Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1123

I asked Amir Iranshahi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to stop adding copyrighted images that they found on the internet, but after they responded "ok", they've kept adding them. Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeap. I have blocked them indefinitely. --Yamla (talk) 10:55, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

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

So, I've caught this user attempting to move Duke Nukem (character) to two other titles (first to "Duke Nukem (Apogee Software)", then to "Duke Nukem (3D Realms)"). Their reasoning is that the Captain Planet character is just as notable, which I doubt considering the Captain Planet character doesn't have its own article (and the Captain Planet character has a hatnote anyways). I don't wanna spend my evening move warring, so I've come here to ask what to do. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

While typing this, they moved the page a third time. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of a banned user; blocked and reverted. ST47 (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Ugh, of course it's a sock. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

This diff speaks for itself. There's also more attacks, aspersions, and disparaging comments at User talk:Deb#Deletion of Jessica Pierce, including this gem of a diff. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

THe first diff is just loaded with personal attacks. The second one is just inappropriate talk page behavior of changing their comments after they had already been replied to. The user also seems to be following one of the users around since they had no business commenting on that section on Deb's talk page. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

• Indeffed. Courcelles (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Edited to add, I’d never heard of Dr. Pierce before 20 minutes ago, but this account was so clearly here to push an agenda against her, plus the personal attacks being so flagrant, this was absolutely an influence we are better off without. Courcelles (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I came across the recent edits at

The "vote" by "Don Omar", whose username is linked to Hulk~enwiki, an account that hasn't edited in 17 years, was posted by 112.134.167.220 (talk · contribs). Another IP, 112.134.165.104 (talk · contribs) added this post that links to User:Mike. More disruption can be seen in the edit history of that AfD. Obvious bad-faith editing; those two IPs need blocking. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 06:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Or a block of the IP range, since they're on the same network, but yeah, that's what I was leaning toward as well.

talk

) 06:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm thinking it's possible that these sock IPs belong to the creator of that article, පසිඳු කාවින්ද. Why? Minutes after the article was nominated at AfD, IP 112.134.166.186 (talk · contribs) showed up and was clearly opposed to the AfD. I'm guessing the only way they could show up at the AfD with that speed is if they received a notification or are tracking the page they recently created. The other two IPs I mentioned above geolocate to the exact same location as the first IP, and I have lots of suspicions. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 07:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Now User:පසිඳු කාවින්ද reverted my clean up of that AfD, their first edit to the AfD since the article was nominated, only minutes after IP was editing. Can an administrator please block the three IPs and User:පසිඳු කාවින්ද? — Nythar (💬-❄️) 07:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

They're inserting content added by one of the IPs. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 07:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I have checked the discussion and found that all comments made by those IP's are vaild, can you advise me the reason for revert? Only registered user can contribute to wikipedia or? — Preceding unsigned comment added by පසිඳු කාවින්ද (talk • contribs) 07:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

The IPs were impersonating multiple editors. You consider that to be valid? And why are the three IPs and yourself editing together so conveniently? — Nythar (💬-❄️) 07:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I am a wikipedia user for more than 10 years and created more than 500 articles for Sinhala wikipeida and made over 50,000 edits. In Sri Lanka, there are lot of people who are not registered but contributed to Sinhala wikipedia. You are saying that IP's are allowed read but not allowed to edit or comment for good reason? — Preceding unsigned comment added by පසිඳු කාවින්ද (talk • contribs) 07:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry? 500 articles and 50,000 edits? You've only created 98 articles on si.wiki and you have a total of only 7,000 edits across all Wikimedia projects. Nythar (💬-❄️) 07:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Exaclty, are you not including edits made before registering with IP's? And see below for other contributions:

https://translatewiki.net/wiki/Project_talk:Rally-2012-08#translatewiki.net_August_2012_Translation_Rally_results_26349

I was the top 1st contributor. Here says: පසිඳු කාවින්ද has made the most qualified contributions during the rally — Preceding unsigned comment added by පසිඳු කාවින්ද (talk • contribs) 08:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

More than 20,0000 translations for translatewiki donating my time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by පසිඳු කාවින්ද (talk • contribs) 08:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

If it's worth blocking me now, go ahead and do so. I have done many good things for wikimedia :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by පසිඳු කාවින්ද (talk • contribs) 08:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Using three IPs to impersonate other users and sway the result of a discussion is a blockable offense. This has nothing to do with your other contributions. Nythar (💬-❄️) 08:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

May an administrator please review this case of sockpuppetry? Thank you. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 09:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

For the record, පසිඳු කාවින්ද has created the sockpuppet Proudsrilankan to !vote keep at the AfD. Nythar (💬-❄️) 10:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I have reported it at SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/පසිඳු කාවින්ද Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I have deleted

පසිඳු කාවින්ද (talk · contribs) blocked for sockpuppetry, along with Proudsrilankan (talk · contribs) Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, even after User:Dronebogus had made a promise to me he would not make this mistake again, today he has closed a formal process in which he has already !voted. He has an unfortunate habit of closing discussions in which he has already made assertions (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8). He sometimes clerks various discussions, even when such clerking is not necessary and is quite unwelcome (9, 10). After today's transgression I have lost my willingness to look the other way.

There's an existing thread on this page where he says: "You keep insisting that you’ll improve your behavior but then just move on to some other topic to continue it. You have officially exhausted the community’s patience." I wish he would heed his own advice more, and offer it to others less. Dronebogus and I often disagree on the merits, but he seems to ignore this sort of feedback, or at least not keep his own pledges. I'd appreciate other editors looking over my shoulder here, because he and I DO frequently disagree. If I were not involved, I would have already blocked him from Wikipedia space and asked for an XfD ban from the community. BusterD (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

First of all, I am highly involved here, so assume that my testimony comes from a position of bias and not of objectivity.

Second, I can attest to Dronebogus's behavior at

WP:BEFORE when initiating MFD's, in one notable example he dropped a welcome template on a user's talk page and then nominated their user page for deletion

a day afterward.

I cannot ask for them to be blocked, because I know that at times I have been acting as an opposing force. But I find the behavior nonetheless to be as intolerable as BusterD does, and I think something needs to be done. This is getting to be a recurring issue. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 19:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that there are issues with Dronebogus' conduct, especially in deletion discussions.

A lot of their speedy closures are full of insults and not done in accordance with policy. Here [16] for example they speedy close a discussion on the basis that the creator is a "probable sockpuppet" (not that they've been blocked as a sockpuppet, but on the basis that dronebogus is accusing them of being a sockpuppet), and that it was a "frivolous renomination" (regarding a discussion from three years ago, that closed as no consensus). Here [17] they speedy keep an article on the basis that it passes Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) and is therefore presumed notable. A presumption of notability does not mean a topic is 100% guaranteed to get an article, and a closer does not get to just declare something notable.

Their responses to discussions are often filled with over-the-top, aggressive language which does nothing to further the discussion and just inflames tensions and insults the people who created the articles, e.g. "this useless article" [18] "We really need to gut Wikipedia of these" [19] "Wikipedia is not supercruftipedia" [20] "failed draft" [21].

There are a lot of comments that don't align with policy "list that should be a category" [22] (

WP:NOTDUP). Articles shouldn't exist even if the topic is notable if they could be redirected elsewhere [23]? What on earth is an "obvious article" and how does that tie into content or deletion policies [24]? Claiming that a page used for a rewrite (and therefore required for attribution) should be speedy deleted under a non-existent speedy deletion criteria [25]

?

Their interactions with other editors are often uncivil, containing personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. "Don’t bother arguing with DF, they vote “keep” on almost every deletion discussion they participate in, especially useless lists." [26], "Not an argument" [27]. Here they claim that notifying people who participated in a previous discussion would be "borderline canvassing" because they claim the previou discussion was "vote-bombed into oblivion by generic “support per above”" comments by people who just happened to disagree with Dronebogus [28].

I agree with the points made WaltClipper about Dronebogus' unfortunate focus on "cleaning up userspace" by nominating pages that no-one is realistically going to come across for deletion, which often turns into a massive time sink/drama fest. I also think that their nominations of other peoples sandboxes and userpages for deletion as Fancruft [29] or Webhosting [30] [31] is extremely hypocritical, given that >20% of dronebogus's edits have been spent making stuff in their own userspace like User:Dronebogus/True facts about Wikipe-tan, User:Dronebogus/Wikimedia Hall of Dubious Fame and User:Dronebogus/Basement. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

You seem to have an amazing amount of knowledge of microscopic details of my editing history for an IP with I have never interacted with less than 600 edits. You are also digging up things from the beginning of last year I would never say now and making ad hominem attacks. Also, how is “not an argument” a personal attack? Deletion discussions are not votes! Dronebogus (talk) 00:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

You see, this is the central issue, and why I proposed a limited duration ban on all XfD. I believe User:Dronebogus can learn to assume good faith, but so far he's resisting. He goes right for casting aspersions against an IP editor who shows up with diffs. Instead of working with the evidence, he goes straight for the personal attack. With a possible community ban under discussion. Not the smartest card to play just now. BusterD (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict after edit conflict after edit conflictfor an IP with I have never interacted with less than 600 edits. Dronebogus, when you find you've dug yourself into a hole, the best thing to do is to stop digging. Going after the messenger will not help your case. This is the sort of behavior that is leading to your imminent sanctions. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 01:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

But don’t you find it even a little bit odd that some random user, with barely any history, shows up with a small essay’s worth of intricate information? Dronebogus (talk) 01:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

No. There are plenty of IP lurkers on Wikipedia. The IP contributor from Germany comes to mind. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 01:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I do appreciate Dronebogus making my case for me. A self-inflicted wikibreak might be wise. BusterD (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

That comment is just kind of passive aggressive and not helpful. Dronebogus (talk) 01:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Again, he turns this away from his responsibility and towards mine. I'm losing my good faith here, so I'm signing off for a while. BusterD (talk) 01:40, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@BusterD: The problem is that Dronebogus is right. That comment wasn't constructive and was passive aggressive at best, and at worst poking a bear so you can complain when it swipes at you. This is a formal discussion about a user's conduct, elbow nudges to someone else saying Get a load of this guy amirite? are unhelpful and fairly rude. I'm curious what response, if any, you wanted from DB when you made that comment. GabberFlasted (talk) 11:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

BusterD, I understand your perspective here, and it's very frustrating when someone else like Dronebogus isn't heeding your advice. But your comment really was unconstructive. Advice like when to take a wikibreak may be true, but it almost always will be ignored if coming from someone the user has clashed with before. Better to let the facts show themselves and have either someone who often agrees with the user, or is entirely uninvolved, provide that advice. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

1) This was certainly an unusually reactive response coming from me. I myself immediately stepped back from keyboard after I made the comment. Without prompting. 2) User:Dronebogus's edits have drawn my close attention before. A further reading of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1096 § Proposal: Dronebogus warned will show it's Dronebogus's frequent incivility and WP:Ragpicking which first drew my (and other editors') attention. The involved closings are just the most obvious policy violations I demonstrated in my evidence above (still unrefuted). Involved closings demonstrate battleground and failure to understand or adhere to deletion policy. In my OP, I did not expect a broad discussion about every breach of protocol and decorum which I have seen from Dronebogus. I intentionally kept the scope narrow. 3) I was not myself a regular contributor to MfD until comparatively recently, when I noticed the frequent ragpicking for which Dronebogus was warned in the past and continues to a leading nominator and commenter. 4) In this very process Dronebogus demonstrates his bad habit to personalize the discussion, pointing fingers everywhere but at themselves, ignoring the issues, the policy, the behavior. His immediately commenting on the editor (not the edits) is what set me off. BusterD (talk) 18:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

5) Dronebogus's response to my evidence is "...I genuinely forgot the details of the discussion not to do this..." This is an unimpressive response from a user with exactly one talk archive page. An administrator noticed repeated bad behavior, interacted with them on the subject quite a bit, extracted a pledge not to let it happen again, then noticed the breach of policy again three months later. What is an admin supposed to do? "I forgot" is ridiculous. So far no admission of responsibility for their repeated violation of policy even after multiple warnings, only anger, denial, bargaining and depression. Still waiting on acceptance. And that, I'll concede, is absolutely infuriating to the admin. So I said something sub-optimal, then adjusted my behavior and took a break. BusterD (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I’ve violated policy, okay? I admit it. I fully, completely, sincerely admit it and would like you to leave me alone now. Dronebogus (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@

WP:SATISFY you in the process, measuring every word perfectly, just like you were not required to act perfectly. Note here that the MfD that is the most proximate background thing to this ANI has now been reclosed by an (especially experienced) uninvolved administrator as 'keep', when you who had !voted delete closed it as 'no consensus' (nearer to your position); the discussion hadn't changed in the meantime. Would you notice how incredibly tolerantly and mildly editors expressed their concerns to you on your talk page: (1) avoiding disagreement regarding the merits by not even telling you that the close is basically wrong (when I'm positive that they knew, just like I knew when I saw your close, that it's not the best reading of consensus, and not just bad as an involved close), (2) not demanding that you yourself undo it, (3) not threatening deletion review if you don't—at least not directly. Almost nothing was asked from you but simply to engage in the conversation. And you responded with Please do not use my talk page as a general discussion page. No one asked you to be perfect, so don't ask BusterD to be perfect. The most critical element here, the real point of failure, is your talk page. I'm saying this as a friend ...and someone with some very relevant experience in this area. I felt a need to tell you this. I hope you'll think about it. Cheers. —Alalch E.

22:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

That wall of text doesn’t justify that BusterD is essentially being given a “two wrongs make a right (especially if the second one is from an admin)” pass here. Dronebogus (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

As an administrator of English Wikipedia, my actions are always subject to community review and I encourage others to offer me direct feedback, including those with whom I disagree. Community trust is my only armor. If Dronebogus wants to start a separate thread on this page or at AN, I welcome the chance to see critique of my actions. This thread is about Dronebogus's behavior and conduct. BusterD (talk) 02:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I have interacted with you before in deletion discussions, but I'm on a dynamic IP range shared by a lot of people. I don't see the ad homien attacks here? “not an argument” isn't a personal attack, but I think it is an uncivil way of interacting with a newbie in their first ever deletion discussion after they had put a lot of effort into improving the article - you could have spent some time explaining what the issue with their comment actually was, rather than just dismissing it off hand as worthless.

My fundamental issue with your contributions to deletion discussions (and honestly discussions more generally) is that rather than explaining things politely in terms of policy you leave rather unpleasant comments full of rude language. Rather than focusing on "these templates are unused and for a constructed language that isn't widely used" why do you need to insult the people who made the templates and who speak the language "no-one needs to know you can communicate in a conlang nobody’s heard of." [32]. Why was leaving a comment like that nessasary? What did it add to the conversation? 192.76.8.84 (talk) 01:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

It’s technically an ad hominem to bring up my edit count, but I’ll drop that since I was just frustrated and not really thinking whether it made a useful point. As for the comments issue, I guess I really did not think my tone was crossing the line into “rude”. When I think of incivility, I think pure insults like “you are an ass hat”, not harsh language like “this is useless”. In fact I’m usually at the brunt of such language from established users who are angry with me so I’m just assuming it’s normal. Dronebogus (talk) 01:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not an ad honimem (technically or in any other sense) to point out that you have content in your own userspace that resembles the type of content you have nominated for deletion.

LEPRICAVARK (talk

) 01:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Then that was an honest mistake. Dronebogus (talk) 01:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Just to be a pedant, that's exactly what an ad hominem is. An ad hominem is any argument that tries to derive a conclusion based on traits of the speaker. There's even a name for this type of ad hominem: tu quoque. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Tu quoque attempts to discredit an opponent's argument by pointing out behavior or statements that are contradictory to what they are arguing. That isn't applicable here because Dronebogus is not arguing right now that there needs to be tighter standards on userspace or Wikispace content, which is an argument which may have some merit independent of this discussion, nor is the discussion about the validity of that argument. The discussion is about his behavior and his conduct. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Community ban of User:Dronebogus from XfD

I believe that Dronebogus can be a useful contributor, but he continues to act as if a trusted servant while not earning the responsibility. I recommend a lengthy community ban from XfD procedures.

• Support as proposer. BusterD (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
  • I appreciate Dronebogus engaging and admitting their part in this. For my part I am concerned about any clerking-type behaviors from this user, like hattings and closings of any kind (which have previously and may next be seen by others as attempting to "win" discussions). I'm happy with whatever remedy the community decides. I suggest the community establish a duration, not a permaban. For the record and Dronebogus: this the first time in my 17+ year wikicareer I've proposed a ban of any kind. BusterD (talk) 00:03, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

    Should I just retire? I seem to be a net negative to the project and my only constructive edits are just gnoming somebody else can pick up. Dronebogus (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

    I ask myself the same question every day. Seriously. And then I log in and start to work. Willingness is our only useful contribution. Everything else is just work anyone could do. BusterD (talk) 01:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

    Find something of interest to contribute by building. Improving Wikipedia by going through other peoples work desks and calling attention to what they shouldn’t be doing (ie MfD) requires more delicacy and less enthusiasm than seems to be your style. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

    Try diversifying. There are many types of activities. You don't know what you could be good at, and start enjoying, until you try. —Alalch E. 01:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

    Do you really think threatening a ragequit -- as opposed to, y'know, conceding that the presenters here have a point, and that you resolve to do better -- is going to help you here? Ravenswing 02:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

    You know I already feel absolutely horrible and you don’t need to keep pointing it out. Dronebogus (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

    @Dronebogus: it's ok, this is just Wikipedia. I have a little experience with you, and you seem to be a good editor. This will likely result in a topic ban that will have quite a limited impact on your contributions overall. But, I can't blame you for retiring if you do. This isn't always a fun place to be, but I hope you don't retire because of this discussion because I believe you are a net positive here. :) Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 02:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

    Thank you, I genuinely appreciate that Dronebogus (talk) 07:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment from Dronebogus I genuinely forgot the details of the discussion not to do this and would like to apologize sincerely. As most of the inappropriate closures have been in MfD I would like to request an MfD topic ban in exchange for being allowed to still participate in AfD on the condition that I do not close any discussion I have already participated in or any discussion that has not run for at least 7 days. I enjoy AfD a lot but MfD has mostly lead to endless clashing with other users. Dronebogus (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose complete XfD ban, Support MfD ban and a ban from closing any XfD. I suggest it's better to go some time not closing anything, Dronebogus, and then perhaps appeal that part at a suitable future time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

  Works for me. Dronebogus (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

• Concur with Boing (reasoning is just the clearcut evidence by OP) - that is, a full TBAN from MfD, and another TBAN from closing any XfD - with a clear note that if it ends up having to be enforced by a full namespace ban, it will be. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
• Concur with Boing, but broadly construed I'd also be on board with an MfD ban broadly construed (including talk pages and so forth), and a ban from XfD closures as BSZ suggested. I think that would address the immediate issue. I agree too with BSZ that a CBAN isn't necessary. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 21:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose cban as excessive, Support Xfd tban, an Mfd ban would just allow the problem to spread elsewhere.  // Timothy :: talk  22:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
• Concur with Boing - the idea being that the smallest ban that works is the best ban that works. casualdejekyll 22:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
• Per Boing, with the clarification that the MfD topic ban should be from the entire topic of MfD, not just participating in individual MfDs. Note Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1096 § Proposal: Dronebogus warned. It's been 11 months and we're still seeing similar issues. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
• Involved closures are a big no-no. My first choice would be a complete ban from closing discussions (not just XFDs), appealable after 12 months; second choice is Boing's remedy.—S Marshall T/C 23:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support XFD ban as outlined by BusterD. I don't think the issues here are restricted just to MFD or closures, there's an extreme amount of battleground mentality, a lack of civility, a sometimes sketchy understanding of policy and procedure and a tendency to resort to insulting or belittling language that doesn't usefully contribute to the discussion. My experience has been that rather than plainly explaining "this should be deleted because it clearly doesn't meet WP:FOO" Dronebogus will instead go on a snarky rant about how terrible and awful something is. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 00:49, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• 12 month ban from closing discussions. Dronebogus is an over-eager closer, often making mistakes such as involved closes. His closes are not a net positive contribution, due to them needing careful review and possible rectification. I haven’t seen or considered evidence that normal XfD participation is a problem. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support XFD ban as proposed by BusterD. I was prepared to support Boing's limited tban until I saw the list of diffs compiled by the IP. The problems go beyond MFD.
  LEPRICAVARK (talk
  ) 01:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support 12-month ban from closing (anything, not just XFDs). For me, this is essentially about the closes. The nominations and general XfD participation are not something that needs this type of response. —Alalch E. 01:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Concur with SmokeyJoe with the caveat that the ban is indefinite and can be appealed in 12 months. I've seen the diffs by IP. There is a problem with
  WP:IDONTLIKEIT and uncivil language that Dronebogus frequently uses, but I prefer that Dronebogus given a second chance and eventually improve. MarioJump83 (talk
  ) 02:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support 6-12 month ban on closing XfD's, indefinite ban on closing any involved discussion - this user has shown they can't use adequate judgment on closing a discussion in which they are involved (that should rarely be done anyway). That's why I'm supporting a indefinite ban from closing involved ones. Furthermore, there seems to be a specific issue with XfD's, which is why I'm supporting a time limited tban on closing those; it hasn't really been proven that they can't close uninvolved discussions. I don't think it's appropriate to ban them from participating in XfD's in general, I would oppose such a ban. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 02:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
  • indefinite ban on closing any involved discussion - Isn't that something people
    aren't supposed to do in the first place? --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk
    ) 12:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
    • @
      WP:MERGECLOSE expressly allows for involved closures of merger discussions. NAC doesn't interact with that page in a particularly relevant manner, for example. —Alalch E.
      13:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
      • Ah, ok. That seems like semi-contradictory wording to me, but it at least makes sense now. Thanks. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose any complete participation bans, but Support closing ban for now. Sergecross73 msg me 03:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose full MfD topic ban or WP namespace block as excessive
  punishment. The only problem I can see is involved closing, so Support closing ban (maybe temporary). IMHO, Dronebogus performs very useful function on MfD by bringing here some old forgotten trash, litter and shit. a!rado🦈 (C✙T
  ) 05:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  Why is it useful? If everyone has forgotten about those pages anyway, then taking them to MfD serves very little useful purpose. It's merely a diversion from more important things such as improving pages that people actually look at.

  LEPRICAVARK (talk

  ) 16:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  It's useful because Wikipedia is not a webhost, so this old forgotten garbage has no right to lie in userspace for ages. Also, since most (if not all) pages discussed at MfD aren't pages that readers actually look at, what's the difference what to discuss here? MfD is already not about improving articles, with Dronebogus's noms or without. a!rado🦈 (C✙T) 18:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  Indeed, one might argue that much of what goes on at MFD is not all that important and that digging through what you so delicately term the old forgotten garbage is essentially a waste of time.

  LEPRICAVARK (talk

  ) 22:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - I really think calls to simply block from closing discussions miss the point that has been made by the above posted diffs. This is not an issue that is limited just to closing MfDs, this is a general behavioral issue that permeates his interactions on XfD as a whole. There's a recurring pattern here of jumping into an over-the-top response to an item he deems undesirable, then quickly retracting when challenged on it, without actually preventing those future aggressive responses that are causing issues in the first place. The fact that people feel some of the items deserved to be deleted anyway doesn't and shouldn't excuse combative behavior. Moreover, it's not punitive because the effort is to reduce further disruption in those areas. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  I don’t believe I’ve actually been adequately warned that my behavior at AfD is unacceptable. The IP is dredging up WikiDrama from ages ago, and most of my inappropriate closes at afd are pretty reasonable. (I.e. they don’t dump on anyone). Dronebogus (talk) 13:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure that any quantity of warnings would be adequate given that you tend to repeat the same problematic behaviors after being warned. Moreover, the diffs from the IP are hardly ancient history. Yes, people can change over the space of a couple years, but there's no evidence that you have changed. As for your final point, most of my inappropriate closes at afd are pretty reasonable, all I can do is shake my head.

  LEPRICAVARK (talk

  ) 16:10, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  That last part was bad phrasing. I meant something like “less unreasonable”. But my point still stands: can you point to any specific warning I was given about AfD? Dronebogus (talk) 21:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not going to dig through all the diffs again to see whether or not there was a formal warning.

  LEPRICAVARK (talk

  ) 21:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  But I don’t get the benefit of the doubt if I don’t remember certain things? Dronebogus (talk) 21:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  If by certain things you mean making INVOLVED closes, then no, you should not expect to still be getting the benefit of the doubt about that.

  LEPRICAVARK (talk

  ) 22:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  No, I meant the bit about not recalling the exact details of the above warning above, which was summarily dismissed as invalid. Dronebogus (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

  How about the part where Dronebogus was warned by the community last year at ANI, yet later continued to do the exact things they were warned about? Does he get the benefit of the doubt for forgetting he was warned? How about my warning in December he was violating deletion policy? Does he get any benefit for forgetting that? We're not required to keep every promise we make, but we are still responsible when we continue to violate policy after multiple warnings (as he's so confessed here in this thread). Not recalling the exact details doesn't get one off the hook for making the mistakes which were already pointed out multiple times. I'm not seeing any real admission of responsibility from Dronebogus (though I do see them continuing to personalize replies in this thread). I see no pledge he'll improve his ways in the slightest. I'm going to leave one more diff, a quite recent edit by Dronebogus in which he reverts my good faith comment in a formal procedure because he just doesn't like my edit summary. This is a much larger problem than closings, it's really about his poor memory, his poor judgement, IDONTHEARYOU and IAR. He just doesn't think there are consequences to bad action. Perhaps he's right. BusterD (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

  Goodness gracious, that diff is such an awful bit of dreadful clerking. I'm becoming convinced that even an XfD tban will be woefully inadequate because this editor simply does not get it. So much evidence of completely abysmal behavior, but the community keeps trying to water down the sanctions as if we won't be back here in a few months.

  LEPRICAVARK (talk

  ) 21:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

  The reason they’re “watering down” sanctions is because they understand sanctions are not meant to be punitive. All the complaints have been about XfD (mostly MfD) and improper thread closures, therefore all the recommended sanctions are about trying to prevent misbehavior in those areas. Dronebogus (talk) 22:06, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

  BusterD, I literally said “I violated policy”. I’m completely convinced literally nothing I say will ever satisfy you. Dronebogus (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

  I even literally asked to be sanctioned, and agreed with a proposed sanction that was stricter than my own. I never want to touch MfD again and while I’d obviously prefer a more lenient topic ban I’ll accept anything (within sanity) that the community agrees upon. Dronebogus (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support MfD ban as their excessive
  WP:RAGPICKING and general combative attitude has been a problem at MfD for some time. Also support ban on closing discussions. I do not think a full ban on participation in any XfD is yet necessary however.-- Pawnkingthree (talk
  ) 14:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support ban on closing XfDs, which seems to be where the primary issue lies. Oppose any broader XfD ban at this time. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban from closing XfDs and from initiating MfDs, which seem to cover the actual issues. We do not need to waste time forming a consensus about a deleted page no one remembered. Participation in XfD welcome as that doesn't seem to be an issue. Star Mississippi 16:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose broad participation ban The breadth of a proposed ban from XfD procedures is murky and unclear to me so excuse me if this wasn't actually on the table. I can't speak to the minutiae of specific restrictions on closing or initiating of specific deletion discussions but I don't see a good justification for banning Dronebogus from all participation. It seems that the closings are the brunt of the problems here, so let's address that, right? GabberFlasted (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• No comment on XfDs, but oppose any restriction on closing or hatting talk page sections, where Dronebogus has done valuable work keeping things on track. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support XFD ban. A Dronebogus close is generally not a net gain, and as demonstrated by the above discussions and diffs, there's a general lack of evidence-based reasoning versus editorializing, which is the last thing deletion processes need more of. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support XfD ban as first choice, second choice would be ban from MfD and closing discussions anywhere. The frequent incivility, making inappropriate and out-of-process NAC closures, creating disruptive MfDs and then withdrawing them, bullying other editors, ragpicking, and lack of accepting responsibility are too much. Forgetting that you promised not to continue doing something you already know is against policy is an unconvincing excuse. I'm also at a loss as to why anybody would go hunting through Zordrac's userspace for ancient relics to try to wipe away, or well regarded essays like
  WP:BLUESKY and picking through random peoples' userboxen for offensive or even just pointless things (while having a ridiculous number of useless ones on their own page). The Wordsmith^{Talk to me}
  20:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  You haven’t provided a reason why I need to be banned from AfD. Dronebogus (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  I did, you just don't want to accept it (part of the problem). Incivility,[33][34] inappropriate and out-of-process NAC closures, etc. This one you closed after 3 days [35], these after just two hours.[36][37] for reasons that were completely invalid. Even if they were valid, that's not a good NAC. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  Diff 185 is not incivility, unless topics have to be treated with respect now. Dronebogus (talk) 21:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  The frequent incivility, making inappropriate and out-of-process NAC closures, creating disruptive MfDs and then withdrawing them, bullying other editors, ragpicking, Is this not a sufficient reason? Also, the Wordsmith said XfD, then specifically MfD. There is no mention of AfD. An XfD ban would include AfD anyway. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 21:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose XFD ban and MFD ban - Support ban on closing XFD discussions. The narrowest possible ban is usually the best, and from what I can see above, most of the ire and concern here is about dronebogus closing things out of turn or in ways others find disagreeable. Why would that not be the obvious choice to ban? Bans are preventative, not punitive. I have seen valuable closes from this user in other namespaces, and have not yet seen any evidence of problems in their conduct in other namespaces, so I wouldn't support any broader sanctions. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  The thing is that someone who shouldn't be closing XfDs shouldn't be closing anything. Of all the kinds of things that need closing, XfD is the easiest, because XfD closers are choosing from a menu of options and have lots of precedent to work with. It's arguable that RM is also easy but I wouldn't say it's as easy as XfD. Talk page disputes can be treacherous, if they get as far as needing a formal close; they need to be read with care, close attention and a decent knowledge of policy and procedure. And to my eye, DRVs, MRs and RfCs are clearly far more advanced than XfDs.—S Marshall T/C 22:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  Strongly agree with this. That's exactly why I also recommended "closing anything". —Alalch E. 22:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  Arguably hatting a thread that has become unconstructive is quite a different skillset from closing an XfD. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 07:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support XfD/closure ban Overzealous closing/deleting seems to be a recurring issue with this editor, especially the combative tendency to "tell off" editors with the hat summary. Admittedly I'm INVOLVED with a CoI, given my interactions with them, and I'll grant that my talk-page brainstorming in that case was excessive. However, it's not just me, it's consistent across the board, even where there's far less of a rationale. Policing of userspace & RAGPICKING also seems to be problematic; there are cases where deletion is appropriate, but controversial/irrelevant content that takes up little server space is usually not worth the time & effort to deal with. Overall, there's an attitude of "if I disagree with this, close/delete it" which is an abuse of process. You're supposed to let editors operate naturally, and only intervene when it becomes necessary, not as a first response. That's why a ban in this area is justified, not necessarily infinite, but I'll let the admins decide. Xcalibur (talk) 03:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

  You are already under scrutiny for threads where multiple users agree my hatting/deletion was actually justified. I’d warn about

  WP:BOOMERANGS but you are already here a few threads up. Dronebogus (talk

  ) 15:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support XfD closure ban as first choice (and probably best to include a hatting ban to sort issues there too). Indefinitely applied, which means it’s at least 6 months until an request to lift. After that it’s a complete ban if the problems resurface. - SchroCat (talk) 17:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support MfD and closing bans, per Pawnkingthree. Community members who don't respect the community need to be helped along the correct path; this seems to be the way. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 18:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment – Perhaps there is a certain irony that this case, in which one of the main issues is poor judgment or inappropriate actions in closing discussions, will be difficult to close, because of the compound responses, some of which start with Oppose because they oppose the most restrictive of sanctions, but when they are read, they are seen to support some lesser sanction. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support a
  topic-ban on all closes of discussions, indefinitely. Robert McClenon (talk
  ) 18:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support a
  MFD. Robert McClenon (talk
  ) 18:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment – If I haven't referred to some other sanction, I am neither supporting nor opposing. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support 6-12 month ban on closing XfD's, indefinite ban on closing any involved discussion. Closing discussions requires the right temperament and there's enough evidence presented here to justify a ban. Dronebogus can channel that energy elsewhere. - Nemov (talk) 18:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support ban on closing discussions in any namespace (i.e. even including things like hatting talk page discussions, not just XFDs), but do not support a general XfD ban (although would strongly urge Dronebogus to reassess their conduct). Put bluntly, the user's temperament is not good for closing discussions. Even when the result is uncontroversial, Dronebogus cannot resist the urge to kick sand in the "wrong" side and talk about just how wrong / stupid / biased they are. Even when this is correct, this isn't generally a helpful way to close matters, and should only be invoked when relevant. (Hell, even if it's a troll, see
  WP:SNOW" when this was wholly unnecessary and there was notable good-faith opposition - again, the close was fine, but it was just a normal close, not a SNOW-close. This message was ignored (as has others complaining about Dronebogus's closes), so perhaps a sanction is required to get the message across. SnowFire (talk
  ) 04:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Ignoring the messages is really the part that gets me, because while he's quick to declare that he violated policy now that he's been brought to ANI, he was certainly not willing to do so previously when the warnings were coming in piecemeal. Collaboration involves working with individuals, not just bowing only to the process when it gets to that point. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:48, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support ban on closing discussions - The main problem seems to be with discussion closures, so this remedy seems best suited for the job. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Section break

• Comment - I am willing to relent from my previous call to have DB topic-banned from MfD. Those who have examined my contribution history versus his would probably be able to see the partisanship between our two positions, and so it doesn't seem right for me to remove his voice from the picture entirely. Furthermore, it seems to be a major escalation when the collaborative philosophy of Wikipedia encourages
  de-escalation
  . So here's my compromise proposal:

Dronebogus is to accept a mandatory ban from MfD or XfD closures, as indicated by the above consensus, appealable after 6 months time. He also should accept a voluntary/self-imposed restriction on

careful judgment

on what statements he makes in reference to content put up for MfD, as well as his responses to other users who are examining his behavior. Lastly, he should also be encouraged - but not obligated - to dial back on "finding trash" for MfD. I'm not obliging this because it's clear he has a particular viewpoint on the matter, and there are others do agree with him. But it is a hot topic, and I feel there are other areas of Wikipedia where he can add value.

My proposal, by the way, is my suggestion alone, and in offering it, I do not bind other users impacted by DB to follow my lead. But it is, I think, a gesture to

steer clear of adding further drama. I also hope it's a step towards reconciling our differences. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk

) 13:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I am perfectly fine with not closing any MfDs or AfDs again, with a very narrow exception for patent nonsense rationales or similar blatantly invalid rationales like “I hate this” that can be procedurally speedy kept. Dronebogus (talk) 15:09, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Or, if it's patent nonsense or blatantly invalid, you could also hold back and allow an editor whose judgment the community trusts to put the hat on it. Just a thought.—S Marshall T/C 15:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with S Marshall. There are plenty of administrators who cycle through MfD (ScottyWong and Salvio giuliano are among those) and your focus should be on attempting to rehabilitate yourself first prior to diving back into closures, since it is evident that your closures - however much they may have seemed appropriate - are the source of many of the grievances brought against you. It is only fair to make it a total restriction for now. Wikipedia can press on without your closures for the time being. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I meant mostly AfDs with rationales like “ummm”. I think that’s un controversial enough to insta-close by anyone. Dronebogus (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I have already stated my position clearly; it is a retreat from the total ban that I advocated for previously. Under these circumstances, the closure ban is not negotiable. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 16:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Righting all of the Wikipedia's wrongs doesn't rest on your shoulders. If there is a bad afd out there, then someone will get to it. ValarianB (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

No exceptions. Very few XfDs need rapid closing, and where they do an administrator is likely needed to respond to the disruptive editing. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Same here. No tangible benefit from an arcanely specific exception. —Alalch E. 15:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a dispute going on regarding the Amritpal Singh (activist) article. I have posted the issue to the DRN (dispute resolution noticeboard) as we have been unable to come to an understanding and another editor, specifically @

• Comment - That "ARBIPA discretionary alert was not "unwarranted" because it is just a notification that you are editing in a controversial area. Read the notice again, it is clear that it does not concern "any issues with your contributions". You ask here that "How is Baaz News "not reliable"?" despite it is obvious as 2+2=4 that its an unreliable pro-
  Capitals00 (talk
  ) 19:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

  He made this comment specifically directed at me: "ThethPunjabi, you have been previously notified about the ARBIPA discretionary sanctions (nowadays called "contentious topics" sanctions). Your inability to understand and apply Wikipedia policies regarding reliable sources, WP:SOAPBOXing discussions like "Very clear pro-Indian government narrative bias etc. are borerdering in disruptive conduct in contentious areas. If you go down this route, you are going to be liable to discretionanray sanctions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 2:53 pm, Today (UTC−4)" Also, I have used Baaz News sources before on draft articles me and Kautilya3 both worked on together, specifically

  talk

  ) 19:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't see what is wrong with that comment. It is merely highlighting what you should avoid repeating.

Your draft is yet to be approved. It's not urgent to remove unreliable sources from there right now.

Capitals00 (talk

) 19:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@

ThethPunjabi Kautilya left a "reminder" that you were "notified" earlier of the sanctions. Now they are Wikipedia:Contentious topics. I'd recommend reading thru the big yellow box in that page — DaxServer (t · m · c

) 19:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I understand but please read the message he wrote personally for me. I feel like I am being targeted by a more experienced editor because he disagrees with my view in an ongoing content dispute.

talk

) 19:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• WP:RS does it satisfy? In a Contentious Topic area, you are expected to be conversant with policies and make at least a minimum effort to understand them when they are pointed out to you. Over and out. -- Kautilya3 (talk
  ) 19:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Oh, and the article you want to cite is authored by the "spokesperson and legal counsel for the World Sikh Organization of Canada"! No a scholar, not a journalst, ot a commetator, but a lawyer representing an organisation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Kuruvillac has tried time and again to have a page for Alessandro D'Ubaldo. That one was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alessandro D'Ubaldo, and later again deleted as a G4; the variation Alessandro D’Ubaldo has been redirected, a draft Draft:Alessandro D’Ubaldo has been rejected multiple times (most recently on 9 March 2023). So now they recreated it as Alessandro D’Ubaldo (Entrepreneur)

They also repeatedly tried to create an article for CoinDCX Exchange/CoinDCX (a topic which was earlier already a target of a UPE blocked editor, User:Nikhilaug; I don't think they are socks, but it shows that CoinDCX is trying to get an article by paying editors).

They have had different questions and warnings about paid editing and COI edits in the past, but always denied having any connection to the subjects they write about. But this charade has gone on long enough now.

I've deleted Alessandro D’Ubaldo (Entrepreneur) CSD:G4. I would agree that this looks like paid editing, would recommend 800 Pizza is also deleted. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Also Alessandro D’Ubaldo (Chef) as CSD:G8 (redirected to the above article). Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Problematic enough to throw 800 Pizza in the trash and block as NOTHERE, both of which I've done. Courcelles (talk) 12:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks!

Fram (talk

) 13:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I've salted all the titles (except the one Jim got); the original title was salted before the version with a curly apostrophe was moved there. I've also deleted the draft under G4 and salted that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Then I believe our work here is done. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

1.157.113.75 (talk) 05:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

An admin added it back, it might be relevant? [60] Very Average Editor (talk) 06:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Based on the comments 오늘의 우승자 지니 20220112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repeatedly making on their talk page (and running them through a translation), they do not look like the comments of someone who should have talk page access. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• I removed talk page access. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) @
    WP:THQ#Warning for vandal. It appears to be related to this account. -- Marchjuly (talk
    ) 02:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

    @Marchjuly: Not following. User was checkuser blocked my Materialscientist and then heaped abuse on Materialscientist, so I rempved TPA. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

    I didn't realize that this had already been or was in the process of being taken care of by administrators when I posted the above. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)