Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Babydoll9799

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

---

This editor Babydoll9799 (talk · contribs) is disruptively removing valid categories from articles and edit warring to keep them out, see edit history at Billy Balmer as an example. They are removing Category:People from District, on the basis that the bio is already categorised by both Category:Profession from City, but these categories are not mutually exclusive - if everybody was classified only by Category:Profession from City (footballer, actor etc.), there would be nobody in the Category:People from District category, and the category would be empty and pointless. But, it's not, which shows that it is a valid category.

Furthermore, edits like this violate WP:SUBCAT, and I am concerned why this user is trying to place articles in less precise categories!

A quick look at their talk page shows other users have raised similar concerns (regarding disruptive editing and edit warring) for a number of years now, and they have refused to discuss the matter with me, simply reverting and edit warring. Can somebody please take a further look? GiantSnowman 12:47, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Above person is missing my point. Please don't try to make this about myself being some kind of problem. My point is the birthplace and "People from" category. People are not actually from a district the are born in the city, IE Liverpool. The district can be noted on the individual's page and also the person can be noted on the district page.Babydoll9799 (talk) 12:55, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

The category overlap with "Footballers from Liverpool" is taken out of context. This can co-exist with "People from Liverpool". If you wish. I don't have a problem with that. Babydoll9799 (talk) 12:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

The other user is the one choosing to edit war. The point is, the person is from (city) Liverpool. Not West Derby. You can see by my edits that this is exactly what I have been clearing up. Babydoll9799 (talk) 12:58, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Also to say I have "refused" to discuss with him is a lie. I have not "refused". In fact you can argue that the above user has refused to understand what I have been trying to do. In view of "I am concerned why this user is trying to place articles in less precise categories! ".

The the place of birth is the city, not the district a person is from. Also I have been checking where these people are from that I have corrected and a handful are not even from the places they are supposed to be. Babydoll9799 (talk) 13:03, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

User GiantSnowman stated to me on my talk page "Please do not remove categories - a player can be in both Category:Footballers from City and Category:People from District, they are not mutually exclusive.". When stating 'People from District' this should be clarified, as the general view I get is this means the city or town; and not the inner district within the city or town. I can assure you I understand the above point from GiantSnowman and this is reflected the person is both a 'Footballer from Liverpool' and 'People from Liverpool'. West Derby is an historical township but it has been within Liverpool for some time. Babydoll9799 (talk) 13:28, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

You need to be more succinct in your comments, I don't actually have a clue what your position is - especially with edits like this (removing category) followed by this (restoring the same category 2 mins later). If Burnham can be in both Category:Politicians from Liverpool and Category:People from Aintree, why can't Billy Balmer be in both Category:Footballers from Liverpool and Category:People from West Derby? You have contradicted yourself there.

If you are saying that people can't be 'from' a district, then why do we have a long established category tree of that nature? Doesn't that tell you anything?

You did refuse to discuss, you ignored WP:BRD, you continued to remove the category despite my revert, and ignored my talk page posts. GiantSnowman 13:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Also no, a person cannot be in both Category:People from Liverpool and Category:Footballers from Liverpool per WP:SUBCAT. People get categorised into district and profession. I am growing increasingly concerned about your editing and competence. GiantSnowman 13:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Are you from Liverpool? Aintree is outside the city boundary but West Derby is within the city boundary, so a person from West Derby is from Liverpool a person from Aintree is technically, not from Liverpool. There is a wider consensus to promote Liverpool which is why I added politicians from Liverpool. But to call me wrong on another matter is just poor judgement on your part. You seem to be point scoring. Good for you. I am arguing that in the first two pages you chose to revert were a person from Toxteth and from West Derby. Their birthplace will still be Liverpool. Therefore they are from Liverpool. What more can I add? When you look at People by Districts it is Liverpool that is named not any inner district from the city. Whereas Aintree, is outside the city boundary. Babydoll9799 (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

When did I refuse to discuss this matter? I have had diaglogue with you but again and again you are not listening to what I am saying. Stop talking down to me. Listen to what I am saying. West Derby is not classified the same as Aintree. West Derby is a part of Liverpool, Aintree is just outside the boundary. Just outside, technically a person will still say they are from Liverpool but for the purpose of this the city (or district) is Liverpool not West Derby. Babydoll9799 (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

As you can see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_by_district_in_England Liverpool is noted so to Knowsley, just like Luton. The district is the city for the purposes of this the person is from Liverpool. Babydoll9799 (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

As you quoted "No, you are just plain wrong - the issue is we do get as specific as Category:People from District, hence why those categories exist!". You are pointing something out to me but you're not understanding why I made the corrections. Babydoll9799 (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

As stated on the header: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_by_district_in_England This category groups people by the 326 local government districts of England (32 London boroughs, 36 metropolitan boroughs, 201 non-metropolitan districts, 55 unitary authorities, the Isles of Scilly and the City of London). (See Category:People by city or town in England for people in cities and towns.) Babydoll9799 (talk) 14:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

You state "People get categorised into district and profession" and yet immediately prior you say no, so what is it to be? Also "I am growing increasingly concerned about your editing and competence". You again make this a personal attack on myself. When all through this I have continually imformed you what my point is. Babydoll9799 (talk) 14:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Your point, as expressed here, seems to be that "we don't need to be too specific like people from West Derby. The city is Liverpool". However, that completely ignores the long standing and well established categories of the Category:People from District series. This is a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument and is therefore not valid. Like it or not, the categories exist and are in use. So, again, why have you repeatedly removed the Category:People from West Derby category when it is entirely valid? I really need a third party here to step in please, because this editor is disruptively removing valid categories from articles purely based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. GiantSnowman 14:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

My partner's family always said they were from West Derby. They were also proud Liverpudlians. Both can be simultaneously true. If I was to create an article for my partner's grandfather, it could happily be placed in both "People from West Derby" and "Bakers from Liverpool" and still be correct. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 16:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it matters what Babydoll9799 or any other editor thinks about whether a person is "from Liverpool" or "from West Derby". The only thing that matters is what reliable sources (RS) say. If the RSes say "from West Derby", then we say "Category:People from West Derby". End of discussion. If the RSes say "from West Derby" and someone is changing "Category:People from West Derby" to "Category:People from Liverpool", that's disruptive editing and should stop. However, if the RSes say "from Liverpool" and someone is changing "Category:People from West Derby" to "Category:People from Liverpool", then that's productive editing and thank you for fixing that. I'm not sure which one this is but it should be pretty straightforward to figure that out. Levivich 17:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@Levivich: - reliable sources confirming that Balmer was from West Derby include this and this and this. Therefore, in the absence of a Category:Footballers from West Derby (which would likely be OVERCAT in any event), the correct categories are Category:Footballers from Liverpool and Category:People from West Derby. Therefore, as you say, Babydoll9799's editing in removing Category:People from West Derby has been disruptive, has it not? GiantSnowman 18:04, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah this is just classic WP:RGW editing ignoring WP:V (and our category policy and what it says about categories being supported by the body, i.e. cats must meet V)... not the first editor to take the position I know the truth, sources be damned! If this disruption continues, a sanction may be necessary to stop it. And it should be mentioned that when it comes to the birthplaces and similar biographical details of pro athletes, entertainers, and others whose professions involve advertising biographical statistics such as birthplace, there will be an "official", advertised birthplace (or height, weight, age, name, etc.) that will be easy to source (because it was advertised, e.g. footballer stats websites), and since our articles are summaries of those sources, we would list the "official", whatever it was. Even if it's actually incorrect! If someone is known for being born in West Derby then we say that, regardless of whether they were born there or not. If their birth certificate conflicted with what RSes say, we'd go with RSes, not the birth certificate. This is an issue (truth v verifiably) as old as Wikipedia, and almost all our core content policies are aimed at addressing this. Levivich 18:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@Levivich: perhaps therefore you would be kind enough to undo their edits at the Balmer article, given that they are unwilling to do it themselves despite admitting that they were wrong (although not for the right reasons). GiantSnowman 19:04, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

No need, helpfully @Orangemike: has restored the correct edit. Many thanks both. GiantSnowman 19:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@Levivich: I don't have an opinion on the main subject of this dispute, but it seems quite unlikely to me that it'd ever be correct to insist an article contain information that is known for a fact to be untrue. At the very least, it ought to be omitted -- especially in a biography. and especially especially in a BLP. jp×g 10:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I find it quite laughable and insulting the way I am being talked down to by GiantSnowman.

In addition, Levivich. You are 100% disregarding the fact that West Derby in this example, is simply just a part of Liverpool. It is NOT I repeat NOT, a place where someone comes from as the place where they come from in this example is Liverpool. Of course like Trey Maturin has put it, we can come from places like West Derby. I was born in Everton. But my page would not say "People from Everton" it would say "People from Liverpool". Because the city is Liverpool my birthplace is Liverpool it is Liverpool in People by district in England.

I often find (as in response from Levivich here) that when someone starts kicking up a fuss then there is someone else that will tell you the claim must be sourced or show what a source says. But remember, West Derby, Toxteth, Everton, unlike say Aintree or Bootle, are part of Liverpool since the 1800's. Therefore it does not matter what you say about the source, the fact is the person is born in the late 1800's or in the 1900's then if they are from West Derby their place of birth is Liverpool. It's a fact. It's not me being disruptive or petty. Babydoll9799 (talk) 18:22, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

So from minding my own business and correcting categories to show where people are from, based on city, rather than a locality within the city, I am now being accused of being disruptive and changing articles because "WP:IDONTLIKEIT". Please stop behaving like a dead behind the eyes robot and understand it is not always black and white. And, as Trey Maturin said both can be simultaneously true. Babydoll9799 (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

To that end I admit that West Derby did not become absorbed in to Liverpool until 1895 so technically, the page in question (Billy Balmer) would be born in West Derby, Lancashire. (Now Liverpool). Babydoll9799 (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

No, you do not get it. Here on Wikipedia we do categorise by locality within the city. The sources say Balmer was from West Derby, so we categorise accordingly. You repeatedly removing the precise category for a more general category, for no reason other than you do not like it, is disruptive, and the fact that you still cannot understand that (and that you have also clearly misunderstood what Trey Maturin says), is concerning. Competency is required and you do not seem to have any. GiantSnowman 18:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I find your attitude stinks. You disregard anything I have stated, insult me and insult my editing. Calling in to question competency is very low indeed. I have given several pointers to where I am editing from. I even have the humility to admit that I got it wrong with this because in 1875 West Derby was not yet absorbed in to Liverpool. But you continually offer insults and point scoring. How very admirable. Babydoll9799 (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I have not insulted you; I have criticised your editing, as have others. You now admit you are wrong - so the criticism was appropriate - but why have you not self-reverted and restored the correct edit/information? Also you seem completely unwilling to listen or learn... GiantSnowman 19:03, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@Babydoll9799, please take some time and review our verifiability policy and category guidelines. While you're at it, you should also read up on BOLD, revert, discuss and how to use Talk pages. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, so there's no such thing as minding my own business when you're being disruptive. Woodroar (talk) 19:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Woodroar now on the bandwagon. So I am being disruptive am I? Rubbish. I had a point and someone disagreed we've spent the day back and forth but guess what? I am not the one crying to other people to rat me out. I admitted my error on this specific edit but that does not mean I am either wrong or disruptive. I made my points quite clear the that my point was about the city as opposed to the district within the city. I have not been disruptive I have stood my ground as someone that knows Liverpool perhaps less so Wiki. So less of the insults please. Babydoll9799 (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you are being disruptive. Your argument boils down to "I'm from here, so I get to decide how everyone else from here is described", which is not how Wikipedia or anywhere else works. And you're edit warring to get your way. Your replies here aren't formatted correctly and others are cleaning up after you. Look, I don't know you and I'm reading about this dispute for the first time, so I'm trying to be neutral here. Please take my advice to step back and read our policies and guidelines. Woodroar (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Bingo. Babydoll9799, this is not a "bandwagon", this is consensus - multiple editors agreeing, and advising you how to edit. However, you are ignoring everyone and our policies/the sources, and viewing it as being personally targeted against you, which it is not. Please just listen to us and take on board our comments. GiantSnowman 20:45, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't know anything about UK geography but I was wondering why we're seeing so many empty "People from..." categories at Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion and I guess this is why, at least for some of the categories. Right now, it looks like 24 categories have been emptied (which is not how editors are supposed to empty categories, they should be nominating them for deletion at WP:CFD). And there's a bit of edit-warring over at the Billy Balmer article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@Liz: - yes, this editor has made lots of these kind of edits over the last few days, removing valid categories from articles, resulting in an empty category (see this and this and this as some examples beyond the ones already detailed above - I think there have been over 100 in the east 48 hours) - as well as the disruptive editing/edit warring when editors like me have challenged the behaviour. GiantSnowman 20:53, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I am very angry at the accusations being made by GiantSnowman. Making me out to be disruptive. Bringing my edits in to question. Witch hunt comes to mind. All I have tried to do is correct the pages for where people are from in the Liverpool area as they are from Liverpool (city) not district. I have given examples and yet you're getting on my back about this. Babydoll9799 (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

But everybody here is saying that your edits were wrong and that your editing was disruptive. Do you not understand that? do you still think, after all these comments, that removing the categories is correct? GiantSnowman 08:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I have just noticed that this user has been canvassing, see this and this and this. They clearly do not get it and are not willing ti listen/change - their disruption will simply con tinge because they are so convinced that they are in the right and that all criticism is personal. GiantSnowman 09:01, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• My view on this is that if Babydoll continues to make these changes going forward, they ought to be blocked. The canvassing linked above is definitely poor form, but also quite obviously ineffective so it doesn't really concern me. What does concern me is these 350 edits over the past year (although about 300 of them are from the past three days) that all seem to either remove categories, or otherwise change geographical details (e.g. in infoboxes), and many are still the current revision. What are we doing about those: leaving them? Reverting them? Anyone want to go through them all and check? (I don't, and also I don't have the knowledge of UK geography to know if they're good or bad.) Personally I'd support mass reversion because about 300 of them are from the past three days. Levivich 15:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  Given the clear issues raised here and shared by the community, I suggest a mass revert. GiantSnowman 17:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  +1 on the mass revert. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 17:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Levivich and Trey Maturin: is one of you able/willing to mass revert? GiantSnowman 11:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

  Sorry, I no longer have the script and long ago asked for the perm to be removed. Levivich 13:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

  I started doing a mass revert, but am now reverting some of my own edits in cases where the change by Babydoll9799 was fine. – Fayenatic London 14:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  thank you @Fayenatic london: - if you are unsure if the Babydoll edit was 'good' please let me know. GiantSnowman 14:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  Well, that was more fiddly than I expected, but is now done. The repopulated categories are now in Category:People from Liverpool by locality. – Fayenatic London 17:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, the disruption has continued. I pointed Babydoll9799 to WP:CANVASS at my Talk page (in response to their message) and reverted several of their inappropriate notifications. I thought that was it, but then I saw that they canvassed again at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Merseyside, and left a followup message specifically mentioning GiantSnowman. I left a more formal warning for canvassing and then reverted their canvassing at a user Talk page and at WikiProject Merseyside. They've now left me another message, displaying a significant amount of IDHT), reinstated their message at WikiProject Merseyside, and canvassed again at Category talk:People from Liverpool. Woodroar (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: topic ban for Babydoll9799

Because of the disruption mentioned above, I propose an indefinite topic ban for Babydoll9799 from categories and people from the UK, broadly construed, until they can demonstrate an understanding of our policies and guidelines.

• Support as proposer. Woodroar (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

How can you say this when I was correcting articles? Is Wikipedia not available for people who have only a passing interest in certain pages and wish to correct articles and information? Because another user has chose to disagree I am hung drawn and quartered? I spent time correcting articles and repeatedly explained why but I have been cast as a trouble causer, edit warrer being called disruptive, and also "canvassing" when I am asking for help. Seems you're all interested in calling out people rather than focusing on the articles themselves. Surely correct information is desired? When a person is from a city their birthplace it the city and not a district within; this is the entire basis of my arguement. However I am not even allowed to speak because people like the above user are whipping my ass. Amongst the other users Woodroar and GiantSnowman have refused to listen to my point of view and instead dismissed it. Instead making accusations.

I don't accept this. I edit in good faith if I make mistakes I will accept that. However I will not back down if I know that I am right. (You will have already castigated me about this but yes I know my city do you?). I can say what edi is right and why but all I have is blanket faceless jobsworths telling me that I am in the wrong.

I have stated several times that people from Liverpool should be categorised as the city not the district, as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_by_district_in_England and that the numerous pages I have edited all (but a handful) have contained incorrect information about their birthplace and the category of where they are from. But those edits have all been reverted. Babydoll9799 (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd recommend reading WP:DROPTHESTICK and WP:CANVASS and agreeing to heed their advice going forward. Levivich 17:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I would add three things and then I will break:

This is about the [Category:People from Liverpool by locality] page which were set up by user Rathfelder in March 2020. Those pages seemed error strewn and I had attempted to restore them to [Category:People from Liverpool]. After all, the city (here Liverpool) is the primary place where the person is from, not the district within. As per [Category:People by district in England] This category groups people by the 326 local government districts of England (32 London boroughs, 36 metropolitan boroughs, 201 non-metropolitan districts, 55 unitary authorities, the Isles of Scilly and the City of London). (See Category:People by city or town in England for people in cities and towns.) .

1 When making these changes there were a number of errors in the birthplace of various people. The birthplace is not an inner district it is the city of Liverpool. 2 When making these changes I found a handful of the pages were not in the correct category anyway. Either from the wrong district or not even from Liverpool. 3 When making these changes I tried to establish when those known people had a specific occupation I recategorised them from [Category:People from Liverpool] to occupation such as [Category:Footballers from Liverpool]. A person can be both categories but most pages are by occupation when it is a more specific occupation.

The above edits were all correct. However some consternation arose because some of the edits were unsual. Taking in to account what (districts) were within Liverpool and also when they were absorbed in to Liverpool (mostly in the 1800's). It is a question of both correcting the birthplace of someone and identifying where they are from. I gave an example Ibou Touray the page said he was born in Toxteth and the category was [Category:People from Toxteth] yet Toxteth is part of Liverpool and has been for some time. Which means this person's birthplace is Liverpool, and should be categorised as [Category:People from Liverpool]. Equally [Category:Footballers from Liverpool]. Finally as the page currently states "Born in Toxteth,[3] Liverpool, " ... However since GiantSnowman objected to this incorrectly I might add, and chose to air his grivences here, I am portrayed in a very negative light by both GiantSnowman, and others including Woodroar. Because I am not playing the game they want.

Above I provide reasons why I have edited. I don't think I should have had to jusitfy this but because of being called amongst other things "disruptive" because I have tried to stand my ground, I have had to do this. Perhaps I do need to understand Wiki more but I am not a professional editor, and that does not justify being hounded like this. I have not had any one wanting to discuss this with me; to ask just complete disregard. I assume you have read the above and will consider the reasoning for my edits. Babydoll9799 (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Further points (regarding WP:DROPTHESTICK ) Quote from an earlier comment " Yes, you are being disruptive. Your argument boils down to "I'm from here, so I get to decide how everyone else from here is described", which is not how Wikipedia or anywhere else works. ".

Surely instead of telling me off for portraying "I'm from here, I know best" point of view, that you verify that I am wrong? Surely the article needs to be right? Right? I refer to my earlier examples of both the Categories and the person pages that I had edited/correct. I stand by that. Babydoll9799 (talk) 18:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support - These lengthy and multiple responses from Babydoll9799 make it very clear that they do not see what is wrong what their behavior, and that they intend to continue their disruptive behavior. A topic ban is warranted. - Aoidh (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

• I support this idea, whilst also knowing that it's not going to gain traction. The problem here is that Babydoll is not wrong, per se, but also not right. They do have a point - to the outside observer (which is the majority of our readership and the majority of our editors) it does look weird. How can someone be both from West Derby and from Liverpool? But that's how much of European society is organised, with our towns and cities growing organically over 1000+ years, swallowing up neighbouring towns and villages. It's hard for most readers to see that someone can - happily - enthusiastically - fully sourced - be both from Acklam and Middlesbrough, or, conversely, from Rainhill but not from Liverpool.

Nevertheless, the main issue here is that Babydoll clearly doesn't grasp how we work here. We work on the basis of consensus. We work on the basis of verifiability not The Truth. They have their own opinion on what the articles should say, and the people who disagree are wrong, as are the sources they quote. We're being ignorant about something that is obvious to them. It must be intensely frustrating and I really do understand. It sucks. But it's how things are done here, and until they can demonstrate that they understand, and stop posting huge screeds explaining how everybody else volunteering here is a fool for not grasping their point, they need to stay away from the articles in question. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 19:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for all category-related edits, broadly construed, with the exception of talk page posts. It is clear that Babydoll, for whatever reason, cannot see or understand the relevant policies and lacks competence in this area. If a topic ban does not work, then extend to indef block. (NB I've only just seen this discussion on my watchlist; would have appreciated a ping!) GiantSnowman 19:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

  Sorry about that, @GiantSnowman! Woodroar (talk) 20:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@Woodroar: not an issue! GiantSnowman 22:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

You cannot rule by consensus but be incorrect with the subject. I have asked several times for people to challenge me on this matter and you have not. Making it about Wiki rules and regs is all very well but I made edits only to correct certain information. I make a few points very clear.

1)This is not about me saying I am right and those that disagree are wrong. I am providing factual elements to the arguement. Where some places (obviously this is in the pages I have edited) the city of the person's birth (IE Liverpool) overrides the district where they are from (IE West Derby). They can be from both, however. I have given examples of this. 2) The category that I was removing was for pages created in March 2020 (People from Liverpool by locality) but again the city (Liverpool) overrides the district. As per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_by_district_in_England it clearly states we are talking about city's and boroughs. This is clear. All the districts (like West Derby) would be classed as Liverpool. For historical purposes West Derby in the 1800's may have been a township in its own right but in the 20th and 21st century this is part of Liverpool; as too other districts mentioned. 3) Some of the pages edited were incorrect as some of those people were not from the Liverpool district mentioned or from the wrong district. This means just because I have made numerous edits do not mean I have been disruptive or lack compentency. It is something I have done for over a decade. In fact I have expanded the Liverpool pages massively over the years. Many pages owe their existence to myself. As I have asked in a polite way, are you from Liverpool and why are you taking such interest in articles about Liverpool if you are not from Liverpool? Babydoll9799 (talk) 19:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Re "These lengthy and multiple responses from Babydoll9799 make it very clear that they do not see what is wrong what their behavior, and that they intend to continue their disruptive behavior. A topic ban is warranted". First and formost, please state what my disruptive behaviour is, and how I am continuing it? Is the fact I am requesting for some discussion re my good intentions (as in my last post) being seen as disruptive behaviour? Am I not allowed to challenge you guys or are you just happy to weed out certain individuals who don't spend all day reading WP rules and regulations? I am sorry I am only editing in a small way. My lengthy responses make it clear what I am debating here. Have all my edits been checked to see that every single one of them was wrong? Because I can assure you that 99 percent of the edits were done in good faith and some I have to question if I should leave them as they are but sorry if I am saying 99 percent of my edits were correct then how can I be disruptive? Because I disagree with you guys? Funny you don't question whether you are wrong just that I am wrongBabydoll9799 (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh dear. We're moving from WP:TRUTH past WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT into WP:CIR territory. That's unfortunate, but all the words above indicate that Babydoll just doesn't get how an encyclopedia like ours works. Ho hum. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 20:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support per WP:CIR/WP:IDHT. Levivich 20:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support - WP:CIR, and they are just not getting what the problem is. Someone can be listed in both [[Profession from city]] and [[People from district]] categories, if the former category "tops out" at the city, with no [[Profession from district]] subcategory. To use a similar American example I just edited, John Mitchell (composer) is correctly in both Category:Musicians from Los Angeles and Category:People from Hollywood, Los Angeles. DoubleCross (‡) 19:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

There is clear consensus for a topic ban in my view - please can an uninvolved admin review and close? GiantSnowman 19:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

If I don't get what the problem is then enlighten me? No one has addressed my points just simply been roughshod about why I don't fall in line with your thinking. This is blatently being ganged on. I can see that this will fall on deaf ears. So be it.

As for the response from Double Cross "and they are just not getting what the problem is. Someone can be listed in both [[Profession from city]] and <nowiki>People from district". This is madness. This is one of my arguements and you're making it appear that I do not understand!!!!! Utter madness. Of course a person can be both a profession and from a district. I never disputed this, it is the wrong point. My point is the "district" in this instance is replaced by the "city". Couldn't be more simpler. Babydoll9799 (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

This is the problem. On Wikipedia we do not replace more precise categorisation (district) with wider categorisation (city), which is what you have been doing. You have been informed about WP:SUBCAT and this has been explained to you multiple times by multiple editors and yet you still don't get it. GiantSnowman 21:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Babydoll9799: you say "You cannot rule by consensus but be incorrect with the subject". But we can, and we do. You need to accept that the majority of your fellow editors do not agree with you on this, and therefore you lose. I know they're wrong, as you see it, but... that's how an encyclopaedia like ours, based on collegiate and consensus editing by a community, works. You are not going to be able to change that, certainly not on your own and certainly not by the methods you're trying now.

Indeed, what's happening now is that we're collectively trying to keep you as a valued editor here, by simply excluding you from an area where you won't - can't - accept consensus. The alternative is that we show you the door entirely, and nobody here wants that. But it's coming if you won't drop this damn'd stick.

I know this is hard. I've been there. I tried, as a single editor, to change the abhorrent, inhuman and incorrect phrase "committed suicide" to phrases recommended by mental health agencies worldwide - things like "died by suicide" or "took their own life".

The consensus was against me. My fellow editors didn't agree. My edits on the subject were rolled back en masse. And do you know what I did? I walked away and edited in other places, on other subjects. I know I'm right on this, and I know that all the others are completely wrong. But I didn't win the argument, so I walked away. It sucks. But it's what you need to promise to do now, or things are going to get shitty for you and I'd be very sorry if that happened, truly I would. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 19:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the additional comments and I will read WP:SUBCAT as pointed out by GiantSnowman. Even with a brief check on WP:SUBCAT This is NOT my arguement.

Trey Maturin states "You need to accept that the majority of your fellow editors do not agree with you on this, and therefore you lose. I know they're wrong, as you see it, but... that's how an encyclopaedia like ours, based on collegiate and consensus editing by a community, works. You are not going to be able to change that, certainly not on your own and certainly not by the methods you're trying now."

I try to understand what other users are telling me. I have tried to provide a reasonable "arguement" but I think we're at loggerheads.

If it is me that is not understanding what you're all trying to say, then fine. I can learn. I have not been editing in the interim and I am wanting to remain free to edit in the future.

Whilst I may have plenty to learn and understand and I may have "lost" this arguement; I am sorry I have to challenge because I think we're at cross-purposes, I still have a questions unanswered. This is not about me challenging the consensus, it's about trying to put my point of view across so that you can understand why I am upset by this. Babydoll9799 (talk) 22:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Believe me, we get why you're upset. But, and I'm being completely frank here, your arguments about how to categorize people based on your own personal knowledge don't count on Wikipedia. And, for that matter, neither do ours. We're here to summarize what reliable, third-party published sources say about people and then we categorize based on what the sources say, period, full stop, end of sentence. If reliable sources say that your next-door neighbor lives in an adjacent borough or city, that's what we're going to write. It may seem wrong to you, but real life is messy and where we come from isn't always so clear. A border town near me has changed names and jurisdictions multiple times in recent memory and the people there have strong opinions on where they're from. That can change from person to person and it doesn't always line up with any legal definition, current or historical. As I said, real life is messy, which is why Wikipedia is based on verification and not "truth".

I hope this makes sense. And, for the love of all that's holy, please please please read WP:INDENT start formatting your messages properly. I sympathize with screen-reader users who will have no clue what this is about because your replies are all over the place. Woodroar (talk) 14:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Chicdat and disruptive editing at WP:RfP

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

---

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

Wikipedia:RfP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Could someone have a look at Chickdat's behaviour with regards to this redirect please?

This redirect spent 15 years targeting WP:Requests for page protection until retargeted to WP:requests for permissions by chickdat last year. I objected to their retargeting and reverted it a few weeks ago, which they in turn reverted while lying that they had consensus to retarget it.

I therefore took the redirect to redirects for discussion Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_October_21#Wikipedia:RfP, where consensus was unanimously against their retargeting and resulted in the redirect being restored to it's original target.

They are now continuing to disrupt this redirect by attempting to convert it into a disambiguation page, falsely claiming that I need talk page consensus to implement the consensus of the RFD discussion and that their edits fall under WP:BOLD (which does not apply to contested edits and cannot override a formal community consensus building process like RFD).

This page should be turned back into a redirect to WP:Requests for page protection per the outcome of RFD discussion, and fully protected to prevent any more disruption from this editor and to match the fully capitalised redirect WP:RFD 163.1.15.238 (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I was making a WP:BOLD change on the page. This IP however, instead of approaching me on the talk page, jumped straight to ANI. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Because we already had a discussion about this redirect at RFD, which you damn well knew about because you participated in it. You know that the community decided that this should be a redirect to WP:Requests for page protection because that is literally what every single person in that discussion apart from you agreed with. WP:BOLD does not apply to your edits there, WP:DISRUPT does. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 11:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

And instead of friendlily attempting to reach consensus on the talk page, you went straight to ANI. The disambiguation revision was intended as a compromise version, pointing to both project pages. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't need to reach consensus with you personally because the community already reached a consensus through a formal process at RFD a few weeks ago. No-one agreed with your proposed compromise, there was unanimous consensus that this should be a redirect to WP:requests for page protection. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 11:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

In fact, I didn't propose the compromise until three days ago, when I WP:BOLDly edited the redirect. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

You made the bullshit claims that there was consensus to disambiguate it at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_October_21#Wikipedia:RfP, where not a single person agreed with you. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Why not let other users comment on this discussion, rather than just the two of us? 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I objected to their retargeting and reverted it a few weeks ago, which they in turn reverted while lying that they had consensus to retarget it. - by consensus I meant WP:SILENCE. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

You nominated it's fully capitalised brethren WP:RFP for discussion less than a day after you retargeted this redirect, and again the community disagreed with you Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_July_7#Wikipedia:RFP, it was obvious that the community did not agree with retargeting. WP:SILENCE stops applying as soon as someone reverts your edit, so reverting my revert claiming consensus under WP:SILENCE shows you fundamentally misunderstand that essay. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I do not believe you saw this discussion. I'm clearly not the only editor supporting a retarget of RFP. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

You mean another discussion which closed with consensus that it should remain targeting at WP:Requests for page protection? 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

So you don't see that 5 editors supported disambiguation/retarget? 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

You don't see the closure? "The result of the discussion was keep" 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:13, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I do see the closure; I just wanted you to see that I'm not the only editor that supports this change. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Now, I propose a compromise. WP:RfP and WP:RFP redirect to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, however, a page, WP:RFP (disambiguation) is created linking to other uses of RFP, like Wikipedia:Requests for permissions. Additionally, a hatnote is added to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection saying "WP:RFP redirects here. For other uses, please see WP:RFP (disambiguation)." 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

This discussion is about you poor behaviour and general disruption with regards to that redirect, it isn't a place to decide on what to do with the redirect - that was already decided at RFD. Your proposed compromise is terrible and makes no sense - you'd add a hatnote to each article that links to a dab page with two entries, one of which is the page you just came from? that's stupid - just include a link to the other page (which is what is already there). 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

What makes my proposal stupid? I'm trying to reach a consensus here. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

The consensus was reached at redirects for discussion, where multiple editors discussed what to do and decided that this should be a redirect to WP:Requests for page protection. I don't need to reach a consensus with you personally because you disagree with the result. I'm going to leave this for an admin to look at now, because you clearly don't care that the community disagrees with you on this redirect and are going to continue to disrupt and bludgeon it until you get your way. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Much of what you're saying, IP, is right. Just because one editor disagrees with a consensus doesn't mean that it needs to be changed. However, at least 5 editors here believe that the page should be disambiguated. That might mean that the consensus must bec changed. Even so, look at WP:RfP! I turned it back into a redirect shortly after this discussion began. That doesn't look like I'm disrupting and bludgeoning it until I get my way, does it? 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

However, I will leave this to the admins, too. If they decide to block me, I'll go quietly. Either way, I'm dropping the stick now. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) (edit conflict) IP is correct in saying consensus was reached at redirects for discussion; both recently and on previous occasions. WP:RFP pointing to Requests for Page Protection has several times now been agreed upon re-litigating it without new, strong evidence that it should change (ie, concrete proof that a majority of users are using the redirect to find another page) is not a good idea. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 12:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I'm involved here as I participated in a couple of the RfD discussions, but the IP editor is correct that multiple discussions have found consensus against Chicdat's proposed/actual retargetting and they are also correct about WP:SILENCE and the lack of need to gain consensus to implement the consensus of a recent discussion. Chicdat: it's beyond time to drop the stick, if you don't do it voluntarily it will have to be dropped for you. A topic ban from discussing or editing any redirect, disambiguation page or hatnote that links to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and/or Wikipedia:Requests for permissions (directly or via a redirect) is the narrowest I think that would work. Thryduulf (talk) 12:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Hi Thyrduulf, nice to see you again. My comment above indicates I did drop the stick voluntarily. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Chicdat, just remember to keep the stick dropped. Which is to say, please don't submit bold edits to that page any more, even much further on in the future. Feel free to advance whatever proposals to change something, but let someone else submit those once they enjoy consensus. Hope that makes sense. El_C 12:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
      • How about... For one year, I have a zero tolerance ban on anything related to the redirects WP:RFP, WP:RfP, and WP:Rfp. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
      • That is to say, the redirects themselves, not their targets. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
      • @El C: Would you be willing to fully protect WP:Rfp and WP:RfP? Thryduulf suggested it would be a good idea at the last RFD, and the fully capitalised variant (WP:RFP) is already fully protected. There's no reason why such an ancient project space redirect would need to be retargeted except at the conclusion of a RFD, and this would go a long way to avoid issues in the future. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 13:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
        • Works for me, IP. Fully protected indefinitely. El_C 13:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• @Chicdat: I don't see the point in a tban from retargeting those redirects when it appears you are already under a voluntary restriction from that exact same thing since May. Instead of adding more restrictions to the pile, try being less gung ho in certain areas of the project. Isabelle ^🔔 14:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• That list of voluntary restrictions is getting long... Levivich 15:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes. I would say that this discussion should be closed with a very strong warning to User:Chicdat. If they really think that they were making a bold edit against consensus, rather than a tendentious edit, then their inability to understand when they are in a known minority is a problem. They should be warned. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
    • [Not the same IP as OP] Considering the fact that they already have a restriction about retargeting project-space redirects, I would concur and that at the very least a final warning should be lodged. The fact that they edit-warred against 163.1.15.238 (OP), though, makes me think a short block might be in order to get the message across (since this isn't the first time they've had issues with retargeting project-space redirects). 68.193.40.8 (talk) 00:41, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• While unrelated the RfP topic at hand, I would also like to point out where Chicdat went against the consensus that was established Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones/Archive_47#Merge_Provisions here (he participated in the discussion). He decided to modify the WikiProject Weather template against that consensus here when he clearly was in the minority. He also moved a page in a similar manner here. Additionally, they engaged in multipage edit warring across a sanctionable topic in October at: 1234. Im deeply concerned considering their mentor, MarioJump83 is at semi-retirement and is no longer active per their userpage. I think we need to establish formal restrictions since it is clear that the involuntary ones are not keeping Chicdat out of trouble. I don't advise blocking Chicdat at this time, but I think they need formal restrictions to keep them out of trouble, especially considering their mentor is no longer active here and this is not the first time they have been brought here for their actions. Noah^Talk 14:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I would say stay out of projectspace altogether. Levivich 15:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• Since Chicdat doesn't seem to understand consensusmaking processes I'll try to explain the norms around it. Not all consensus making processes are equal; "better" consensus processes cannot be overriden by "worse" consensus processes. In order from worst to best, it goes from WP:BRD (making an edit and nobody challenging it), to an informal discussion on the talk page, to a structured local discussion like an RfC on the talk page, and lastly to a structured "global" discussion like an RfC at a noticeboard or RfD. This isn't really set in stone (e.g. WikiProject consensii are weird and can be before/after a structured local discussion), but that's more or less how things work in practice. If a consensus has been established at a higher level, you cannot overturn it by trying to establish consensus at a lower level. You need to engage at the higher level because that's where the discussion is at. For instance, now that the issue over redirects has gone to RfD, you can't try to use BRD to challenge that consensus, nor can you try to start an informal discussion with another editor on the talk page. The way to challenge the consensus would be another RfD discussion, although repeatedly starting new discussions is an issue of its own. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 16:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Many of us are aware of the elephant in the room. Chicdat does not have the Elephant to see the difference between WP:BOLD and reckless wishful-thinking. He's an asset when working on content, and often goes awry when assessing other editors efforts & working in non-content areas. I'll repeat my comment from September 2020 - "It's my honest belief that the most supportive thing the community can help you with is to urge you to keep away from those administrative areas for the time being."

There are limits to the number of trips to AN & ANI which can be endured while waiting for Chicdat to acquire Elephants. Cabayi (talk) 16:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Well, as noted above, Chicdat is already under a myriad of 'voluntary' restrictions, and this edit-war retargeting violates one of Chicdat's existing restrictions anyway: I may not ... Retarget project-space redirects without a discussion at RFD. Thing is, this many formal restrictions would be unheard of, and it's probably hard enough for the editor to keep track of themselves for one. A few months ago, Chicdat's mentor said: Chicdat is currently not competent enough for administrative decisions I don't think that state of affairs has really changed. Besides, there are various issues that have never really reached this noticeboard. Some are in Chicdat's user talk archives, and some weren't even worth mentioning there. It pains me to say it especially as it's not really due to any intentional fault of Chicdat, but it's clear we'll end up here again and again, and so I agree with Noah that formalising a broad restriction from the areas of concern is probably appropriate, which (based on the evidence/discussions linked above and the few user talk discussions I remember reading) seems to be more or less across projectspace, bar WikiProject participation. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Chicdat is partial-blocked from editing in the project space

Given my comment and those made by others about Chicdat unintentionally and chronically causing disruption in project space areas, I propose that Chicdat be partially blocked so that he is unable to edit pages with "Wikipedia:". He would still be able to edit the talkpages of these pages to make any requests and engage in discussions. Chicdat should be prohibited from editing redirects to pages in the project space as well. I believe this would provide a balance between keeping the encyclopedia safe from future disruption while also keeping Chicdat out of trouble. This restriction would be appealable at this noticeboard after a minimum of 6 months pass. Noah^Talk 02:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support per my comment in the previous section. In spite of the voluntary restrictions, there have been recurring issues and violations. In fairness, it is hard to remember a long list of restrictions like that -- last time we were here this was proposed, above we have this proposed, then there's frequent modifications like this (and others), etc. It's just too much even for any editor to reasonably remember, much less actually adhere to strictly (as is expected for bans). This is far simpler, appropriate in scope, proportionate to the issues, and unfortunately necessary. Also helps the editor stay out of trouble and focus on the areas where they're an asset. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  Per Levivich & Iri, prefer topic ban. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• How about instead of a partial block, I adhere to a 0RR in project space? 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  For me, the issue isn't just the edit war, it's general judgement in administrative tasks. Just as in the previous case the issue wasn't just the single tightly-scoped area under discussion. When you look at all the different discussions (at AN/ANI and on user talk), then the proposed scope becomes the most minimal one that encapsulates most of it. Also, I note there's already 7 voluntary restrictions and 5 areas of caution. I don't feel compounding the list is effective (I'm not even sure the current list is); I think it's better to replace the entire list with a new software-enforced scope, and also easier for you. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• After all, please consider my productive contributions in project space. I'm a helpful asset to WikiProject Tropical cyclones, and I have nominated many articles about old people for deletion. I also make many helpful comments on all areas of the village pump, et cetera. The only problems I have in project space are those that stem from my WP:BOLD, revert, revert, revert editing. Therefore, a 0RR would be much more productive than a p-block. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • The proposed block is only from the Wikipedia namespace, not the Wikipedia talk namespace, so you would still be able to participate in WikiProject tropical cyclones. I don't agree that your comments at the village pumps are helpful, I'm afraid. Is "Yes" [1] a helpful comment that helped advance that discussion? Here [2] you quote deletion policy when someone is proposing a new project? In your most recent deletion nomination you spent a good third of the nom statement on how the person isn't in the top 20 oldest people, something that has no relevance to notability and no relevance to whether the article should be kept, and which confused the discussion [3]. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 11:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

    Indeed. Another example is [4], which should've been read as a consensus against the proposal, but Chicdat seemed to have misread it and then created [5] with a mass-ping which was largely a waste of time. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

    And in the end, archives were added to RfPP, but you seem to have ignored that. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

    The fact that you eventually got what you wanted doesn't remove the fact that you were completely unable to read a discussion and see that the community overwhelmingly disagreed with you, and it doesn't excuse the disruption you were causing along the way. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

    If I was causing so much disruption, why did nobody bring it up until now? Besides, being outnumbered in a discussion isn't disruptive editing. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

    The disruptive element wasn't you being outnumbered. Also, the issue was brought up, at the bottom of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive335#Changes_at_Requests_for_page_protection where your involvement was also mentioned. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

    How come I was never notified about that? 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support, with regret. I might be an IP editor, but I'm not a newbie, and this isn't the first time I've noticed issues with chicdat's editing in "behind the scenes"/administrative areas. The distinct impression I have always had from their contributions in the Wikipedia namespace is that they are overenthusiastic and often overconfident, often to the point of mild rudeness, which coupled with major gaps in understanding and as Cabayi puts it issues with Elephants is always going to be a recipe for disruption. They're already under a voluntary restriction from large chunks of activities in this area, and a look through their talk page archives will show a history of disruption in this part of the project in a number of areas. It's a shame that in the almost two years they've been editing here they haven't been able to acquire Elephants in this area, so unfortunately I have to support a namespace block. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 11:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Their comments in this discussion have convinced me that they completely lack any understanding as to why their editing is disruptive or that what they were doing is wrong, so I'm revising my !vote to an unqualified support. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support. The proposed restriction makes sense and is simpler all-around than the voluntary restrictions targeting project space. Mackensen (talk) 12:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support. This should be seen as a last warning by Chicdat. As the IP in the section bellow comments, there are serious WP:CIR issues when it comes to administrative areas of the project. I hope Chicdat can see the conversation here as a learning experience, and understand why he was wrong when he tried to be WP:BOLD. Isabelle ^🔔 13:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @Isabelle Belato: I do understand why this didn't qualify as BOLD. It was because there were already three discussions against me. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 13:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose partial block from W: namespace. Wrong tool. Support TBAN from Projectspace maybe except WikiProjects instead, per nom/above. Levivich 13:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  I would like to note that some of the disruption mentioned above involved the moving of a WikiProject page and the modification of the project's template against consensus. The premise of this proposal was to prevent disruption across all the areas mentioned above. I have concerns that Chicdat may try to further involve himself in the merger process of the weather wikiprojects which is a long-term process. The page move and the template change he did were against part of the consensus involved in the merger. Noah^Talk 13:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  Point taken, I updated my !vote. For me the important thing is that it should be a tban from projectspace (not just WP: but also templates, files, etc.) and not a pblock from just the Wikipedia namespace (I don't think they should be in WT: pages either). We'll never technically restrict someone into becoming a productive editor; this would be a tban to force them to focus on mainspace and nothing else, the idea being it's a last chance to be productive and not disruptive. I don't think they've been tban'd before, and if they violate this tban, the remedy should be a full block. It seems weird to exclude someone from participating in wikiprojects (it's like tban'ing someone from collaboration, like some kind of "solitary confinement"), but maybe there should be no exceptions to the tban. I could go either way on that. Levivich 14:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  What? You say I should not edit in WT? @Levivich: Please give three diffs of my disruptive editing in the Wikipedia talk: namespace. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Others above say it much better, but it is clear that Chicdat is a net negative in project-space. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from all pages beginning Wikipedia:, oppose using the partial block tool to enforce it. There's overwhelming evidence that Chicdat is being repeatedly (and unintentionally) disruptive across a broad swathe of project-space, but there are too many occasions in which there would be a legitimate exception to the ban, and as such using a partial block would itself be disruptive. (A partial block would render Chicdat unable to participate in an Arbcom case even if they were the named party, for instance.) As in almost all the cases where people propose partial blocks against a named editor, as long as the wording of the topic ban is unambiguous there's no need to use a partial block to enforce it; if the user isn't willing to comply with the topic ban then we should be going with a full block not a partial one, and if the user is willing to comply then any partial block would just be a waste of time. ‑ Iridescent 19:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban. 163.1.15.238's impression has been mine as well: this user, while obviously well intentioned, simply lacks the ability to edit competently in administrative areas at the moment. Perhaps that will change in the future, but his participation in project-space is – and has been for a while – a clear net negative. I would tend to concur with Iridescent that a partial block would likely do more harm than good: a duly-enforced topic ban should be enough to resolve the crux of this problem. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support PBLOCK from WP:, perhaps limited to 1 year. Oppose TBAN which is just setting a trap given Chicdat's inability to stop himself. Cabayi (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Unfortunately it seems that their inability to understand community consensus isn't limited to shortcut redirects, and given that their latest actions in that sphere were a violation of at least one of their myriad voluntary restrictions I think at TBAN is just setting them up to fail. This shouldn't be viewed as a harsh use of partial blocking but as a final attempt at avoiding a full WP:CIR ban - Chicdat, take this as an opportunity to demonstrate in other areas that you can learn to be a productive Wikmedian. Thryduulf (talk) 01:46, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

My observations

So I've been dragged to ANI once again. I apologize for my prior absence from the discussion, I was grounded. From my knowledge, here's what's been happening. 21 October 2021 12:16: An IP reverts my retarget from July 2020, saying that in prior discussions, RFP was unanimously against being retargeted to PERM. 12:18: I revert with the untrue statement that I did gain consensus. 15:44: The IP did not revert, but instead nominated RfP at RFD.

During the RfD, I meanwhile got myself involved in a content dispute about a man's death date.

29 October 2021 3:16: The RFD was closed as retarget, and RfP was retargeted to RFPP. 31 October 2021 13:03: A longevity dispute I was involved in, with many edit wars, was resolved by Blablubbs, who threatened to sanction both of us. 6 November 2021 11:23: I WP:BOLDly turn RfP into a disambiguation page. 9 November 2021 11:29: An IP reverts me. (The IP is the same one who reverted earlier.) 11:30: I revert the IP. 11:30: The IP reverts me. (2nd time) 11:32: I revert the IP. (2nd time) 11:34: The IP reverts me. (3rd time) 11:35: I revert the IP. (3rd time) 11:47: To avoid breaking 3RR, the IP reports me at ANI.

Now it is being proposed that I am partially blocked. However, I have good contributions in project-space, too. WikiProject Tropical cyclones. The village pump. XfD. Discussions concerning adminship. Why can I not adhere to a 0RR in project space instead, with the condition that if I violate it or exhibit any tendentious editing, I am indefinitely blocked? 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

The fact that you are still claiming that your edits fall under WP:BOLD shows the issue here. You cannot just BOLDly decide to override a community consensus built through a formal process that closed a week prior. Have you actually sat down and read WP:BOLD or are you just throwing it around hoping that it says what you think it does? You really need to read the sections on WP:RECKLESS, the need for careful editing in the Wikipedia namespace and that you need to take your edits to discussion after your "bold" edit was reverted. Also I did not bring you to ANI to avoid breaking 3RR, I brought you to ANI because you were being extremely disruptive, were engaging in Tendentious editing and were refusing to accept multiple community consensuses that were against you. If you cannot understand this then this really reinforces the need for a partial block until you do. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

No. My edits were bold at first. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Are you trolling, are you looking for an excuse, or are you legitimately unable to understand the concept of consensus building? We had a discussion a week prior at a centralised venue, where everyone on Wikipedia with an interest in that redirect could comment, and not a single person agreed with your theories on why this should be disambiguated. When the community has universally rejected your proposal you don't then get to disambiguate the page a week later claiming "WP:BOLD!". If you aren't trolling or trying to use BOLD as an excuse and legitimately cannot understand this then the closing admin should consider my !vote revised to "Support Site Ban, per WP:CIR". I'm going to leave this for others to comment on now since this just seems to be going round in circles. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I know how people create consensus. They start a discussion, and what is generally accepted becomes consensus. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 13:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Nobody wants you to be indefinitely blocked. To make such a restriction on you even if you are the one suggesting it would be punitive rather than preventative. The issues I have are more with your overall judgment in the project space. It's far more than simple reverts and a 0RR restriction wouldn't cover the array of issues presented here. Your list of self-prohibited items is growing significantly too long as problems have cropped up. I felt the best option to keep you from being dragged back here again was to do a partial block. It prevents any future disruption across the whole project namespace. The goals here are protecting the encyclopedia and keeping you out of trouble. You would still be able to participate in discussions on any talk page as the Wikipedia talk namespace would be unrestricted. Noah^Talk 12:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• I am sure that there are alternatives to a partial block. For instance, I am open to someone mentoring me. You know, Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user. Isn't blocking a last resort? Is there something I can do to convince you that I'm here to build an encyclopedia? I'll do anything. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 13:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think anyone doubts your good intentions. It's the repeated poor execution that's the issue. A partial block would help keep you on track and hopefully ensure there isn't a "next time". There have been too many "next time"s already. Cabayi (talk) 20:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I never have once thought that Chicdat has been acting in bad faith. However, there have been too many "facepalm moments" that have required cleanup from other editors. I think Chicdat could be a good editor eventually, but he just needs more time to learn, and hopefully, a restriction would help with that. Noah^Talk 20:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

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

203.145.95.X harassment, personal attack and possible part of off site canvassing behaviours

• 203.145.95.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• City University of Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• South Island line (West) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tai Po Market (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• old ANI thread 1
• old ANI thread 2

Ok, i have been asked to make a shorter thread. Here is one thread for one ip range. If you like to read the previous drama: here.

The ip made groundless claim that 210.6.10.X ip range was my meatsock on 21:46, 8 November 2021 by this edit (Special:Diff/1054238016). Which the ip has received warning by User:Ohnoitsjamie

However, way before that edit, the ip already trolling me by false claim I have suggested something (offsite) somewhere by this edit (Special:Diff/1052306852) Agree Matthew. As you suggested elsewhere, which exactly the same disruptive edit as the edit of 210.6.10.X ip range (Special:Diff/1050888402, Agree with Matthew. It's all about how. I saw his message on an online forum and I agree with his reasoning.) on the same talk page. SPI clerk user:Tamzin simply called 210.6.10.X ip range as troll (mentioned in previous ANI October thread) or in blockable conduct (mentioned here). But i am not sure other admin would consider 210.6.10.X ip range and 203.145.95.X (this thread) are meatsock, or same person that ip hopping with another ISP, or else. Template talk:China–Hong Kong border crossings's RfC attracted a lot of unregistered ip from different HK ip ranges as apparent off site canvassing , just i fails to dig out the exact thread, only their possible point of contact in Telegram (app) (Read the above ANI thread for details). Or, may be people may not agree there is any off site canvassing, so that this thread talk about edit inside wikipedia.

The ip range also harassed other registered editor, and matching the pattern of yet another ANI thread back in January 2021, which either harassed other people's English level, or other editor not Hongkonger enough to edit wikipedia's Hong Kong content.

In specific, now the 203.145.95.X ip ranged harassed user: Citobun in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong

On a side note, Citobun does not appear to be adequately familiar with some Hong Kong topics Special:Diff/1054239450 on 21:57, 8 November 2021

So, any thought? Matthew hk (talk) 06:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I've added a link to the range ([6]) at the top of this thread. I see that the user responded to my warning here, where they agreed to stop making accusations. Do you have any examples (with links to the diff) of harassment from that IP range since I warned them? Claiming that another user is not "adequately familiar" with a topic may be a bit uncivil, but it's not harassment or an attack. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ohnoitsjamie: For the record, this is a quote from an ip ( 1.64.46.X) from the January 2021 ANI thread, but since it is from different ip range so that never able to actually verify it is controlled by same person or just coincidence or not: With such a level of proficiency in the English language, as well as reference to "To Ka Wan" (as opposed to To Kwa Wan) I would have much reservation towards his claims that he's a Hongkonger residing in Australia and that he's familiar with the Hong Kong-related matters he edits on Wikipedia.. So, would you think use today or 8 November or date that someone send a user talk message to 203.145.95.X ip range, that "from Hong Kong is not a mandatory requirement to edit Hong Kong -related topic" Able to show WP:RS to allow other people to WP:V is more important" ?

BTW Citobun did say this to the ip gang already in January 2021 thread Third party comment: If you (singular? plural?) created an account and cut down on all the snide remarks regarding English proficiency then I think it would be much easier to have a constructive discussion regarding the issues at hand Matthew hk (talk) 08:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• And actually 203.145.95.X ip range and the (rival?) 124.217.188.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ip range just caused the article City University of Hong Kong edit protected . Despite 124.217.188.145 seem more clear cut disruptive by add obsolete place name New Kowloon. (@Ohnoitsjamie: Guess what, 124.217 ip range, also edit Country article, that you protected)

• While seem two ips take turn to add obsolete place name to article in South Island line (West)

Special:Diff/1052070292 by 124.217.188.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Special:Diff/1054164236 by 203.145.95.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) 1RR

203.145.95.32 did stop and not having 2RR and instead made this Special:Diff/1054230185

But the problem is, you can't add placename that was used in 100 year ago. Hong Kong place name changed from time to time (See Ma Tau Chung#Geography) so that such stuff need WP:RS to verify the modern place name of the area.

Matthew hk (talk) 08:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute in which all parties are participating in talk page discussions. If the dispute comes to a statemate, please follow dispute resolution procedures. I have no further interest in this, please don't ping me about it again. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Would this be an abuse of WP:AN/I? 219.76.24.216 (talk) 13:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Matthew hk for opening this thread. Sorry that I am busy in real life this week and can't contribute very much to this discussion. But I would say: Hong Kong subjects have had, for a long time, problems with disruptive IP editors whom I suspect are the same person as there is a great deal of subject overlap among the IPs. I last opened a discussion about this here. Their common editing pattern can be summed up as persistently adding obscure place names (e.g. Staunton Creek, New Kowloon, etc), other obscure/incorrect names (e.g. "Harbour Crossing Tunnel"), highlighting obscure geographic trivia that usually consists of WP:OR (example here, and so on. Instead of providing WP:RS, they just start revert wars and make personal attacks. It's hard to address the problem since they are constantly changing IP addresses. Citobun (talk) 02:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

To be fair 124.217.188.X ip seems linked to the creator of Jeffrey Ngai Pang Chin, a globally locked user (see Afd, 124.217.188.X ip vote stacking to try to keep the article, and no other user and ip really agree it) of which probably a lock evasion, but CU will not do the check for ip and locked user linkage anyway.

124.217.188.X ip and 203.145.95.X seems different person as there is edit war between them in City U article. Just 124.217.188.X probably won't able to open an account or else it will escalated to SPI quickly, while the latter chose to personal attack and voluntarily not registered to enjoy the collateral damage of edit protection of articles (or may even worse, may mistook as the same person as 124.217.188.X ips) So that you may need to open thread for 124.217.188.X ip range as people want to read concise thread and don't want to spend time to know that really happened. Matthew hk (talk) 02:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah, these are not harassment after they fails to provide WP:RS Special:Diff/1055348314 .....Admit your own fault and stop pretend that you are always right. Matthew hk (talk) 10:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

  Is there any reason why you would take things out of context this way? That was all about what you did, first, calling "flag station" a "slang" and second, disregarding the fact that the term appeared the HKU paper quoted. harassment after they fails [sic] to provide WP:RS? 203.145.94.111 (talk) 14:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Iyo-farm repeated block-evasion

Iyo-farm is indef blocked on Wikipedia and has been evading his block by using o2 mobile IPs to post on the Vegan Society talk-page and at British pet massacre. There is a current SPI about this user [7]. Many of these IPs trace around the UK to four or five different locations, so this individual travels a lot which makes it easy for him to get a new mobile IP.

These IPs he has used today.

• 82.132.230.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 82.132.232.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 82.132.184.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 82.132.217.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

And before that, these and many others (he often signed his comment on these IPs with his username)

• 82.132.225.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 82.132.186.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 82.132.234.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 82.132.229.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 82.132.224.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 82.132.220.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I want to point out this has been going on for 1 month now. I don't know if a range block is possible or not, I did suggest it to an admin but another opinion is needed because such a block would stop many others from editing from o2 so it is probably not fair but recently this user continues his block evasion on these IPs almost daily. Psychologist Guy (talk) 10:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Iyo-farm had many problems, but definitely wasn't 89.241.33.89. I should now because that was me, a fact I even had on my user page for awhile. The IP address isn't even in the same range, try not to tar all IPs the same. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 11:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Actively, I agree with you. 89 was not him sorry, it got lumped in their by mistake. I added it by mistake when looking at the history of British Pet Massacre. All the others are definitely him. He is currently using this o2 IP to edit these same articles and his SPI [8] Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I suggest partial blocking the 82.132.0.0 range from Iyo-farm's usual targets, I doubt the collateral will be that great. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 11:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

British pet massacre has been semi-protected for several months. Definity the right move. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Their range appears to be 82.132.128.0/17, if a rangeblock is ever needed. wizzito | say hello! 23:31, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Let's go back to first principles here. What's really going on? Psychologist Guy wants to discredit the Vegan Society with a length paragraph that fails on the grounds of NPOV, NOTNEWS and WEIGHT [9]. I reduced it to a couple of sentences retain the references [10]. Since then, he keep reverting to his NPOV version. All of the rest of it, is just obfuscation, & character assassination in an attempt to "win". It's all diversionary tactics.

Let's go back & examine his edit on the basis of those policies, & see if it actually works. As I pointed out on the talk page, it doesn't because of the brevity of the topic. The short version is better. --Iyo-farm (talk) 04:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.217.0 (talk • contribs)

More of the same. Blocked. Acroterion (talk) 05:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Something interesting here is that Iyo-farm appears to be the same o2 mobile user that has been vandalizing the macrobiotic diet article. Firstly in his edit summaries and comments on his account Iyo-farm and many of his o2 mobile IPs listed above, he doesn't like using the word "and", he uses "&" which is rare to see in long edit summaries. He nearly always leaves a long edit summary or the "&" in his comments. Other behavior evidences are apparent including his obsession with using brackets which you can see on the talk-page. Iyo-farm also usually edits from 11-12 at night, then 6am in the morning then 2-3pm in the afternoon, this matches all the IPs on the macrobiotic diet. Iyo-farm also seems to have an interest in traditional Japanese culture, for example he significantly edited the Masanobu Fukuoka article, edited Mokichi Okada and created nature farming. The o2 mobile IPs are arguing that "fad diet" should be removed on macrobiotic diet and claiming it is a traditional Japanese diet. This fits Iyo-farm's editing interests. Last night at nearly 12:30 an o2 mobile IP 82.132.213.189 put an image on my talk-page [11]. Why would someone randomly do that? It was obviously Iyo-farm because all his other target articles have been locked. After this IP left a comment on my talk-page they edited the macrobiotic. Iyo-farm on o2 IPs had previously vandalized my talk-page a few days ago, no other IP has done that. These o2 mobile IPS have all vandalized the macrobiotic article:

• 82.132.218.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 82.132.213.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 82.132.230.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have no doubt that 82.132.218.73 is Iyo-farm as a comment he left is an exact match of his argument and writing style which you can see on the talk-page [12]. I can not cite a diff because he re-edits his comments but to see his full comment check the comment he left at 14:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC) to user Alexbrn. Based on what I have seen this is a deeply disturbed individual who is moving to different articles because his other target articles are locked. I would support the range block for 6 months or a year. As of yet no range block seems to have been done. This user is one of the worst trolls I have seen. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

It's hardly vandalising when it's removing content that is not supported by the given reference. "The lady doth protest too much, methinks". Look, all of this drama is just about Psychologist Guy attempting to defend his ownership of the Vegan Society page, & his drama is causing a huge waste of time energy, as with false sockpuppet allegations[13]. Once you start by accepting that, it'll all start to make sense. --82.132.186.1 (talk) 02:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

It's block evasion because your account has been indef blocked on Wikipedia and vandalism because its well known in the medical and nutritional literature that macrobiotics is a fad diet but you have removed that term about 5 or 6 times from the article on multiple IPs. A range block is clearly needed here because you are still dicking around on talk-pages. As for the SPI, yes I did file it because this account is suspicious [14] a throwaway account that hasn't logged in 4 days and uses the same writing habits as yourself. Even if that account is not blocked and an admin disagrees with what I have suspected, you are evading your block on all these mobile IPs. Psychologist Guy (talk) 03:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

7&6=thirteen’s behavior hasn’t improved

13 was warned about this earlier I believe, but they haven’t improved their behavior:

Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron

Redirecting the Article Rescue Squadron:

Prop: Conspiracy mongering about “stifling reasonable minds” with “prior restraint” Prop 2: Calls editors he disagrees with “trollish” “sharks” who “pounce” (a bizarre triple mixed metaphor) on AfDs, without evidence Prop 4: General passive-aggression

Is ARS still here?: Conspiracy/persecution complex mongering, unprovoked haranguing/canvassing-lite of prospective new member, I’m a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” for wanting to reform ARS, the “inquisition”, importing the below-mentioned drama from AfD as “evidence”

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARS Public School (3rd nomination)

Disruptive personal attack conspiracy mongering in the middle of an unrelated discussion

Dronebogus (talk) 14:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Neither of you come out of those two spats very well, to be honest. But I don't see anything worthy of admin action. Can we keep the ARS drama away from ANI for a few week unless something really egregious is happening? Black Kite (talk) 15:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I’d like multiple opinions first. Dronebogus (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • BK, this is at least the third time this has come to ANI since I've been here, and you said something like this the last two times (last year, this month). What's he gotta do, kill somebody? :-P I don't get why this one is different from the other two (against whom you supported sanctions last time). Seemed obvious to me that if we tbanned two out of four, the other two would continue. But more to the point, your thesis that "some admin will handle it/community's patience is clearly not endless" gets undercut when you're more-or-less against an admin handling it ("not worthy of admin action") and in favor of extending the community's patience ("unless something really egregious is happening"). After however-many years, maybe it's time, you know? Levivich 15:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
    • If this isn’t enough evidence he just wants to feud with and WP:HOUND me I don’t know what is: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron&diff=1054689154&oldid=1054687222 Dronebogus (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Note that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARS Public School (3rd nomination) Dronebogus started the nomination with Nomination a few days ago closed as no consensus and was tied up in ARS drama so I’m renominating in hopes of a clearer consensus. But not one regular member of the Article Rescue Squadron voted there, although two did discuss things in the AFD and also edited the article to make improvements. Dronebogus seems determined to blame the Article Rescue Squadron for things they didn't do. Also why don't we have a rule that if you don't like how a deletion discussion ends, you can't just renominate it less than two days later? Isn't that a bit disruptive? Or gaming the system? In that AFD instead of focusing on the article, he keeps making accusations against the Article Rescue Squadron. Dream Focus 15:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • What rule? Where? And why can’t I re-nominate it after it closed as no consensus? Dronebogus (talk) 16:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • IMO, referring to the re-nomination of no-consensus AFDs as disruptive is one of the tactics ARS use to badger nominators. Similarly to the practice of referring to no-consensus results as a "keep" (and recording them as such on the rescue list). Thus, they make the argument we see in this AfD that this article was kept twice and a third nomination is therefore disruptive. But of course it isn't: re-nomination is the natural thing to do after a no-consensus result. Similarly, ARS will badger post-AFD merge/split discussions, saying that if the article was kept (even if it was actually no consensus), any efforts to merge/split is "back door deletion" (or similar). Let me know if anyone wants diffs of examples of these tactics being used. Levivich 17:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

    I've seen rapid renomination labelled as disruptive in the past. If it is okay, then what is the point of WP:DRV? Just keep nominating until you get the result you want. NemesisAT (talk) 19:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• I recall being told calling someone "paranoid" is not acceptable. Dronebogus does that in his rant. [15] I'd also like to point out his previous rant against the ARS when he nominated it for deletion at [16] He seems determine to cast accusations against "its four dominant members". Please list specific evidence against individuals you believe are doing something wrong, and stop making vaguewave accusations. Dream Focus 15:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I literally presented evidence about one member above. With links. What more do you need, fingerprinting? DNA tests? Dronebogus (talk) 16:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Evidence about this ridiculous and relentless canvassing accusation is what I meant. Dream Focus 16:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
      • This isn’t about the earlier ARS drama. This is about 13’s recent antics. This doesn’t involve you or the two tbanned ARS users. Stop dragging this away from the topic. Dronebogus (talk) 16:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
        • This is about you arguing with him at Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron#Is_ARS_still_here? and both got a bit unpleasant towards each other, and over at the AFD I mentioned [17]. You don't just make accusations about him but the Article Rescue Squadron. Dream Focus 16:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
          • Look we’re obviously never going to agree on the ARS but the main issue is 13. And yes I may have gotten a bit snippy with him. But based on his reaction to this ANI issue he’s clearly interested in making this a matter of personal “honor” and not a professional dispute. Dronebogus (talk) 16:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• This is about User:Dronebogus's wilfully disruptive behavior at WP:ARS and at various deletion discussions. He never misses an opportunity to cast aspersions on me and WP:ARS. The whole fiasco at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARS Public School (3rd nomination) and its predecessor was apparently intended to make a point. He should be WP:Topic banned from the ARS pages and participation at articles for deletion. I have not called on him directly, but I have been firm in my expessed belief that ARS should be allowed to conduct its business withhout the saboteurs taking over. Indeed, I should not be personally harassed, which this is. It is time for a WP:Boomerang. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • You’re the one who made the snarky overly personal remark about this discussion at the ARS talk page, not me. You’re the one who has ended up here at least two unrelated times, not me. You’re the one who immediately walks in here demanding sanctions, when I just wanted a review of your behavior and offended no comment. Dronebogus (talk) 17:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Read the whole pages and the AFDs. User:Dronebogus is not alone in this. But his part and intent is clear and unmistakable The WP:Harassment has got to stop. Do your duty. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

You think admins are just going to do what you want because you demanded it? The first admin who showed up wasn’t even on either of our sides. The fact that you respond to any criticism by WP:HOUNDing me and ranting about Deletionist conspiracy this or that is telling. Dronebogus (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Res ipsa loquitur. Topic bans are required. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• • This isn’t a place to get revenge on rivals! I opened this because I wanted an admin to look over this matter and see if anything needed to be done, not because I want to start a grudge match! Even if you believe my behavior to be out of order you’re not going to correct it by coming in here eagerly calling for heavy sanctioning before even a warning or significant admin comment. Dronebogus (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• "I'm (Dronebogus) making fun of your (7&6) group (ARS)". We can see that. They disrupted a neutral question by "making fun" of people. Maybe the connection between ARS School and WP:ARS is "funny", or not even by accident, but I'm trying to solve a puzzle (finding more sources) and when a user disrupts that process with mockery it shuts down the process and becomes, as they say, "drama". -- GreenC 17:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  I apologize for that. But that isn’t topic ban material. Dronebogus (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  I just want to point out that that was my joke [18] and Dronebogus stole it. Can he be blocked for that? EEng 19:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• I observe [19] and [20]. Doesn't exactly inspire confidence. (And no one better say that ARS regulars post there to draw attention to discussions where they hope like-minded editors will look. Heavens, no!) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• This is just a bad faith discussion from Dronebogus after reviewing the AfD mentioned. Extremely WP:POINTY and this discussion is just adding a disruptive nature because they won't WP:DROPIT. – The Grid (talk) 18:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• I’m probably going to get topic banned again for posting here but I’d like to ask why everyone is focusing on whatever crap I’ve done wrong in my brief time here when LB is violating their topic ban and 13 is behaving uncivilly after multiple warnings over a multi-year basis. Dronebogus (talk) 19:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  Because your behavior is obviously disruptive and problematic in various ways, and your response when people point that out is to argue instead of introspect and change your behavior. --JBL (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  And their behavior somehow isn’t? Dronebogus (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  Dronebogus, I mean this with all due respect and in sincere good faith, but your continued participation here is actually detrimental to your cause. Do with that opinion what you will. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  What Dumuzid said ^. Both "sides" increasingly have unclean hands, and both "sides" should take a good look at WP:2WRONGS. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks for providing a clear-cut illustration of exactly my point. --JBL (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposed interaction ban between Dronebogus and 7&6=thirteen

This argument is not going to cease and will continue in ARS and across various AfD's. I propose a no-fault, time limited, interaction ban between Dronebogus (talk · contribs) and 7%266%3Dthirteen (talk · contribs) to prevent further disruption. SailingInABathTub (talk) 17:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Yes. Please. Dronebogus (talk) 17:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• I propose that Dronebogus stay off the WP:ARS page. And his participition at AFDs likewise. He proposes and supports a lot more AFDs than I participate in. I do not interact with him but I should not be curtailed from parfticipating in AFDs by his broad brush. That we are going through serial nominationsd at the ARS School demonstrates the problem.

And while you are at it, ban the bomb throwers from the ARS pages. Read them and you will understand that this has been going on for years. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• • Might help if you didn’t just assume everyone knows what you’re talking about. Dronebogus (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I disagree with ARS sanctions because I want to work on reform efforts but that’s for an admin to decide. Dronebogus (talk) 17:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Reform as in spread rumors when a new comer shows up then arguing with others? You aren't going to reform it, you just insult it constantly, and did nominate it for deletion even. It would be great if those who had a wikiproject were not allowed to be bothered this way. Dream Focus 17:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
      • I could say “no you” but this is obviously going nowhere so sure topic ban me from ARS. And set up n interaction ban between me and DF since we always just end up fighting. Dronebogus (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Perhaps that might be the wrong person to topic ban, assuming this is needed. Qwirkle (talk) 17:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
        • By that you mean…? Dronebogus (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• Not quite at the stage of suggesting an interaction ban, but to be quite frank I feel like blocking the next one of Dronebogus and 7&6=thirteen who slings mud at the other. Please, just calm down, both of you. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • blocking is more reasonable than an interaction ban? Dronebogus (talk) 18:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

    It means I would like both of you to stop arguing and thinking that the other one is "the enemy". I'm off out in a mo, but on my return I would love this thread to be closed as "The two parties have agreed to disagree and avoid each other voluntarily - no administrative action required". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

    Yes please. --JBL (talk) 20:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• I came here because I was of this edit: [21], and was going to request 7&6=thirteen not to change discussions without timestamping: (The case of the additional sentence here was likely minor and inconsequential, but the fact I noticed it meant it was disruptive). However from their talk page I note this ANI drama. Given Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1083##Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron is getting problematic closed 4 November 2021, the nomination by Dronebogus of ARS Public School at AfD two days after the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARS Public School (2nd nomination) non-consensus close by Scottywong rather than the two months suggested by the guideline Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion pointed to by the BEFORE instructions was a probable WP:SEALION attempt, which looks very likely to succeed in bans/blocks for one or more other editors. The ARS acronymn in the title is likely to allude to "Article Rescue Squadron", so the article selection here looks very POINTy. But I agree with Richie/JBL, this has to stop, so I hope people listen to what they say. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Boomerang Dronebogus is being disruptive. They have followed, and grave danced, and repeatedly brought editors to ANI. Their behavior has been POINTY. They also pulled me back into ANI last week for essentially more drama and harassment. Lightburst (talk) 18:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  Here here. I hadn't heard of Dronebogus before a month ago, now it seems their name is all over these boards. That's not a good thing. Seems like they're trying to stir and are going looking for trouble. How about avoiding the drama and concentrating on editing and improving the project? Canterbury Tail talk 20:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Note for admins. Isn't this a violation of Lightburst's topic ban?[22] This discussion is focused on behavior at AfDs and ARS. No one with such a topic ban should even be thinking of commenting on those discussions. The whole point of that ban was to keep Lightburst from continuing in the battleground mentality related to this subject or related editors. KoA (talk) 05:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  I don't think so. The wording of that topic ban is "Lightburst is banned from deletion-related activities for 6 months. This includes but is not limited to XFD, deletion review, PROD, and CSDs that are not covered by WP:BANEX." and this isn't a deletion related discussion. As someone with no prior knowledge of this topic ban, coming across this ban criteria wouldn't make me think they cannot participate in this particular discussion as it's about user behaviours, not deletion. Canterbury Tail talk 12:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail: The topic ban included things related to ARS. Which this discussion has to do with. Also, [here] he commented on an AfD. Even if this isn't technically a violation the other comment clearly is. I still think it is though. Plus there a few other things like him participating in an ARS discussion and comment about deletion related topics on his talk page. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

The remaining text of the topic ban was "Two important caveats. This does prohibit Lightburst from notifying ARS members of deletion discussions as it is "deletion-related". That said, it does not prevent Lightburst from improving articles that are nominated for deletion as long as Lightburst does not participate in the deletion discussion." I don't see that this is constituted in that. It was not generally related to ARS, and doesn't prevent them from participating in improvement discussions etc. I make no comment on their edits elsewhere, and I'm not looking at this, just on this discussion. Canterbury Tail talk 13:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Wow I'm surprised your reading of the TBAN discussion is that the community wanted to ban LB from from deletion-related activities but still allow him to comment in a thread about how a fellow ARS member behaves in AFDs and suggest sanctions against the reporting editor. That reading doesn't make much sense to me. To me, this is a deletion-related discussion because it's about an ARS member's behavior in deletion discussions. I can't think of another example when someone was TBAN'd from "Foo" but allowed to comment in ANI threads about someone else's behavior in articles about "Foo". The more I think about it, the clearer a tban violation this becomes. Levivich 13:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

There's literally no other way to interpret this discussion then being "deletion-related" and there's zero reason he would have participated in this if it had nothing to do with ARS and (or) AfDs. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Actually yes you're right, looking to the top section. I didn't sleep well last night, so this is probably my que to exit this thread. Canterbury Tail talk 14:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Canterbury Tail is correct that I am not banned from discussing any matters in this "community". I am not surprised that Levivich and Adamant would want me shunned or would want to remove my voice from this "community". I am not participating in any deletion related activities at all. I am free to comment on sanctions for editors who have been entirely unproductive, and have been following, needling and harassing me on talk pages. DB has brought me into ANI twice in a week just to be disruptive. But they already caught a one day block today I see. Lightburst (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Canterbury literally just said it did apply. You need to take this seriously Lightburst. Keep in mind you are also engaging in WP:ASPERSIONS at this point without diffs. You can be blocked for that. If you truly want to make accusations, then provide diffs relevant to this ANI. Keep in mind since you are posting in an ANI about behavior behavior in deletion and ARS topics you should already know that providing diffs related to that would also be a violation of your topic ban. It should be clear as day to you that you should be avoiding discussions like this with your ban, not jumping into them. KoA (talk) 05:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@KoA: I agree that the accusations are WP:ASPERSIONS. I've defended him and other ARS members multiple times since this whole thing started. Apparently it's harassment to not show 100% undying deviation to them and their cause in the interim though. Otherwise I'd like to see some evidence of the harassing behavior and the agenda that he's repeatedly accused me of having. I'm not sure how I could have an agenda when I've been defending them, but whatever. I'm willing to see his evidence. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• I propose that (1) Dronebogus, at any time that you feel that 7&6 and/or Dream Focus has said or done something you object to, just ignore it. Let it go. No matter what it is, just let it slide, and move on to something else. And (2) 7&6 and Dream Focus, at any time that you feel that Dronebogus has said or done something you object to, just ignore it. Let it go. No matter what it is, just let it slide, and move on to something else. And the rest of us, let's bring down the hammer on whoever breaks that silence first. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• Not a support or oppose, just a note that if, after just 2500 edits, you find yourself repeatedly embroiled in conflict without even getting into DS topic areas, and have more than three times as many edits just to ANI as to the entire talk namespace... you may want to experiment with helping out in different parts of the project. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Tryptofish, Rhododendrites and others! Johnbod (talk) 00:53, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

{{yo:Dream Focus}} You talk above about those who had a wikiproject. But note, a project is not owned by its "members", each project belongs to all of us. Paul August ☎ 01:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I should've wrote "those who are active members of a Wikiproject". Note I wrote "I would be great if those who had a wikiproject were not allowed to bother it this way." So obviously I didn't proofread or think it through before writing. I just fixed it so now it sounds more coherent. Dream Focus 01:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support topic ban of Dronebogus from ARS, per their own recommendation above. The pattern of behavior here is simply unsustainable. This AN/I thread about an ARS member comes a scant four days after Dronebogus' previous AN/I thread about ARS members, created while they were in the middle of a heated argument with said members (in which they made posts like "Why do you think that the founder of this website wants to hear you complain about some drama at ANI? Why are so self-important as to think that your personal disputes warrant the Immortal God Emperor of Wikipedia’s direct attention?"). No action was taken. That thread itself came just a couple days after this AN/I thread about the ARS (one of the longest in the history of AN/I), which Dronebogus also started. The degree to which they seem to be fixated on these editors is concerning. I think that it may be more productive for everyone involved if Dronebogus and ARS members simply did not interact. jp×g 07:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Looking at this in a little more depth, I find bizarre conversations on WT:ARS, with Dronebogus contributing posts like "this is the reason ARS has so many enemies. Not because we hate you and articles and Wikipedia or whatever, but because the first thing you tell new users is that you’re victims of an evil Deletionist conspiracy and everything you hear from outsiders is filthy slander" and accusing ARS members of "paranoid hostility". In what way is this intended to be a constructive discussion? jp×g 07:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with those who dont yet think topic or iBans are needed. DroneBogus seems a smart editor & hopefully has begun to learn the importance of winning gracefully. Their original ANI caused the first substantial damage to the squad in almost a decade, despite many other attacks & plotting. Even some who found it woefully misguided can respect the achievement. But while understandable they let the success go to their head, these further ANIs are having the opposite effect, and just wasting the communities time. I agree with giving them perhaps a one month block if they launch any further attacks. And also for a similar block in the unlikely event any ARS editor goes out of their way to harass Dronebogus. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I wasn’t trying to “win” anything, imo, but I agree I’ve been wasting time with these further squabbles. Dronebogus (talk) 08:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• 13 called me thin-skinned a few days ago on the Article Rescue Squad talk page when I was making a good faithed effort to discuss the problems they have been having. Which was after the civility warning. Also, LightBurst posted multiple messages on Jimmy Whales talk page related to deletion discussions after he was tbanned from talking about the subject. He's also participated in this ANI complaint against the t-ban. Sure, we could all just ignore it, but then there could also be consequences for their actions. Seriously, which one of those is good for the project and which isn't? In the meantime "Is ARS still here?" is a perfect example of 13's continuing poor behavior and attitude about this. In it he compared ARS to Jean d'Arc and accused other people of being part of the Inquisition. He also said people who have issues with his behavior are gaslighting, and making deliberate hollow threats to disrupt the project. Is all that really acceptable behavior for someone who was just warned to be more civil? --Adamant1 (talk) 09:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

"Sure, we could all just ignore it, but then there could also be consequences for their actions. Seriously, which one of those is good for the project and which isn't?" Ignoring it allows you to forget about the problem and concentrating on improving the encyclopedia. In your case, Adamant1, I notice you have made one edit to the entire mainspace in the last month (at least that one edit was a good one!) while, conversely, you have spent quite a bit of time chatting at WP:JIMBOTALK. My advice is for you to ignore 7&6=13, Dream Focus and Lightburst, and in return I'd like 7&6=13, Dream Focus and Lightburst to ignore you. We might then be able to get on with more interesting things. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:36, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Not to be rude, but that seems like a rather dismissive handwave of serious problems. For one I haven't been involved in 99% of the problems that 7&6=13 has had. Including his comments on the ARS talk page that I added a reference to where he said this whole thing was an inquisition. So it's ridiculous to act like me ignoring him has any bearing on his uncivil behavior or resolving this. Nor do I have any issue with DreamFocus. I didn't even mention him in my comment. So I don't know why your bringing him into this. Outside of that, I find your insinuation that working on AfDs doesn't improve the Encyclopedia rather insulting. If you really want us to get on to more interesting things then sanction 7&6=13 for his lack of civility and LightBurst for discussing an area he's t-banned from. Then we can all get on with it. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I am happily editing main space. I am improving Tuskegee Airmen articles, and I even started three articles this week. I am not missing the friction. You on the other hand are seeking friction - the proof is in the pudding. My talk space conversation at JW is about this ANI process and not as you say. Your own involvement at JW is needling and following and essentially NOYB. Lightburst (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I empathize with Adamant1 and would also like to state that it’s hard to edit in mainspace when you’re in the middle of a long in-depth discussion, heated or not. I understand I’ve been uncivil lately and should stop bashing the ARS but 13 has been warned about this multiple times over several years and shouldn’t just get away with it yet again because the’ve been around longer and “two wrongs don’t make a right”. Dronebogus (talk) 12:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Gosh if only there were some way not to keep starting or joining or commenting in long discussions .... --JBL (talk) 14:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support a six month timeout for Dronebogus from deletion-related activity. That's not a TBan proposal, but really: go make content, do something else on Wikipedia that you find enjoyable. There will be articles to delete later after you've taken a break from the activity, and other people will likely be less tense and AGF-strained than they are now. Jclemens (talk) 18:04, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I do not support this. I have civil interactions with most other users at AfD; it’s just I don’t get along with 13 and the ARS. A functional “voluntary” topic ban, especially one-sided against me and for six months, seems drastic for such a narrow issue. Dronebogus (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Of course you don't, and no one would expect you to, but that's what external input is for--to encourage things that you're not seeing. Everyone takes voluntary, informal topic bans if they linger around Wikipedia long enough: interests change, people give up, admins ragequi... err, retire for a while after their decisions are questioned. That's a natural part of the interest lifecycle, and if you want to hang around for a while, you need to develop a sense when doing something else is necessary to help you rediscover your joy in volunteering here. Jclemens (talk) 20:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Just sanction the person that's already gotten a recent warning for civility and be done with it. Outside of that, it's ridiculous to sanction someone for bringing his behavior to ANI just because the warning was recent. 7+6=13's behavior was an issue long before Dronebogus got involved and will continue to be after Dronebogus is sanctioned. By not dealing with 7+6=13 now we're just kicking the can down the road. Are we going to T-Ban everyone going forward that he gets into it with? ARS isn't an exclusive club or fraternity house either. Anyone should be able to participate in it, without having to worry that they will be T-banned from doing so if they don't kiss the rings of the main contributors. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support a six month timeout for Dronebogus from deletion-related and ARS following activity. Dronebogus has been following, harassing, needling, grave dancing and engaging in POINTY behavior. Dronebogus has been especially disruptive. Also as Ritchie has pointed out Adamant1 is heading in a similar direction with unproductive following. Neither editor is contributing to the project. Lightburst (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Hey wait, why you are trying to cancel me and Dronebogus? I thought you were against that and ANI because it's unfair and just about trashing people. I guess that whole thing only applies when your being sanctioned. Go figure. I knew I should have created some G7 articles before commenting on this. Darn it. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support I'm just a part-timer that got pulled into Dronebogus' deletion frenzy. Their behavior has been WP:HARASS for anyone that votes against theirs in AFDs. I'm talking about WP:HOUNDING on talk pages and running to ANI when people get miffed, including several significant editors who make enormous contributions to WP (just search the archives for Dronebogus and you'll see how aggressive this person is). I echo JClemens suggestion that they find a project where they can actually contribute to WP, rather than simply tearing down others' work. There is a need for weeding out bad articles, of course, but it's been an exhausting few months in the AfDs because of this user. I, for one, had to step back from WP because of how much time it was eating. -Tiredmeliorist (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose taking action exclusively against Dronebogus; insufficient evidence of a long-term problem to justify something like this, especially since it's clear the problem is not one-sided. --Aquillion (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose banning Dronebogus from AfD. They seem to be one of the very active members, like Lightburst, and just because they are very unpopular in some quarters and have done their share of whatever they are accused of doesn't mean they or anyone else should be cancelled without totally grievous cause. As a wise man once said, "Can't we all just get along?" Randy Kryn (talk) 00:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: While I fundamentally disagree with you that anyone is being canceled, I respect that your consistent in the believe and don't just use it as way to excuse one sides behavior. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support timeout from AFD. As confirmed by others, Dronebogus has been disruptive at AfD recently. Their first edit to Wikipedia was a "gnome" userbox template, then began noming articles for deletion. From the start they showed in-depth understanding of NOTE. They are obviously a very quick study of how Wikipedia works, with a focus on controversial deletions and user blocking. They can leverage that intelligence to do something else for a while, such as content creation/improvement, AfC needs help. -- GreenC 17:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• I want to state that this seems like a biased party-line vote since GreenC and LB are both ARS members and I reported TM for disruptive behavior a while back after we had a dispute. I explicitly supported an interaction/topic ban from ARS but a one-sided “restraining order” against one of my primary interest areas for scattered fights with certain users (who I repeat are now voting against me) feels vindictive. Dronebogus (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose sanction, support warning - I agree there is battleground behavior per above, but as I believe this is their first time being at ANI for it, it should be a warning and not a sanction. Levivich 00:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose and warning the problem here is 7&6's battleground behavior as detailed below. Dronebogus has been drawn into that battleground behavior but should receive a warning as it is their first time at ANI. Mztourist (talk) 03:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• Seems like no one is commenting on the original proposal in this section? I think there are several reasonable proposals above to deal with Dronebogus's highly combative approach; I think a topic bad would be more effective than an i-ban, but I would support either. --JBL (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban, support one week block I'd support a one week block to allow him to cool down and let this and the ARS Public School AfD work themselves out without his involvement. 99% of his AfD participation is perfectly fine though and a topic ban due to one issue is rather extreme. An iban isn't really going to solve anything either. Especially if 7+6=13 is topic banned. Also, as a side to that it looks like the ARS Public School AfD is probably going to close as delete. Two people from India have said it isn't notable. Given that all the haranguing that was done about it being re-nominated turned out to be a massive time sink I think Dronebogus' push back of it was totally warranted. Although he could have done it in a less bludgeoning way. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose sanction, support warning. Also, support moratorium on ARS related posts at ANI, broadly construed, for the rest of 2021. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 19:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposal for dealing with AFD disruption at ANI

From this point forward, let's handle ANI reports of AFD disruption thusly:

• 3 recent diffs of disruptive edits in AFDs brought to ANI = warning
• A 4th diff for anyone who's been warned = 3-month tban
• A 5th diff for anyone who's been tbanned = indef tban
• Editors who make these reports can just post the three diffs (or the 4th or 5th with a link to previous warning/tban), and editors reviewing the reports can just comment whether they agree/disagree the diffs are disruptive

Same rules for everyone; doesn't matter if they vote "keep" or "delete", are an ARS member or not, or how many great edits they've made elsewhere. Levivich 18:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Personally I'd TBan (permanently) any editor who persistently votes "Keep" or "Delete" at many AfDs with continually shitty rationales. It shows they're not here to actyally improve the content on Wikipedia , but to push a POV, whether that be "inclusionism" or "deletionism". Black Kite (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree that would be an example of "disruptive edits". Under my proposed system, five times would get an editor indef tbanned. Under our current system, as it's worked historically, editors have done it many more than five times before being tbanned. Levivich 19:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

    And how do you define a "disruptive edit"? Bear in mind you may have editors making "bad" arguments simply because they're not aware of the guidelines, or interpret them differently to yourself. NemesisAT (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

    If it occurs repeatedly then the person should know better by then. No one is going to be sanctioned for making a single ignorant vote. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

    WP:DE defines "disruptive edit" and as stated in the OP, editors reviewing the reports can just comment whether they agree/disagree the diffs are disruptive, meaning whether or not the diffs are violations of WP:DE. Levivich 21:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

    • I feel like we might want to define that somewhere and reach a clear consensus on it, especially if we're going to make it a guideline that a user !voting similarly on large numbers of AFDs without reasonable individual rationales should be considered disruptive and merits a ban from AFD if the behavior continues. That's the real crux of the debate - editors should approach AFDs on an individual basis, and if there's a reason to think they are approaching them as part of some larger battleground over the nature of AFD or deletions in general, then they need to be told to stop and shown the door if they refuse. Given that this is such a long-running problem and has caused so much bad blood, a guideline to try and put it to rest seems reasonable - it'd just be a guideline at most, so people could (and would still have to) decide on an individual basis, but a guideline would be important both to establish the general consensus and to warn people who do that sort of thing that their behavior is generally viewed as inappropriate. --Aquillion (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Would be best to let AfD closers evaluate whether a 'keep' or 'delete' vote, should be dismissed. GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Repeated bad voting can still be disruptive to the process if the closer ultimately disregards it. I don't think the good faithed users who are here to improve the encyclopedia should have to suck it up and deal with the ones who aren't just because the closer will eventually ignore them. Closers disregarding bad votes does nothing to curb the behavior either. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• I don't know about this specific proposal, but I have thought for a while that there needs to be some kind of neutral mechanism for addressing misconduct at AfD. The main problem with dispute resolution, to me, seems to be that the main venue for it AN/I; threads here tend to be created about one person (or a couple people) engaging in the same type of behavior. That is to say, there are no AN/I threads about rapid-fire, low-effort "keep"s and rapid-fire low-effort "delete"s, so people will participate mostly along "party lines". Of course, both forms of drive-by voting are obviously bad for the deletion process, and both cause people to become extremely mad. One idea I had was to simply write a tool that performs database queries (similar to the ones done by AfDstats.py) and indicates the interval between each !vote. This would make it very easy to tell if any given !vote was made, say, thirty seconds after the user's last edit. Perhaps there could be a version of the {{canvassed}} template automatically applied to AfD !votes made in less than a minute. Of course, there are other ideas: per my analysis of all AfDs, the rate of deletion discussions has declined markedly over time, from a peak of 54,000 in 2006 to around 18,000 in 2005 (i.e. from around 149 per day to around 50). Perhaps it would cool things down a bit if discussions ran longer -- it would certainly make it less important to argue quickly and forcefully before the close. jp×g 22:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't personally see the rapid fire nominations as that problematic or anywhere near on par when it comes to being disruptive as low effort, party line voting. Maybe some research multiple articles ahead of time. I do that myself sometimes. If so there's zero reason they shouldn't nominate them all in one go. It might also be possible that there was already a discussion about the articles as a group that would warrant it. I think that happened with the articles about Tuskegee Airmen. Whereas, there is no legitimate reason to do low effort, party line voting. As far as resolving disputes goes, I've always thought the AfD guidelines make it sound like are suppose to be self-regulating to a degree, but that clearly hasn't been effective. So something else is needed. I'm not sure what the best solution would be though. I like Levivich idea, but then I'm not sure if a random ANI complaint is the best venue to decide on it. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• It takes seconds to make an WP:AFD nomination. Especially when WP:Before is ignored or poorly done. A statement of fact when that occurs. But I've been told that pointing that out is a "personal attack." Responding and doing article and source improvement takes a lot of time. Figure it out. You think that deletion discussions are being instigated and voted on in a "party line". We agree, but your accusation is misdirected. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I could really care less if you say the nominator didn't do a WP:Before once in a while when it's warranted and you have evidence. The problem is that you say it as a generic vote rational without providing evidence and then brow beat the nominator about it multiple times after they and other people tell you that one was done. Like you did in Articles_for_deletion/Daniella_van_Graas where the nominator and another user told you they both did before multiple times and you refused to get the point. For whatever reason you keep obfuscating this into me just having a problem with you saying it in the first place though, when that's never been my issue. If you didn't use WP:Before as a generic vote rational and cheap way to discredit nominators then I would really care less about it. I don't think anyone else would either. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I added the sources to the articles, which proved the statement. And the deletionists remove them, which does not evaporate them. It is a fact. And I don't care how you "feel". Your open hostility is admitted here and elsewhere. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

You finding a reference or two isn't evidence of anything except that you found a reference. It's almost like your so paranoid and prejudiced against people who nominate articles that your unable to accept basic facts like that people get different results when they search Google. I can use the main Google sites search right now and will get different results then if I click the links in an AfD. It doesn't mean the nominator lied and didn't look for references. As far as your accusation of "open hostility", I've defended ARS and it's members, including you, multiple times since this whole started and I made suggestions to improve the project that were ignored. Sorry I committed the heinous crime of not throwing palm branches at your guys feet in every single message wrote. The only thing you and other ARS members will accept is 100% undying deviation and adoration or the person is out to get you and destroy the project. Seriously, get over it. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

You are the source of apathy, not antipathy.

If you defended ARS and me, thank you.

Otherwise, own what you said. And give it a rest. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:41, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll own that I defend people when it's warranted and I don't when it isn't. That's it. I'd expect the same from everyone else here. Otherwise, we are just playing a quid pro quo game of hide the ball. I rather not. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• Against, AfD is not a closed club or shut to the rabble. Myself, I only vote Keep, and only enter discussions where I'll keep. Just my style. And my style would qualify for cancellation? Ridiculous (Harry Potter reference). Randy Kryn (talk) 00:09, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• Against also, but like Randy, I only vote Delete, and only enter discussions where I'll delete. The Keepers can deal with the obvious keeps, and now that we are in a post-brouhaha era, I note that ARS members are behaving a little better, having had some casualties, and a few close shots across their bows. I still think that it is too soon to evaluate ARS' new behaviour, but community eyes are on them like never before. The community should be commended. Barnstars all round. -Roxy the dog. wooF 15:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• Against just a handful of extraordinarily stubborn and zealous users, not a documented contemporary phenomenon. Making a systemic solution for an individualized problem. Dronebogus (talk) 19:36, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. I generally vote delete, and (apart from times when I'm among the first participants) almost exclusively enter discussions that are controversial and where I don't know where my !vote will land. I think it would be helpful if closers explicitly said they ignored the low-effort cookie-cutter !votes and closed against numerical consensus more often. This would encourage better AfD behavior in the long run, hopefully... JoelleJay (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment That there is such a thing as "disruptive editing" in AfD to begin with suggests that the problem ultimately lies on those responsible for closing the discussions. Per WP:NHC, arguments that that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue are to be disregarded. And yet many closers don't do so, and it becomes possible to change the course of a discussion simply by having enough pure votes, even when the argument accompanying each is clearly bland or disingenuous. The only admin at AfD whom I've seen regularly weighing votes in a dispassionate, objective, efficient, and clear way is probably Sandstein. Maybe the NHC standards should be increased or better enforced; perhaps closers should be forced to give more than a superficial vote assessment ('the result was keep/no consensus/delete', followed by nothing else) when closing contentious discussions; maybe a stricter burden of proof should exist for those providing sources, in order to prevent the common occurrence of an article being kept but not subsequently improved. Avilich (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  Along with Sandstein, I've seen Black Kite, Nosebagbear, Randykitty, Missvain, Spartaz, and Seraphimblade make well-reasoned, against-numerical-consensus closes in athlete and other BLP AfDs. This should be the norm everywhere. JoelleJay (talk) 15:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Whatever we can do to improve conditions I'm all about it. AfD closing is a thankful task and I've been disrespected by newbie and experienced editors repeatedly and I think I do a very good job - even if I have occasional slip ups (I am human, gasp!). It causes burn out and is one reason so few of us participate in the closure process. (It's even worse on Commons...!!! The closure backlog is like 3 months LOL) Missvain (talk) 15:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose as the proposal is too subjective and political. Decisions to block would depend on how many deletionists or inclusionists attended the board at that time so it could unfairly effect both deletionists and inclusionists. One solution to poor afd votes would be to make participation subject to confirmed status as there is an increasing number of brand new editors speedily voting keep or delete in order to reach confirmed status so they can in many cases publish a third rate promotional article into mainspace, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I've been into that idea for a while now. It would also help deal with the sock voting. Although, it wouldn't have helped with the current issue. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Block

I have blocked Dronebogus for 24 hours from ANI for persistent bludgeoning of the debate, despite being asked not to and after being advised that a block might occur. I want to emphasise this is not an endorsement or criticism of any other editor's behaviour, which I have not looked at. As per usual, any administrator is free to lift the block without needing to consult me. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Noting for the record that per xtools Dronebogus has about a fifth as many edits to ANI alone as to all of mainspace and a grand total of 5% mainspace edits this month compared to 63% projectspace (70% WP+WT). There seem to be some priority considerations here. Vaticidalprophet 22:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

You should do the same for LightBurst since multiple people agree that his involvement in this is a violation of his topic ban and he is still contributing despite it being pointed out. I guess I could start another ANI complaint for it, but I rather not be straw manned for grave dancing, harassing him or whatever other nonsense people on his side decide to invent to excuse his behavior. Adamant1 (talk) 22:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Multiple editors meaning you and Levivich? Got it. I will leave you to it. Lets all go back to main space now. Lightburst (talk) 22:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm no Lightburst aficiando and I think his chart could be a lot healthier too, but hell, so could yours (0% mainspace twice this year?). I think you could all do with finding something better, and in the specific case of Dronebogus, a relatively inexperienced user (2.5k edits), a pretty serious warning that the purpose of Wikipedia is to write articles and not to make 63 comments in one AfD. Vaticidalprophet 22:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I find the whole thing about how many mainspace edits someone has made a rather pedantic way to dismiss someone's opinion by citing meaningless credentials. I'm sure if I had a bunch of mainspace edits people who are acting like it matters would just move the bar to something else. In the Jimmy Whales discussion Lightburst tried to say I had no room to participate in the discussion or have an opinion about his behavior because I haven't created any G7 articles like he has. So there's always going to be some arbitrary bar. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Adamant1, You only need to search for "Malleus Fatuorum" or "Eric Corbett" on this board to see that having a large total of mainspace edits lets you be excused or justified for a hell of a lot worse than any behaviour on this thread, up to and including throwing the "c" word at Jimbo Wales. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:43, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Vaticidalprophet I am certainly going to very quickly back out of here after I said my piece. Lightburst (talk) 22:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

No. Multiple editors meaning the user who first made the observation, the one who agreed it was a deletion related discussion, and then yes me and Levivich. It wasn't just me and Levivich though. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

It was myself and Canterbury Tail you allude to from the above section initially pointing out the violation. I'm pretty sure we're both relatively uninvolved too with myself mostly only being around from the last ANI (Lightburst's topic ban) when I commented after seeing how much space it was taking up on the board. It's definitely not just heavily involved editors "out to get" Lightburst who are concerned here. KoA (talk) 06:07, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• I agree that it is an obvious topic-ban violation as well; obviously the ban was intended to cover Article Rescue Squadron (as the crux of the deletion-related behavior that led to the ban), and clearly discussions about the actions of one of Article Rescue Squadron's most active members, taken as a part of Article Rescue Squadron's activities, with Article Rescue Squadron mentioned at the top of the section would fall under that scope. --Aquillion (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

No matter how broadly this line is define: "banned from deletion-related activities" ...commenting here is not a deletion related activity. This is a TBAN discussion. I am not debating the merits of any content which is what a deletion-related activity is. I am not making deletion rationales. The TBAN does not extend to discussions on this board as long as they are not discussing deletion of content. But as I said at JW talk, all you need is enough editors with grievances and you can further an agenda. Lightburst (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

commenting here is not a deletion related activity. This is a TBAN discussion. TBANing from what? From deletion. Levivich 23:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Unblock all of them, that's my two cents. As for Lightburst, they're looking more and more like a hero, wounded but not fallen. I can see why some want LB gone, a voice quieted. I literally heard of (or at least got my attention drawn to it) ARS very recently. Seem like a fine bunch who've done a lot of good. If they enter en masse sometimes to save an in-their-eyes worthy page, good for them, because that doesn't put more than a dent in the seemingly daily waterfall of deletion attempts of articles, categories, templates, and other Wikipedia user creations. AfD is certainly the tar pit of Wikipedia, and if a few of the herd can be saved with concentrated effort, nothing spectacularly wrong with that. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Ritchie333, I agree that Dronebogus had to step back (block or not) as it was clear they were getting too riled up by other pot-stirring going on. That said, can we get enforcement of the existing sanctions here as Aquillion points out? This is an ANI about behavior in deletion and ARS articles. Those like me who've seen this on the periphery at ANI have been getting exhausted from seeing this subject repeatedly, but when already topic-banned editors like Lightburst jump back into it, that only exacerbates issues (and blows up the ANI boards even more).

The whole spirit of Lightburst's topic ban is that they stay away from these deletion-related behavior disputes whether it's AfD itself or commenting on behavior in those discussions on other boards in any plain reading of normal topic bans. I've seen editors try to test the limits of their topic ban or thumb their nose at warnings they were crossing the line with much less and still get blocked. Like Dronebogus not stepping back, skirting topic bans like that is just destabilizing this topic even more for those of us trying to sort through this all. KoA (talk) 06:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

KoA, I have dropped a warning on Lightburst's talk page to stay away from ANI; for now, that will suffice. If he comes back here and continues badgering, a think a block would be justified. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate Ritchie's issuance of a warning, but I also think that we are getting to the point where the testing of the limits of the deletion/ARS tban, noted by others here, is getting to the point of just about no "rope" left. I've had some discussions with Lightburst just before this newest ANI began, about what I see as stepping over the line, where I attempted to treat it as AGF and tried to give helpful advice. But Lightburst took a pretty clear position of thanking me but disagreeing that the deletion restriction was "in the broadest sense". Here are the relevant diffs: first, at ARS: [23] (later revised, after my advice), [24], and [25]. Then at his user talk: [26] and [27]. And then at my talk: [28] and [29]. It's all very cordial, from my reading of it, but nonetheless there's a real resistance to accepting the extent of the existing restrictions, and if compliance does not end up happening voluntarily after Ritchie's warning, I think that a block will be inevitable. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Obviously this block was insufficient in getting the message across, which is exceptionally disappointing; since the badgering has continued, perhaps something broader or of longer duration could be applied? --JBL (talk) 21:17, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic ban 7&6=Thirteen from deletion related activities

7&6=thirteen received a final warning on 3 November. Recent inflammatory comments on the ARS talk page after that date demonstrate an ongoing battleground mentality and continued unwillingness or inability to participate in a civil manner.

1. [30] - Decribing ANI thread as a "purge"
2. [31] - Comparing delete !voters to great white sharks in a feeding frenzy
3. [32] - Calling someone "thin skinned"
4. [33] - "There are a lot of folks now participating in this talk page whose avowed objective is to kill off those who might oppose them at AFDs. And euthanize WP:ARS."
5. [34] - The "Wolf in Sheep's Clothing" comment mentioned above, along with a comparison to the Inquisition
6. [35] - Something about firearms on the table?
7. [36] - When an editor discusses revisiting prior AfDs potentially affected by ARS, 7&6 accuses them of seeking "do-overs" because they didn't like the results.

These comments show that 7&6=thirteen has repeatedly assumed bad faith and failed to remain civil, hindering the efforts of other editors to refocus ARS in a more positive direction and repair some of the damage that has been done. This is the same attitude that Andrew Davidson and Lightburst were sanctioned for. It's also not limited to their interactions with any particular editor, so an I-ban will not suffice. –dlthewave ☎ 23:15, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support per the history and what's happened since the last time:
  • 2019 ANI, 2020 ANI, 2021 ANI (closed 10 days ago), and now we have our second 2021 ANI. Each of these was brought by four different editors, and involved 7&6 having disputes with different editors. The common thread here is 7&6.
  • Canvassing the Arabeyes AFD [37]; discussed at User talk:7&6=thirteen#AfD notices (7&6 notified everyone except the two editors who !voted delete)
  • Canvassing ARS Public School AFD: [38];
  • Canvassing this discussion at ARS with a non-neutral heading (see WP:TALKHEADPOV) [39]; when another editor makes a neutral heading, edit warring to revert to the non-neutral heading: [40] [41]; warning the other editor for neutralizing the heading: [42]; complaining about it: [43]; and saying "I own this comment" [44] (compare with WP:SECTIONHEADINGOWN: no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading)
  • Reverts when an editor hats a discussion: [45]

Combined with the other diffs linked above in this proposal and the OP, and the prior history, it's a pattern of persistent disruption surrounding deletion, for years. Levivich 00:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• I would like to point out that less than two days after the previous AFD ended, Dronebogus started ARS Public School (3rd nomination). Everyone who participated in it should've been told it was restarted again. As for the section heading being changed on a talk page, after someone pointed to where the rule is about that, he didn't change it again. And there is nothing wrong with unhatting something if you are one of the people who is still having a conversation in the hatted section. Dream Focus 02:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Ok, take everything you're pointing to out of the equation, and what's left is still a pile of problematic diffs from the last ten days. Between each of these ANI threads over the last two years, there has been little or no improvement in behavior; the only thing that changes is who is complaining. Levivich 02:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support this is an ongoing pattern of Battleground behavior from 7&6, here are just some of the cases that I have experienced with them:

1. [46]
2. [47]
3. [48]
4. [49]
5. [50] Mztourist (talk) 03:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support Today he left this message on the ARS talk page in response to me saying that we should try to find a clearer consensus on the more contentious AfDs that have closed as no consensus and were posted at ARS. I've been clear in multiple places that I could really care less what that consensus is, but that we should find one. His response to that, as well articles that are closed as no consensus chronically being called "keep outcomes" by him and other ARS members, makes me think that he is trying to use no consensus outcomes as de-facto keeps. Which is why ARS members (including him) always have an issue with articles being re-listed, the ARS Public School AfD being one of many examples. Treating no consensus closes as de-facto keeps is battleground behavior. It also shows an utter lack of caring for the notability guidelines and AfD process. Plus he called me thin skinned after receiving a civility warning, but that's not my main issue or why I support this. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support an indefinite topic-ban from AFD, ARS, and any discussions related to them, broadly construed. Looking over their history they have been a consistent source of AFD-related WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior for literally years. Given the confusion Lightburst seems to have had about their topic-ban above, the wording should place a particular emphasis on extending to discussions of ARS, its activities, or any sort of allegations of misconduct related to AFD by any user, in any forum - that ought to be obvious, but it doesn't hurt to be sure. --Aquillion (talk) 05:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support Evidently has not taken the final warning seriously as demonstrated above. This was probably a good opportunity to take a break from deletion activities but the battlegrounding has continue. Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

  I would also add that if 7&6 does receive a topic ban I would support a strong warning to Dronebogus who has engaged in activities no less problematic than 7&6 since that massive AN/I. The difference here being that Dronebogus has yet to receive a warning (although returning back here straight after a 24h ban isn't a good sign). Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support I consider myself a moderate inclusionist and the evidence for that is the list I maintain on my user page of articles I have learned about at AfD and helped save by improving then substantively. But I consider extreme inclusionism and extreme deletionism to be disruptive editing behaviors if they continue after warnings. This editor should spend a year or so actually improving articles without any participation in deletion discussions, and then explain to the community how they are prepared to contribute to deletion discussions without engaging any any knee-jerk and poorly reasoned inclusionist misbehavior. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Cullen honestly I can't imagine anymore who has done much more to improve articles than 7&6, their work has been prodigious. They take on the really hard AfD projects that require deep research and days to find sources, build out articles and take through DYK. The lack of recognition for his work in this regard, and blinkered singular focus on Keep votes is mostly a fun-house mirror view. -- GreenC 07:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

If this is truly the case, then participation in AFD, or the lack of it, will not be needed for them to continue improving articles and their work to improve sourcing and quality can be done independently of that process, which would alleviate any concerns of battleground mentality. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 18:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose This is the third attempt in 10 days, if it fails there will be a fourth until it succeeds. Mostly by the same users. Nothing significant has happened since the last topic ban failure, 10 days ago.. 2 days ago. The diffs presented are old, or ARS talk pages, elective reading, for many a place to vent including for non-ARS members whose history of disruptive behavior there is long. Come on, if 7&6 was really that bad he would have been blocked long ago, would not have support from other editors. When you deconstruct what happened in these diffs, they are complex multi-page multi-editor interactions. There are provokers and provoked and he is often responding to provocations. -- GreenC 07:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

His "The firearms are on the table" comment was made in response to Dronebogus alerting him of the ANI complaint. Can you point to anywhere that Dronebogus has made similar analogies? Because there's a point where this whole "both sides are at fault" nonsense doesn't hold up to scrutiny anymore and he's long past it. Same goes for your assertion that this doesn't have any merit because he hasn't been blocked yet. No one is blocked until they are blocked. You should really have more valid reasons to oppose this then the same circular talking points that ARS members have repeatedly given to defend each others behavior. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose any block t-ban longer than 6 months. The only reason I don't oppose a 3-6 month t-ban is just to give the community a break. As GreenC says, if this attacks fails, we'll very likely see round 4 very soon. 13 is clearly too honest to do the tactical thing and bob & weave in the face of the persistent baiting they've received since two of their colleagues were taken down. To be clear, I don't see merit in the diff pile here. If anything 13 is to be commended for their apt use of figurative language. To address the first diff: The original Halloween ANI sought to take out all four of the squads active article defenders. How was it not a purge? I've never seen such poor conduct by the attacking side in all my years on Wikipedia. Sure certain squad members have been engaged in frequent banter/minor attacks, so cant blame the community for piling on with calling us arses, etc. But never have I seen an ARS editor give out an insult any where near as mean spirited as "disturbingly obsessive". And talk of confronting editors in real life, would normally guarantee at least a stern warning. Oh don't worry, its the ARS, they are too noble & kind to ever fight back! At least the spotlight on the ARS has drawn attention to lesser known editors like 13 & Lightburst, showing they warrant a place in the Wikipedia half of fame. Whatever happens to them, at least while perceptive editors still draw breath, their names and deeds will never be forgotten. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  • legitimately cannot tell whether you’re being ironic. I wouldn’t exactly call the above diffs “noble and kind” by a long shot. This kind of exaggerated, hagiographic language is going to weaken rather than enhance your arguments. Dronebogus (talk) 12:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Yub yub. Anyone who votes keep on AfDs is a luminous being of angelic purity, no matter what else they get up to. I mean, Feyd still worships the likes of Ikip and A Nobody who- well, they're long before your time but you can look them up in old archives if you want to see what a disruption the Squadron was in its heyday. Reyk _YO! 13:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Hopefully people will click on the differences presented and make their own decisions, reading not just what he said but what he was responding to. This editor has done quite a lot of editing on articles to improve them, and is thus a valuable member of the Wikipedia community. Dream Focus 11:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support indef ban. They haven’t improved their behavior after multiple warnings over several years, and think they can demand harsh unilateral sanctions against a user one minute while mocking and antagonizing them the next. Also note that so far the only “oppose” votes are from fellow ARS members. Dronebogus (talk) 11:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Let’s also question whether the ARS public school massacree would’ve gone down if it wasn’t for 13’s antics. Dronebogus (talk) 11:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm just waiting for one of them to say the user from India voted delete because they have an anti-ARS agenda. They are about at that point with this whole thing. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support because of blatant canvassing. When I pointed out the issue with his selective notifications for the Arabeyes AfD, I assumed it was an oversight. But two days later, 7&6 repeated the same selective notifications for the ARS Public School AfD, failing to notify two "delete" editors from the previous AfD. At this point, it just seems intentional. Schazjmd (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Describing an event as a 'purge', editors as 'white sharks in a feeding frenzy', or complaining about a 'daily flood of AFD nominations' sounds more like a harmless PoV description of recent events than actual disruptive behavior. Not much can be said of these minor examples of canvassing, considering nothing has ever been done about ARS itself despite that it serves no purpose other than asking low-standard inclusionists for backup. Conspicuously belligerent behavior for someone who has just been warned, of course, but very little of this so far will translate into AfD discussions being actually derailed: the original cause of complaint. 7&6=13 doesn't like 'deletionists', and 'deletionists' don't like him: inevitably interactions between these two parties will be, according to some definition or another, battlegrounds. I certainly don't like how he has handled sources and voting in the past, and to that effect I submitted diffs against him in the last discussion, though I stopped short of supporting any concrete sanctions. Both the nomination and closing statements against 7&6=13 in the last ANI were poorly conducted, but there's little justification for changing the final verdict – a warning, not a block – a mere days after. Unless, as per the warning, he's doing actual vote-stacking or mishandling sources – which result in actual disruptions, and which are more objective grievances than 'battleground behavior' or 'assuming bad faith' – then maybe he can be allowed to enjoy the chance he's been given. Avilich (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Within days of being warned at ANI, 7&6 blatantly canvasses AFDs, notifying past keep voters with non-neutral messages but not delete voters, and you want to give it a pass because it was ultimately unsuccessful. I'm surprised anyone would say 7&6 has to successfully disrupt AFDs, and not just attempt to disrupt AFDs, before 7&6 should be excluded from AFDs. Levivich 16:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I missed the Schazjmd's cmt due to edit conflict. It's not strictly accurate, since 7&6 does (correct me if I'm mistaken) seem to have given appropriate notifications for the Indian public school discussion: user The Banner, of the deletionist party, was apparently the first one he notified. As for the Arabeyes one, eh, perhaps. He did post both noms on the ARS list, which is arguably a form of canvassing itself, but nobody has until now successfully taken serious action against this, and lack of enforcement has allowed it to become standard practice. Anyway, the main complaint here is 'battleground' behavior, which I don't consider to be good grounds for a permablock. Avilich (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support' This thread highlights everything wrong with their approach, and swiftly followed by what may be termed inflamatory to say the least, indicates that they are congenitally incapable of approaching deletion discussions objectively. Everything must always be personalised—and usually uncivilly as the numerous recent threads collected above show. ——Serial 16:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support per dlthewave and Levivich's diffs. Their canvassing and battleground behaviors are clearly not going to improve. JoelleJay (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support. I was honestly going to just ignore proposals at this particular ANI as I was hoping giving the topic some space to settle down after the recent topic bans would be best. The diffs on canvassing, battleground, etc. after the last warning though tell me that isn't feasible and this sanction is now needed. I personally tend to give people leeway after a warning, but this degree of doubling down is clearly not going away now without sanctions. It comes across as 7&6=Thirteen just working to waste community time whether intentional or not, and that's where my hard tolerance line is crossed. KoA (talk) 18:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• Very weak support: (and I am very seesawing on weak opposed): Real concerns was set up on a WP:SEALION especially given the POINTy nature of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARS Public School (3rd nomination) and perhaps the "Is ARS still here?" section at Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron which was a real trouble magnet of a heading (I AGF it was not a SEALION). The keeper biased WP:CANVASing is however a different matter and while not referenced at the 3rd November 2021 warning should have been considered. While discussion on deleted related discussions DRV/AfD's should be banned the placing of a {{rescue list}} on a discussion should be permitted with a neutral statement. Its ugly, very ugly, the way this discussion has been set up and a possible victory for SEALIONing Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support, per the convincing evidence that the combative approach has not abated following the previous monster ANI thread. --JBL (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as the user hasn't been given any breathing room. Can anyone seriously argue that this is a separate discussion rather than just a continuation of last week's? I suggest that all those opining there be ping'ed, lest this be a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS of everyone except those who thought the matter might be left alone for a while. Jclemens (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  • This vote and Djm-leighpark‘s vote seem like they’re relying on technicalities to discredit the discussion rather than addressing the actual issue of 13’s behavior. How many minor guideline violations can dance on a pin and whatever, when it’s obvious that 13’s behavior is a persistent problem that they’ve already been warned about. Dronebogus (talk) 20:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

    Why should they get away with things like the above because I renominated an article for deletion too early, or a discussion from a few weeks back didn’t arrive at a consensus against them for unrelated reasons? Dronebogus (talk) 20:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Dronebogus I consider between this recent comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARS Public School (3rd nomination) and what I see as your resumption of your bludgeoning following your block I am choosing to remove myself from these discussions and strike my !vote above. Thankyou. 22:16, 14 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs)

• Support Whoever closes this will find that there is a fair amount of party line voting so should look closely at the reasoning for the votes. For me it is the refusal or moderate in any way their rhetoric aftef a severe warming and the partisan canvassing that shows that 13 has learned nothing and needs to step back and restore their perspective. Battlefield anything in any discussion is poisonous to effective consensus building. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support, albeit with some ambivalence. I did support the previous proposal that ended in "no consensus", but I looked at all of the new diffs as well as my own observations, and I think that anything based only what has happened post-the last discussion is borderline, but just over the line. Some of the diffs raised are not as bad as they look at first glance, when one looks at the context in its entirety. But I won't belabor that, because there is also enough here to conclude that this is a net-negative situation. (Personally, I am especially bothered by the "love letter" section referring here, and the edit warring over it.) So I come down on the support side. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as there is too much political voting going on here in favour of removing editors from AfD to aid their own objectives. If thirteen's behaviour is sufficiently bad then they should get a complete block not just to remove them from deletion matters. A warning is sufficient in my view and ive seen far worse battleground language from respected editors not to mention admin (an example admin using the F word in block notices).Atlantic306 (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I can't speak for other people, but personally I've defended ARS members multiple times since this started. So I don't really have an "objective" outside of wanting the disruption 7+6=13 is causing to end. His behavior has clearly passed the threshold of what should be acceptable since he has already received multiple civility warnings and couldn't keep his behavior in check for more then a few days past the last one. Given that, there's zero indicator at this point that more warnings are going to be effective. I don't think he should receive a full block either though. There's no reason he can't edit productively in areas where he doesn't have behavioral issues. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose (now Strong Oppose, see below), I just ran across this and thought it was an old thread, then looked at the dates and it's real time. Seriously? Another cancel-an-editor-athon over in AfDland brought to ANI? Haven't at least two AfD regulars (more?) been shooed out, now there's another? What a place! Randy Kryn (talk) 02:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Just read the links where the sins were supposed to be, and aside from some colorful language that seemed entirely metaphorical, which has been cherry-picked and highlighted, what I read (the parts that weren't quoted) was astute analysis and personal complaints about the current good faith bouncing of long-time editors who save articles. Let 7-13 blow off some steam in-between fair points, is anyone really actually offended enough not to take the rest of the comments and real concerns into consideration? Makes me think that they would have hated Lenny Bruce, but that's a personal aside. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:22, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry but a project page where editors are trying to move forward and clean up the mess is not the place to "blow off steam" or recap an ANI discussion. They're actively distrupting productive discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 15:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I've been observing all this drama recently and find it both fascinating and exhausting. What I think the examples above most prove is that 7&6=thirteen and Dronebogus really, really don't get along. So the best course the action is for the two users to stay as far away from each other as possible. I'm hopeful that apart the two can get back to making good and productive edits. If not, and the negative behavior for one continues even without the other being involved, then that would prove harsher actions are needed as others above have suggested. But right now, I wouldn't support them. Rhino131 (talk) 03:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

None of the seven diffs I provided (except maybe this) have anything to do with a conflict between Dronebogus and 7&6=thirteen. –dlthewave ☎ 15:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. I almost never !vote in ANI, but this one boggles my mind, so I will drop off two cents due to an alarming number of supports. The earlier ARS restrictions were sorely needed and a good change. This particular complaint, however, stinks to high heaven. I don't see any convincing rationale that something changed in the past two weeks aside from normal salty talk on a talk page after some friends were sanctioned, which is hardly shocking. If anyone should be sanctioned here, it's Dronebogus for deciding to needlessly re-poke a drama mill that had calmed down and been resolved in shockingly reasonable fashion off of very shabby accusations. So yes, 7&6 should probably try to keep the temperature a bit lower even on the ARS talk page, but that is not really reason for sanctions. SnowFire (talk) 03:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

No, nothing has changed after the last warning, and that's the problem. –dlthewave ☎ 15:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support, the links above are just the latest in the extremely long history of Thirteen’s incivility and either incompetence or blatant disruption. Thirteen is probably the most egregious of the ARS regulars at bludgeoning XfD discussions. Further, during deletion discussions he bombards articles with information cited to terrible, clearly unreliable sources, many not even relating to the subject, and then casts aspersions at anyone who challenges them. The encyclopedia would be improved if this TBAN included a prohibition from editing any articles under XfD discussion. Cavalryman (talk) 04:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC).
• Oppose per Randy Kryn and SnowFire. While the recent selected diffs do show some incivility, it does not appear to be without provocation. Several users here are very keen on rubbing salt in other user's wounds and need to be careful where they throw that boomerang. There are at least two users here who need to be sanctioned for persistent bludgeoning. Banning those users (I don't need to name them, right?) from going anywhere near ARS (and indeed ANI) would be a good start.Polyamorph (talk) 08:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean, "not without provocation"? The diffs which I provided show 7&6=thirteen entering into discussions which did not involve them in any way (aside from the ANI notice) to make uncivil comments. –dlthewave ☎ 18:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per the points raised by Polyamorph. The two users alluded to by Polyamorph should, at the very minimum, be asked to desist from their battleground mentality and politely time out from ANI. If the community finds that the supposed problem regarding incivility and incompetence by certain editors is still ongoing and not resolved by the ANI Tbans and sanctions, then ArbCom should reconsider their decision to recuse and proceed to accept the case and resolve it once and for all. Haleth (talk) 09:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Isn't this proposal kind of the community finding out if the supposed problem regarding incivility and incompetence by certain editors is still ongoing? How long should 7&6's problematic behavior be able to go on for before it would be appropriate to open another complaint or see if ArbCom will re-consider the case? --Adamant1 (talk) 09:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support, as proposer the last time this came up. I would prefer an equal topic ban for Dronebogus who is not improving AfD either. We need to make AfD work better now and that requires removing the drama creators.—S Marshall T/C 09:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

  Ten thousand times this. --JBL (talk) 11:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose; it's not clear to me what they were doing to cause drama. I think that "editors who hate them will create an unending stream of increasingly perplexing AN/I threads until they are ousted" is a very bad reason to take action. jp×g 12:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: While the examples above are not stellar behavior, I'm not seeing anything here serious enough to take action on, and suggest that people stop looking for reasons to get rid of the top ARS contributors as an end-run to eliminiating the ARS itself. BOZ (talk) 13:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The language used by 13 may be over-dramatic but its not worthy of sanctions in my view. AfD will always create conflict, that is unavoidable. Apparently, according to an above comment, this thread highlights everything wrong with 13's approach but what I see is a wind-up attempt by Dronebogus. NemesisAT (talk) 13:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support I have been taking part in Afd's for decades and I got to say that 7&6=Thirteen is one of the worst editor's I came across. For years it was a continual stream of obsfucation designed to promote uncertainty and doubt to ensure at the very least no consensus was reached, before the ARS section arrived. They basically gamed the whole system. As a group I suprised they never all got indeffed blocked. The worst part, which suprisingly was the most unpleasant, was they're was no logic to it. I really wish the ARS could could get shut down. The original vision of trying to save genuine notable article is long gone. It is completely corrupt and biased. Here is an example of 7&6=Thirteen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arabeyes (2nd nomination) Clippings. 23:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC) scope_creep^Talk 23:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Scope creep, I'm not sure that's a good example - I closed the AfD as "keep" because I saw consensus that the article could be improved further instead of deleted after several editors did so (WP:HEY), although not 7&6=Thirteen. A better example might be one where 7&6 argued vociferously for "keep" but the consensus was "delete" - have you got one? (I know their username trips a bug in the AfD stats tool so I can't easily find one myself). In fact, looking at that AfD, the comment that jumps out as worrisome is Levivich telling Adamant1 "This is not a debate club. If you don't think the sources people put forward meet GNG, then say why, and then shut up. Skip calling them "trash", skip replying with things like "are you seriously going to argue", and skip cherrypicking two out of five as if that proves something." Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. All editors, whether they trend to a "deletionist" or "inclusionist" perspective, have the right to be heard -- so long as they do so civilly and without engaging in personal attacks. While the cited language is colorful in its use of metaphors, it reflects an understandable sensitivity given the recent, unrelenting efforts to "purge" (yes, "purge") the members of ARS. And, honestly, I see nothing so egregious in the quoted excerpts that it would support the relief sought here. Deletion discussions (and Wikipedia as a whole) operate best as a democracy of ideas, weighing all points of view. The recent campaign to "purge" editors with a strongly inclusionist point of view brings to mind the words of Harry Truman during the Second Red Scare: "Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear." ... Will I now be asked, "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the ARS party?" Cbl62 (talk) 12:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

new proposal

This discussion is clearly a disaster and I’d like to apologize for starting it and wasting everyone’s time. I’d like to get back to productive editing but waiting for a potential sanction is causing me immense stress and frustration, and it probably is doing the same for 13. In light of this I would like to propose:

• a voluntary interaction ban between me and 13
• a six-month topic ban of me from the ARS (this includes ANI threads against members)
• a voluntary topic ban from the ARS public school AfD until it closes, with a promise not to renominate it for at least two months if it’s kept (unlikely but still)
• giving both me and 13 a courtesy “pardon” for any potentially sanctionable behavior (at any point, not just now), with the understanding that this does not prevent anyone other than each-other from opening threads on ANI against us for whatever reason

Would that be acceptable? Dronebogus (talk) 13:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• You promise not to renominate the same article again for two months if you don't get the result you want?! Sending it back to AFD less than two days after the previous AFD closed was bad enough, but you are now planning on doing that yet again?! How about you agree the same person should not send the same article to AFD twice under any possible circumstances and to never start any AFD over again unless its been at least two months since the last AFD? Dream Focus 14:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Okay, okay, in the unlikely event that it’s kept I will never renominate it EVER. I don’t support banning same-user renoms because sometimes an AfD is just incredibly slow with only 2-4 users who vote against one another (with lousy rationales from at least one) and is closed as no consensus because of it, like the AfDs for Gina D’s Kids Club. Dronebogus (talk) 14:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

  I agree that he should stay away from the ARS Public School article going forward if it isn't closed as delete, but people are allowed to re-nominate articles that they originally listed and doing so wasn't what caused the problems. So there's zero reason he should be blocked from re-nominating articles if he wants to and waits the proper amount of time to do it again. Just as long as it's not ARS Public School. Also, on the interaction ban 13 should agree to it also since he was rather antagonistic toward Dronebogus several times in conversations he wasn't even involved in. It's not going to help having an interaction ban if 13 can still rant like a violent crazy person about Dronebogus in the meantime. Nether one should have anything to do with each other. Including in conservations to other people. Also, 13 should receive an actually final warning, with zero allowance for any of the scape scapegoating nonsense when he breaks it again. Since there is currently more consensus for sanctions against him then not and it's as much on him as Dronebogus. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• This strikes me as a gracious & welcome resolution, now Dream's amendment has been accepted, as long as 13 is happy with the iban. I'd recommend the iban is truly voluntary in the sense that it's not logged at WP:RESTRICT - some see that as a sanction, and count it as a blot on an editors record. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support with condition I support this with the condition that 13 receives an actually final civility warning and also commits to not go on unhinged sounding conspiracy laden rants anymore. Not just in relation to Dronebogus, but also anyone else who he thinks is out to get him and (or) ARS. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support: Very acceptable. Unexpected offer essentially offering to restrict own behavior without trying to force restrictions on others. Seems like an excellent example of a lead to how to help de-escalate the situation and one the community is likely to accept. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment While apologies and voluntary disengagement is welcome, the bludgeoning by Adamant continues. The behaviour demonstrated here by Dronebogus and Adamant, at ARS, and AfD has been so disruptive that formal sanctions are required. Polyamorph (talk) 16:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Well I am trying to stop over-posting for that exact reason, but Adamant1 could stand to step back a little. I think sanctions are uncalled for at this point against anyone since they inevitably heat up rather than cool down the situation and seem punitive after voluntary disengagement. Dronebogus (talk) 16:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
    • You have literally broken your voluntary six month topic ban with that comment. Polyamorph (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
      • I didn’t think it had strictly “begun” yet, since I usually thought these things took force after a community consensus, but I can stop posting now. Dronebogus (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I have nothing to say about this. I was actually done participating here already. Except I do kindly ask Polyamorph to AGF and stop casting aspersions. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Only a few hours previous to your comment you wrote (if 13 can still rant like a violent crazy person about Dronebogus). No aspersions are being cast, simple observation of how disruptive the behaviour of several users is here, at ARS, and AfD.Polyamorph (talk) 08:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Did you read the various complaints here and his rant on the ARS article talk page in response to Plutonical? Calling me and Dronebogus "members of the Inquisition" and "bomb throwers", as well as the "guns on the table" comment. I don't know about you but those sound "like" something a violent person would say. The key part there incase you don't get the nuance being "sounds like", not "is", because I don't think 13 is a violent person. I do think such violent sounding comments aren't good to make though. Which should be pretty uncontroversial and is why I asked you to AGF. Hopefully that's a satisfactory answer. Now that I've given one I'd appreciate it if you dropped it. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Although I appreciate the deescalation attempt, this proposal just has too many little caveats that could easily turn into "gotchas" and arguments about technicalities down the road. In my experience the best way to implement a "voluntary interaction ban" is to just quietly walk away from the topic without making a big fuss about it. There's no drama and nobody can accuse you of violating it if you slip up. This is why you don't really see me commenting at ARS: Regardless of who's right or wrong, I know that I'm probably not going to accomplish anything productive there. Dronebogus, Adamant1 and 7&6=thirteen would all be well advised to step away from ARS for a bit. Rest assured that others will address any great wrongs that may happen in your absence. –dlthewave ☎ 18:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• To some extent, the community at ANI cannot really declare that a voluntary agreement is enforceable by admins, in the way that a community sanction would be. But that doesn't make a voluntary deescalation a bad thing – indeed, quite the opposite. We can, however, say that, broadly speaking, it's a good idea, and broadly speaking it is a good one. And we can point out, as other editors have done just above, that there are pitfalls in the wording of the offer, that should be avoided. And later, if there is evidence of non-adherence to the voluntary agreement, that can at least be taken into consideration as disruptive. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I don't see any reason why Dronebogus should be sanctioned while 7&6 just gets another minor slap on the wrist (which they will undoubtedly ignore based on their unchanged behavior while this discussion has been running). Mztourist (talk) 09:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree. scope_creep^Talk 12:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support. A diplomatic gesture. Cbl62 (talk) 13:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Banana Republic casting ASPERSIONS and overall not assuming good faith

Let's Go Brandon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Brandon Brown (racing driver) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Kelli Stavast (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Banana Republic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There is discussion going on at these three pages regarding the incident in which Kelli Stavast interviewed a NASCAR driver, leading to some phrase she said becoming viral. There are legitimate WP:BLP policy concerns being made which have led to RfCs at all three talk pages. Simultaneously, Let's Go Brandon and Kelli Stavast were nominated for deletion (Stavast by myself, on the same rationale that I used to nominate 3 other NASCAR reporters the same day, two of which were closed as delete; LGB by Beccaynr on the grounds that a previous incarnation of that article, Fuck Joe Biden was closed as a SNOW delete).

Throughout these discussions, Banana Republic has repeatedly accused Beccaynr and myself of inappropriate behavior without any evidence to bring forth(aka WP:ASPERSIONS, and in general are assuming bad faith. Let's look at some of Banana's diffs.

• diff 1 It is pretty clear that Beccaynr are acting as a WP:TEDIOUS editor. They tried to delete the article, then they took the AfD to a DelRev, they did not get their way in the above RfC about not naming Kelly Stavast, so they are now throwing moving the fight to the article lead. They are acting in tandem with GhostOfDanGurney to eliminate all mention of Kelly Stavast and Let's Go Brandon on Wikipedia. - Recurring theme here that we are trying to "censor".
• diff 2 ...they (along with one of their buddies) are wasting the community's time with frivolous AfDs (frivolous AfD#1, frivolous AfD#2, and frivolous AfD#3) and now this frivolous DelRev. I wish there was a way to sanction them, but working together, they know how to game the system and exploit the community's patience and good will. - Accusing me of "frivolous AfDs" despite me stating on MULTIPLE occasions that I put up other NASCAR reporters and of vaguely "gaming the system". LGB closed as keep by a non-admin in a highly controversial topic area, the only reason for the DelRev (such DelRev was also described as a "hissy fit" by the closer [51]).
• diff 3 GhostOfDanGurney is clearly gaming the system to push their own agenda, refusing to concede to consensus and playing tricks such as [this AfD withdrawal comment] in order to get another opportunity to bring up an AfD. - My only "agenda" is improving Wikipedia, so on that ground, guilty as charged? Yes, when the first Stavast AfD closed, the closer said in the closing message no prejudice to speedy renom, which I did. Evidently, that was a bad idea since at least one editor said doing so was "ridiculous". I then withdrew it, which, according to Banana, is a bad faith "trick".

Overall, this is getting tiring from them. We are trying to have a discussion, but these repeated and continuous assumptions of bad faith by this user do nothing but discourage that discussion. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• I recently commented in one of the discussions about article content with an array of diffs [52] to offer some context to the broad statements made about me in the discussion, and as part of my appeal to all participants to assume good faith, practice civility, and avoid a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. It is an incomplete synopsis, but I offer it here to the extent that context may be helpful to this discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• Further diffs here and here since this was posted further illustrating that this editor has no intention of working civilly. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 19:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• This complaint is truly bizarre !!! They are complaining about me inappropriately assuming bad faith, and then they quote another editor who is also criticizing their behavior? Did we just enter the twilight zone? Banana Republic (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • And just for good measure, here is another editor questioning the motives of GhostOfDanGurney. Banana Republic (talk) 19:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • The questioning of their motives just keeps piling on from other users. Banana Republic (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• I have followed what's happening and did not really want to involve myself as I thought that the opposition to this topic's coverage would fizzle out. I'm now involved as I posted in the DRV, and have made a revert in the article. These are some of my thoughts:
  – diff1: Banana Republic did not use the word censor -- what they said are mostly historical facts about the overarching dispute.
  – diff2: The characterization of actions as "frivolous" seems to be the problem... If one keeps starting hopeless processes and disputes that don't seem to lead anywhere, and are patently programmed to fail (unless we somehow imagine we are all collectively really really dumb), someone will at some point become concerned, and this word will come up.
  – diff3: What GhostOfDanGurney was doing with their immanently frustrated delete initiative was strange. When such seemingly irrational things are done, someone will express their concern using some and not other words, some of which are maybe kinder and better. "Agenda" is maybe less kind and worse, but in substance it changes nothing -- it's impossible to avoid this bad perception, and everyone is not going to keep their mouth shut. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

He did in fact present evidence. Beccaynr did try to delete Let's Go Brandon [53] and then tried to get the close overturned at DRV (for which Beccaynr was trouted) [54], then Beccaynr tried to remove Kelly Stavast's name from the article. [55] After that RfC failed, Beccaynr tried to remove Stavast's name from just the lede. In all of those cases except the DRV, GhostOfDanGurney participated and agreed with Beccaynr. And the user interaction timeline of GhostOfDanGurney and Beccaynr is certainly interesting. [56] I would say the MfD was certainly a bad nom and so was the DelRev. And wow, holy shit, "no prejudice against speedy renomination" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelli Stavast does not mean "renominate after 38 minutes" with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelli Stavast (2nd nomination). Banana Republic is right that the second nom is bs and he's also right that the withdrawal was questionable, although he could've said it far more civilly than he actually did. Mikehawk10's message [57] provides a far better example of how Banana Republic could've handled the issue.

I'll also point to this exciting discussion at User talk:Beccaynr [58] to sort of demonstrate that the uncivil sniping of third parties in laudatory talk page messages seems to happen from both sides of this dispute. It's also interesting that GhostOfDanGurney brings up that they put up other NASCAR reporters at AfD. Is it truly coincidental that Beccaynr showed up to comment at all 3 of those AfDs of the "other NASCAR reporters"? [59] [60] [61] I'd like Beccaynr to explain their thought process as why they decided to comment on those three AfDs in particular. Were they chosen at random? Were they found at a noticeboard or delsort listing? etc etc. Perhaps GhostOfDanGurney could elaborate on what they meant by "There sure has been a lot of crap coming from the trees the last few weeks." as well.

I certainly wish Banana Republic would've brought these concerns to ANI rather than immaturely sniping at the two editors in question on talk pages complaining about how Banana Republic wishes "there was a way to sanction them". That is practically useless and is still casting WP:ASPERSIONS, even if the claims are true. The reason is that article talk pages and other content discussions forums are not good places to discuss editor conduct; discussions of editor conduct inevitably overwhelm actual content discussion and degrade the quality of our output. I can see a temporary block for that behaviour. I also wish that Banana Republic's response to this thread would be a little more substantive than these diffs from other users criticizing GhostOfDanGurney and Beccaynr. The idiom is "use your words", not someone else's. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, chess, for pointing out the bad behaviors of GhostOfDanGurney and Beccaynr. The reason I did not file complaints against them is that I don't know the process (and don't care to become familiar with the process) of filing a complaint. I'd rather spend my time editing articles, than getting into Wikifights. I definitely don't want to waste my time gathering evidence to file a complaint, which is why I wrote "I wish there was a way to sanction them", as I don't know the way to do it, and don't want to know the way to do it. Since neither explicitly violated WP:3RR, for which evidence gathering is relatively simple, I did not file a complaint. Banana Republic (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

If you don't care to become familiar with the process for dealing with other editors' behaviour then you need to stop talking about other editors' behaviour. If you don't want to get into WikiFights then you need to stop taking shots at other editors. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:39, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll just quote Potter Stewart who said "I know it when I see it". I know bad behavior when I see it. I don't know how to build a case to sanction the bad behavior, but that does not mean that I cannot call out the bad behavior. Banana Republic (talk) 21:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Actually, not wanting to come here does mean you can't call them out if you want to continue editing this encyclopedia. You should be addressing your concerns with the editor that you have a problem with. If that fails, then you can come to ANI with the behavioural problem. You do not get to spend your time calling people out on article talk pages or with passive aggressive user talk page messages that masquerade as compliments towards another person. It's not that discussing another editors behavioural issues is wrong. It's that we have a designated board for those discussions. This is that board. If you're going to refuse to say your piece now and explain the problems you have then you're going to lose the benefit of the doubt in the future when you make these comments, even if the comments are accurate assessments of the situation. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 02:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't need to accuse them of anything any more. Others are doing a much better job than I ever could (and that includes you, Chess). Banana Republic (talk) 04:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I would characterize the other side's conduct as reckless (more in diff). Pushing for the desired outcome using all permitted venues (while being more or less okay or not) is one thing, but insisting (reverts included) on a totally unjustified POV template in an essentially okay actively-worked-on-and-discussed article with tens of thousands of daily views prompted me to react. By their account, the template would have been removed when their version of the lead, exclusively stylistically different (diff), was implemented (where's the POV issue???). So it looks like the goal was the template for the template's sake. This made me suspicious. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't feel this is a fair characterization of my position, particularly after my repeated attempts to explain the justification based on policy and guidelines, as well as my offer to further clarify in the related discussion at the Talk page. From my view, the template is supported, and it is a way to encourage discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't see it as fair. I have a sincere concern. It's hard for me to see how adding that template on such a hot topic, in an actively worked on article, that already has a lot of participation, would have encouraged anything positive. To me it feels like the idea was to keep the template up as long as possible on formalistic grounds of there being a dispute that somehow, in theory, very tenuously, has to do with a POV concern. Keeping the tag would impede progress as it would divert everyone's attention to the issue seen as connected to the template, but the issue isn't very material to start with and it would only have led to general frustration and loss of interest. This disrupts normal work on the article, undermines the consensus-building process, and unduly worsens readers' reception of the article. It's really a good way to undermine an article after deletion attempts have been frustrated, and it's a known pattern. — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Am I alone among the 96% who don't live in the United States in being totally bemused by this whole topic, and wondering how any encyclopedia could possibly feel the need to have coverage of it? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Hell, you aren’t alone among those who -do- live in the US. Qwirkle (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:WORDISSUBJECT article with established vast notability. The 96% needs to read more such articles to get a feel for how normal it is to cover such topics I guess. — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe give WP:RECENT a read, and realize this won't be relevant in a year, much less a decade. This doesn't deserve it's own article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

As someone who asked for delete on the FJB AfD, asked for protection on Kelli and found my redirect deletion on LGB and the 1st Kelli nomination somehow turn into an out-of-AfD process article creation for LGB solely because of BLP concerns (and was attacked when someone wanted me to contribute to an article I never wanted created in the first place because they inappropriately pinged me and asked them not to, then turned out to be a sock of a blocked political crank)..."takes in big breath". We'll be back in six months asking why this was created when LGB merchandise is clogging bargain bins/burned due to NASCAR copyright claims. I hated the abuse of processes here and harassment, and it makes me feel less inclined to ever edit a politics or politics-adjacent article ever again. Nobody here on either side came out of this looking good. Nate • (chatter) 20:15, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

This discussion should probably get hatted before it turns into a rehashing of the AfD. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 01:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

The AfD is referred to as evidence against me, so I think discussion related to the good-faith basis of the Let's Go Brandon AfD is relevant. To clarify, my nomination mentioned the Fuck Joe Biden AfD, but it was based on WP:EVENTCRIT on October 27, 2021. A second Let's Go Brandon AfD was opened by someone else on November 14, 2021, based on RECENT and LASTING, and was closed as a speedy keep by 力. [62]. Beccaynr (talk) 12:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

SOCK comments., and blocked

:::::: Oh come off of it, @Mrschimpf:. A) I thought it was funny. B) I have been around longer than you, while doing more for the project than you or the tag team currently WIKYLAWYERING over this topic. C) I felt pushing the envelope to expedite the creation of an article that meets GNG was worth a shot... and it worked, did't it?. I pinged you as a goof so get over it and edit where you want; certainly no need for such theatrics about being some victim. There is a reason I volunteered to @Beccaynr: and @GhostOfDanGurney: who I was: Their games are obvious and I didn't need to be involved anymore. The rest of the community will surely show them the door sooner or later. Well on that note: I'm off to go create another GA about a burrito or some drummer. Good night. - Cpt "the crank" nono (and screw you). But before I forget, someone needs to give WP:VIDEOLINK some love--the flow chart especially has some issues now that I am more experienced in Project Management. Cheers! — Mallsdudes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 11:20, 13 November 2021 (UTC). Someone please block Mallsdudes (talk · contribs) as a sock for their OT trolling above, and add this comment to the hat once it's done. And to their points; A, nope, ping abuse is not funny and is a hassle to me and everyone else, B, been here since 2005 (longer than your blocked account) and prefer to stop engaging when it doesn't help the situation, and C, just stating my side of the situation. Article's been created out of process (but now meets the lowest rung of N possible) and I stand by my comments 100%. Nate • (chatter) 16:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Hi Chess, you asked me to explain my thought process as to why I decided to comment on those three AfDs, and my recollection is it was due to the AfDs being mentioned in the first Kelli Stavast AfD by GhostOfDanGurney, e.g. on October 18 [63] and October 19 [64], so I looked at them, conducted research, and then !voted. I'm also sorry that my reference to the observations on Wikipedia behavior essay on my Talk page [65] comes across as uncivil sniping, when it was intended as supportive reassurance to GhostOfDanGurney, after they reported an attempted attack on the security of their account to me. I wasn't sure how to respond, and had thought a well-regarded essay that I like to review from time to time might be helpful. Beccaynr (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC) I also participated in the Kelli Stavast AfD because I routinely check the Women-related AfD del-sort, which may be evident from my userpage. Beccaynr (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Beccaynr: That sounds like a legitimate rationale, but I think you should consider how it looks when you and GhostOfDanGurney often !vote in the same way on the same pages. Even if you're independently looking at the AfDs GhostOfDanGurney started, it still doesn't look good to be browsing through someone else's noms and mostly voting support on them. This isn't super good in a "high intensity" conflict area such as American politics and contributes to a sense of bias. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Chess, in the first Kelli Stavast AfD, before I !voted, there was a !vote alleging political bias [66], to which GhostOfDanGurney responded [67], mentioning WP:ASPERSION and their nomination of three other pit reporters; based on when I participated in the Marty Snider AfD [68], this comment appears to have led me to look, after I researched, !voted [69] and added a source assessment table [70] to the Kelli Stavast AfD. GhostOfDanGurney later provided links to the other AfDs, [71], and I found sources for one [72] that convinced GhostOfDanGurney to withdraw their nomination [73]. I think my independent review of the other AfDs mentioned shows I am conducting research and !voting based on what I was able to find and according to my interpretation of applicable policies and guidelines. It has also not only been GhostOfDanGurney and I holding similar positions in these wide-ranging discussions, and we have had different approaches to different issues, and the extent our views overlap can be read as an agreement about what best serves the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and editors are supposed to resist the urge to turn Wikipedia into a battleground between factions, and instead assume good faith that every editor and group is here to improve Wikipedia — especially if they hold a point of view with which you disagree. It seems especially important in a "high intensity" conflict area such as American politics, where a failure to assume good faith could be particularly disruptive. Beccaynr (talk) 04:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Hello all. Chess pinged me on my talk page, so I figure I may as well give my few cents:
  1. I have been subject to the kind of side-sniping that Chess describes both on and off-wiki, and—believe me—it does not make me feel good when I see it. Please don't be passive aggressive to other editors on talk pages, because editors will probably wind up seeing the edits, and doing so with the intent to snipe at people behind their backs is uncivil. In my view (I don't think there's a policy on this, so take this as you will), behavioral issues should first be directly discussed with the editor that has problem behaviors, except where that behavioral issue is directly pertinent to the discussion at hand (for example, canvassing in an AfD) or when you are asking the editor to strike a specific personal attack.
  2. As Chess notes above, yes, I did ask GhostOfDanGurney to rescind their withdrawal of their close; I had thought (and still think) that it was not done in line with WP:WITHDRAWN. I did say that I was going to pursue a close challenge, though as 力 alluded to this wouldn't have really changed all that much with respect to the article's current status as being kept. However, the immediate assumption of bad faith made by GhostOfDanGurney shown in this edit (and expanded upon in this edit) did leave me rubbed the wrong way. The recent attempt by GhostOfDanGurney to drag Banana Republic to the edit warring noticeboard (see this diff for the full conversation) seemed somewhat frivolous as there were a total of three reverts listed over a period that encompassed three calendar days. And, to be frank, this edit made by GhostOfDanGurney on the talk page of Beccaynr seems like it could reasonably be a canvassing problem. In many ways, I'd expect that there would be room for a WP:BOOMERANG if sanctions against editors wind up being handed out.
  3. I have been involved in a content/sourcing dispute with Beccaynr on Kelli Stavast and Let's Go Brandon that played out, in part, on both of our talk pages. In what I can only describe as an egregious example of stretching policy way beyond a reasonable reading, the user has repeatedly argued that I could not use a source because its title contained information that was related to an ongoing RfC, even though I was using the source for the date of the individuals' engagement. The user framed this on my talk page as intending to keep the page stable pending the conclusion of their own (updated: 22:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)) RfC, which... honestly didn't sit right given how weak the policy claim was, though they also noted disagreement over the extent to which the source was an WP:RS, and that's obviously a valid part of a good faith sourcing dispute. I repeatedly asked the user to strike their characterization that I had somehow been violating RfC-related policies by making this edit, though the user has repeatedly declined to do so in line with their reading of WP:RFC, which I guess is their right.

I understand that there's a great deal of frustration brewing between editors here, though I really do find it strange that this sort of stuff wound up on ANI. There really isn't anything in my view that rose to the level of bringing it here; nobody's been violating 3rr, while there have been aspersions they haven't been egregious and people who have been subject to them don't actually appear to have asked for apologies before coming here (or if they have, a diff would be nice to see). It also seems like the consensus on the content (which shouldn't be a factor at ANI but can add to general tension between passionate editors) is pretty clear, and I don't see much of a reason to believe that behavioral issues are affecting the outcome of content disputes. But, now that we're here, we're here. The only way I see out of this without some sanctions being handed out to someone would be for people to apologize to each other for when they wronged someone else, and to promise to work collaboratively in discussions going forward. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mikehawk10, I think your summary of my view is incomplete, and it is discussed more on my Talk page [74], but the major reason why I want to briefly comment is because I think it is important to note we were able to disagree while also working together to improve the article, and I appreciate that very much. And as a minor detail, I never started an RfC, so referring to "their own RfC" seems inaccurate. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 22:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Beccaynr. My apolologies for misreading the RfCs. I've struck that portion of my comment and I'm sorry about that mischaracterization. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I am only involved here in an administrative capacity. The immediate re-nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelli Stavast (2nd nomination) should be considered explicitly allowed based on my close of the first nomination. Beyond that, regarding the initial filing: Banana Republic's complaints about the existence of tedious procedural issues, while perhaps not framed with perfect decor, are based in enough evidence there is no cause for sanctions. Regarding anything else: editing recent American Poltiics topics isn't the topic area for you if you can't handle disagreement on talk pages. Apart from "hey admins, maybe watchlist these pages", there is no action needed. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 04:04, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

力, by only involved in an administrative capacity, based on your contributions, this appears to include 1) approving the Let's Go Brandon article submitted by Globgenie (the apparent sock) through AFC [75], 2) closing the first Kelli Stavast AfD as no consensus [76], 3) offering your opinion about an AfD of Let's Go Brandon on the article Talk page [77], 4) responding to GhostOfDanGurney's concerns about the acceptance of Let's Go Brandon on the article Talk page [78], 5) commenting in the Let's Go Brandon AfD about why you accepted the article at AFC [79], 6) commenting on a discussion on GhostOfDanGurney's Talk page about the closure of the second Kelli Stavast AfD [80], 7) participating in a discussion about the status quo of the Let's Go Brandon article, and noting that future discussions can address more specific concerns about article content [81]. Beccaynr (talk) 13:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• Alright, I see a few points raised:
  1. And wow, holy shit, "no prejudice against speedy renomination" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelli Stavast does not mean "renominate after 38 minutes" with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelli Stavast (2nd nomination). Banana Republic is right that the second nom is bs and he's also right that the withdrawal was questionable, although he could've said it far more civilly than he actually did. Mikehawk10's message [115] provides a far better example of how Banana Republic could've handled the issue. .... Perhaps GhostOfDanGurney could elaborate on what they meant by "There sure has been a lot of crap coming from the trees the last few weeks." as well. -- The first Kelli Stavast AfD had become a hot mess of off-topic arguments. I interpreted the close as "no consensus" as a way to stop these before they got out of hand. Was it hasty to renom so quick and should I have talked to 力 first to confirm my assumption? Yeah, absolutely. Bullshit? Fuck no. The first time I nominated the article, I had been unable to find adequate sources such that I felt it failed WP:NBASIC. The discussion immediately became about "LGB", which is fair given the timeframe of the event, but I felt many !voters were !voting on "LGB" and not the subject of the article itself. I allowed myself to get sucked in to this,[82] and in my haste in the renom, failed to clue in that by doing it so quickly, I was only going to invite the same type of discussion. The "crap from the trees" comment was an observation of Beccaynr willingness to edit on in spite of all of the chaos that apparently is par for the course in AmPoli discussions (which 6 months ago if you told me I'd be involved in, I'd say you were nuts; my primary topic area is motorsports with occasional dabbles into Canadian politics).
  2. However, the immediate assumption of bad faith made by GhostOfDanGurney shown in this edit (and expanded upon in this edit) did leave me rubbed the wrong way. -- The sharp tone of the response to you here was a combination of stress on my part and frankly, the fact that you weren't honest in your explanation; You had told me essentially "Hey you didn't follow WP:WITHDRAW because Beccaynr didn't strike her rationale",[83] when you had just prior made edits stating The most recent AfD on Kelli Stavast was a Snow Keep to such an extent that the nominator withdrew it.[84]. I don't get what your aim here was. If it truly was a snow keep, what's the point of me reopening it when there were votes like "an absurd waste of time and effort" and "Same guy nominating the same article a day after the previous nomination ended in no consensus, is just ridiculous!"
  3. The recent attempt by GhostOfDanGurney to drag Banana Republic to the edit warring noticeboard seemed somewhat frivolous as there were a total of three reverts listed over a period that encompassed three calendar days. -- I point to this[85] conversation between MER-C and myself where I was advised to go to AN3.

As for why I'm here, I want Banana Republic to stop commenting on other's motives and accusing me of "gaming the system". GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 07:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Beccaynr has again totally removed the insertion of the topic in Brandon Brown (racing driver), citing the RfC with the opposing result and WP:ONUS, which does not apply in its own right - after even GhostOfDanGurney had given up the fundamental opposition and had entered arguments on the volume and scope of the addition. I think there is conclusive evidence now that Beccanyr is WP:WIKILAWYERING for reasons that can hardly interpreted as anything else than partisanship, and that Banana Republic is right, at least regarding Beccanyr. This is well supported by Beccanyr's ridiculous request to indefinitely block Banana Republic. As a minimum sanction I suggest to interdict Beccanyr to further participate in the Let's Go Brandon debate - in all related places. --KnightMove (talk) 12:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

It does not appear possible for anyone to productively edit when they are routinely accused of partisanship, without evidence, during a content dispute. The content is disputed, the RfC is not closed, the RfC discussion includes a variety of oppose !votes, and WP:ONUS states The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. My hope has been for this ANI complaint to resolve with an understanding that allegations of "motives" and "partisanship" make the editing environment less productive, and to affirm core principles of assuming good faith, civility, and avoiding a battleground. I am concerned that disruption will continue without such an affirmation, and I am sorry that my poorly-phrased attempt to refocus this discussion on that goal with a proposal for a conditional indef did not adequately communicate my intent. Beccaynr (talk) 12:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

after even GhostOfDanGurney had given up the fundamental opposition False; I have consistently maintained my opposition even if I'm willing to compromise pending a closure of the RfC as include. The RfC has not closed.. Please strike. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 13:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

New edit war at Brandon Brown (racing driver)

The complaining editor here is now edit warring at Brandon Brown (racing driver).

• Revert #1
• Revert #2 20 minutes later

Banana Republic (talk) 14:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Because you were, once again, pushing through material from a then-open RfC, the very behavior I reported you for the first time. It is not edit warring to prevent disruption. Now it's been closed. This section can be disregarded now. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 14:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Let's get the facts straight:

• GhostOfDanGurney put what they considered to be a compromise version for Let's go Brandon into the article on 17:43, 11 November 2021
• This compromise stayed in the article for 5 days.
• I added Brown's response on 04:16, 16 November 2021
• Beccaynr went against consensus on 11:19, 16 November 2021 and removed from the article all mention of Let's go Brandon
• Two other editors have joined me in enforcing the consensus (KnightMove's revert and 331dot's revert).

Banana Republic (talk) 14:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

And? Consensus was never established until 331dot closed the RfC. This whole thing with involved !voters thinking they can determine consensus through their bias is getting old, tired, and laughable. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 14:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Consensus was already established when you inserted what you considered to be a compromise version.

331dot merely hatted the debate.

You need to be sanctioned for edit warring.

Banana Republic (talk) 14:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. Full stop. You're being frivolous now, which is most ironic. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 14:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Username Issue?

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

---

• Not to be that guy, but shouldn't Banana Republic have been blocked right out the gate? Per WP:USERNAME, "The following types of usernames are not permitted because they are considered promotional: Usernames that unambiguously represent the name of a company, group, institution or product", and according to Wikipedia, Banana Republic is an American clothing and accessories retailer owned by the American multinational corporation Gap Inc. This then could be mistrued as the company attempting to edit, although admittedly I see nothing promotional for the company or its products in the editing history, it still begs the question why this hasn't been looked at. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Probably because the clothing company and the user are (probably) both named after the general concept of a "banana republic", i.e. (narrowly) a Central or South American country which is de facto ruled by American fruit companies or (broadly) "a politically unstable country with an economy dependent upon the exportation of a limited-resource product" as per our article ont the topic. Because of the existing use, it doesn't unambiguously represent the American clothing company and is therefore (arguably) not promotional under WP:USERNAME. (Wouldn't object to asking them to change it tho.) Loki (talk) 18:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

That would be the case if they were using the little "r", but their using the big' "R", which on our site clearly and unmistakably goes to the store and not the concept. In lew of that observation, I believe that regardless of whats decided here they should be required to change usernames. My two cents. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

To me (not an American), "Banana Republic" unambiguously reads as a reference to the concept (before happening upon this thread, I'd never heard of the brand), with the second word capitalised because, as a username, it is part of a proper noun. Unless the user is actively making promotional edits in favour of the brand, I think their username is fine. Rummskartoffel 19:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I assumed it was a reference to the political concept rather than the retailer (which didn't cross my mind at all until this section was opened). User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

The username does not appear to be unambiguously promotional, so I don't think any action is needed. Isabelle ^🔔 21:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Proposal: warnings for the parties involved

Given that there's not a crystal clear consensus above on what was/wasn't OK, I'd like to propose that Banana Republic be given a warning to abide by WP:NPA in the future. Specifically, comments about other editors' behaviour, including but not limited to accusing others of tagteaming, gaming the system, or being WP:TEDIOUS should not be made at article talk pages or content discussions like AfD. If you have a problem with an editor's behaviour, take it up directly with the editor in question at their user talk page, and if that fails, bring it to an administrator, WP:ANI, or other appropriate place to discuss editor conduct.
Additionally, everyone should be reminded that indirectly "sniping" at other editors through vaguely worded talk page messages is unacceptable on this project and is a violation of our civility policies. Threads and discussions like these [86] [87] are examples of this kind of unacceptable behaviour. If you're the person who receives one of these messages, try not to get involved in the sniping; others might interpret agreement as part of the insults, regardless of intent. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Support as proposer. Regardless of the accuracy of the comments Banana Republic made, they were inappropriate in the context they were said. Truth isn't always a defence to WP:NPA; and article talk pages/user talk pages of unrelated non-admins aren't the place to hash out your complaints. While I don't like some of the behaviour the other editors have displayed, it's not egregious enough to WP:BOOMERANG on them. The passive-aggressive talk page sniping needs to stop too. The fact an attack is phrased as a compliment towards someone else doesn't negate it being uncivil. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 00:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Chess, your first diff above [88] is a link to a comment by Banana Republic, on the Talk page of Alalch Emis. Can you please specify where and how I accused others of tagteaming, gaming the system, or being WP:TEDIOUS? Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 00:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Looks like a mix-up — Alalch Emis (talk) 00:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Beccaynr: I'm very sorry. I got you two mixed up like an idiot. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 00:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and altered it w/o including a strikethrough since the first part was not intended to be directed at you whatsoever. The second part is meant to include examples from "both sides" so to speak. Thank you very much for flagging this issue. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 00:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Chess, I appreciate the clarification, and I am also mulling over a response to your comment in the discussion above. In the meantime, I have been meaning to say I appreciate your insight above about how article talk pages and other content discussions forums are not good places to discuss editor conduct; discussions of editor conduct inevitably overwhelm actual content discussion and degrade the quality of our output, including because I think it helps emphasize why it is important for Wikipedia to not be a battleground. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 01:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Chess, I have thought about your proposal to also remind parties about Talk page usage, and your use of a conversation from my Talk page [89] started by GhostOfDanGurney towards the end of October 28, 2021 as an example of unacceptable behaviour, because the content and context reminds me of The Purple Barnstar, i.e. given to Wikipedians who have been hurt by others, for example by having their user pages vandalized, being mistakenly blocked (for too long, or affected by range blocks), being personally attacked, etc. Long established PUA award. In the context of what was visible on my Talk page at that time, e.g. [90], some of the comments in the first Kelli Stavast AfD, e.g. [91], [92], [93], and the Let's Go Brandon AfD, e.g. [94], it seems qualitatively different from the comment by Banana Republic and the response by Alalch Emis [95]. On November 7, I was told about the EW noticeboard complaint filed on Banana Republic, and what an admin had said about further edits to the article. (The Kelli Stavast article is now temporarily protected following the 3RR complaint [96].) And then I was told of an attempted security breach. By contrast, Banana Republic seems engaged in WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior with comments like It's all about one thing: their agenda to delete Kelli Stavast and Let's Go Brandon from Wikipedia [97]. I think to most effectively protect the encyclopedia from future disruption, it would help to not dilute a response to Banana Republic with a "both sides" warning under these circumstances. Beccaynr (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Since this thread started, and the collaborative process on the article normalized (end of deletion initiatives, POV template, spurious protracted disputes), the article improved. Actual WP:WEIGHT issues were able to be dealt with as they appeared etc. Now it's easy to work on the article and things are good. Accuracy of Banana Republic's comments isn't just philosophical, his overall positioning in trying to have a normal functioning article and collaborative process led to something advantageous and beneficial to the encyclopedia. Banana Republic did a lot to make it so, and while doing it he used some wrong words and wrong venues. But the end result matters the most. This must not be forgotten. Simply penalizing (only) him in some sense does nothing to cement this better state that we are in now, and would probably not lead to the most WP:DESIRABLEOUTCOME. — Alalch Emis (talk) 01:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Question: Is this comment made by the complaining editor acceptable? This comment shows the motivation for their WP:TEDIOUS behavior. Banana Republic (talk) 03:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

No, it's not. I went ahead and removed it. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 04:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to head off now. Misjudged that message and thought too fast. There's really not much more I can contribute to resolving this dispute. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 04:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Yep, you deserve a WP:TROUT for that removal. Banana Republic (talk) 04:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

They complimented the creation of a frivolous AfD. Banana Republic (talk) 03:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Hardly frivolous. They simply arrived late to the party and didn't realize that it had already been put up, as they stated in a subsequent edit summary. This jumping to conclusions and lack of WP:AGF is the very behaviour I'm complaining about. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 04:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Didn't realize that it was already nominated ????? WTF ????? They put in a 2nd nomination !!! There is absolutely no way to put up a 2nd nomination without realizing there was a first nomination. Banana Republic (talk) 04:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Indef block for Banana Republic

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

---

I am concerned by a pattern of Banana Republic's behavior, including but not limited to since this ANI discussion began on November 11. For example:

• On 15:22 November 11, Banana Republic removed the template I added, [98] with an edit summary Boldly removing a frivolous template placed by a WP:TEDIOUS editor who took the article the an AfD, did not get their way, then took to a DelRev, and still did not get way. Enough disruption !!!, which was reverted with a warning from GhostOfDanGurney about assuming good faith [99]. GhostOfDanGurney also left a warning about assuming good faith on Banana Republic's Talk page [100] at 16:13 November 11. The removal of my template happened after Banana Republic reverted my attempt to improve the lead [101].
• Banana Republic removed their ANI notice [102] on 19:26 November 11 with an edit summary When you act in bad faith, you will get called for it.
• On 19:45 November 11, Banana Republic appears to have been counseled by Alalch Emis, e.g. I think the AfD was okay, and understandable -- someone was bound to start it; DRV was technically okay as we were dealing with a BADNAC under a very technical reading of conventions, which is also an interpretation someone is bound to hold, and act upon; these are inescapable realities... (with additional discussion about the template).
• On November 12, even though I did not file this ANI complaint, Banana Republic commented on the Let's Go Brandon Talk page [103], Basically [ping removed] GhostOfDanGurney and [ping removed] Beccaynr did not get their way in the RfC above about whether or not to name Kelli Stavast in the article, so they are creating a new controversy surrounding the lead. This is why they are being accused of being WP:TEDIOUS editors. They filed a complaint against me [link to ANI removed], accusing me of not being WP:CIVIL by accusing them of being tedious editors, so I'll throw them a WP:CIVIL bone right here, right now. I do not suspect that the two users are socks of each other. As noted in the discussion above, it was stated on November 1 [104] that further discussions can address more specific concerns about article content. Inclusion of Stavast's name in the article appears to be different than inclusion in the lead, and that distinction appears to have support, including from other participants in the previous RfC discussion, as I explained when asked, e.g. [105], [106], [107].
• In this discussion, instead of taking an opportunity to reflect and engage directly with concerns expressed about their behavior and fundamental principles related to editing productively here, Banana Republic appears to have continued to focus on what they describe as "motives" of myself and GhostOfDanGurney, e.g. November 11 [108], November 11 [109], and November 15 [110].

I therefore propose an indef block of Banana Republic, because it appears that further disruption is likely to continue without a clear sanction that provides an opportunity for Banana Republic to reflect on how Wikipedia is not a battleground and to promise to avoid such conduct in the future. I further propose an indef block be avoided if in this discussion, Banana Republic acknowledges how WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior can be harmful to the encyclopedia, and if they promise to avoid such conduct in the future. Beccaynr (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Based on the pattern described above, and after the comment by Banana Republic on November 15 [111] that followed the warning proposal above, it appears that a warning is likely not enough to prevent future disruption, unless Banana Republic acknowledges how WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior can be harmful to the encyclopedia, and if they promise to avoid such conduct in the future. Beccaynr (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per WP:BLOCK, Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. To be absolutely frank, the evidence presented above doesn’t show that the user needs to be completely ejected from the project in order for Wikipedia to be improved. I would suggest that we all take a chill pill on this one; proposing an indef is really uncalled for and it highlights the strong emotions currently present. If anything, a temporary two-way Interaction ban between the proposer of the indef and the target of the proposal might help to do that, though I believe that all editors involved would be willing to try to calm down without the community using coercive banning powers. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 17:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

This conditional proposal is intended to prevent damage or disruption, because an indef block (which could be brief) is presented as a last resort, conditioned on whether Banana Republic addresses the concerns outlined in the discussion and promises to avoid such conduct in the future. Without such assurance, it appears likely that disruption could continue. I also do not see evidence to support a two-way interaction ban, or how it would address concerns about Banana Republic's behavior towards GhostOfDanGurney. As noted above, I also think a "both sides" approach in this situation risks diluting the effectiveness of a response to Banana Republic that is otherwise intended to help avoid battleground conduct by them in the future. Their response after a warning was proposed has been a particular cause for concern, but to be clear, I am not strictly calling for an indef block and my hope is that future disruption can be prevented by Banana Republic acknowledging how WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior can be harmful to the encyclopedia, and promising to avoid such conduct in the future. Beccaynr (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Time to apply WP:BOOMERANG This proposal shows exactly why Beccaynr and GhostOfDanGurney are WP:TEDIOUS editors that should be sanctioned. I don't need to add anything else. Banana Republic (talk) 20:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• Speedy close this section as a WP:WIKILAWYERING abuse of process and redirect discussion back to Chess's proposal above. It's a simple tactic of moving the Overton window, and asking for more to settle for less. This editor knows that Banana Republic will not be removed from the project or submitted to the kind of absurd ultimatum proposed, but knows that this proposal will easily reframe the conduct dispute in such a way that it will look very normal to penalize Banana Republic at least relatively mildly—when he will not have been penalized harshly. (Mikehawk10, with due respect, you've now already fell for this while suggesting the possibility of a much more restrictive measure, than anything suggested thus far.) This would both (1) make it sure that Banana Republic is sanctioned, when prior to that, from earlier substantive discussion, it was not certain that he would be sanctcioned in any way, (2) turn attention away from Beccaynr's conduct. That is, it would lead to the real outcome desired by Beccaynr which is for only Banana Republic to get any kind of sanction, and they themselves getting none. It's silly to think that Beccaynr really believes that there is a prospect of success with regard to indeffing, but still proposes it. So this is a textbook case of: Applying a portion of a policy or guideline to achieve an objective other than compliance with that policy or guideline or its objectives. Particularly when doing so in a way that is stricter, more categorical or more literal than the norm.
  This outlandish "pragmatism" occurs in response to Chess's idea of somehow warning "both sides" diff. There is agreement among commenters here that Beccaynr has shown a propensity toward tedious procedural issues (or something approximately such) in connection to the "Let's Go Brandon" topic. Everyting added together, I think that being sanctioned even in the mildest sense is an unacceptable affront to Beccaynr's sense of extreme validation in everything they have done so far, and this lack of reflection can also be seen from lack of substantive replies to any criticism on this issue.
  A message needs to be sent that when deletion initiatives fail, it's time to either distance oneself from the article with whose existence one disagrees with, or to treat it like any other article, and work on improving it following a normal collaborative process. A bad thing sometimes that happens on Wikipedia is someone trying deletion and then, when that fails, going on to disrupt normal work on the article (using something such as a frivolous POV template) and then, when that fails too, going so far as to try to get editors associated with this page removed or marginalized, or at least humiliated. This is happening right now, and it's bad. — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Alalch Emis, from my view, my proposal is an attempt to resolve a conflict, because I would request closure of this complaint if Banana Republic offered reassurance that they will avoid WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct in the future. This is intended to protect the encyclopedia from future disruption, not as a penalty. It does not appear to me that there is agreement that I have what you describe as a propensity toward tedious procedural issues (or something approximately such) in connection to the "Let's Go Brandon" topic, and I believe my participation in the discussion here shows I have substantively engaged with concerns. I am not trying to remove, marginalize, or humiliate anyone. I asked for a bare minimum commitment from Banana Republic so we can close this complaint and get back to editing, and for an indef block only if Banana Republic will not affirm their intent to avoid WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct in the future. Beccaynr (talk) 23:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose block, but definitely warn BR as reporter - I agree with Mikehawk10 that a block at this stage would be more punitive then preventative and would add that it could possibly even have a negative effect on their future behavior, as evidenced by their proposing a BOOMERANG here. They do absolutely need to get it through to them that commenting on others' motives, assuming bad faith and stubbornly holding the line on those comments and assumptions is UNCIVIL and disruptive and I thoroughly agree with the rationale for this proposal, but outside of this topic and the resulting discussions, their behavior has been fine from what I've seen. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 23:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Complaint concerning Sarah-Lee Heinrich's article

Context:

Sarah-Lee Heinrich, a German politician made several racist remarks. e.g. When she was an adult she called German society a "disgustingly white majority". This was reported by various German newspaper, including Welt.de ( https://www.welt.de/politik/bundestagswahl/plus234372910/Parteinachwuchs-Eklige-weisse-Mehrheitsgesellschaft-Die-Gruene-Jugend-und-ihr-Deutschlandbild.html )

Incident:

After I've added this information to the article about Heinrich the user User:TheRandomIP removed the information multiple times. When I tried to contact TheRandomIP on their talk page, they reverted the message and kept reverting the article.

A few hours ago User:ToBeFree joined TheRandomIP and reverted the article, then locked the article. When I tried to communicate with ToBeFree on their talk page, they reverted my message.

This appears highly dubious to me and I believe TheRandomIP and ToBeFree are politically motivated to defend the politician's reputation, despite wide criticism in the German press.

I am not sure how to proceed from here as I feel that Wikipedia is being abused by them for political purposes and direct communication is not possible, when messages are ignored and reverted. I do not believe that Wikipedia is intended to sweep widely reported hateful speech of racist politicians under the rug and this kind of political censorship goes against the values of Wikipedia.

I am very disappointed that ToBeFree has abused their position of power to side with the politically motivated, bad faith actor TheRandomIP and helped them to do damage control for a politician, who conducted racist hate speech. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, not a propaganda tool to defend racist politicians. --94.31.105.144 (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I am very disappointed that you've abused this noticeboard to cast aspersions of political motivations against other editors, without having made any attempt to gain consensus for your edits on the article talkpage. You appear to have a strong POV that you're trying to insert into the article - you will need to gain consensus. I note that TheRandom IP suggested and implemented wording that had been included by consensus on dewiki, which you've ignored. Shrill accusations of political manipulation like those above will not gain much sympathy at ANI. I've revised the heading on this section to something less shouty, and warned you for personal attacks. Acroterion (talk) 03:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Acroterion that the IP needs to tone things down considerably. That said, it was unhelpful for ToBeFree to remove the entire paragraph in question and then also protect the page. That's crossing the streams a bit, and the article had been stable for a week prior to the current dispute. No one disagrees on mentioning the incident; removing it entirely confuses the nature of the dispute. Mackensen (talk) 03:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Alternatives to protecting the page (and returning it to the status quo) would have been blocking at least one IP range and another IP address for edit warring, so I think it's a good compromise. WP:BRD is a good guide. —PaleoNeonate – 03:44, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Acroterion How is it a strong POV, when it is exactly what welt.de (one of the major newspapers in Germany) reported? Also I'm not sure how repeatedly removing the racist hate speech by Sarah-Lee Heinrich from her article (despite being reported on) can be interpreted differently than "politically motivated".

Lastly the discussion in the German Wiki was mostly concerned with Sarah-Lee Heinrich's racist Tweets as a teenager and her "disgustingly white majority" comment (which she made as an adult) was only added as a sidenote that wasn't covered by the discussion about her teenager Tweets.

I'm not sure why exactly the politician gets special treatment and sweeping hate speech under the rug is being tolerated. Heinrich is a person of public interest (politician and Bundessprecherin for the Grüne Jugend of the Grüne Party), she made racist hate speech many times, this was reported widely in Germany.

So why exactly is this information excluded from Wikipedia? --94.31.105.144 (talk) 03:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

It is your POV that I'm referring to - you have a strong agenda that seems to have caused you to focus on denigration of the article's subject. That's not good. I agree with Mackensen that removing the section and protecting was not appropriate. I can see a rationale for the protection, but I have reservations about removal in the entirety by the same admin. One or the other, but not both. Except for that, this is a content dispute that belongs on the article talkpage, not at ANI. We should give ToBeFree an opportunity to respond about the removal and protection, but we will not tolerate aspersions of political bias in the meantime, or score-settling. Acroterion (talk) 03:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

"We should give ToBeFree an opportunity to respond about the removal and protection"

Fair enough.

Just as an additional information: The article used to include the "disgustingly white majority" part ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah-Lee_Heinrich&oldid=1051761722 ), before TheRandomIP made 7 edits in quick succession, which removed the section. So I'm not sure why it is suggested to block me, when TheRandomIP started the situation. --94.31.105.144 (talk) 03:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

p.s. I'm not sure what you mean by "denigration of the article's subject. That's not good."

How would you phrase it then, except calling her comments racist hate speech and her a racist? (Especially as she repeatedly made racist remarks in the past)

--94.31.105.144 (talk) 04:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• The article started as a horrible BLP violation which took what looks like an opinion piece and turned it into "objective" phrasing in Wikipedia's voice. TheRandomIP needs to be commended for starting to turn that awful thing into a real article. Drmies (talk) 04:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• I'm plowing my way through the article, slowly; the IP could have been blocked already for a BLP violation in this edit summary, which makes me wonder if this is the same person--this is the IP who first introduced the content. The real question is whether we are going to argue whether an admin was too heavy-handed--or whether an admin did exactly what needed to be done in order to prevent the "orchestrated shitstorm" from being continued on our Wikipedia. And what did ToBeFree do? Remove content for which there was no consensus, content that clearly had BLP-related problems, and semi-protect the article in order to prevent a series of IPs from reintroducing that content. What TheRandomIP should have done, of course, is loudly cry "BLP" in the edit summaries--but they don't have a lot of experience on the English wiki and we shouldn't fault them for that. ToBeFree deserves a beer/barnstar, of course. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

If somebody edited Trump's article multiple times and at the end the "bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists" tweet simply disappeared and Trump was solely portrayed as a blameless victim of a hateful shitstorm, would it be equally commendable? Would you advocate to block the person, who included the information? --94.31.105.144 (talk) 04:15, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Again, your POV, encapsulated in that edit summary, is highly problematic. In general, we extend considerable discretion to editors and admins on matters of BLP, which is what I see in the removal and protection in the face of your behavior. Acroterion (talk) 04:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what exactly is "highly problematic"? She made racist comments (not only the "disgustingly white majority" one). How is it problematic to call her comments racist, when the comments are racist - or her a racist, when she repeatedly makes racist remarks?

How is it POV or problematic? To me it's simply factual. I would really appreciate an explanation as I do not fully understand your criticism of what I did. --94.31.105.144 (talk) 04:29, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

You are interpreting that as "racist," rather than as a (badly stated) complaint about disproportionate representation by a dominant group, and are trying to insert your interpretation into a BLP. It's the kind of bad-faith application of assumed symmetry to a complaint about asymmetrical power that is in vogue nowadays. See the brouhaha concerning critical race theory in the U.S. Acroterion (talk) 13:36, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

What Acroterion said. So you don't fully understand the criticism? You don't get that your words do not reflect a factual situation but only your interpretation of some facts? You don't see that that article does not' reflect that she is "solely portrayed as a blameless victim"? Then at best you do not have the competence to edits BLPs and sensitive matters--at worst, of course, you're pulling us into the shitstorm. Either way, the real surprise here is that you haven't been blocked yet. Drmies (talk) 15:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not going to do the WP:BEFORE, but this seems like the type of article where possible BLP issues are best handled at AFD. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 04:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful for this discussion if someone could state what they think the BLP issues are, either here or on the article talk page. Obviously, the IP's edit summaries are a problem, that speaks for itself and they're being removed, but I'm not seeing it in the content revisions themselves. If folks think this is a WP:BLP1E situation then fine, but then the article should go to AfD. In its current form, there's no assertion of notability. Mackensen (talk) 04:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

"Obviously, the IP's edit summaries are a problem, that speaks for itself"

What exactly is problematic? I would appreciate an explanation of what exactly you find wrong.

AFD: Sarah-Lee Heinrich is a German politician and the Bundessprecherin for the Grüne Jugend. Also she is is in various interviews by big media outlets in Germany (e.g. ZDFheute, SWR, Sat1). I think a politician who is so public, controversial and in such a position of power should get an article.

--94.31.105.144 (talk) 05:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

To me it is clear what happened here: In the German Wikipedia we almost unanimously decided to describe this event in a certain way also with respect to personality rights. But a few people (a small minority) wanted to have a "harsher" formulation and wanted to include details we didn't find appropriate to include. Then they just took this to the English Wikipedia, wrote a puny article just to include what was rejected in German Wikipedia, hoping that no one will notice. That was the only purpose of this article. This is a pattern I sometimes observed also in the past, and maybe it would be worth to discuss how do you normally deal with such articles? --TheRandomIP (talk) 08:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

It is safe to ignore all crosswiki concerns in this case. There was an AIV report about the edit war, the report was removed after 5.6 hours, I've noticed the removal and chose to have a look beyond "This noticeboard is for reporting obvious vandalism and spam only". Two editors, one of them without an account, were fighting over the content of a BLP. There was zero talk page discussion, so I enforced talk page discussion to happen. As I had a duty to avoid protecting a version that contains policy-violating content, I removed the disputed content (WP:ONUS, WP:BLPUNDEL) for now. As the neutrality of the resulting revision was likely to be challenged (QED), I also added {{POV}}, which has a perfect text for this situation: "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page." End of the story.

The best way to deal with the situation is to find a consensus on the talk page of the article. We have noticeboards such as WP:BLPN and WP:NPOVN for neutrally inviting editors to an ongoing discussion. There is an entire policy dedicated to dispute resolution at WP:DR. Specifically, the following steps are not part of a good dispute resolution:

• Accusing disagreeing editors of intentionally damaging the encyclopedia ("vandalism");
• Avoiding a central discussion on the article talk page by misusing user talk pages for content discussion;
• Escalating the conflict to ANI before even using the article's talk page;
• Accusing others of misbehavior instead of focusing on the content.

The actual hero here is Mackensen, who took the time to start a proper talk page discussion at Talk:Sarah-Lee Heinrich. Those interested in finding a consensus about the article's content should join it!

~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I brought it to ANI because you sided with somebody who started an edit war and used your position to lock the article. This is why my complaint is about you and TheRandomIP in ANI and not a discussion regarding an edit war in the appropriate notice board. --2A00:6020:B3B0:5300:64B0:DE51:9847:D940 (talk) 05:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I didn't side with anyone. Two people fought over the wording of a paragraph, so I removed it entirely instead of protecting a specific version of the paragraph. Three (!) policies supporting this approach are described above: The protection policy, the verifiability policy and the BLP policy. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

TheRandomIP wanted to remove criticism of Sarah-Lee Heinrich racist comments from the article. I wanted to keep the criticism. You removed the section, which did exactly what TheRandomIP wanted i.e. removing the criticism. I call it siding with TheRandomIP. If you simply wanted to stop the editwar (which was started by TheRandomIP) you could have locked the article, but leave the information as it was before TheRandomIP removed it.--2A00:6020:B3B0:5300:CEA:6715:4D7C:6EFC (talk) 11:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

This was not an option: The neutrality of the content "as it was before" has been disputed, so protecting the page without removing the content would have been incompatible with the policies described above. It may usually be possible to restore a "pre-edit-war revision", but this doesn't work if the article's initial neutrality is under discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• No comments on the user here but would a sysop be able to revdel the borderline attacks in the article history? (I'm not sure if it's technically possible to delete the first revision.)—S Marshall T/C 09:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Inspectormusic repeated unsourced information and genres after multiple warning

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

As their talk page shows they have been warned multiple times about adding unsourced information and genres. They have even been blocked for 48 hours about it. This did not stop them from continuing the same behavior. They were warned again by multiple editors, and again, they ignore the warnings: 1, 2, 3 and many more. There should be a limit to the number of times a "last warning" is left before someone does something about it. --Muhandes (talk) 09:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I thought an ANI warning will change something, but this behavior continues: unsourced genres and again and again. --Muhandes (talk) 09:11, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like some WP:LTA vandalism here. – The Grid (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

That may very well be the case, perhaps someone more familiar with the area can have a look. --Muhandes (talk) 15:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks to me like block evasion, very much like Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/MusicLover650 who adds unreferenced genres and "associated acts". Binksternet (talk) 13:22, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Binksternet: I am no expert, but that seems likely to me. --Muhandes (talk) 20:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The Pollster immediately returning to disruptive behavior

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Original poster warned about WP:BATTLE. First diff in the complaint is clearly bogus. Jehochman ^Talk 14:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

---

• Jeppiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The Pollster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Only yesterday, we closed a long discussion about whether to indefinitely block The Pollster Heavy OWN, TENDENTIOUS and PA behaviour by The Pollster for their repeated personal attacks, edit warring, and WP:OWN. Everyone who took part in the long discussion agreed The Pollster's behaviour was unacceptable, opinions differed on whether to block them indefinitely, for a limited time, or just give them a warning. In the end, the closing admin settled for a warning. As many of us feared, The Pollster construed this close and the warning as a carte blanche to behave as he pleases. This includes:

• Claiming that the discussion about their edit warring and personal attacks was to "censor" him [112]
• Returning to personal attacks by claiming those who disagree with him "are applying a double standard [113], even accusing users of wanting "to sustain corruption" [114].
• Immediately returning to the same edit warring, restoring his own version of the contested article once again [115] (and deceptively trying to hide it by a misleading edit summary).
  

I feel enough is enough. If The Pollster reads the long discussion of whether to block him, and the final warning he was given, as vindication that he was right, then something is very wrong. Several users already suggested WP:COMPETENCE and that The Pollster does not seem to able to edit. Given that in less than 24 hours after the close and the warning, The Pollster has doubled down on his personal attacks, on the edit warring, and on the own-issues, it seems clear they are right. As the warning to The Pollster clearly did not work, I repeat my suggestion that Wikipedia is better off without this highly disruptive user. Jeppiz (talk) 13:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Your first diff is bogus, so I stopped reading your complaint there. The first diff you site is a comment made prior to the warning I gave upon closing the thread. I now must warn you to stop treating Wikipedia as a battleground. Jehochman ^Talk 14:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not sure Jehochman, who per Jeppiz "settled for a warning" in the previous discussion, is the ideal admin to close this new thread without anybody else having had time to comment. For that reason, I do want to state that I agree with him (with Jehochman), and would have closed in a similar way, and would also have warned Jeppiz. Bishonen | tålk 15:26, 12 November 2021 (UTC). (Bad Bishonen for editing inside the closed discussion.)

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

TBAN proposal: The Pollster

It's true Jeppiz messed up the diffs in this report. The first three diffs (in the first two bullet points in the OP) are all the same diff, and they did technically come before the warning. However, that diff (Special:Diff/1054626602, 05:03 Nov 11) was a comment made at the bottom of the tban proposal, and did, in fact, say the majority of admins are against censoring me and for restoration of my version, because they clearly see through the double standard that some are applying and It gives the impression that you (impru & co.) want to sustain corruption and fake polling in this article for whatever reason. Neither of these comments suggests that The Pollster understood the discussion about them. I was surprised that Jehochman closed that thread with a warning a few hours later (Special:Diff/1054652842, 09:39 Nov 11). Frankly, had I seen The Pollster's comment at 05:03, I may have changed my !vote from oppose to support.

More importantly, that same 05:03 comment stated Admins, please restore my modernized version of the article, because of this context. That's WP:IDHT in its purest form right there. Worse is that The Pollster went and restored their edits:

• Here are some of the edits that led to The Pollster's first ANI thread (there are others):
  • 04:53 Nov 7 - restoring their reverted changes (which included segregating out certain polls into a separate table and collapsing that table), with the edit summary You have contributed nothing to this article impru. Go back to Spain. Research Affairs polls are not needed, I modernized the article.
  • 11:17 Nov 7 - restoring their reverted changes again, with the edit summary vandalism by people with no knowledge of the situation
• As a reminder, 05:03 Nov 11 is when The Pollster made the comment linked above, in part asking admins to restore their preferred version, and 09:39 is when Jehochman warned The Pollster
• 05:19 Nov 12 - Pollster, in their next edit after making the above comment at ANI and after being warned, again restores their edits (separating out certain polls into a new table and collapsing that table), but does so along with an addition of content, and uses the edit summary Added new poll.

The Nov 12 edit is, in fact, a direct continuation of the exact thing that led to the ANI thread in the first place. "Added new poll" is, in fact, a deceptive edit summary. Given they previously asked for this content to be restored, I don't think this was any kind of good faith error. Clearly, Jehochman's warning was ineffective. (I also very much object to Jehochman's comment here, "First thing to do is scrutinize the filer", which I think expresses an attitude that is at the core of why ANI doesn't work well. First thing to do is to read report, and the diffs, in full. I also think that shows a bit of anti-filer bias which may have influenced the premature closing of this report.)

Jeppiz, since being warned above, has posted a wiki-break notice. Meanwhile, another editor had to revert The Pollster. I don't think it's good that this ends with other editors having to revert The Pollster again, while an editor who is trying to stop that disruption is run off the project. As such, I'm now proposing a TBAN from polling against The Pollster.

• Support TBAN from polling, broadly construed as proposer, per my comments above. Subsequent actions by The Pollster have convinced me that I was wrong to oppose a sanction last time. Within a day of being warned, they've gone right back to edit-warring in their preferred changes (05:19 Nov 12) after asking admins to restore their preferred changes (05:03 Nov 11). The warning (09:39 Nov 11) clearly was not effective. Levivich 16:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support I think the warning has not had the desired result, and it doesn't look as if Pollster is going to change his behavior. Paul August ☎ 17:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support I agree with everything Levivich has written. This is a sorry incident and Jeppiz and Impru20 (the original filer to be supposedly “scrutinised”) are owed apologies. DeCausa (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support Levivich has summarized the situation well. An imperfect filing should not result in disregard of the ongoing issues that led to the filing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support as per filer of initial ANI thread (since the original rationale persists) and because of Levivich's neatly summarized rationale: it's a matter of IDHT as of now. The Pollster's restoration of the disputed content under a misleading and deceiving edit summary while discussion with other users was still underway in the talk page, coupled with a failure to re-engage in such discussion once the previous ANI thread was closed, clearly showed a bad-faith intent in this. A TBAN would also be a less harsh remedy than a full block, and can give The Pollster time to reconsider their current approach towards Wikipedia. Sincerely, he should really take the rope that is being given to him if he wants to avoid the risk of being indeffed in the future. Impru20^talk 18:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Noting that a mere minutes after I posted my message, The Pollster has re-engaged the discussion. In his reply, he argues that "I have addressed everything in proper manner and it’s well sourced. I reverted it to my previous edition incl. the new poll because you guys are ignorant of the required changes of the modern design despite my sources and repeatedly act like cyber-bullies in reverting my version to the corruption-filled outdated version." Note that this was said with this ANI sub-thread ongoing and following everything that has transpired (including a piece of advice made by Jehochman in his talk page right today after closing Jeppiz's thread). Oh well. Impru20^talk 19:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Impru and Co. act like cyber-bullies by reverting my edits. My edits hide corrupt polling to a minimum, while their version is highlighting it for everyone to see. Wikipedia must not be a place that highlights and showcases corruption and fake polling, when everything is very obvious and well-sourced. Wikipedia is not a vessel of Donald Trump-style fake news. I am therefore in the opinion that my version is still very much correct and I ask you admins to reconsider your position because tolerating fake news and faked polling in an official corruption probe in articles on here sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and you as moderators. Thanks. Long live accuracy, facts and freedom. --The Pollster (talk) 19:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  It's much simpler to say WP:IDHT. Just a thought for the future. Cheers all, and happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• I think that TP may have a legitimate point on the content issue here, but just doesn't understand how to argue it starting from WP:PAG. He's trying to remove polls made by a polling bureau that has been compromised in a corruption scandal, but instead of pointing out that this may render these polls unreliable sources, he unhappily focuses on the "faking" of the polls by the polling bureau, which cannot be asserted in wikivoice without original research. Naturally, this is how his arguments are being received by other editors (i.e., as OR), something which TP does not seem to understand nor to engage with in the broader discussion. TP has been here for ~15 years, but has only made ~1700 edits in that time [116], which may explain why he has such a poor grasp of core content policies. However, that wouldn't be so much of a problem if only he would take a more collaborative approach. There's no point in being right if you can't convince fellow editors that such is the case, and have to resort to aspersions and personal attacks. But how is TP going to learn this? Given what's on their user page, topic-banning him from polling, broadly construed, would be more or less equivalent to an indefinite block. If we really want to give him a chance, I think it would be much more appropriate to issue a time-limited block (perhaps a partial block from Opinion polling for the next Austrian legislative election, since that's where most of the disruption seems to have taken place?) that would show in his (now still clean) block log and that can be escalated if similar issues should arise in the future. It seems to me that he would benefit from a wiki-break at this point, and he may do better next time. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • But how is TP going to learn this? ... If we really want to give him a chance ... I so strongly oppose this type of thinking at ANI. As proposer, I do not want to give him a chance. He already had a chance. This isn't about TP learning anything, or about rehabilitating TP, it's solely about preventing disruption. That is, it's about protecting other editors from TP's disruptive editing. I don't care if TP learns anything or not. If they can't edit productively, then they can't edit. Remember, this is the guy who reverted people with "go back to Spain" as an edit summary. Nobody should have to put up with that. When someone acts like that, our response shouldn't be, "well how do we teach them to be better?" This is not therapy, this is not a school, etc., we should not "reverse the victim and the offender". It doesn't matter if TP has a point on the content dispute or not, and it doesn't matter if polling is all TP is interested in: they risked their privilege of editing when they were uncivil, and then after being warned, went right back to edit warring. The goal here is to protect everyone else, not to teach TP. The way TP would get a tban lifted (if it passes) is to prove to the community that they can edit productively, by editing in another topic area. This gives the community the chance to review TP's editing before deciding whether it's safe to lift the tban. A time-limited block would not give the community this very important information. Levivich 20:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support This user is clearly problematic in this area, their response here gives me no confidence it is likely to stop. Hopefully a topic ban can be effective in preventing them from this disruption and allowing them to be productive in other areas. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• Another problem: copy-paste machine translation - I've noticed that The Pollster is copy/paste-ing machine translation of newspaper articles into 2021 Graz local election. Special:Diff/1051428847 = [117], and Special:Diff/1055038402 = [118]. I've removed it from that article but haven't looked further to see if there are other instances. Levivich 17:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support as per the argument I already made in the initial post. I also wish to thank Levivich for their kind words and for having taken the time to look into the matter. I was both surprised and disappointed at how the first admin immediately closed down the thread on a technicality (though I take full responsibility for having messed up the diffs in my post), and I am glad to see the consensus in the subsequent thread in line with Levivich's summary of my post. Parallel to this discussion, there is ongoing harassment as many of us involved in this situation have seen heavy attempts to hack our accounts since this thread was started. At least DeCausa, Impru20, HighInBC and myself have seen multiple attempts to hack our accounts (we receive a wiki-notification of this; in my case it informs me there have been 65 attempts to hack my account). None of us ever experienced this before, and this thread is the only thing that connects us so while I don't want to speculate on who is behind these attacks, it passes WP:DUCK that it is because of this situation. Jeppiz (talk) 18:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  • That happened to me, too, over 20 attempts in the last day or so. Although without knowing how widespread it is, hard to say if it's related (we might be 5 of 500 who this happened to, or 5,000). Levivich 18:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
    • That is true. Had it just happened to me, I wouldn't have thought about it. The fact that it never happened to me before in over 10 years (and apparently never to DeCausa or Impru20 either), and suddenly all of us are targeted, well, it makes me suspect a link. Jeppiz (talk) 18:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
      • I confirm this happened to me as well, having never suffered anything like it before. I spoke with DeCausa and we both confirmed that the attempts on our accounts were at similar times of day and that those matched the editing patterns of TP. Further, HighInBC confirmed that the attempts on his account was made following DeCausa's approachment to him on the issue. So far, it looks like circumstantial evidence, but all people affected as of now has been involved on this issue and has opposed The Pollster's stance. Impru20^talk 18:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
        • Well, if the five of us go on a vandalism spree, we'll know why. Levivich 18:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

          Just want to say a quick "me three" about unauthorized login attempts. Circumstantial, but interesting. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 18:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

          I too finally became part today (around 00:30 UTC) of the not-so-select (?) club of people who've gotten the infamous There have been multiple failed attempts to log in to your account from a new device message (6 attempts). I've been involved in a lot during the last few days (reporting in two separate SPI cases and opening two ANI threads), but this is perhaps more than a coincidence. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

          Err, 7 of us who contributed to this thread have had multiple login attempts on our accounts over this weekend? HighnBC gets it just after I post about it on his talk page? Other than tt’s just bonkers, how obvious can this get? DeCausa (talk) 19:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

  • It's happening to me as well. Paul August ☎ 19:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

    So it's 8 now. If this is really him, then a TBAN may not be enough. Impru20^talk 20:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

    To be clear, I have experienced this many times over the years. The timing is suspicious though. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support. If he didn't pay attention to the last thread, then he needs to face the consequences. Assuming he (or someone on his behalf) is also intentionally failing password checks, I would consider this a bad attempt at harassment. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 19:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Strong support. Despite my having advocated for a pro-forma wait-and-see approach in the previous discussion, I felt the writing was clearly on the wall with ThePollster's massively IDHT screed at the end of that thread, which evidenced not a shred of understanding of the significant an expansive concerns about their conduct raised by literally every other community member who commented on that thread, but rather (quite to contrary) expressed their opinion that everything about their approach had been vindicated--a view that nobody operating from anything less than complete confirmation bias could have possibly taken away from that discussion. In fact, I would have certainly struck and revised my !vote on the behavioural issues (and suspect I would not have been the only one) after that troubling post, had the discussion not been closed somewhat hastily, immediately thereafter. At that point, based on the clear pattern of behaviour and utterly complete lack of ability on this user's part to recognize (let alone attempt to address) community concerns, it was a pretty foregone conclusion that we'd be back here in a matter of days.

Indeed, I'll go one further: probably we should just be indeffing this user right now: they seem to have very narrow interests on this project (their username is literally the subject matter we are now TBANning them from engaging in...), and they have 1) demonstrated clear WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR issues, 2) evidenced attitudes towards open collaborativeness that are fundamentally at odds with this project's values and processes, and 3) adopted a disregard towards feedback which makes me virtually certain that they will not respect the TBAN. Based on the level of refusal to either take community concerns on board or to adjust their approach, I can't imagine this doesn't end up the indef regardless. If this discussion closes with only the TBAN as a sanction, it is my hope that the closer clearly summarizes the end of the rope on community patience and makes clear any violation of the TBAN should be met with an indef. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• This discussion has been confused by a potential Joe job. Checkuser found that The Pollster is not connected by technical evidence to the failed login attempts. That activity could be any long term abuser who watches this board and feels like a little giggle. It would help to refocus discussion solely on any disruptive edits after the warning. Jehochman ^Talk 15:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• That doesn't change the fact that this thread overall is about a topic ban, and that thus far there's a lot of support for it regardless of Architect134's impotence. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 21:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, I disagree that it’s been “confused” by the CU. I opened a separate thread on that specific issue for that purpose. The TBAN position n this thread is clear and unrelated to the other issue. DeCausa (talk) 21:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support. I voted oppose when the indef proposal happened, but it looks clear the user hasn't improved their behavior since then. JellyMan9001 (talk) 21:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Failed login attempts

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

CU says no connection between the user and the failed login attempts. Jehochman ^Talk 15:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

---

At time of writing 8 editors have reported in the above thread that they have had unauthorised attempts to login to their accounts over this weekend. This is unusual. 6 of those editors supported The Pollster being made subject to a TBAN. The remaining 2 made what could be considered adverse comments about his editing behaviour. Circumstantially, it’s reasonable to believe that this may be WP:HARASSMENT by The Pollster. I’ve asked The Pollster to respond here. Subject to seeing his response, I believe there is grounds for an indef CBAN by reason of their WP:HARASSMENT of those he’s decided he has a grudge against because of this thread. DeCausa (talk) 20:12, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• As one of the eight users targeted, I must still oppose an indef CBAN unless there is proof. If a CU reveals who is behind this harassment, as we have asked of EdJohnston, I'd support a CBAN for that person whoever they are. I cannot support a CBAN without proofs. Devious minds could start similar harassment directed at users who have disagreed with someone they dislike, to paint that user in a bad light. I don't believe for a moment that that is what's going on here, but we must consider what precedent we set. So at the moment, I continue to support the topic ban, for which there is ample proof, but withhold support for any CBAN in the absence of proof. Jeppiz (talk) 20:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

  OK, but just to be clear what I said was “subject to seeing his response”. In other words I’m not proposing it now - I’m asking him to respond first. And it’s a different response to the issues raised in the TBAN discussion. DeCausa (talk) 20:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

  Note that even without the WP:HARASSMENT-bit (which nonetheless seems quite evident as of currently, barring any other explanation), we have a new WP:COPYVIO issue now (relating to a series of edits that came after the TBAN was proposed) that joins the existing list of issues. Impru20^talk 20:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

  (ec) I've seen joe jobbers do all sort of bizarre stuff before. This would not be out of character for a certain LTA I'm thinking of. I'm more interested in seeing what CUs have to say. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, a CU is the optimum solution. I asked EdJohnston if that’s possible here. But what I don’t know if our usual checkuser process has access to IP addresses of Wikimedia failed logins to do that. If anyone else knows, please comment. DeCausa (talk) 20:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

  @DeCausa: Yes, checkuser has kept records of failed login attempts since 2018. see Phab:T174492. To flag down a checkuser on an admin noticeboard you can use {{Checkuser needed}}. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 21:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks. So i just flag it here like this? {{Checkuser needed}}. DeCausa (talk) 21:17, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

  @DeCausa: Yep, just like that. If you wait 5 to 10 minutes for the bot to update the table the request should appear at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 21:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

  Ah, that just takes it into SPI. I hadn’t thought that was the right forum as it’s not actually socking. DeCausa (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

  @DeCausa: It's technically a "Quick Checkuser request", which are what you use when you need a checkuser to investigate something other than sock puppetry. The bot that clerks the SPI page only edits the table though (because it's kept in its own user space and therefore doesn't need a bot approval), so it's easier to stick it at the top of that than at the bottom of the page in the proper section. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 21:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

  Thank very much. I’ve been trying to find out what the right process was since this came up yesterday. DeCausa (talk) 21:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, but the check I ran revealed nothing suspicious. Salvio 23:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

  From the looks it above, users in another dispute in the Banana Republic case also reported attempts on their accounts, perhaps a CU can see if it was the same people that tried both, possibly to stir up trouble at ANI? OmniusM (talk) 01:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose CBAN based on lack of evidence. This could just as easily be someone who want to see them CBAN'd. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose CBAN based on lack of CheckUser evidence; see Salvio giuliano's response above. The circumstantial evidence is too weak for a CBAN on just that alone. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 00:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• I created {{Checkuser needed}}. I'm glad you all find it useful. If there are WP:COPYVIO problems, I think we should indef the account until there is a convincing promise that the account will start being productive and stop being disruptive. Where are the relevant diffs to establish COPYVIO? I don't like it when my assumptions of good faith prove wrong so quickly. Jehochman ^Talk 02:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

  Levivich pointed them out above. Basically, TP copy-pasted a machine translation of newspaper articles into 2021 Graz local election (relevant diffs can be found in the provided link). Impru20^talk 06:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• I can guarantee you that I didn’t try to hack anyone, because yesterday was Sunday and I had other things to do (in real life) and I am way too stupid to do this anyway. I have never tried to hack anyone, so it must have been someone else. --The Pollster (talk) 04:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose CBAN for now, would still support an indef. I oppose CBAN because of the lack of CU evidence; circumstancial evidence points to him, but it's still circumstancial (note that I had another attempt about 5 hours ago btw. Don't know if this may be helpful to someone in order to solve this weird issue). Nonetheless, the evidence for other misconducts is there already, IDHT issues have been widely commented, and The Pollster's latest comment above in which he suprisingly uses as an argument for excusing himself that he is "way too stupid to do this anyway" (when you only need the other guy's username to attempt (and fail) to log in through their account using random passwords, which is a really simple task to accomplish) again points out to a serious CIR issue at the very least. At this point, I think a TBAN will only delay the inevitable. Impru20^talk 06:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Don't you think that I am way too stupid to do this anyway was rather meant as 'I'm too stupid to know how to do stuff like hacking an account, so I wouldn't even think of trying anything like that'? Anyway, given the fact that these things are almost impossible to prove, and that they're an ideal target for joe jobbers, I think it's best not to focus too much on it, as they may distract from the real issues. If the combined WP:CIR, WP:IDHT and WP:COPYVIO are enough for an indef, I'd recommend proposing that in a separate section. There was already some hesitating support for that above. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 09:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh? So, do you think that that now getting a message that I have had 627 failed attempts to log into my account from a new device since the last time I logged in, happening to me ever since I got involved into this issue, is something that I should not focus too much on? It is a real issue for me. TP should probably be indeffed at this point, but that still leave us with the issue of how to stop such massive barrage of hacking attempts... Impru20^talk 15:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Close this sub-section. No hard evidence as a CU stated. The CBAN proposal was made solely based on now-unprovable hacking suspicions. This sub-section is now a distraction to above discussions. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 13:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

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

I realise this discussion has been closed, but I think this is an important addendum, based on checkuser evidence. The following failed login attempts over the past week (and frankly I suspect any others) can be definitely attributed to the troll LTA known as Architect 134 (the number of attempts in parentheses): 7&6=thirteen (30), Apaugasma (6), Banana Republic (25), Connorguy99 (51), DeCausa (24), Dumuzid (12), HapHaxion (69), HighInBC (12), Impru20 (12), Jeppiz (18), Jéské Couriano (6), Levivich (28), Montanabw (33), Paul August (24), TheDoctorWho (6). One suspects mischief rather than competence, but do make sure your passwords are secure, eh. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for pinging me. I was wondering why somebody tried to break into my account.

I have a high degree of confidence that my password is strong enough that unless billions of attempts are made, my account will not get broken into. Banana Republic (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I was wondering why I was getting so many failed login notifications. Changed my password just to be sure. Many thanks for the heads up! HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 20:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I also received at least 45 attempts to break into my account last week. I am involved in a dispute with Banana Republic (as can be seen above) so I would believe it if the reason for trying to break into my account was to use it to disparage them. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

They're certainly reading the thread, since those 6 failed attempts happened after I commented above. I'm not concerned, given I have a strong password. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 21:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I changed my password to a stronger one a couple days ago, so I feel relatively secure. However, the number of attempts I see in general does not match the assault I suffered today (the 627 figure was not an exaggeration, I had to took a screenshot of it as I did not believe my eyes). Has anyone else experienced such a large number of attempts? Impru20^talk 21:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Definitely more than I received. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 21:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

As the discussion above shows, checkuser can sometimes be a bit of a hit and miss affair, and I wouldn't claim I've provided a complete picture. Some of us have seen tens of thousands of failed attempts in a day before. My advice: stay secure, then ignore it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. As Impru20 notes, mine is way way more than 24. I also don’t feel an actual security concern because of the strength of my password. It’s more of an uneasiness about imagining hundreds of unhinged attempts of the person desperately tapping away in a basement somewhere with no hope of success. DeCausa (talk) 21:35, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I mean, when I say that this is not normal, it's because this-is-not-normal. Impru20^talk 21:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

So thankful that this has been cleared up. It has never happened to me before but over the course of a few days I must have had a couple of thousand (the highest at one time was about 650+ and I had a few of those, then loads of smaller numbers). Don't know why I was targeted when I am not such an active user. Connorguy99 (talk) 21:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I kept getting the notifications, at one point I think it said there were 87 failed login attempts. Wasn't really sure what was happening, but I changed my password that day. TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning for those who are unfamiliar with the concept, that WP:Committed identity can add an extra layer of peace of mind. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 11:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

MrsSnoozyTurtle

User MrsSnoozyTurtle is editing Mehmed Şevket Eygi in bad faith and deleting information according to her own POV. I’ve had multiple discussions with her and attempted to reconcile but she just will not budge. I’ve warned her too. Please have a look below for just an example of her vandalism:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1047670501

Thank you, 786wave (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• @786wave, if you are going to accuse MrsSnoozyTurtle of editing in bad faith we would need more diffs which you clearly haven’t presented, furthermore the diff that you presented which I believe you presume substantiates the vandalism claim doesn’t show MrsSnoozyTurtle vandalizing. Celestina007 (talk) 19:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• I assume the OP means this diff made on October 27, which the OP reverted today.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment [this comment] where 786wave called her "SleazyTurtoise" and accused her of being an anti-Muslim Islamophobe isn't exactly civil and doesn't speak well to the merits of this ANI complaint. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

isn't exactly civil. The OP's comment is a personal attack. They have been blocked before for making personal attacks and, in my view, should be blocked again. doesn't speak well to the merits of this ANI complaint. I disagree as I think the attack by the OP and the change to the article by MST are discrete issues. MST's change was absolutely wrong. You do not say such things in the opening sentence of an article. MST added a bunch of refs, which I haven't looked it, but the subject's alleged anti-semitism isn't even mentioned in the body of the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• On Talk:Mehmed Şevket Eygi, I see MrsSnoozyTurtle consistently being very friendly and patient, while I see 786wave being consistently uncivil, dismissive, and rude. It took 786wave three edits to finally make clear where they supposedly had already answered MrsSnoozyTurtle's concerns, actually pointing to a unilateral post that merely makes a number of assertions with no basis in policy. Then today, as also pointed out by Adamant1, 786wave went for a straight personal attack. I believe 786wave should be given some time off. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:11, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment There is absolutely no evidence of MrsSnoozyTurtle editing in bad faith; 786wave's accusations are made of thin air. However, I suggest having a closer look at 786wave's edits – I think that he needs to be blocked because of his personal attacks. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 21:15, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment These two editors have been long-term edit-warring on that article, with 786wave more often at fault; that said I would hesitate to endorse a BOOMERANG as the motivation for the report is a diff by MrsSnoozyTurtle that was correctly reverted by 786wave (and should be discussed on talk before being restored). User:力 (powera, π, ν) 21:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Originally 786wave created the article after a failed AfC. Then they edit warred MrsSnoozyTurtle when she tried to put notability and POV templates on it. Which led to MrsSnoozyTurtle doing a PROD for the same reasons. The PROD was subsequently removed by 786wave because the person "was a respected journalist and intellectual whise writings and books are all over the internet and his funeral was attempted by numerous heads of state." None of which seems like a valid reason why Mehmed Şevket Eygi would be notable. In the meantime, 786wave has been warned and blocked multiple times for edit waring. He's also called people who left him messages on his talk page ignoramuses, among other things.

As far as particular edits in the article goes, MrsSnoozyTurtle removed an un-sourced personal claim about Eygi being the instigator of the events referred to in the non-fictional biography work Mr. Pipo. Which 786wave reverted because apparently removing un-referenced personal claims is vandalism. So while I agree the one edit by MrsSnoozyTurtle wasn't great, taken as whole it's clear that a lot of this could have been avoided if 786wave hadn't of created a non-notable article after it failed an AfC, inserted un-sourced personal comments, Etc. Etc. The edit waring and insults hasn't been confined to this particular article or MrsSnoozyTurtle either. It just seems to be the general way 786wave deals with things. So IMO a BOOMERANG is warranted. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment The nominator should be boomeranged for making personal attacks, especially considering they've been blocked before for that same reason. Otherwise, it seems like a content dispute better handled at WP:DRN. Curbon7 (talk) 05:51, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - Calling another editor a vandal in order to "win" a content dispute is in itself a personal attack. I agree with the other editors who say that a block of 786wave is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Yes boomerang for the PA, but lets not ignore this edit. That is quite clearly POV editing of a BLP (OK died in 2019, but the edit is still very POV) and should not be ignored jut because the other editor was uncivil. Aircorn (talk) 15:53, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@Aircorn: If your talking about MrsSnoozyTurtle's claim of him being anti-Semitic, he was apparently pretty vocal about his dislike of Turkish Jews. to quote him "The Sabbateans have a monopoly over Turkish society. The Turks themselves live like the subject population of British India. Secular measures are always the will of Sabbateans because a real Turk, even an atheist Turk, would never do so much harm to Turkey." That sounds pretty anti-Semitic to me. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

That is not how we add information to a biography and was rightfully reverted. It is quite clearly undue and violates lead as nothing is mentioned in the body. It contains red flags of someone editing with a POV - inserting directly to the lead, removing journalist to replace with a more generic writer, citation overkill and using cites that are unreliable or don't seem to support the claim as written (the best I could find was "pro islamist"). Maybe there is a case to mention views, but do it in the body and with context. Aircorn (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

In case your interested I got the quote from [here]. I think it's a reliable source. It's not surprising that there isn't anything that specifically says he's anti-Semitic. That's not usually how it goes. For example on Richard B. Spencer's article, he is called a neo-Nazi, anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist, and white supremacist. He claims he's none of those things though and most papers don't refer to him as such per say. He's mainly referred to in the media as a "White nationalist." Probably because they don't want to be sued for libel. But's its still fine to put the other terms in the lead of his article. Outside of that, maybe she was planning on adding better sources and mentioning it in the article later, but decide not to because 786wave revert her, called her an anti-Muslim Islamophobic, and opened this ANI report. Should she have just ignored all that and continued editing the article? --Adamant1 (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Just a quick note from my side: The sources that MrsSnoozyturtle added are, in general, reliable. However, the way they have been added is not ideal, and I'd agree that it's POV editing. The opinion presented in these sources is very extreme (i. e. they describe Eygi as an antisemite and neonazi), and I think that it is absolutely mandatory to precisely explain whose opinion that is. Nonetheless, I get the feeling that the OP is a pro-Turkish POV editor: In this edit, the OP introduces the wording "radical seculars", and removes the category "conspiracy theorists". Another editor reverted that, which the OP thought was a reason to pull that editor to ANI ([119]). Other edits also indicate that the OP is unable to accept that adding certain referenced content to articles is not vandalism. Maybe topic-banning the OP would be a good idea. I'd support that. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 19:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Whether the person promotes anti-semitism and conspirocy theories is not really the issue. The way that MrsSnoozy has presented that information is. I am at a disadvantage as I can only read the English sources they cited, but none of those are sufficient to make such a claim [120][121][122]. While the above quote is there, it is not nearly enough. And yes sources need to explicitly say they are an antisemitic or a conspiracy theorist, otherwise it is all just original research. I am not arguing against a block of 786 for the personal attacks, but in my opinion the civil POV pushing from MrsSnoozyturtle is much worse than the OPs POV pushing when comparing the diffs provided. Aircorn (talk) 22:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that it wasn't a little POVish or that the sources where the best, but those are issues that can and probably would have been resolved through the normal editing process. 786wave wouldn't have allowed the information to stay on the page even if it was well sourced and mentioned in the body of the article anyway though. So it's really a mute point. As far as if the sources need to explicitly say someone is anti-Semitic or not, I've given you one example where they don't and the article says the person is anti-Semitic. If you want another there's David Duke. One of the references there is to an article by the Southern Poverty Law Center, who goes out of their way to connect David Duke to anti-Semitism without actually saying that's what he is. It would be ludicrous though to say that sentences like "He also made a presidential bid on the virulently racist and antisemitic Populist Party" or "Scalise spoke as an “honored guest” to the European-American Unity and Rights Organization (EURO), a racist and antisemitic group once led by Duke" aren't drawing the conclusion that he's anti-Semitic even though they don't specifically say so. Same goes for saying that it's wrong to synthesize that opinion in the David Duke article because it's not 100% explicitly clear. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse a Boomerang on OP, I believe ANI makes it explicitly clear that one who deems it fit to file a complaint here should know their own edits would be scrutinized as well. Following the diffs brought to light the WP:PA's are egregious. Celestina007 (talk) 18:27, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose sanctions as a warning to both editors will be sufficient at this stage as there are faults on both sides. Blocks should be a last resort not a speedy go-to fix in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki-Libre oficial: vandalizing pages related to Spain in the Americas with plausible-looking hooey.

Brand new editor Wiki-Libre oficial (talk · contribs) has been vandalizing articles related to Spain in the Americas with plausible-looking hooey which doesn't check out. Also knows almost nothing about wiki-editing, does things like inserting fake citation-numbers using text superscripting. I reverted a couple, after researching them, but they were reverted back. -- M.boli (talk) 22:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

This does look like some combination of vandalism or nationalist POV pushing, plus their username likely violates WP:MISLEADNAME. Woodroar (talk) 22:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 09:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Kent2121

• Kent2121 (talk · contribs)

User is seemingly trying to WP:GAME extended confirmed.^{[123][124][125][126][127][128][129][130]} –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

MJL, It's either that or WP:COMPETENCE, either way I think we need a block so we can work out what's going on. Go back to this revision of their user page to see noticeable warnings such as vandalising Talk:Main Page - that's a red flag right there. Oh, and there's a bit of sockpuppetry in there too. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

This 2017 ARCA seems to suggest the community can decide when/if EC status can ever be revoked. The point of EC is to establish basic familiarity with regular editing before jumping into controversial topics: if an editor obtains EC by pointless +1/-1 revision spam in sandboxes then presumably they haven't met the intent of the right and risk having their EC status revoked until they do. This would solve issues like this current one without needing actual blocks. Or is there some more recent decision that prevents removal of EC userrights? -- Euryalus (talk) 03:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Ritchie333, for doing the needful. I warned them in the diff you cited because they tagged the main page for CSD and was immediately reverted. They were doing some other dubious stuff. Never got an explanation but based on the nonsensical unblock request, WP:COMPETENCE. Jip Orlando (talk) 14:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

User:ZX2006XZ and Buck Wild

• ZX2006XZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Draft:The Ice Age Adventures of Buck Wild (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This draft is a draft about an unreleased film, and has already been declined five times by three reviewers, who have cautioned the originator to stop resubmitting until the film is released. The originator, who has been the subject of other recent discussions about resubmitting drafts that have not been improved, has renamed this draft, but has otherwise only made trivial changes, and so is continuing to resubmit what is actually the same draft tendentiously. I don't want to take the draft to a draft deletion discussion, because the film will be released in early 2022. I am instead requesting that the originator, who has been warned, be partially blocked from editing this draft (which would block resubmission and moving). Robert McClenon (talk) 06:20, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

They are not understanding the AfC process. I would be more for blocking them from submitting articles until they become familiar with the basic guidelines and policies. – The Grid (talk) 07:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I should probably stop submitting for now. ZX2006XZ talk, 13:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: If I remember correctly, I started a thread about this a few months ago. It was in relation to this exact draft. [131] I would ask for a p-block until January 28th, 2022, given that's the expected release date of the movie. When that occurs this issue will more or less be mooted. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 01:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Chess - Thank you for looking it up. Yes. I see that at that point they apologized and said that they would work on improving their drafts. Some of us said that that thread should be closed with a final warning. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I see that the editor in question has occasionally used user talk pages, so they do know how user talk pages work. The previous thread seems to have been archived without administrative action, but the editor should have understood that they were warned. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

The editor said above "I should probably stop submitting for now", but they didn't mean it, because they just submitted Buck Wild again. Maybe they have a little brother. Or maybe they are a little brother. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Their little brother resubmitted logged out, which would have evaded a partial block if there had been one. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Monarer - unsourced additions & CIR

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

I reported Monarer to ANI last month (thread) but the report (about continued unsourced edits [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] [138] despite warnings) was archived without action. They still add unsourced stuff to articles [139] [140] [141], and they generally just make incompetent edits (changing a translation to a wrong one; adding info sourced to a review that does not support the claim) that need to be cleaned up. A quick look at their contributions shows that the great majority have needed reverting: they are a net-negative to this project. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm issuing a final warning here, if it continues I'll block per WP:CIR. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:51, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Joe Walz edits continue under User:SpiroAgnew1980

Hello. Over the last several years, several Wikipedia accounts, all tied to verified sockpuppet GeraldFord1980 have continued to make several edits referencing "Joe Walz" on articles relating to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This continues to be done by using legitimate sources to attempt to legitimize rubbish content, which causes frequest page disruptions. I have twice commented on the talk page of the user in question to ask him to stop his disruptive editing, but around the same time I left those comments, there were no less than 3 additional edits from this user in the same vein. This user is not here to constructively contribute to such articles, and is instead clearly focused on doing everything within his power to disrupt such content. It also seems like we no sooner get one account of this sock blocked before one or more additional accounts doing the same types of damage are created and used to further disrupt page content. I'd strongly suggest the user in this case be immediately and permamently blocked, and am hoping there is a way to nip this situation in the bud so it doesn't keep happening. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

SpiroAgnew1980 indeffed by Blablubbs. Deor (talk) 21:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Magherbin disregarding the need for RS and weaponizing SPI

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

A while back, I happened upon an uncited mention in Ahmad ibn Ibrahim al-Ghazi that this historical figure belonged to the Abadir dynasty. I pinged Magherbin, the editor who added this to the article, to ask for a source. Since no reliable source was forthcoming, there was a short back-and-forth, during which Magherbin suddenly lashed out [142]: if editors are going to show up pushing Somali POV, i'll continue cleaning up these pages. [...] Its clear you're a Somali POV pusher masquerading as a neutral editor. How are you an RSN volunteer within 4 days of creating an account? The nationalist editors cant distort history here, [...] its up to you guys, if you push a misleading narrative especially on talk pages, I cant allow false information to remain in the articles. Its no surprise that this page is sock prone. Thinking not too much of it, I looked a bit further for sources, eventually finding that the 'Abadir dynasty' itself does not seem to have ever existed. I proceeded to nominate the Abadir dynasty article (which was wholly written by Magherbin) for deletion.

After this closed as delete yesterday, Maghrebin opened an SPI against me. Now the closing admin of this SPI found the evidence presented unconvincing enough that the filing borders on a personal attack (the filing contained aspersions that went beyond socking like the problem with these socks is not that they're just socking but are highly disruptive). But what I find much more concerning is that Magherbin seems to believe they are fighting sock farms that were maintaining bias in the horn of africa section in articles which I have improved somewhat now (emphasis added) [143], echoing their earlier i'll continue cleaning up these pages. Yet it's them who created an article that was basically a hoax and added unsourced (and unsourceable) links to this on various pages [144] [145] [146] [147].

In their unblock request back in January 2020, they stated that Many of the articles related to the Horn of Africa either have misleading information or sometimes just made up facts hence I felt that I needed to correct them without harassment from editors by opening another account. Since, they've accused Ayaltimo of sockpuppetry twice [148] [149], as well as Ragnimo (in both previous diffs) and GoldenDragonHorn [150], all without any consequence. In their accusation against GoldenDragonHorn, they stated that What I find interesting between GoldenHorn and the other two editors is their agenda to discredit Arab influence on Somalia by pushing fringe theories on multiple articles, backing this up with a diff of GoldenDragonHorn pointing out the unreliability of sources upon which these Arab founding myths are based. This, assuring that these Arab founding myths are properly represented as myths rather than as history (which would be pseudohistory), is exactly what I've been trying to with regard to these articles (further explanation & diffs in my reply here). It seems that rather than creating socks themselves, accusing others of sockpuppetry is now Magherbin's way of trying to evade the 'harassment' of other editors.

This combination of tone deafness when being pointed out the unreliability of sources, or even the non-existence (at least in RS) of a concept they wrote an entire article about, with weaponizing SPI to try to get rid of those trying to point out problems is, in my view, completely unacceptable. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Consistent with this editor's behavior and the revelation of three separate DS notices, I've issued a two week block for for their editing behavior. A reminder that per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Horn of Africa persistent long term abuse on or concerning the Horn of Africa may be handled with ARBCOM imposed discretionary sanctions. For now, in accordance with that ARBCOM ruling, I've logged the blocked at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2021. @Bbb23: If thera re socks involved, could this be one of the previously ID farms? TomStar81 (Talk) 03:16, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• @TomStar81: I'm afraid I don't understand to what you're referring.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Sorry, I should have clarified that I was asking if this looked like either Middayexpress or MustafaO, however after a closer look I decided to block the reported account for DS violations and to request the ARBCOM take a look at the Horn of Africa region once more. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Just a quick note that since this is not by any means a temporary problem, a temporary block isn't likely to solve much, in my view. It would be greatly appreciated if someone would look into this a bit further. Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• Found it! Took me two days, but I did finally manage to track this down: Megherbain was named as a suspected sock account in 2020, believed to be part of the MustafaO farm known to have been active late last year. He came up in the carpet bombing campaign that saw Ragnimo, Ayaltimo, GoldenDragonHorn, and WonderingGeljire hit with sock accusations. In that campaign, it was noted that he had ties to Middayexpress, and the report of April 02, 2019 shows a CU which did in fact identify this user as part of the Middayexpress sock farm for which he was indefblocked. Of great interest here is that the other alleged sock at the time was globally locked - yes you read that right, globally locked - in July 2019 for cross wiki abuse, which then begs the question...why is this account still being allowed to edit? I see in the block log a standard offer which @ST47: accepted in January 2020, but given the other block I am curious to know why the indef block was not re-instituted? TomStar81 (Talk) 14:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• @TomStar81: Just a few corrections. I never found that Magherbin was a sock of Middayexpress or MustafaO. I found that Magherbin was confirmed to Lokiszm7 and a couple of others, which Magherbin later admitted to when he requested an unblock in January 2020. I don't know why Magherbin's standard offer unblock request was granted, but if you think of that group of accounts as being a separate sock farm, Maghberbin was the master. Normally, if we're going to unblock any account, we unblock the master.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Bbb23: Fair point, but I dare say at the moment both of us need to hear back from ST47 about why this account was unblocked. I can't figure out why, and it looks like you can't either. If it should transpire that this is enough to show the standard offer has been violated then it would be grounds for a perma block, but I want to hear from the others first. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• @TomStar81: If it should transpire that this is enough to show the standard offer has been violated then it would be grounds for a perma block. I'm not sure I understand what "this" is. When I said I didn't understand why he was unblocked, I meant only that I hadn't looked into that aspect of it. He was unblocked because there was a consensus to do so at the time. It seems like there is a bit too much negative innuendo here. It's not that I'm opposed to an indefinite block or a topic ban; I just want to make sure everyone has the facts straight.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

That's why all I've done is block for disruptive editing and propose a topic ban. I'm too close, and this needs another set of eyes and hands to make a fair judgement. Its up to the community now. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:22, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@TomStar81: I'm not sure why you're pinging me. The unblock log links to the discussion of their successful standard offer appeal. See WP:SO. ST47 (talk) 05:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Bbb23 that the negative innuendo is not helpful. Magherbin was cleared from socking long ago and this should not be what this ANI's about. I've asked TomStar81 to collapse these comments here, but it seems they've logged off shortly before I wrote my message. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposal for Topic Ban

In light of the above and on the assumption that the block will not evolve into a ban, I would propose a topic ban for Megherbin from all Horn of Africa pages, broadly construed. If they are a constructive editor, that should solve the issue by keeping the editor off the pages. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support - seems so obvious per the above, I'm surprised we even need to have a discussion about it. I guess having permanent Horn of Africa DS will help with this sort of thing in the future. Levivich 15:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. I'd personally like to see this limited to ethnic conflicts and military conflicts in the Horn of Africa, given that most of the diffs linked appear to be about figures who engaged in ethnic/military conflicts in the Horn of Africa. I don't really see the benefit in a ban from ALL articles related to the Horn of Africa; we wouldn't give a t-ban from British isles-related articles broadly construed if an editor was acting disruptively on articles related to the Anglo-Scottish Wars. If we really want to give this editor the opportunity to behave constructively, we shouldn't ban them from editing any articles whatsoever related to the region they're likely from. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 00:22, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Chess: the focus is rather historical: the Abadir dynasty (AfD) was about a supposed dynasty started by the semi-legendary medieval saint Abadir (regarded by the Ethiopian Harari people as their ancestor), which the article claimed to have ruled eastern Ethiopia since the Middle Ages into the 19th century (in historical reality, eastern Ethiopia was ruled by a succession of different sultanates in that period, often finding their impetus in conquests starting from what is today Somaliland). A good comparison would be an editor tampering with historical articles relating to the Balkans, pushing (e.g.) a Serbian narrative. Note that they almost immediately assumed an editor pointing out that we have no source for stating that the 16th-century conqueror of Ethiopia Ahmad ibn Ibrahim al-Ghazi (whose background is unknown and whose real inspirations were actually religious rather than ethnic) should have been part of this 'Abadir dynasty' (and thus himself in a way an 'Ethiopian') to be a Somali POV pusher [151].

Now it is well known that users who edit from such a perspective will generally also take a battleground approach over the proper origin of food articles or a piece of clothing. But it's true that there's no evidence of that presented here (Magherbin's last 500 edits are almost exclusively to historical topics and Ethiopic/Somali ethnic groups), so it makes sense to me to limit the topic ban. However, this should not impede us from discerning that ethnic conflicts are fueled by competing historical narratives, and that a topic ban should thus certainly include a ban from historical articles.

What about a topic ban from Horn of Africa pages related to history, military conflicts, and ethnic groups, broadly construed? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

User Çerçok continues on personal attacks and disruptive editing after block

Hi, the user Çerçok (talk · contribs) continue the similar behavioural pattern of personal attacks to other users now [152] and commenting on other people nationalities[153] after the week long block[154] that he got for the very same reasons and when he personally attacked me[155]. Thanks Othon I (talk) 09:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I see nothing objectionable in Çerçok's postings. They are an accurate reflection of your own disruptive behaviour and that of the other editor involved. We certainly need bans and blocks in this area, which has been rife with national tag-teaming for years, and your own tag-team is the first that needs to be taken out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I did not expect this petty behaviour from you. No wonder why you take sides instead of being neutral and you harassing me too but I have expressed my opinion about your manners previously. If you didn’t not notice the user has been banned for personal attacks and he made a personal attack to another user again. It’s a shame that this kind answer come from an admin. Othon I (talk) 11:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Othon I: As an uninvolved editor, I don't really see an issue with Çerçok's posts. Your reaction to the "commenting on other people nationalities" one is particularly weird, as it is merely a statement of fact- if Editor X explicitly identifies that they are Canadian (such as through an infobox on their userpage) calling them an Canadian Editor would certainly not constitute a personal attack. However, I do have an issue with your behavior and tendency to push POVs, and agree with Future Perfect that intervention is probably needed to stop this kind of behavior. Perhaps a T-Ban may be in order. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 13:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance but really? What kind of POV am I pushing? Or where am I disruptive? Can you point me out? Even for a specific edit I have requested DRN and none even cared. If you believe that the right decisión is to ban me please proceed. But check my history for the last 5 years that I am editing. I have not even added anything without achieving consensus first. About Cercok, he personally attacked me before and then he personally attacked another user. The comment on nationalities you can find it as the reason of his previous ban. Othon I (talk) 13:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive edits; attempts to disclose purported real-life identity

Following my (sourced) edits on topics related to the Romanian far-right, recently created User:Danielbughi999 engaged in a pattern of subtle yet disruptive edits. He/she/they repeatedly refereed to me as "Bogdan" (a common Romanian first name) and left me an invitation to join the Inteligence Task Force[156]. Since the account has so far been used exclusively to stalk my edits, I basically see this as a way of subtly sending the message "we know who you are, we have our eyes on". While I'm in no way intimidated I saw fit to report this. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 09:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Scrubbed and shown the door. El_C 13:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Disruption at South African farm attacks

This IP is disrupting the South African farm attacks page with expletive laden edit summaries, insults and such. I can't be bothered going back and sorting them and the vitriol out every ten minutes. They just seem intent pushing their POV. Loudly. see Special:Contributions/2A02:C7D:200A:5500:88BB:5F1B:5FE6:CAE4 Mako001 (talk) 12:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I revdel'd and made a dummy edit note. But Mako001, you say I can't be bothered going back and sorting them and the vitriol out every ten minutes, but that IP has made a total of two edits (ditto for the /64). Are there prior edits I've overlooked? El_C 13:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

This popped up on my watchlist as I had left a note on IP editor’s talk page asking them not to swear in their edit summaries. I had only seen two edits from the IP. Equine-man (talk) 13:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

It seemed like that was going to be the case, (as they had rapidly proved themselves to be intent on pushing their POV with a large stick) but they have now shut up, for a bit. Maybe getting a level 4 for their latest edit, followed by the deletion of that and moving it to AIV got the message across that they should probably stop. I can't exactly continue to AGF when they have used an f-bomb loaded edit summary like that one. I would like to WP:RPP due to the persistent disruption on the page. Almost every edit when unprotected is either an IP adding POV rubbish, or someone reverting said rubbish. I would recommend indef protection, due to the fact that it either stops or slows greatly when protected, with no loss of positive contributions, but resumes as soon as protection is lifted, and it has been protected five times now. Strictly speaking though my comment was inaccurate, so I have struck it. Mako001 (talk) 13:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree those short protection periods seem inadequate for this kind of article; I've semi'd it for a year. Bishonen | tålk 13:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC).

Edit conflict at Joy of Satan Ministries

Bluefin9 and IP vandals repeatedly removing content from article and refuse to come to any resolution despite proposal to debate the conflict on talk page. I've tried to reach out to user's talk page with no avail. Similar issue was also brought up by other IP editor but was dismissed by Spencer. Possible alt accounts. Editor refuses to come to any resolution with disputed content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueGhast (talk • contribs) 16:17, 14 November 2021 (UTC) — BlueGhast (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

To provide additional context, the removed content includes links to hate sites associated with the Joy of Satan group, full of antisemitic rants and quotes from false sources such as the Elders of Zion. User above insists that these are meant for further research, but they appear to be using the page for recruitment purposes. --Bluefin9 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I should state that editor is blanking entire section, including official site, under an emotional conviction. There are some I can understand and was willing to work with, but some are integral to the article. The links are intended to provide readers further research into understanding the controversial religious groups ideology, as well as its influence in the development of the theistic Satanist scene. BlueGhast (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider any of those links to be appropriate per WP:EL. Woodroar (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

How so? I do not see why the official website would not be appropriate to the least. As well as its secondary official web page. The BFS site is the organization's official webpage for providing readers an understanding of their cultural reinterpretation of the ideology. The odysee link is also the organizations media platform. BlueGhast (talk) 16:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

This is a discussion for the talk page really, not this noticeboard, but FWIW: we tend not to include multiple sites for organisations like this. A single link to their official website would probably be permissible (I note this is already done from the infobox), but we don't need their media platforms or social media sites, etc. This is covered at WP:EL, and at WP:ELNO. The removals appear to be valid, and are certainly not vandalism. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Very well, EL section will only include official link. BlueGhast (talk)

We already link to the site in the infobox, so we don't need a second link. Note that we don't put a second link at Stormfront (website), for example. Woodroar (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Alright, but I do not understand the point of keeping the EL section then. I also do not understand why some other religious articles implement this as well.

Examples:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_of_Set

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Satan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Temple

Care to explain? BlueGhast (talk) 17:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

The external links section is useful for official links that aren't already in the infobox (or if there is no infobox), ELYES-appropriate links, etc. It's probably overkill to put official links in the EL sections of those other articles. At the same time, I'm not sure those other links are actively harmful, unlike a group with ties to National Socialism. Woodroar (talk) 17:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I should've said foremost, those links were added there due to a conflict with another editor over what the official site link under the infobox should be. The organization has quite a lot of official webpages for some reason but most notably are SIG and SL. Would it be okay to add the Satan's Library webpage then? It's a multilingual repository of the organization's religious sermons and material produced over the years and only very loosely ties with any major controversial issues. Also, is there any official policy on wikipedia to inform editors on content that is "actively harmful" BlueGhast (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

The library already is linked from their official website, so WP:ELMINOFFICIAL says no. Woodroar (talk) 20:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

This whole article is a mess. Unreliable sources, vanity press books, pseudo-academic journals from non-profits, primary sources, a Master's thesis that's not widely cited by other scholars, etc. A doctoral thesis is cited throughout the article but many of those citations are the author giving examples of primary sources or listing organizations, not his own opinion. Meanwhile, academic database searches like JSTOR and Google News return plenty of sources on "Joy of Satan" but none of them are used, which suggests serious POV issues. Woodroar (talk) 17:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Alright then, that leaves us with the JoS's secondary official website "Satanisgod.org" webpage which kinda serves as the organizations table of contents for users to navigate their various websites. This is also the link that I was having a conflict with other user who made me put them in the EL section. I think this would be more appropriate to the least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueGhast (talk • contribs) 22:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

The search bar at their main site link to and searches that site. Also, keep in mind that we're not here to serve as a directory to all of their sites. Our "job" on Wikipedia is to summarize what reliable, third-party published sources say about Joy of Satan Ministries, not be their mouthpiece. Woodroar (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I know this. But we must also provide readers the adequate material for further research should they desire. BlueGhast (talk) 00:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I've tried to make the most of the scarce amount of sources available, but I understand the article needs further work. I've tried reaching out on article talk page for more input and how to maintain a neutral pov, as I always do. BlueGhast (talk)BlueGhast

Also, article has passed review multiple times. The original article was also brought back from deletion by Liz after proving article had adequate credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueGhast (talk • contribs) 17:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

As I mentioned at Talk:Joy of Satan Ministries, this was a procedural restore, not a stamp of approval by Liz. Woodroar (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Your first step to resolve content disputes shouldn't be ANI. Since you're both new you should get a pass, but in the future, you should try resolving these kinds of dispute via other methods that do not require an admin to get involved. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution provides a list of ways to resolve disputes like this one. Once you get to this level of argument with more than two editors, the solution isn't to WP:EDITWAR but to start something called a WP:RFC on the talk page. This is a great way of resolving disputes, and will notify randomly chosen editors to either support or oppose a proposal you have. In this case, you might start an RfC with the template {{rfc|reli}} to indicate an RfC about religion. Then, you add a neutrally worded proposal below the template, such as "should we include external links to the Joy of Satan Ministries and other related organizations outside of the infobox?" After that, you can do something called a "!vote" where you explain your position on the issue and suggest what should be done, by either !voting support or oppose. Then, after 30 days (or earlier if the consensus becomes clear) the RfC will be finished; you can ask for it to be "closed" by an uninvolved editor at WP:CL, although most RfCs are much clearer in what needs to be done. I've gone ahead and set up an RfC for you on the talk page so you can see how it's done; please discuss the actual content issues there. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 00:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

CactiStaccingCrane disruptive editing

User CactiStaccingCrane is engaged in disruptive editing on SpaceX Starship; for more than a month now, they have opposed[[157] and repeatedly attempted to remove the "Criticism and controversies" section from the article despite clear opposition on the talk page[158] as well as a DRN case which concluded that there was no consensus for their proposed changes and therefore the criticism section should stay[159].

CactiStaccingCrane has been warned multiple times[160][161] that removing the criticism section without consensus is unacceptable and disruptive, but they have continued to do so, without any recent discussion on the talk page to attempt to gain consensus for their edits. They have acknowledged having a bias on subjects related to Elon Musk[162], and antagonized another editor in a separate article related to Musk's ventures[163].

Edit diffs:

• 24 October[164]
• 8 November[165]
• 13 November[166])

Stonkaments (talk) 18:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Stonkaments, you did not actually respond to my proposed compromises in discussions (see talk page and dispute resolution), and you just open the discussion and ghost us. In my opinion, it is a bit contradictory than what you claim that I'm being ignorant.

Feel free to refute me below. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

A search in ANI boards found out that Stonkaments has come to ANI pretty frequently and even being boomerang'd. (sort by time: [1], [2], [3]) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane: I laid out my arguments on both the talk page and the DRN for why the section is warranted, and both venues agreed there is no consensus in support of your edits. Nobody is under any obligation to continue an unproductive conversation based on your unwillingness to accept the talk page consensus (WP:DROPTHESTICK). Stonkaments (talk) 10:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Citation spamming & promotion by User:Crishazzard?

Greetings admins. I initially brought this concern up to User:Wtmitchell. I first came upon this potential issue when going back to an article which I helped bring up to GA status, Goat Canyon Trestle. Earlier this year a relatively novice editor made an addition to the article to a source which I was not familiar with, HikingGuy.com. The front page of the article has a statement:

Hi, I’m Cris Hazzard, aka Hiking Guy, a professional hiking guide.

This name matches the user name of the editor Crishazzard (talk · contribs). I have since removed it from the article, as whether it is a reliable source is debatable. If the user is the creator of the website, for that user it would be a primary source, thus potentially original research, and potentially promotion of their own website.
Looking at the editors other edits, the editor has added to other articles utilizing the same website (not all examples):

• Trans-Catalina Trail, diff
• Hot Springs Mountain, diff
• Desert Queen Mine, diff
• Palomar Mountain, diff
• Tahquitz Peak, diff

Now not all edits by this user have only been to add hikingguy.com to an article as a source, but a lot of them are, thus I believe there is potential for user improvement. Also, I don't think the user means to damage the articles they contribute to, but by continuing to add hikingguy.com to articles it is potential citation spamming. Is this a concern? Or, should I just move on to better usage of my time on Wikipedia?--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 19:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@crishazzard: I'm a primary source, doing original research, and contributing to articles. I'm not sure what type of promotion you think that I'd get from citation links. I can tell you it's probably zero. As a contributor who doesn't live in the Wikipedia universe regularly, seeing an "incident" like this is particularly disheartening, especially as a professional with first-hand experience on the various topics I've addressed. If my research is good enough for the Forest Service to plagiarize, I'm thinking that it's probably good enough for here. Also note, I've also contributed numerous times without citing HikingGuy.com, the website you are questioning as being promoted, which is the source of record for the trails that I've documented. Just let me know if I've violated the terms; I'm not interested in contributing if I'm being labeled a "spammer." I'm happy to back out all my edits and move on. Crishazzard (talk) 20:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Crishazzard: please see Wikipedia:No original research. I had mentioned above, that not all your edits have been to include the website, hikingguy.com, and that I beleive that edits were made in the attempt to improve articles. That said, by adding links to the website, as sources, and as external links (example), to the website that you are connected to it can be seen as citation spamming, and promotion of it, and thus a potential conflict of interest to promote your website, hikingguy.com.

As I stated again, I think you have the best of intentions in doing so, but perhaps this has made you aware of some policies and guidelines which you were not aware of before, and thus will avoid adding primary/original research to articles, and utilize other reliable sources in the future.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 22:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor here; there's not many cases where people can cite themselves. While I doubt you're actually trying to harm the encyclopedia or doing this in bad faith, we've had a lot of people who have come on here in the past and added citations solely because they want to improve their website's search engine optimization. Google may take Wikipedia citing a source as being an indication of reliability and so might advance it in search results. SEO experts believe this and so spend their time trying to sneak in references to their website. That's why we take such a hard line against it regardless of the reliability. Also, we generally don't take contributors' claims of first-hand experience into account. There was an issue a while back where that backfired (the Essjay controversy) and we eventually decided that it was better to just ignore people's credentials entirely and insist upon very strict sourcing standards that make someone's experience mostly irrelevant. This isn't a comment about you or saying you don't know what you're talking about; it's just we can't take your word for it due to issues we've had in the past.

A better way to contribute your unique knowledge might be by adding photos of the hiking trails/sites in question. Since we can't include copyrighted images made by others, there's an exception to WP:Original research that allows for editors to add photos based on other reliable sources of information or include images they've taken themselves. Diagrams based on existing reliable sources might also be useful. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 01:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

User:KIfanboy – Educational issue with new editor leading to disruption

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

This editor is fairly new and initially showed signs of a willingness to communicate and learn, but despite their responses early on, the behavior hasn't changed in regards to sourcing, content disputes, and moving articles. The editor has received at least 8 warnings to date, first regarding edit warring behavior in content disputes and then eventually over page moves and adding unsourced content. I attempted to provide additional information on how to cite sources, directing them to WP:REFB, and even suggested discussing page moves on article talk pages (or even mine) until the editor was able to get a better understanding of the process. All of this seems to be failing, as another page move was just performed earlier today despite all the communication. Here are some diffs of problematic edits:

• Fast Lane (Cedar Fair) – reinserting challenged content
• Kings Island – one of several attempts at ramming in a big change despite earlier warnings (was eventually semi-resolved through discussion)
• Kings Dominion – unsourced content
• Delirium (ride) diff1 – reverted page move
• Delirium (ride) diff2 – reverted 2nd page move
• Aqua Twist – reverted page move
• Skyscreamer – reverted page move
• The Flash: Vertical Velocity – reverted page move
• Kentucky Kingdom – reverted page move

Hoping someone can levy a final warning, offer assistance, or take any other appropriate action to help stem the disruption. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I mean, GoneIn60 does have a point, but blocking him won’t do any good. If someone different tries to help KIfanboy then maybe this would be better. All they are trying to do is help and if you keep scaring everyone who tries to help, then you won’t have anyone left to make the edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coasterlover101 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

To the surprise of nobody, the brand-new account joining us here is a sock of KIfanboy. I've given KIfanboy a week off for the deception, but this is not intended as a resolution to this AN/I thread. GeneralNotability (talk) 03:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

––FormalDude ^talk 03:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Massive deletion of Woody Woodpecker films

user:Trainsandotherthings has taken the result of one AfD and justified removing 100+ Woody Woodpecker films, simply redirecting all of them. The first two I reviewed both had reliable references and claims to notability. I am not bonded to the subject but feel that this absolute massive deletion effort removes a lot of referenced content. It's not merged, not saved, and the history shows only a minute or two in-between redirects. Not enough to read/analyze each article. The user says "most" are not well referenced, but I am not a fan of tossing baby out with bathwater. The user will not self-revert and before I go back and revert 100+ redirects manually, I would ask an administrator to have a look. Thank-you, in advance. Ifnord (talk) 03:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

This is a total waste of time. As I explained on my talk page, the vast majority of these articles utterly fail WP:N. I brought one of the articles in question to AfD before doing anything, and it closed with a clear consensus to redirect. To quote one user who posted at the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puny Express "Like most WW cartoons, it has no stand-alone notability but redirects are cheap". Can you see why I was motivated to make redirects? The two examples this user brought up were actually the two I was not 100% sure about redirecting, the rest were very clear and obvious. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

You know why there's only a minute or two between each redirect? Because almost all the articles were nothing but a plot summary, random notes like "Woody's neck was green in this cartoon" and nothing but 1 ref to an encyclopedia which covers all the Woody Woodpecker cartoons. Some were completely unreferenced. When there's that little, it's obvious there's not enough content present to support a standalone article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:23, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Since I'm being accused of not doing due diligence, feel free to review any of these diffs, all of which I stand by: [167] [168] [169] [170] [171] [172] [173] [174] [175] [176] [177] [178]. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm with Trainsandotherthings on this one. While redirecting all of them might have been a biy excessive, the articles in question are very poorly sourced, and don't fit the General notability guideline. Per WP:NOTE The man from Gianyar (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I will say that the two examples identified initially were edge cases (and that's why I left them for last, and why they were the first two examples Ifnord found). They are not typical of the remainder. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

This really needs to go to AfD if it's contested, and it appears that this is the case. A WP:BEFORE check should be done on each of the films that are being redirected; it's often better to expand poorly sourced articles that might wind up having SIGCOV rather than redirecting them on sight. I understand the desire to create redirects if there's poor sourcing, but if this is rapidly happening, this can make it a bit more difficult to undo in the case that there wasn't a clear community consensus in favor of mass redirects. In general, before making lots of changes across a great number of pages that are tedious to undo, a consensus should be reached before doing so. There is, of course, the risk that the AfD will turn into a WP:CLUSTERFUCK with over 100 articles if people aren't careful about doing a WP:BEFORE on each one, but it's the proper way to do this procedurally. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

From a quick sampling, I'd say that Trainsandotherthings suggestion that the articles 'utterly fail WP:N' looks plausible. Making this look like a content dispute to me, and not a subject for ANI. There are several Wikipedia:Dispute resolution options available, and perhaps Ifnord should try one: I'd suggest that rather than expecting people to look through the whole lot, Ifnord selects the best-sourced examples, and explains how they meet notability requirements. I'd also suggest that if the cartoons are actually individually notable, the relevant article has to explain why - what was the critical reception etc - and then cut back the ridiculously over-detailed plot sections to a short single-paragraph summary. That, or copy them (properly attributed) to Wikia or something, where fancruft belongs. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

As an appreciator of animation of that time period, I'm going to also have to agree that these redirects by Trains are appropriate, most of these shorts fail notability. That's not to say that a list of WW shorts, following the general principles of MOS:FILM/MOS:TV for short premises and adding any interesting notes to that "episode list". A few should probably be kept as articles if they have some type of production section with sources (eg The Barber of Seville (1944 film)) but the fact the plot is almost half the article content for a 7 minute short is extremely problematic per WP:NOT#PLOT. And as simply doing redirects rather than deletion that can be undone w/o admin intervention, this is not really an ANI issue, as mentioned above. There should be discussion going forward before back and forth reversion happens. --Masem (t) 03:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Reminder to the OP that WP:BLARs work similarly to WP:PRODs in that you can contest them. There is no need to "have an admin take a look"; if you truly think that any of the BLARs were wrong, then revert them yourself. Mlb96 (talk) 08:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Lightburst again

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

---

User:Lightburst was tBANned from deletion discussions on 4 November. One of the causes for that ban was various acrimonious discussions at AFD regarding Tuskegee Airmen. Yesterday I reviewed all the Tuskegee Airmen pages that I hadn't previously looked at, cleaned up many of them and PRODded five. Several of those PRODs were dePRODed by User:NemesisAT who gave a fair rationale for the DePRODs. I proceeded to nominate one of those pages for AFD: Jerome Edwards and made some further edits to the page. Lightburst then turn up on the page and reverted many of my edits:[179] restoring duplicated information, information about the P-40 plane that is fully covered in a link and changing the order. When I saw these changes today I defined Second lieutenant and again removed the information about the P-40: [180]. Three minutes later Lightburst reverted me and accused me of edit warring: [181]. I raised a discussion on the Talk Page: [182] and then reinstated my changes: [183]. Lightburst did not engage on the Talk page and just reverted my changes again saying I was edit-warring: [184]. Lightburst is clearly edit warring. Beyond those issues, there are basic competence/battleground/OWN issues with Lightburst which I think makes them incapable of reasonably editing the Tuskegee Airmen pages. For example:

1. unnecessarily replacing the aircraft image [185] and then changing their mind [186]
2. not understanding that you don't need to define a ref that is only used once: [187]
3. repeatedly adding the Congressional Gold Medal (2007) as if it was an individual award when it was a unit award given in 2006: [188], [189]
4. apparent inability to differentiate between reliable and unreliable sources: Talk:Herbert V. Clark#BF109 kill​
5. lying about image copyright status: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willie H. Fuller

In addition to their earlier statement that all Tuskegee Airmen are heroes and deserve pages shows that they cannot edit these pages in an objective manner. Accordingly in addition to their deletion tBAN, I believe that Lightburst should also be banned from editing any Tuskegee Airmen pages. Mztourist (talk) 05:11, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• This does not sit well with me, appearing somewhat like targeted harassment against someone who is already under sanctions so let's see what else we can pin on them. If you've sent this article to AfD then why insist on removal of content that will be deleted anyway. If there is edit warring then why not report at the edit warring desk? Polyamorph (talk) 07:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• #1 is not a big deal, #2 is a complete nonissue and arguably improves the article, #3 is nitpicking, #4 is debatable, and #5 is assuming bad faith. I haven't looked into the edit war, but your list of supposed issues strikes me as a whole lot of nothing. Mlb96 (talk) 08:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• Agree with Polyamorph & Mlb96. And the complaint of edit warring looks strained. Starting a talk page section where you say you'll immediately re-instate your change without waiting for reply is not following WP:BRD. (Admitedly I've done the same thing myself once or twice, not saying it's neccessarily bad editing, but technically it suggests youre the one who is bordering on edit warring). I would reccomend to Lightburst they consider stepping back from deletion adjacent activity for a few months, even though their tban explicitly allowed the to edit articles under threat, but this should be up to them. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• Is this really necessary? This looks like a content dispute. The deletion discussion you link to, where you accuse Lightburst of "lying about image copyright status", was already concluded by the time the thread before the last two ARS threads took place, i.e. the one that concluded with Lightburst's restrictions being placed. Everybody in that thread saw that discussion, and they evidently did not think it was compelling evidence to issue the expansive topic restrictions you propose here. Has anything at all changed since then, other than the fact that you're angry at them? I am also puzzled by the apparent claim that "not understanding that you don't need to define a ref that is only used once" is a sanctionable offense. Could you explain this in some more detail, @Mztourist:? jp×g 11:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• It now reads: "Congressional Gold Medal awarded to the Tuskegee Airmen in 2006" in these articles. Trying to remove any mention of the gold medal at all, instead of simply clarifying it was given to everyone, is a mistake you made Mztourist, no fault for Lightburst adding information about it, it just should've been clarified it sooner to eliminate he problem. And now that that problem has been solved, why mention it here at all? And he did not lie about the copyright status of the image in question. Common sense, they let a famous person visit them and pose for pictures at a military base. This was clearly a military publicity photograph, one of many like it made in World War 2. You arguing about it at File_talk:Lena_Horne_with_Tuskegee_airmen.png, and we having to waste time with a deletion discussion that ended with "The result of the discussion was: keep. With evidence found that shows that the image was published in 1945 and nothing to indicate it was registered for copyright, this is a PD image." shows you as a problem not him, at least in that particular case you decided to bring up. Dream Focus 13:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• Agree with what others have said. There's no need to get into the content dispute here. As for behavior, editing articles nominated for deletion is squarely outside LB's topic ban. More to the point, unless something is truly egregious (superfluous material is not), if you removed material that was there since the article was created and LB restored it, and you removed it again (twice) without finding consensus to do so, you're both edit warring and you're the one not following BRD. The article looks like it's headed for deletion anyway, so is this all really necessary? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I have to agree with the emerging consensus here: this seems like primarily a content dispute at this juncture. I'm not seeing any evidence of an intractable behavioural issue with regard to this editor and this subject matter (at least insofar as been evidenced here). It does seem that Lightburst violated BRD with regard to at least some of the content in question, and thus was arguably the person who initiated the edit war--something that they definitely are experienced enough to know is not acceptable. But that's a relatively minor matter that should have been taken to WP:AN3, not brought here and blown into the kind of proportion supposedly requiring a TBAN, which is a pretty serious sanction that would need to be justified by substantial disruption that can be arrested in no other way.

For that matter, Mz, are you certain you really want us focused on this? Because you were basically edit-for-edit matching them in that edit war, well past the point where the more likely sanction for this behaviour (a block) would be just as equally justified for you: "they started it" falls off as an explanation after your second revert. You know the procedure here: if you think someone is violated WP:EW to try to enforce their preferred version of content, you report the matter--you don't participate in and prolong the disruption, even if you think you are on the right side of WP:BRD and/or WP:ONUS. This matter should have been taken to the article talk page, not become the subject of an edit war and then an attempt by one of the edit warring parties to reach towards an unjustified sanction to remove the other editor from the subject area altogether. If you want, you can take the matter to AN3 now, but after engaging in the edit war yourself, you should be prepared for potential blow back. But I don't think your proposal here has a WP:SNOWBALL's chance, so your best course of action at this juncture is to engage on the talk page. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 13:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Mike Peel's undeclared automated edits make articles worse

Mike Peel is "correcting" links to commons in a bot-like manner, without enough (any?) control of what they are doing. After some people raised individual cases, I raised this as a general concern on their talk page yesterday[190]. While they improved some isolated cases, they ignored the bulk of the issue (neither replying to the post, nor actually and more importantly correcting their errors). This has happened on hundreds (thousands?) of articles, in many cases incorrectly. Apart from the ones in my post on their talk page (which show the botlike stupidity of some of these, e.g. this); other examples include (but aren't limited to):

• Removing the commons catgeory "former muslims" from the article "Ex-Muslims", because "Commons category belongs at Category:Former_Muslims"???
• The Commons cat "Flora of the Sonoran Desert" doesn't belong at List of flora of the Sonoran Desert Region by common name? The same has been done at many other list articles, apparently a "List of X" article is not allowed to have the commonscat for "X" for some reason...
• "Category:Lewitt-Him" is about the design partnership between Jan Le Witt and George Him. According to Mike Peel, the commons cat shouldn't be included with the Jan Le Witt article because it belongs at the George Him article???
• Obviously the Commons cat Tristan and Isolde doesn't belong on the article for Tristan alone[191]. No, it's much better for our readers not to have a Commons cat there at all than this terrible mismatched one.
• William Parks (publisher) may not have the Commons cat "William Parks". No, no, that Commons cat obviously should only be placed on... William Parks (publisher). This kind of stupidity, whether it is automated or done manually (and I sure hope that it was done automatically), is just terrible editing from an experienced editor.

As Mike Peel is not inclined to go systematically through his edits even when it has been made clear that way too many of them are clearly wrong (while many others are very debatable whether they are really better for our readers), and seems to be running an undeclared, unauthorized bot to do so, perhaps he can be topic banned from making such edits? Fram (talk) 09:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I have a policy of not engaging with/replying to Fram, since their comments are often deliberately inflammatory (as indeed this one is). Just to be clear, the edits are semi-automated, not automated. It's part of my general syncing of links between Wikipedia <-> Wikidata <-> Commons (few million done so far). I'm always happy to look again at individual cases when pointed to them. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:22, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The issue is that there are so many "individual cases" that it is not up to others to point them out one by one, but that you should look at all your edits again when it becomes obvious that they contain too many errors. And "semi-automated", meaning that you actually looked at these and decided that yes, these were good? Removing the Commons cat "Rivers" from River ecosystem[192], but at the same time leaving the commons cats for "Streams" and "Springs" is something you actually manually approved? Or this? This or this is better for our readers? You really manually approved all these semi-automated edits where you claimed that the link didn't belong in "X" but in ... "X"? Fine, then it isn't an undeclared bot but a stunning lack of competence. Fram (talk) 09:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

"the edits are semi-automated" This is a lie, or at best, a completely misleading description of the edits (the alternative, that Mike Peel is actively incompetent, is not one I am entertaining). They may be 'semi-automated' in that Mike Peel is actively approving them, but like many past abusers of semi-automated tools, he is not verifying that the individual edit should be made and is correct. He has a broad task he wishes to perform, he uses semi-automation to do it at a high rate, but the individual edits are not scrutinised before the edit is approved. To be fair to Mike, this is not specifically an issue with him, its an issue with editors in general using automatation on their editing account to do large scale tasks without even a nod at BAG. The purpose of BAG is to make sure large-scale automated and semi-automated editing is not disruptive, however BAG is largely uninterested except where a Bot is directly involved. Despite BOTPOL being very clear that it covers all automated and semi-automated editing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Only in death: I am happy to admit that I make mistakes, likely including the ones listed above (I want to double-check them this evening.) Note that I have to manually enter 'y' or 'n' for the edit to be saved or not - see [193], and similar in other scripts e.g., to change the link rather than removing it. I think that 99% of the edits I'm making are good, but some bad ones seem to have slipped through. I am happy to commit to a higher level of scrutiny with my future edits using this tool (I did get a bit carried away on Saturday evening). Note that I have a bot task approved that is related to this work (see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Pi bot 4) - I am using related code to that with this semi-automated work. I'd be happy for BAG to look through my semi-automated code if they want, but as you say they don't seem interested, and I don't know of a process for this. The work is not suitable for direct bot editing, since it has a high percentage of false positives that I am manually skipping and resolving in different ways (e.g., fixing things on Wikidata or Commons - see my contributions there during the same time period as my edits here). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

BAG is in the approval business, but not the enforcement business or the supervision business. If we get a request we'll review it for approval, but if an editor is operating a bot on their account (or a MEATBOT, or an unauthorised script, or similar) it's really an administrative issue to block the editor and/or require them to go through the BRFA process. A lot of bot-related issues would be solved sooner if this was more widely understood. I do agree there is a problem with some mass "semi-automated" editors more-or-less riding roughshod, and it being incredibly difficult to challenge those edits, and such edits probably not having consensus if they were discussed beforehand... but I don't know how you'd go about solving this. I don't think requiring it all to go through an approval process will work, due to sheer practicality constraints (BAG doesn't have the manpower. for reference: this was the list of outstanding BRFAs at the end of October). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• I have had hundreds removed: Hyett family from Painswick House (they built it), Philatelic expertization from The Philatelic Foundation‎ (that's what they do), East Barnet war memorial from Catherine Loveday (she is closely associated with its upgrading) etc. Maybe some of them aren't close enough but there doesn't seem to be a great deal of thought attached to this and it looks like Mike doesn't read the related article first. Saying he will correct them if anyone complains just isn't good enough. There have been a number of complaints on his talk before and he promised to stop but didn't. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @Philafrenzy: Those are clearly misplaced links to Commons. Another example might be 'Salisbury' from Robert Poynaunt - you've added a lot of links like that, and they really don't help the reader of the article to find media content that's actually related to the article. Catherine Loveday should really have a dedicated Commons category for the person - I'll look into setting that up this eve. "he promised to stop but didn't." - not true, I've said I'll try to do better, and I think I have been doing, but not that I would stop. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Mayor of Salisbury and twice its MP. They only have to be related and useful for the reader. We may differ on how close they should be but what about the others that have been mentioned? You did promise to stop in the depths of your talk page about a year ago. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:11, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• "he promised to stop but didn't." - not true, I've said I'll try to do better, and I think I have been doing, but not that I would stop. - Mike should now agree to stop. Levivich 13:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • And these need to be mass reverted going back to Sep 18, it looks like. A couple thousand. The error rate is very high. Edits like [194] and [195]. Just the underscore bug alone... I can't believe it's been two months and Mike is still doing it. Numerous complaints about this on Mike's talk page. Levivich 14:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
    • All of which I replied to (except for Fram's). Both of those edits look fine to me - those are misplaced links to Commons (the second article doesn't even have an image in it!). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
      • @Mike Peel: What do you mean both those edits look fine to you? Look again: Special:Diff/1046450932 and Special:Diff/1045110488. Those edits removed {{commons category}}. And it did it because your script isn't matching spaces and underscores. And this was two months ago. How does any of that look fine to you? I'm sorry but it's clear you lack the competence for this. Are you going to agree to stop making these edits or not? Levivich 15:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
        • @Levivich: It's nothing to do with spaces or underscores. Click on the links in the edit summary to see the places the links actually belong at. I really don't understand your comment here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:23, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
          • Oh I see, you're mass-removing every commons category link to Category:Foo unless Category:Foo matches the enwiki article title. I had AGF'd that your intent was to remove links to non-existent categories, but I see it's worse than I thought. Stop doing this now. I restored the two I linked to above, but there looks to be a couple thousand over the last two months, and I'm in favor of mass-reverting all of them. Levivich 15:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
            • That reminds me of the same problems we had with BetaCommand back in 2008-2009 when we started to require NFC rationales for all images (due to the new WMF resolution and requiring us to do this), but where Beta's semi-auto script would at times would fail to match the article title that the image was used in to the article title stated in the ratioanale, and I'm pretty sure that the community agreed then this is absolutely where a human should be reviewing these steps to make sure "simple" typos could be fixed, or the like. (I'd have to go back and look but that led to Beta's ban on semi-automated tools). This feels like the same problem. --Masem (t) 15:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
              • No, it's not blind removal, and it's not just matching article titles. It's whether the topics actually match each other, or whether the Commons category is above something else - which is what is the case here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
                • While what you may be doing is not stringing matching or the like, the errors being brought up are of the same "should have been easily caught if a human was doing it properly" that there was with BetaCommand. This is not to say you had to be error free, but the error rate here based on this thread is seemingly too high to suggest that you spent enough time before hitting "y" on your script to review if the change was appropriate. That's how the situation is comparable. --Masem (t) 16:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
                  • @Masem: OK, I've already said above that I'll commit to a higher level of scrutiny in the future before making these edits. Bear in mind that this has been a >3-year process so far, though, and is probably around 80% done - help with the remaining cases in Category:Commons category link is locally defined would be really appreciated! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

"99% of the edits I make are good"? That's extremely optimistic. I just reverted 2 edits here, where you deleted one of three commons cats incorrectly on 6 November (and left two similar ones), and then removed a second one 1 week later (and left one other). So it is obvious that this isn't a new issue or only happened last Saturday, but has been going on for quite a while (as evidenced by the other comments here). Or DB AutoZug, which according to the lead, "DB AutoZug GmbH was also responsible for the car transporter trains from Niebüll - Westerland, known as the SyltShuttle". Not good enough for you, apparently[196]. Helpful? Useful? Improving Wikipedia? Just what we need? Really? The tomb isn't part of the light house perchance? For crying out loud, you really believe that the Commons cat "Category:Solar energy in the United States" doesn't match sufficiently with our article Solar power in the United States [197]? "99%" good edits, unless you count the bad ones that is. Fram (talk) 14:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I hope it's clear to people reading this that Fram's comments are deliberately inflammatory, and are seriously lacking in AGF and any sort of constructive attitude. This is not new: it's been a trend for multiple years now, spread across multiple different topics (mostly anything with any connection to Wikidata). I've given up replying to them directly, since that doesn't seem to help - it just generates more of the same (as I expect this will, sadly, but it needs to be said). If we want to collectively step back and reassess how we're doing links to Commons, we can do that (I've already run multiple RfC's related to different parts of this topic to get wider consensus - I didn't think that was needed for this part of the work, but we can do another RfC if needed). But I don't believe this AN/I thread is the venue to do that, particularly given how Fram has framed the discussion (e.g., in the section name, and all of their comments so far). I will still commit myself to looking through the examples Fram has raised here, though, to see how those cases could be better resolved. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I've worked through the examples: some are good points, and I've reverted myself there. Others seem to be cases where there are two Commons categories, and it seems that I've removed the wrong one somehow - will have to double-check the code for that before I start running it again, but anyway I'd have caught these on my next pass through and would have fixed them. Others, I stand behind - they are cases where the Commons category really doesn't match the article, or where there's already another Commons category link that has this one as a subcat (we shouldn't be trying to replicate the Commons category tree structure here!). I also have a bunch of notifications of reverted edits from Fram, will look through those separately. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

before I start running it again I don't think you're hearing everyone saying not to start running it again. Levivich 18:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Levivich: I meant for 'if' to be implied there, but should have stated that. If I do run it again, I would do so much slower and more carefully, with a lot more manual edits associated with the work. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• I have also had to first undo an un-linking to a commons cat and then a mis-catting of commons cat link conducted by Mike Peel. I am now engaged in a discussion about it on his talk page - but to be honest, I do not think it is necessary. The un-catting should have never happened in the first place as it completely cut off the article from the directly related commons store - and with an edit summary of it not fitting the article. This was flatly false, and it very obviously did not have any sort of human/manual review before being conducted - and the edit summary is in direct contradiction to the truth. After seeing the ANI notice on his page - I went and looked at some of the other edits and have to agree that there is a very high error rate. This is very clearly scripted or partially automated - or at the very least being conducted without the necessary background and knowledge needed in order to execute these edits and de-linking to directly applicable commons cats. It appears gross and rampant in nature. I do not state this in effort to badmouth Mike directly - but simply to point out what the end & net result is & appears to be.

If the end-goal here is to try and trim down the commons store itself - isolating them from their related articles is the wrong way to do it. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• There seem to be many edits made here that remove relevant Commons categories from articles. Others remove less relevant Commons categories (most typically, natural parent categories of the "correct" categories). Generally it seems to me that most of the pages should have Commons links, and the links require refining (or creation of the corresponding Commons category) instead of removal. Mike seems to be doing this work too fast and should immediately stop. Also, some of Mike's work seems to be based on article titles instead of article content (see the history of Mixing console) and that doesn't look like a particularly good idea either. The error rate certainly is not acceptable; if this were done using AWB I would have removed access already. —Kusma (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with this - he too often does not look at, or take in, the articles he is messing with (or the Commons categtories for that matter). He also tends to assume that where he perceives a disjoin between Wikidata, Commons & en:wp, we are the one which should be changed to "fit in" - more often it is the other way round. In fairness, he denies this. Johnbod (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• No, Mike, it's not at all clear here that "Fram's comments are deliberately inflammatory", because most of Fram's comments appear to be accurate, as are the very large number of comments from other editors pointing out errors in your "semi-automated" editing. The whole point of semi-automated editing is that a human checks the edit for accuracy, and it's equally very clear that you aren't checking your edits sufficiently and therefore introducing either actual errors, or removing categories that are valid for that article. Frankly, since this appears to go back a significant amount of time, I'd suggest it might be a good idea that unless you can decrease your error rate to an acceptable level, you stopped doing it ... after, of course, spending some time fixing the dozens of errors. Black Kite (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @Black Kite: Look at the phrasing of Fram's comments. I'd note that there are WP:OWN issues with some other people's comments here (look at who started the articles). I accept the issue with the too-high error rate: I've been working back through cases raised here already, and will continue doing so. If I continue with this, I'll go a lot slower and make sure my error rate is much lower. I'd also appreciate any suggestions you or anyone else has for getting more people involved in this work. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• "I hope it's clear to people reading this that Fram's comments are deliberately inflammatory, and are seriously lacking in AGF and any sort of constructive attitude" - however, it's also my observation (and I think I've told him this publicly) that Fram tends to be at his most abrasive when he is 100% right. I don't understand how any of your edits actually help the encyclopedia; indeed, they seem to removing references to additional images and pictures that might benefit the reader. What gives? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @Ritchie333: "most abrasive" is a weird way to put it: it implies friction but in a positive way (finishing/polishing), and I can't see how that excuses such behaviour. The edits linked to here are a choice selection from my edits here: have a look at my contributions record directly if you want to get a more comprehensive view. My aim is to generally improve the links to Commons (as someone that has also significantly contributed to Commons), and I've been correcting links extensively over the last three years - but some links do just need removing, as they aren't helpful to readers or editors. The cases and the issue here are mostly where I'm removing the links, where I've been over-zealous in doing so and have made mistakes. I'll be more careful with doing this in the future. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• I complained to Mike Peel about one of these edits a couple of weeks ago, and his response was helpful and collaborative, so I don't think there's a problem there – he is prepared to fix errors when they're pointed out, as he says. That said, I hadn't appreciated the scale of the problem, nor that it was being done by semi-automated means. That just isn't OK: if there's a category mismatch that can be fixed without evaluation then we can get a bot to do that; other cases clearly need careful review, which probably includes reading the article and checking the related image categories. It's the failure to take that necessary care that has led to so many complaints. Apart from a request to Mike to now please stop making these changes in this way, I've a few suggestions (probably already made above):

1. stop worrying about this – we get a red warning message in edit view when Wikidata has muddled things up, and anyone who has time can go and fix that;
2. assume that Wikipedia is right, that Commons might be, and that Wikidata is not, then act accordingly;
3. add a |wd=no parameter to {{commons category}}, for use when we want to link directly to Commons without worrying about what Wikidata thinks of that; or
4. revert {{commons category}} to this version (I think?) and leave Wikidata out of the loop.

Mike, I'm no template editor, but to my inexpert eye it looks as if all this is you working to fix problems that you created yourself by editing that template. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• You say, "stop worrying about this – we get a red warning message in edit view when Wikidata has muddled things up, and anyone who has time can go and fix that;". I am not a big fan of fixing it after it is broken when it could be prevented in the first place. There is plenty of other work we all have to do on the project without having to take this mentality. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 21:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Picard's Facepalm, I mean of course "stop worrying about categories not being synchronised with Wikidata" – there's no urgency for that. Mike has been asked by several people to stop making these edits, so I'm sure will not be breaking anything else. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: If you want to go back to a non-Wikidata version of the template, you need to go back nearly a decade, to [198]. However, there have been multiple RfC's about that (see the template talk page history), and I don't think that's the controversial part here. You also seem to be missing that I've been making thousands of changes on Wikidata to correct links there - I've not been assuming that any project is right, but that all three could be wrong, which matches reality. Wikipedia is definitely not always right here. But I'll stop the removals now (see below). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Mike Peel: there's a pretty strong consensus in this thread that the commitment to be more careful is not enough. Please stop doing this task at all, at least until you've had a chance to review all the previous edits and fix the errors they've caused. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Euryalus: OK, my understanding is that the removal of the template is the most controversial: I'll stop doing that. I'd like to continue changing them as necessary, but much more carefully: that has had very little pushback since I've been doing it, and I think is helpful here - but I can stop that as well if need be. I think the bot task is completely uncontroversial (no-one wants to see a broken link), so that can continue. Does that sound reasonable? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

For the record, I engaged Mike Peel about this very topic over a year ago, so this has been going on for a while. It *should* be of concern that Wikidata-centric editors have been going around changing not only this site but Commons for the worse to suit whatever agenda they have going on at Wikidata. These are separate websites, albeit designed to complement each other. I think people fail to understand that. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 08:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Actually, the simplest solution would be to hold an RfC and to prohibit any use of Wikidata on the English Wikipedia. This would be like going back to stone age, but I am sure a lot of active users (possibly the majority) will support this proposal notwithstanding, and this would stop all discussion of the type "Wikidata is evil" forever.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• Many hands make light work? This seems to be a lot of fuss about nothing as I doubt that the {{commons category}} links get much usage. Myself, I usually suppose that good pictures will have been already selected for an article and, if it seems unfinished, I will use Google to find images rather than relying on commons category searches. Categories are especially weak as a search tool because they are an old-fashioned hierarchy rather than being relational. And limiting a search to Commons is self-denying as it's not that good.

As a recent example that I just noticed, Mike removed the category Dwight Schultz from the article Howling Mad Murdock. That category was quite debatable as that actor is perhaps better known for his more recent role in Star Trek. And the page is now a redirect so it's all lost in the churn and noise. See WP:INTODARKNESS. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Commons category links are there for readers, not for editors. Very often, there are more images on the Commons than can be put into the article, giving the reader additional options to look at relevant media. In the case of Murdock/Dwight Schultz, I don't see your point, given that c:Category:Dwight Schultz contains several images related to his role as Murdock and zero related to Star Trek. Clearly, whether to link there or not is an editorial decision, and "Removing misplaced Commons category link" is not a good explanation for Mike's decision not to link there. —Kusma (talk) 10:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I know they have agreed to stop, so we can probably end this section, but to give an idea of my deliberately inflammatory remarks vs. 99% good edits, I just went through the 29 edits Mike Peel made between 21.20 and 21.20 on 13 November: I have now reverted 10 of those([199][200][201][202][203][204][205][206][207][208]), in addition to two already reverted previously[209][210]. That's more than 40% (with a few of the remainder dubious as to whether the removal really was an improvement). These 10 new reverts include this edit to Rhine Gorge, with the edit summary "Removing Commons category link that does not match this article (commons:Category:Upper Middle Rhine Valley", even though the article starts with "The Rhine Gorge is a popular name for the Upper Middle Rhine Valley"... I'll continue looking at these and reverting where needed, but any help is welcome as this stretches back through a long period and many, many edits. Fram (talk) 10:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Most of those are crap reverts - the Commons categories are clearly wrong in those cases. But by all means, have at it - I'm out of here. Mike Peel (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

In the case of the Lake Waccamaw one, the edit summary states in part "Commons category belongs at Lake Waccamaw State Park", yet I could find no evidence of you touching that article. Talk about a paper tiger. Perhaps you don't realize that mere activity on this project is commensurate with its maturity, while actual content building is far, far behind the curve. People aren't interested in a long-term commitment to building an encyclopedia when they have to contend with others who only want to tear it down. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 11:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

And there seems to be no reason at all that the Commons cat can't be on both pages of course. Fram (talk) 11:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@RadioKAOS: I'm giving up with the maintenance work to go back to focusing on content creation (e.g., see the article I started last night). Have fun with the maintenance. You do have a plan for maintaining the commons category links going forward, right? Mike Peel (talk) 11:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

(ec) Can some other people check these reverts and give their opinion? It would be good to know where I went wrong before continuing with these reverts. Fram (talk) 11:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Most of these (not the Rhine Gorge one, where Fram is unquestionably right) are cases where the Commons category is relevant to the article, but does not correspond 100% to the article subject. I think that having 90% accurate Commons links on a Wikipedia page is preferable to having no Commons link, as Commons is a sister project with relevant content that we should try to advertise wherever possible. It would be helpful if @Mike Peel could explain the purpose of these removals (I can't see it from the edit summaries) instead of shooting the messenger. —Kusma (talk) 11:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Kusma: Not really much use when they don't actually relate to the topic. You go from the article to the Commons category, then you don't know which media are actually related to the topic you're interested in (if it's broader), or in a lot of cases, you don't find any media that actually match the topic (particularly if it's a narrower topic). Neither of those is really useful to readers. Better to always have 100% matches, where you can clearly find the media that is actually related to the article - and not misleading the reader when there isn't relevant content. I completely agree that more links to Commons is better, but they have to be the *right* links to be useful. Mike Peel (talk) 11:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

OK, I understand. I think your better to always have 100% matches is a fairly extreme position that doesn't seem to be supported by consensus (many of us seem to be happy to have "the closest existing category on Commons" in articles instead of your all-or-nothing approach). Edits of this type should not be done semi-automatically without prior wide community approval. —Kusma (talk) 11:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

[ec] Certainly, the very first one I checked was [211], where you restored a Commons Category link for c:Category:Kohl mansion, Burlingame, California to Mercy High School (Burlingame, California), with an edit summary of "It's the actual building the school is housed in..." While you are factually correct, the link should not be on the article, because it belongs on the separate Kohl Mansion article. You seem more interested in attacking another editor than in improving the content of the encyclopedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

"the link should not be on the article, because it belongs on the separate Kohl Mansion article." And why not on both? You have removed a link to images of the school building, from an article about the school[212] because it is "inappropriate", but your explanation here doesn't help me to understand why this would be so. Fram (talk) 11:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

[ec] :::The next one I checked was [213], where you restored a link to the category for Putney, Vermont to Putney Village Historic District, even though we have the former article. Your edit summary was, ironically, "Not helpful". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Same question: why not on both? It's an "external link" or a "see also" link, the images in the Commons category are almost exclusively of buildings in the Historic District. Apart from an ideological "they must match 100%" and "only one article may link to a certain Commons category" mindset, what actual reason is there to believe that the link isn't helpful or interesting for readers of the article who want to find additional images? Fram (talk) 11:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

A few final thoughts from me:

• Nobody is scrolling to the bottom of articles, much less clicking on these links anyway.
• The reader is smarter than some of us might be giving them credit for, especially any reader who scrolls to the bottom and clicks on the commons link. Readers can read page titles and they understand how web sites work. If the link to commons isn't a 100% match and is instead narrower or broader, the reader will understand and be able to cope. If there is more than one link, the reader will not be overwhelmed.
• Decisions about what links go in an article should be made by the editors who write the article. The very notion that someone is gonna decide what the best link is for thousands of articles is a joke. It's arrogant. None of us have the expertise (or the time) to read thousands of articles and make a better decision than the authors made. This cannot be done with a script.
• Generally speaking, there is no edit that anyone needs to make to 10,000 articles. Almost every time someone tries to change "one thing" (whatever it may be) in all the articles, they just make a mess. The legendary BKFIP removing "best known for" comes to mind. The encyclopedia doesn't require that kind of maintenance, and it's already at the point where we can improve one article at a time, but not a thousand at a time, because the articles are generally diverse and developed enough that they require individualized attention. No shortcuts, no one-size-fits-all editing. It seems every time someone tries to do that they end up at ANI eventually. Levivich 12:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Botyaar6767

The subject has previously been editing Draft:Mohsin khan, which was rejected at AfC, and subsequently created an instance in mainspace about the same subject, under the title Iamrealmohsin. They have repeatedly removed maintenance templates from that instance (messaged on their Talk Page, most recently at Warning level), but more worryingly have tried adding false information with claims about the subject's involvement in Slumdog Millionaire [214] and repurposing an awards table from the Sharib Hashmi article: [215]. (Concerning suh claims, see also Slywriter's AfC comment that the draft's "Filmography includes movies before subject was born" [216].) Overall, this raises concerns that other edits may lack veracity and the editor is WP:NOTHERE. AllyD (talk) 12:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Blatant hoaxes? Check. Odd promotion? Check. Here to build an encyclopaedia? No. Block button clicked? Yes. Canterbury Tail talk 15:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh and I just discovered they're a sock of User:Iamrealmohsin, so I'll tag that up as well. So worth keeping an eye on those edits as they're blatant self promotion socks. Canterbury Tail talk 15:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Inappropriate WP:CANVASSING by User:Skyerise

Three users voted Keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wineries in Missouri, and Skyerise inappropriately canvassed them at [217][218][219] about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wineries in Kansas. This is a blatant violation of WP:CANVASS as both votestacking and stealth canvassing by advertising to a partisan audience that would support them, with no disclosure given on the AFD either. This long-time editor should absolutely know better and this should be admonished. Reywas92^Talk 17:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I simply notified all the responders to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wineries in Missouri about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wineries in Kansas, except for those already presumed to be aware of the latter because they had already responded (one user: Ajf773). It just happened that all those were people who had !voted keep. Had there been people who had !voted delete, I would have notified them as well. However, there weren't any. Reywas92 seems awfully eager to subvert WP:LISTN, which actually fully supports both these list articles! Skyerise (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd also like to note that Reywas92 made two separate AfDs for essentially the same topic. Rightfully these should have been a combined AfD so that responders to either would have been immediately made aware of the other. Skyerise (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah, how convenient that the only people to notify just happened to share your opinion! Of course you could have instead put a link in the discussion mentioning the other for anyone to see without targeting those voters. Wrong, there is no requirement that AFDs be bundled, and it's perfectly reasonable to discuss these separately. When your AFD comment says "This is not at all comparable to the situation with the Ohio article" that I reference, how am I to know you wouldn't complain that the Kansas and Missouri pages aren't comparable either? Reywas92^Talk 18:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Skyrise has continued to inappropriately canvass keep voters, even after this warning. Reywas92^Talk 18:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Sure looks like you're running both a deletion and merge discussion at the same time which appears to violate WP:FORUMSHOPPING policy, see Talk:Missouri wine#Proposed merge of List of wineries in Missouri into Missouri wine. This thread seems to be your third forum. Skyerise (talk) 18:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

What is wrong with you? This thread is about your canvassing, not further discussion of the topic. Reywas92^Talk 19:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:ASPERSIONS. Your rhetorical question is highly inappropriate. See also WP:BOOMARANG. Skyerise (talk) 20:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• I procedural closed the merge discussion, see the rationale here. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 19:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS lists "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)" as an appropriate case for canvassing. The talk page notifications were neutral and sent to all participants of the related discussion. The canvassing wasn't "stealth" as claimed, as it happened on wiki. The only fault I can see here is the lack of a note on the second AfD, other than that, I feels the actions do not violate WP:CANVASS. NemesisAT (talk) 20:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• I'd say this is clearly canvassing. If Skyerise had also notified the one editor (Ajf773) that did not vote "Keep" at the previous AfD, then I would have been good with it - but they didn't, they simply notified those on "their side". It seems that it was done when it appeared that the 2nd AfD was in danger of not closing as Keep (at the time it had two deletes and two keeps). The persistence in continuing to do this after this ANI had been raised is really quite unfortunate, and a very poor idea. User:Skyerise - since the AfDs were fairly obvious closes anyway, I'm not going to take any action here; but please ensure that you are not giving the impression of attempting to sway AfDs inappropriately. Black Kite (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Black Kite: I am just passing by and have no intention of taking part in this discussion, but I am just a bit curious about what would be the point of notifying a user (Ajf773) six days after they had given their !vote (and even discussed it with Skyerise). --T*U (talk) 00:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree, it's completely normal not to contact people who already participants. This is what we do when we notify previous participants of a new discussion, and there's no reason we should do anything different when we notify participants of related discussions. Actually editors who are already participants can get annoyed when notified unnecessarily. The only case when you should considering notifying existing participants is when something has changed since they participated e.g. there is a new option in an RfC. That said, proper disclosure of what you did and why helps reduce confusion and concern. If Skyerise had mentioned the notifications at the AfD and mentioned they didn't notify existing participants or frankly just mentioned Ajf773 my name since they were only one editor, it's much less likely we'd be here. On the more general issue, I originally had some concerns given these AfDs seem only loosely connected in subject matter but since both were happening simultaneously and I assume there were no other wineries in state A AfDs happening at the same time it's probably okay although it might still have been better to discuss the planned notifications first although I appreciate the length of AfDs is generally short. Nil Einne (talk) 08:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• It is not canvassing to contact everyone in a recent similar AFD who hasn't already found their way there already. There is no possible reason to contact those who already know about it. Dream Focus 01:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Yungmemelord

user:Yungmemelord looks like a classic case of WP:RADAR. They make significant changes to articles, almost always without any edit summary, and always (so far as I can see) without providing any citations. But in five years of editing, they have responded to another user only once, four years ago, in a message which revealed that they had introduced a serious factual error to an article. They have never posted anything on an article talk page.

This blank refusal to communicate goes against any notion of collaboration, and makes it impossible to tell if they are even editing in good faith. So I invite you administrators to consider whether something needs to be done. 82.132.213.204 (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

It stretches AGF to believe a user of five years' standing is unaware of having a talkpage of their own, but I suppose it may still be the case. Another possibility is that they don't have enough confidence in their English skills to use talkpages. Anyway, communication is required on Wikipedia, and I have blocked the user, with a link to their talkpage in the log, to help them find the page, and to oblige them to use it. Thank you for bringing the problem here, IP. Bishonen | tålk 19:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC).

Update: The user has undertaken to communicate going forward, and I have unblocked. Please let me, or this board, know if they don't live up to it. They are now supposed to respond to concerns on their page, use edit summaries, and, when relevant, use article talkpages. Bishonen | tålk 08:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC).

Legal threat

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

---

This by Feminist Psychiatrist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a clear legal threat. DuncanHill (talk) 04:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Based on their "as usual" comment I think they've been here before, and I've indeffed for disruptive editing and harassment of an algorithm. Acroterion (talk) 04:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

"Will no-one think of the algorithms?" Thanks Acroterion. DuncanHill (talk) 04:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by Basketcase22; refusal to adhere to RfC consensus

This is a behavioral issue from two editors. At Julian Assange, a widely reported event brought about extensive discussion involving several editors (mostly from here onward). A RfC was launched "Should we include..." [a specific text]. The consensus for inclusion was overwhelming: eleven !votes to include, from both involved and uninvolved editors, with reasons given; two !votes against - Basketcase22 & Specifico. Since that time time both editors have sought to ignore that consensus and impose their own preferred version. They were reminded at Basketcase22's talk page of the need to abide by consensus, by both me and another editor. Both simply ignored this, and continued to insert their preferred version despite their undoubted awareness of the RfC at the time and the reminder yesterday. They have made no attempt to obtain a new consensus for their preferred version (in fact they haven't discussed the content at all since starting to try to force their preferred version on the page). I seek a reminder from admin to both editors that the consensus from an RfC is binding; failing that having any effect some kind of temporary article ban is probably in order. This would not be the first occasion of a topic ban on this article for Specifico, who has a history of disruption on it. Diffs:

3 Oct Following wide discussion, RfC launched on a specific text (the text is already in the article by edit consensus)

5 Oct Ninth !vote for inclusion added. Despite this clear and growing consensus for the proposed text, earlier the same day Basketcase22 starts deleting sources (Sydney Morning Herald, The Times) that support the text.

24 Oct eleventh !vote for inclusion of the proposed text.

2 Nov RfC expires

14 Nov Basketcase2022 reverts to their preferred version. Their edit summary says "You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus" - they are surely aware that this same edit is contrary to established consensus. They and Specifico are reminded on Basketcase2022's talk page of the need to abide by consensus (with a link to the RfC). Mr Ernie reminds them that editing contrary to established consensus is disruptive. Both Specifico and Basketcase2022 have read this reminder of the consensus version.

15 Nov Specifico ignores this, changes to his preferred version again. Basketcase2022 does the same.

This is quite flagrant disruptive editing to ignore an RfC that these two were the only editors to !vote against. Cambial — foliar❧ 04:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I dispute that the referenced RfC resulted in consensus for inclusion. A headcount by an involved editor does not establish consensus. On 2 Nov 2021, Legobot removed the expired RfC template, but the RfC was never formally closed. Basketcase2022 (talk) 04:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Who carries out any "headcount" is not the issue. This was not a close-run RfC: there was only you and one other editor !voting against, and a large consensus for a positive answer to the question "should we include this". If anything it was undercounted, as that tally does not include my comments which I did not cast as a formal vote. Your argument that the discussion was not a consensus, despite how obvious it was to other editors at the time, verges on the ridiculous, and starts to stretch credulity that you are Wp:HERE to collaborate in building an encyclopaedia. Cambial — foliar❧ 05:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

As best as I can tell, you are basing your complaint here on two edits I made to Julian Assange.

• 14 Nov 2021: The following discretionary sanction applies to all people who edit this article: You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article.
• 16 Nov 2021: Undid violation of Wikipedia:Edit warring 1055450268 by Special:Contributions/Cambial Yellowing – see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julian_Assange&diff=prev&oldid=1055247431

I have made 351 edits to our Assange BLP. I trust that in determining whether or not I am here to collaborate in building an encyclopedia, administrators will consider the totality of my edits, not merely the two that stretch your credulity. Basketcase2022 (talk) 05:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

What I am basing it on is laid out in detail above. Your misleading edit summaries – in which you admonish against the exact type of sanctions violation you are committing in that edit – do serve to aggravate the issue. But your attitude and the content of your edits, including the other that I reference above, are the problem.

In light of the above comments from Basketcase2022, I propose a short topic ban. Basketcase2022 clearly has little interest in seeking or abiding by consensus on the article where it conflicts with their preferred version. Cambial — foliar❧ 05:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Aside from the two I bulletized, please remind me what other of my edits did you reference above? Your complaint here is so much about a different editor than me, that I must have missed your diffs pointing to my other "disruptive" edits. Basketcase2022 (talk) 05:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

It's about you just as much as Specifico. All the relevant diffs are under "Diffs" in my post immediately above. Some other edits you made in the past are not relevant. It is not your two edits that stretch credulity - it is your absurd fantasy that you and one other editor were the consensus out of 13 editors, the rest of whom took the opposing view. Cambial — foliar❧ 05:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I've already disputed here that the referenced RfC resulted in consensus, and have never claimed elsewhere that it did. Please don't put words in my mouth. Basketcase2022 (talk) 05:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes - but your dispute of the obvious fact is utterly baseless and without merit. Even if we remove one vote - for Yes - because they modify it as “weak” - it’s still 10 editors supporting that text to your two opposed. You also both invent the same nonexistent policy - and this is pointed out to both of you with no refutation. Cambial — foliar❧ 06:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Has anybody put in a closure request for the two said-RFC? PS - The second one begins with an unsigned post, so I don't know what the starting date is. GoodDay (talk) 05:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

There’s only one on this particular issue. Cambial — foliar❧ 06:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I see two RFCs that aren't officially closed. One about "Yahoo" & the other about "AP2". GoodDay (talk) 06:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

The relevant one is - the one I link to above, about Yahoo. Cambial — foliar❧ 06:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I've put in a request for closure for both RFCs. GoodDay (talk) 06:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

There is clear disruptive editing here by SPECIFICO. I've a little more faith to excuse Basketcase2022, who appears to just be following SPECIFICO's (the much more experienced editor) lead. A few weeks ago they removed the text under discussion at least 3 times (probably more but I can't find all the diffs) [220], [221], [222]. They insisted there was no consensus for this text, but it was basically only SPECIFICO and Basketcase2022 who were disputing this via reverts. There was a lengthy talk page discussion with overwhelming consensus for inclusion see here, but apparently this was not good enough and SPECIFICO insisted on an RFC in this section. You can read through the RFC here. Despite the overwhelming consensus in the previous discussion, and the obvious consensus in the RFC, SPECIFICO again altered the text saying we need to wait for the RFC to close. I don't like to go to AE but it is now inevitable unless the disruptive editing against consensus stops. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• Ah, Talk:Julian Assange — everyone's favourite 562,540 bytes talk page. For comparison, Joe Biden is at a sleepy 16,072 bytes, while Donald Trump is at a ____ 69,969 bytes(!). As I recall, there was a moment recently when someone told me something to the effect of 'see talk page.' It was funny. El_C 15:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Matthew hk's personal attacks

(Continued from /IncidentArchive1084.)

@Johnuniq: Here you are: "Also, it is a genuine suggestion on seek medical advice.", "Zh-wiki do have infested so that no one has CU right, but it is delusional so bad that...", "Just seek medical advice if you (the ip hopper(s)) have persecutory delusion...", "You guy delusional really bad,". 219.76.18.80 (talk) 13:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Reconsideration of Block

I was blocked on 10th November, 2021. The block was because of a copyright violation. I have thoroughly read the Copyright Policies. I did not have a proper knowledge about the copyright policies prior violating but now after reading the policies once again, I clearly understood the importance of creative writing and the consequences of copyright violations. I totally regret my violations now. I will surely change from now, seeking more information from independent sources and writing them in my own way. I agree that I had made a huge mistake by copying copyrighted content. It's quite clear to me now how to handle copyrighted material. I would highly appreciate getting an unban which would help me continue my Wikipedia journey and I promise that I would never violate the copyright policies and always take a detailed look at all of my edits to prevent any further errors. I deeply regret my actions now. I am requesting for a single chance to correct myself. I acknowledge that the paragraphs were intentionally copied from a website as they were accurate, unknowing of the facts of the strict copyright policies of Wikipedia. This kind of breach of trust will never be done again as I have clearly realised my mistakes. Please give me another chance under the Wikipedia ROPE policy and if I do any mistakes regarding copyright, you can permanently block me. A single chance would be highly appreciated. This is the first time for me getting a block and I had never shown any kind of bad faith in Wikipedia before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2006nishan178713 User:2006nishan178713 14:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)