goddards Green, West Sussex, added here by Ovid99, which links the place name to the Goths and has three references to works by Alexander del Mar, Procopius and Ivan Margary. They don't support the information in the section as Del Mar archive.org link and Procopius UChicago link do not mention Goddards Green and Margary (archive.org link, 1955 edition) just describes the Roman road through it. TSventon (talk) 22:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

References

A block of a few days to give them some time to read up on what original research is may solve the issue, and would be worth trying before moving to longer duration blocks. Their edits seem to be a mixed bag of good, not-so-good, and then just garbage. The edits to Isle of Thanet were just plain old unexplained deletion. If possible, we'd really want to get them to stop making garbage edits, improve their not-so-good ones, and carry on with the good ones. Being a new editor, I'd want to cut them some slack, particularly since not all their edits seem to be problematic. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 23:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I just followed the normal common sources available to anyone so far as Basingstoke was concerned. Is there a place name or Anglo Saxon scholar who is a wikipedia editor that can help. Spinney Hill (talk) 07:47, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Ovid99 also seems to be going through articles on modern towns and villages mainly in Hampshire, and editing the history/ etymology sections eg: Warblington (there are others). The problem is that a lot of these sites are not checked very much and mostly the history sections are small or non existent. My concern is that we now have someone editing these sites with little chance of them being reviewed. As TSventon intimates the sheer breadth and volume of Ovid99 edits makes it difficult to keep up.Wilfridselsey (talk) 11:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I’ve seen this too. They’ve done quite a lot of damage to a wide swathe of articles. The volume of edits + WP:IDHT when told about basic policies like WP:OR moves this from content issue to a behaviour/admin issue. A block to stop them until they show willingness to take on board our policies is needed urgently. DeCausa (talk) 11:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I second DeCausa's suggestion of a block until they agree to follow policies such as no original research. I have looked at Ovid99's/ the IP's changes to all 49 articles listed above and all but two seem to include original research. The exceptions are reversing vandalism at History of Rochester, Kent here and copy editing at Niskus, e.g. here.

I informed Ovid99 of this discussion, but they seem to be taking a break from editing rather than responding here. TSventon (talk) 14:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

About User:Eric behavior of removing a large number of city's built-in climate data templates.

I find his editorial behavior very puzzling, he thinks adding climate data to the article will affect the layout of the article. But that's not a valid reason for him to purge the climate class template, and there are plenty of articles with climate data to disprove his point, like Yerbogachen or Antipayuta.

His earliest such misconduct began with the article Ciboure, and he has since deleted more than a dozen articles on climate data. I used to give proper reminders and warnings on his user page, but he still goes his own way and provokes my talk page. 迷斯拉10032号 (talk) 14:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Anyone concerned, please see here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Weather#Climate_sections_in_articles_on_individual_towns. Eric ^talk 16:26, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I suggest both editors engage at the discussion Eric started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather and resolve the content dispute, hopefully with the engagement of other weather/geo-interested editors. Also, 迷斯拉10032号 needs to stop forum-shopping; they've brought this up here, WP:AIV, and WP:Teahouse. Schazjmd (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

So the big thing about the climate template and the layout is the fact that the parameter "width=auto" isn't automatically inside the template. It was suggested to be added a long time ago, but for some reason was never incorporated. This fixes the whitespace layout issues and is the solution instead of deleting the template that is used on thousands of articles. Canterbury Tail talk 16:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Just to be clear: I did nothing to the template itself; I merely undid the user's implementation of it on a number of articles, which I found to be poorly done (and without summaries). Eric ^talk 16:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I understand. The lack of this parameter being defaulted in has been a thorn in my side as well for exactly the ridiculous whitespace issues it causes, especially on smaller articles, on some resolutions without the parameter. With the parameter it generally plays nicely and fits in fine. (even better if we set it to collapsed by default.) Canterbury Tail talk 16:44, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Flahistory and Byrd Spilman Dewey

• Flahistory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Byrd Spilman Dewey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#A_person_I_know_is_vandalizing_a_page

The editor in question has been asserting article ownership by reporting that they maintain a page, and complaining at the Teahouse that an editor who edited the page was vandalizing it. There was no vandalism, only a content dispute complicated by yelling vandalism to "win" the content dispute. There appears to be a content dispute, and the editor in question is trying both on-wiki contact and off-wiki contact (Facebook) to contact the other editor, User:Curiositykeeper. The editor in question also filed a case at DRN asking to have edits to the page rolled back. Flahistory is using the page to promote a book that they have written about the subject of the article. The DRN case was properly closed by User:Nightenbelle due to lack of prior discussion.

There are issues of article ownership and conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:55, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

• It strikes me at this point as a minor dust-up. There's some disagreement about the removal of a passage. Flahistory also appears to be a bit aggressive in their response. There's nothing blockable here. I'll make a caution to the concerned editor at the talk page of the article, but otherwise I don't see there's much to do here yet. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Yohusenofyipyuesuen is spamming

• Yohusenofyipyuesuen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Flora Cheung (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Flora Cheung (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This account is a single-purpose account whose objective is to get Flora Cheung into article space by any means necessary, against the efforts of User:Praxidicae, User:DoubleGrazing, User:Theroadislong, User:Scope creep, and others. A block is in order, as is salt. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:18, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

they're only here to spam fancruft, so i say block them indefinitely until they get a clue. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Salted and blocked for 72 hours for DE. (possible conflict with Prax) EvergreenFir (talk) 19:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Good luck on stopping the spam. Of the 339 edits on en wiki, I believe every single one was about Flora Cheung. User also has an account on zh wiki, with 1223 edits. On the first page of edits, it appears that every single one was about Flora Cheung. Has 27 edits on commons. 18 were deleted; the remaining 9 seem to be pictures of Flora Cheung. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Inappropriate categories

Vinnylospo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I am reporting this user because they have added a bunch of unwanted categories and memes to their article. They also added a section of "memes" or similar that were completely irrelevant. It was like a list of memes, so I think they are just trying to get views by making the article longer, but it's not helping anyone.

Source: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 22:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

@Junior5a: Your diff #5 is the same as diff #1, and I don't see anything about a section of "memes" or similar that were completely irrelevant that was added by this user. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure it was had multiple warnings last months ago.

While I checked this contribute but I see there is problem about BLP and somewhat warning. ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 05:28, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Suspicious AfD closure

Politicalwikifan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Independent-Green Party US (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user appeared out of nowhere during an AfD to blank the nomination page and replace the content with an {{Old AfD multi}} template; they also removed the AfD tag from the article and added the {{Old AfD multi}} template to the talk page. This followed about 3 hours after Jackrobert007 (talk · contribs) added sources to the article and 2.5 hours after their last comment at the AfD. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Why did you go here straight away instead of discussing the matter with the editor?Lurking shadow (talk) 09:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Coming here was reasonable under the circumstances. CU confirms that this is a sock of Jackrobert007. Master blocked one week, sock indeffed. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Bobby Sen - CIR issues

Bobby Sen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Despite several warnings and messages on their talk pages, the user does not agree with WP's maintenance templates on article pages and removes them without resolving the underlying issues. See [203], [204], [205], [206]. In the past the user edit warred to remove AfD/CSD templates on articles [that they created]. See their talk page sections: April 2021, July 2021, September 2021, March 2022, Warning: start using edit summaries, Tendentious editing at The Kashmir Files (both from Bishonen), May 2022, Don't remove tag, June 2022. I see a bit of WP:CIR issue with an I don't care attitude. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 09:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

While it is admittedly concerning to see so many warnings on a user's talk page, I'm not sure I clearly see the issue with the four diffs that you've posted here. In three of them, they're removing a {{Sources exist}} template from articles that have anywhere from 7-13 sources. I haven't done an in-depth analysis of the quality of those sources, but it at least seems plausible that 7-13 references might be adequate for these relatively short articles. In the fourth diff, they're removing a {{More plot}} template from an empty plot section (and removing the empty plot section as well). I'm not sure if it's standard practice to create empty sections within an article solely for the purpose of housing cleanup templates, so I'm kinda ok with that one too. Do you have any more egregious examples of this behavior? Otherwise, I'm not seeing anything actionable here. Admittedly, I haven't gone through the user's other contributions in any depth. But at first glance, I don't see evidence of a lot of their edits being reverted. It is concerning, however, that this user seems to almost never engage with other editors, or even respond to other editors' messages. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 03:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I have read the above message. I will reply when I have a moment. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

DietCokeFeast long-term disruption on Pescetarianism

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

DietCokeFeast has been disrupting the pescetarianism article for over a year and other related articles to semi-vegetarianism/vegetarianism and other diets such as the pollotarianism for well over a year. This user refuses to use talk-pages and has ignored many warnings on their user-page and on talk-pages. DietCokeFeast ignores WP:MEDRS and frequently adds original research, personal commentary, primary sources, unreliable blogs and other dubious material as references. The most annoying thing is that when these are removed by other editors this user just re-adds similar sources and never apologizes or engages on the talk-page. The same user also messes up a lot of their edits with poor MOS and templates and bad grammar. It is taking a lot of work to clean up after them. I want to point out this issue has been going on for a year and a half, not a few weeks. Myself and two other users have pinged DietCokeFeast and left them messages but they never respond.

DietCokeFeast has been editing the pescetarianism article since February 2021. In that time practically every edit they have made to the article has been reverted. Occasionally they add a reliable source but the majority of what they add is unreliable. Their over-all productivity is having a bad net influence because their edits leave the article in a worse state than before, they are not improving the article. DietCokeFeast and on another account MemaidenModus tried to re-write large sections of the article twice from a bad POV with many dodgy sources. If you check the editing history of pescetarianism I have not seen any other article quite like it. Usually disruptive editors actually engage talk-page warnings but this user deliberately never responds.

I strongly suspect that DietCokeFeast is the blocked user Zalgo who used many sock-puppets to push the carnivore diet on Wikipedia but has now switched gears and is promoting fish diets. The SPI [207] was stale so could not use CU data but DietCokeFeast at a minimum has been using an IP and another account in the past to edit the pescetarianism article from a POV.

If you check their own talk-page you will see warnings that users have left [208] (I left one in March 2021). The response has been silence from DietCokeFeast, ignoring any advice. The same has happened on multiple talk-pages going back a year. If you check the history of the pescetarianism article you will see a long-history of the bad editing they have done [209]. The same bad editing has spilled out on other diet articles (many others need to be checked), for example they made a mess on the Fried potatoes article adding unreliable material. It is the same thing every time.

If you go back 500 edits on the pescetarianism article [210] you can see how disruptive DietCokeFeast's edits have been. If this issue had been reported sooner I suspect they would have been blocked by now but they have received advice and warnings but do not respond. I believe that this user should been topic-banned from editing anything related to dieting. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

We do block people for failure to communicate. I suggest that the option of a block be considered here. The fact that nearly all of DietCokeFeast's edits at Pescetarianism are being reverted (per the above) indicates that their participation on that article is not helpful. I'm leaving them a notice of this ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 03:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Comment - If an editor is adding referenced content that is getting reverted, and then adds similar content with a different source, we are in "content dispute territory". There is also the possibility that ownership of an article is being claimed here. I would suggest that either this is thrashed out at talk page or WikiProject level, and I would encourage DietCokeFeast to engage in such a process, or that a thorough examination of all editors' editing needs to be made before the validity of this complaint can be established. Mjroots (talk) 12:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

It has not been possible to discuss it on the talk-page with DietCokeFeast because they deliberately do not reply. If you check the talk-page of the pescetarianism article including the archive, there have been various attempts to contact and ping DietCokeFeast about their bad editing going back more than a year but they never reply. They just turn up again on the article weeks later adding similar unreliable material. There was a recent SPI against DietCokeFeast and they logged in and and were editing whilst that was going on but never replied even whilst being notified [211] which is odd to say the least. The only message I have seen them type on a talk-page was a bizarre rant here [212] Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

EdJohnston, would you consider blocking DietCokeFeast? The user logs in but continues to ignore any message on their talk page, pings or article talk-page comments (even about this discussion). DietCokeFeast obviously saw the recent pings and talk-page comments on their own page but yet again ignores and does not respond. It's the same pattern that has been going on for a year and a half. I would point out that DietCokeFeast has yet again added an unreliable primary source to an article [213] this morning, linking to an unavailable YouTube Video and adding personal commentary that Apu Nahasapeemapetilon is a vegan (he isn't) with poor spelling mistakes "In the same episode learn we learn he is apparently good friends with Linda McCartney and Paul McCartney". It is the same thing over and over - an unreliable source or primary source, original research and personal commentary with spelling mistakes put onto article. The user has been called out about this type of editing many times and has been reverted but just does the same thing again and again on the article or a different one days or weeks later. I believe this issue needs to be resolved. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I have found this user to be persistent with opinion editing, use of dubious sources, and careless style and grammar WP:MOS on various articles about diets. Every edit needs to be checked and re-edited or reverted, with no engagement on the user's talk page or article talk page. I recommend a WP:TBAN on diet-related articles and edits. There is sufficient history to indicate that DietCokeFeast is both a sock master of other usernames and IP addresses, and a soapbox advocate for vegetarian diets, WP:SOAP. Zefr (talk) 20:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Psychologist Guy, consider explaining your edit of Pescetarianism on the article talk page. It is possible that Youtube might be acceptable for that usage. (Apu is a fictional character, and we allow people to use the show itself as a source if the plot has to be described). But let me know if you notice User:DietCokeFeast getting into revert wars on diet-related articles. EdJohnston (talk) 17:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

User:JamesJohn82 giving me warnings for fixing his edits

JamesJohn82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi, the User:JamesJohn82 has given me two warnings for disruptive edits even though I left detailed comments in the edits/reverts I did. I tried to leave some details about his edits on his talk page but they were removed by him. Kenm v2 (talk) 10:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I see you used the talk page. JamesJohn82 did not. JamesJohn gave you notices that do not seem consistent with what you were doing. I noticed you made a minor error in applying policy and guidelines - removing content from your own talkpage is normally an exception from the removal prohibition on talk pages.

JamesJohn82, can you explain your actions, please?Lurking shadow (talk) 11:23, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, yes, I left a couple of topics on his talk page related to the edits I did.

And understood on the removal prohibition. Kenm v2 (talk) 12:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I would find that the refusal to even acknowledge abuse of warning templates on the part of JamesJohn82 to be unacceptable on its own. In fact, we have a warning series for that. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 11:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• Note: I've temporarily blocked JamesJohn82 for advertising since they continue to add the jagatguru link. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• From the many warnings on their talkpage, JamesJohn82 has been making work for other users by egregious sourcing errors for years. Their ability to distinguish reliable sources doesn't seem to have gotten any better since Kuru's painstaking warnings and explanations about Wikipedia mirrors in 2020. An indefinite block might be on the cards if the problem continues unabated after RegentsPark's block. Bishonen | tålk 10:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC).

An Anonymous User is changing Eurovision Contesters for no reason

Nearly 2 Days Ago, a user changed these article's songs -

• Slovenia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2021
• Finland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2021
• Eurovision Song Contest 2021

Please do something about it--2A10:8001:E494:0:5DE8:D957:3901:9AB0 (talk) 11:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

A few edits were made a couple of days ago, they’ve been reverted and not redone. This is most definitely not an urgent chronic behavioural problem requiring immediate administrator attention. There’s nothing to do here. Canterbury Tail talk 11:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Editing vital articles list without discussion

Back in December 2021, I stumbled upon the Vital articles - specifically the Level 5 vital articles. There's where I noticed Saturdayopen adding and removing entries with no discussion on the talk page. The talk page has made it clear on when entries should be changed. I pretty much was told off from I made my first notice to the user. (Others have noted before and after me it seems on the talk page.) I was just told the same situation from Kazamzam. It seems the user has at least made discussion on the talk page but the same results are happening. I also just realized they have been warned in the past with editing vital article lists. I feel like some action should be done to at least put editing the list on hold for a bit. – The Grid (talk) 01:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Not their first rodeo - see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1047#User:Saturdayopen modifying Vital Article List without consensus, 10 September 2020. Narky Blert (talk) 04:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I would really like someone who has been involved in the Vital Article project be involved, please. Saturdayopen (talk) 05:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Blocked as a sock puppet of Afdafadsfas (talk · contribs). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. – The Grid (talk) 05:36, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Asdfghjkl9658

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Asdfghjkl9658 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Despite multiple warnings and urgings over the last couple of years this user has so far not responded one single time. Is there any policy how to deal with Wiki behaviour like this – or should we say lack thereof? Antique Rose 20:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Another question is why is such an absurd and hard to read username allowed on here?--2A00:23C4:3E08:4001:2D32:2A48:E944:B665 (talk) 20:59, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Lol, look at your username. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 03:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• Question -- behavior like what? Is there a link or reference you'd like to provide?--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Looking over their talk page and contribs after I came across them yesterday, and as I noted on their talk, it's a clear case of WP:RADAR. Any more disruptive edits, or refusal to engage and I'll block them. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 00:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

They've edited twice since the final warning. The edits themselves are minor and not disruptive, though they are still not using edit summaries. I'll be shocked if they actually engage here, but I'll give them a chance to answer this here at ANI, in case hell has frozen over. Also concur that they should have been warned about the username long ago. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 00:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

User(s) blocked: Asdfghjkl9658 (talk · contribs). They kept on with the same pattern after warnings and being asked to come here. Only 24 hours as it's the first time. If they don't shape up we'll revisit and up it. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 00:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@CorbieVreccan: The user has returned and they show no signs of changing their Wiki behaviour. Antique Rose 17:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Note that "indefinite" doesn't mean forever. If the user starts communicating, acknowledges their past behavior (or lack of), and wishes to be unblocked, any admin is free to do so. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I support the indef-block. It's what I would have done. Let us know if another account or IP continues with the same editing pattern. Often these types of users keep up the pattern with socks. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Terran Intelligence Community

I received this ‘warning (threat?) on my talkpage. Likely linked to my reply to the message user:XLinkBot#Error Grid. I have reverted the warning, but it suggests that there is some background editing going on which may need to be scrutinized (I don’t believe this is pure standalone). I’d appreciate some independent handling of this. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

That's clearly some troll-child messing around. I say revert and ignore. see this PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

• IP's post lol'ed me. Take it light heartedly Beetstra Someone is simply trying to annoy/scare you. —usernamekiran (talk) 07:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

  They did it to me too. And I stand by my statement to them. PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Suspicious activity of User:Akoikollie

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Akoikollie has been repeatedly reverting 1 byte edits on their user page, I assume in attempt to farm edit count for confirmation. I didn't think it belonged in any other notice board categories so I am putting it here. I noticed these rapid edits while looking at the edit filter log, where these edits were picked up as "New account suspicious activity". ~XyNq^t_c 01:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I have a theory. They are trying for extended-confirmed status. Why? There’s a clue in the one Wiktionary entry they wrote. They used “Cornelius Keagon” as a definition. Who is Cornelius Keagon? I don’t know, but that page on Wikipedia was salted, and until very recently required extended-confirmed status to recreate. In the past few days it was changed to require administrator access to recreate. Wise and timely move! — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:26, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Probably User:Cornelius Keagon. Same IP range as the last sock, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)  Note: The account has been globally locked yesterday. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:41, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal Attacks

• NikolaosFanaris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• AkisAr-26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:NikolaosFanaris:

1. falsely claimed I'm sugarcoating and admiring criminals and neonazis [214][215][216]
2. deleted an ANI to avoid a ban (and lied about it) [217]
3. falsely claimed I am affiliated with a far-right party [218]
4. raised COI against me in which he lied in order to convince the admin [219]

My efforts to resolve this on his page were deleted.[220] AkisAr-26 (talk) 19:59, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Before we look at the other editor, who has not been perfectly civil, let's talk about you. How did you find ANI on your 53rd edit to Enwiki [221]? Admittedly you had a handful or prior edits to el.wikipedia.org, but not enough to be this familiar with process. It looks very much like you've had a prior account. Please address whether you have ever edited Wikipedia using a different account. Jehochman ^Talk 20:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I've been doing math for decades. Is it hard to look through 30 pages of WP documentation to figure out how to ANI? Besides if I knew how to do it properly I wouldn't have waste hours to write a detailed report. I would have done what did now. AkisAr-26 (talk) 05:41, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I just realized you added me as "suspicious"[222] (I am assuming this initiates an investigation against me as well?). Apart from "ANI on [my] 53rd edit" is there another reason you did? AkisAr-26 (talk) 06:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

At the top of this message board it says (or should say), that all editors involved in a dispute may be subject to scrutiny, including the filing party. You've explained yourself and I have not requested any sanction against you, but let's see what other editors who are familiar with the topic area have to say. Somebody who is familiar may notice behavioral evidence that sheds light on the situation. Jehochman ^Talk 13:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Not sure how "behavioral" evidence will help, when there's physical evidence (digital forensics WP uses to detect sockpuppets) which proves I haven't violated any related rule. Regardless, I respect your concern but disagree on the suspicion thresholds. Kind regards, AkisAr-26 (talk) 14:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@Jehochman Although I am not defending either editor I'd like to mention that it's completely possible to find ANI before making a single edit. Some editors, myself very much included, like to work out what to do (and what not to do!) to resolve conflicts, what sort of mistakes are commonly made, and learn a bit of site jargon and etiquette before jumping in. Please don't use an interest in understanding how the site works as a reason to be suspicious of new editors! StartGrammarTime (talk) 09:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Based on my 17 years of participation, it happens more often than not that a user who runs to ANI early in their history is a sock puppet account. Correlation does not imply causation and this is not proof, but it is a circumstance that should be pointed out and investigated. Jehochman ^Talk 13:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

If there are still personal attacks on a live page, you may feel free to remove them. It is permitted for any editor to remove what is unevociably a personal attack. I doubt any other action will come of this report when there are no new violations. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 04:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

How can I remove them? Do I just delete them? AkisAr-26 (talk) 05:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Follow the instructions listed and replace the problematic material with {{RPA}}. Make sure that the material removed would not be construed by a reasonable editor as anything more than a personal attack, and post a diff here when finished so that the removal can be reviewed (as it's your first time refactoring talk pages). Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 05:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance. Please see if I did it correctly [223]. It does work in removing PA but not sure what is considered PA. Are obvious lies about me PA? Baseless accusations? Should I remove them too? Also, can't I just mark the whole discussion as RPA? Otherwise it will take quite a while to search all his references to me. AkisAr-26 (talk) 06:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1099#NikolaosFanaris: continuous baseless accusations against me. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

So there are no new incidents? This is a rehash of a month ago. ANI is preventative, not punitive and it seems in this case to have worked without any blocks or bans neccessary. WP:DROPTHESTICK as without new diffs, there is nothing for this board to discuss. Slywriter (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I already attempted to provide the same advice/guidance User talk:Ponyo#Unresolved report in ANI archived. What should I do?, to no avail.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

You did not address the ongoing defamation and the fact I could delete the offensive material. I do thank you for the rest of the guidance though. AkisAr-26 (talk) 05:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I understand. I don't mind him not getting a ban. I simply want to remove the defamation and ensure he doesn't do it again. Doesn't it get noted so that if he offends in the future it shows he's done it before as well? AkisAr-26 (talk) 05:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Don't worry, I will not "defame" you again in the future. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 08:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate that. Could you remove all such content with the {{RPA}} tag? AkisAr-26 (talk) 08:42, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Will proceed with the removal in due course. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 09:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd appreciate this is done promptly, preferably before this ANI resolution. I'm not saying you'll postpone it intentionally indefinitely after doing 1-2 edits, but I just want to make sure my concerns are addressed. Thanks. AkisAr-26 (talk) 09:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Not only did you not remove the defamation, but on the contrary you re-introduced it: "sugarcoat Kasidiaris' criminal past and neo-Nazi ties"[224], after I removed it. You lied like in your previous lets-retract offer[225]. AkisAr-26 (talk) 07:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the personal attack I saw [226], and if it is restored I know how to make sure the editor gets sanctioned. Will you please list any other personal attacks you think remain (leaving out anything that's borderline) and I or somebody else will deal with them. Jehochman ^Talk 13:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the assistance. I'll list them in my Talk Page. Does the user that re-introduced the attack get any sanctions for it? AkisAr-26 (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)