Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1134

BrownHairedGirl's lack of civility in CFD

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

---

Hello, I'm concerned about User:BrownHairedGirl's repeated failure of WP:CIVILITY, WP:AGF, and WP:5P4 generally at Categories for Discussion (WP:CFD) toward me and others when nominations involve the WP:SMALLCAT editing guideline.

• Examples of Recent Incivility by BrownHairedGirl

1. ... "This is another vindictive, disruptive bad-faith nomination by LL, who is stalking my contribs"... (Diff)
2. ... "this is a rushed, vindictive, disruptive bad-faith nomination" ... (Diff)
3. "I don not believe that you a[r]e acting in good faith"... (Diff)
4. ... "this vindictive, disruptive bad-faith nomination" ... (Diff)
5. ... "the ma[n]y flaws your sloppy, no-WP:BEFORE vindictive nomination." ... (Diff)
6. ... "categorisation work is made unreasonably difficult. That appears to be the aim of LL@s stalking." ... (Diff)
7. ... "And yes, I can produce evidence of the tag-teaming, which I will do if this as to be take to WP:DRV." (Diff)
8. ... "it is quite invidious to propose to demolish my work"... (Diff--I had to look that word up!)
9. ... "it is extremely disruptive to misrepresent WP:SMALLCAT and to abuse it as a weapon to demolish categorisation" ... (Diff)
10. ... "I will not accept the use of a malicious and unresearched CFD as a weapon to bully me" ... (Diff)
11. ... "The problem here is is simply that this a malicious nomination" ... (Diff)
12. ... "In my 17 years at CFD I have never before seen a nomination like his one: a bad faith nom targeting one editor" ... (Diff)
13. ... "Your choice ... does not in any way suggest good faith" ... (Diff)
14. "Ah Marcocapelle, that's disingenuous." ... (Diff)
15. "It's a pity that some editors want to ignore the guidelines ... I hope that the closer will do their WP:NOTAVOTE job and discard all the !votes which flagrantly ignore the guidelines." ... (Diff)
16. "Utter nonsense. ... It's blindingly obvious that you are pontificating away with great certainty about how to do a task which you have never actually done." ... (Diff)
17. "That's just wikilawyering and offence-taking. When it comes the treatment of other editors, the real issue here is the attempt to demolish the categorisation work" ... (Diff)
18. "Utter nonsense, Marcocapelle. ... It's kinda scary to see that denied when such a large set of merges is proposed." (Diff)
19. ... "Please end the disruption by promptly withdrawing this nomination." (Diff)
20. "I assume good faith until the assumption becomes untenable, as it has here." ... (Diff)
21. "A goo[d] faith editor would at this stage withdraw the nomination, an[d] apologise" ... (Diff)
22. "... This is yet another blatantly bad faith nomination by a highly-experienced editor ... who is par[t] of a tag team overtly targeting my work i[n] revenge for my opposing some of his nominations. ..." (Diff)
23. "when editors tag-team to abuse the CFD process by systematically misrepresenting guidelines and vindictively targeting the work of other editors, then it is important that this info is presented to the CFD discussion. In 17 years at CFD, I have never before seen anything remotely like this." (Diff)
24. "No it is not a 'difference of opinion'. There has been a systematic efforts by a tag team (in which Oculi is one of the two main players) to radically misrepresent WP:SMALLCAT and to use that misrepresented guideline vindictively. ... If you really want to lower the temperature then stop pouring petrol on fires and stop enabling the tag team and stop being an attack dog for the tag team." (Diff)

The list of differences above used ellipses because most of BrownHairedGirl's comments blended uncivil comments (which I'm raising here) along with constructive input on WP:SMALLCAT (that rightfully belongs in CFD).

• Other Editors' Conduct
  • I also crossed the line with WP:CIVILITY and WP:AGF with this second half of this edit (Diff). I have stricken it & retracted it (Diff) and separately apologized on BrownHairedGirl's talk page (Diff).
  • Several comments by other editors have been snarky and BrownHairedGirl has correctly called them out.
  • I encourage others to read the 4 nominations I excerpted passages from and see if I'm missing something else obvious: 1, 2, 3, 4.

• Lack of Assuming Good Faith Impacting Routine CFD Processes
  • Merge Targets: Editors assisting each other in refining the merge targets is seen as proof of bad faith even though this is a routine CFD function. (See Diff & Diff)
  • DRV: Because the nominations are seen as bad faith, any closures that disagree with her viewpoint is promised a WP:DRV, before the nomination is even closed. (See Diff & Diff)
  • RFC: Because interpretation of editing guidelines is seen as bad faith attempts to covertly rewrite them, WP:RFC is incorrectly pointed as the only venue for routine discussions. (See Diff & Diff)
  • Not Populating New Categories: The nominations were seen as bad faith because the nominator did not populate the small categories after she created them. (See this lengthy discussion right after the "Merge" !vote by car chasm) Requests for BrownHairedGirl to promptly populate her new categories were also seen as bad faith. (See Diff and Diff)
  • Expanding Another Editor's Nomination: An existing nomination was seen as bad faith so BrownHairedGirl corrected it by adding 246 categories--not a typo--to that existing nomination. (Diff) This was 4 days after it opened without coordinating with the nominator. I expressed concern that such a large change could be WP:POINTY (Diff). She then distanced herself from her own additions when another editor asked about them (Diff) and continued to oppose her own additions to the nomination (Diff).

• Talk Page Discussion

BrownHairedGirl and I began to talk about it but didn't come to a resolution. BrownHairedGirl stated that "Frankly, I am utterly sick of wasting time on your tedious obsession with so-called 'civility issues'" ... and she indicated that I was trying to "weaponise WP:5P4" and that she would ban me from her talk page for raising further civility concerns.(Diff, at the bottom) She indicated that the real incivility was from me for being an attack dog for a tag team.(Same Diff, just before that).

That conversation got pretty grim in places. She wrote a parable about me where I was a misguided police officer ignoring violence.(Same Diff, in the fictional dialogue section) Then I was like a corrupt police officer who was revictimizing her.(Same diff, next section) I don't ever want to make someone feel that way. But I'm not an attack dog for a tag team or a bad cop!

In my 14 years on Wikipedia, this is my first ANI and I see mine is much longer than the others but I don't know how to shorten it given the number of diffs so I appreciate your time. If anyone has a magic wand, what I really want is for me and BrownHairedGirl to go back to collegial discussions in CFD focusing on actual categorization (including our competing applications of WP:SMALLCAT) instead of focusing on the motives of editors. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• Tagging Notice I notified every editor who participated in the four CFD nominations (regardless of !vote) about this ANI. Based on this side conversation, it sounds like that's a wider net than is customary.- RevelationDirect (talk) 04:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
• RD, thank you for taking the effort to bring this to ANI. I have meanwhile become (sort of) used to all this rudeness but I surely agree that it should stop. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
• Looking at her block log, hasn't this been a problem for a long time? -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 05:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
• Propose topicban on SMALLCAT CfDs (bold text summary added 11:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)) I agree wholeheartedly with RevelationDirect's balanced assessment (and Marcocapelle's confirmation) of the problematic WP:UNCIVIL behaviour shown by BrownHairedGirl in specific CfDs. (I hadn't noticed until now that it was WP:SMALLCAT cases in particular, but that appears to be correct; at virtually all other CfDs, I have come to know BrownHairedGirl as a passionate but civil colleague I often agree with). At the June 2023 SMALLCAT CfD for Expatriates A-G, I was repeatedly taken aback by uncivil comments and behaviour by BrownHairedGirl, because it was not how I knew her from other interactions. RD appears to have correctly identified BrownHairedGirl's behaviour as having to do with trying to prevent the deletion of SMALLCATs at all costs - including at the cost of civility towards other editors - in my experience to prevent the breaking up of certain series of categories and the loss of metadata. It may be that we simply don't/didn't understand how important that metadata is, and personally I'm pretty much always open to be educated about anything new (that's what Wikipedia is sort of about), but not in this repeatedly uncivil, negative, abusive manner that targets the person/personality of other users in order to get her way. That is absolutely unacceptable. I wrote the following comment after I thought that enough was enough, and BrownHairedGirl needed to be told to back off and change her uncivil behaviour to me and others at the June 2023 SMALLCAT CfD for Expatriates A-G:

---

@BrownHairedGirl WP:CLOSECHALLENGE does not allow a deletion review to be used 5. to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion.

Your 18:58, 13 June 2023 Oppose !vote already argued that it is impossible to believe that the nominator has done WP:BEFORE to ensure that these categories all fulfill WP:SMALLCAT which is for "Small with no potential for growth". You've repeatedly invoked both policies in your comments since, so this cannot be a ground for a deletion review.

Moreover, I think you shouldn't be sort of 'intimidating' the closer by warning that you will take it to WP:DRV before any decision has even been made. A closer needs to be able to make a decision without any beforehand pressure from any editor involved that there will be negative consequences if they make a decision which any editor involved disagrees with.

This isn't the first time in this discussion that I think the way you are treating your fellow editors (myself included) should be a bit more WP:CIVIL.

• E.g. you've said it was impossible to believe that the nominator has done WP:BEFORE etc. (potentially at odds with WP:AGF);
• You've called Marcocapelle's comment disingenuous (potentially at odds with WP:AGF);
• You've said It's a pity that some editors want to ignore the guidelines and discard all the !votes which flagrantly ignore the guidelines. (potentially at odds with WP:AGF, as this implicitly accuses fellow editors of incompetence or acting in bad faith);
• This last set of statements is less worrisome, but still a bit on the edge. @Carchasm & @Nederlandse Leeuw: you both write as if you have never actually done the work of populating such categories, and are advocating an idealised process which won't work in practise, and If you or the other deletionists here had actually tried subcatting emigrant expat categories, you'd be aware of the difficulties., and It's blindingly obvious that you are pontificating away with great certainty about how to do a task which you have never actually done. This is essentially accusing us of incompetence, although I can understand your frustration if you feel like you've got a lot more experience with editing in this field. Your statement I am alarmed by the scant regard which this nomination and its supporters show for the purpose of categories and for the preservation of metadata seems to confirm you've got genuine and legitimate concerns over what is going to happen if the nominated categories will be deleted, and you're perfectly within your rights to say this. Expressing this frustration that we don't seem to understand or agree with your point of view is okay, but I wish you would word it differently per WP:AVOIDUNCIVIL Avoid condescension.

I would really like to continue cooperating with you on lots issues. In fact, I find myself often agreeing with lots of comments and arguments you've made here at Categories for discussion; you've got a keen eye for details that many others miss, and you often provide solutions I agree with. It becomes a bit difficult to do that when comments such as the above are the way you are treating me and fellow editors. I fully understand your frustration, and I am familiar with it, but I hope you can find better ways to deal with it. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

@Nederlandse Leeuw: just a brief reply for now, on one point.

Yo write E.g. you've said it was impossible to believe that the nominator has done WP:BEFORE etc. (potentially at odds with WP:AGF)

Why did your post above make no mention of my reply[1] to you in that CFD , in which I explained why it was impossible to believe that the nominator has done WP:BEFORE?

In summary, doing proper scrutiny of the WP:SMALLCAT "potential for growth" of over 300 categories would be a huge undertaking, at minimum a whole day's work. I do still find it impossible to believe that the nominator both did all that work, and then not only omitted it from the nominaton, but also ignored repeated requests in the discussion to post aything at all about their asessments.

It seems to me to be deeply uncivil to treat my observation of that fundamental omisson as a civiity issue (rather than a major flaw in the nomination), and to omit in your complaint any mention of my explanation. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl Hi, I copypasted the entire comment in which I wrote about some of your comments in relation to WP:CIVIL. This included a section about you saying that you were going for a WP:DRV if the CfD in question was closed as Delete. I did not delve into your motives for it (I did and do not take a stand on that issue); instead, I was raising a procedural objection against the possibility of a deletion review based on repeating arguments you had already made, which is not allowed per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, and also used it as my first example of instances in which I thought you had been WP:UNCIVIL to fellow editors, namely by 'sort of 'intimidating' the closer' by not making a decision you disagreed with. I don't think your motive for a deletion review is relevant here. But now that you've added an explanation here, well, maybe others may see relevance in it.

I do hope that you understand that I'm trying to see your side, and to allow you to continue to do the things you're good at, and that have earned you the respect of many editors, including mine. I just think it is better for yourself and the rest of the community if you no longer participate in areas where you repeatedly clash with others, and cross the our policy on civility. I want you here on Wikipedia, I want to work with you, and learn from you. You have a wealth of skills experience and knowledge. But cooperation on SMALLCAT CfDs may no longer be a good idea. Good luck in preparing your defence, and have a good day. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

So yet again, you wholly ignore both the substance of what WP:SMALLCAT actually says, and you make no apology for entirely omtting to menton the fact that I had explained to you why I found it impossible to believe that WP:BEFORE had been done.

That is not my idea of how to treat another editor with civility. WP:civil says "editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect".

Misrepresemting an editor (as you have done to me) may be a good faith error, but failing to correct that misrepretation is a lomg way from "consideration and respect".

It is also not "consideration and respect" to ignoring a sustantive problem of the misuse of a stable guideline, and focus solely on the tone of the objections. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl Maybe you should take the olive branch I'm offering? I'm not your enemy, and can be your ally going forward. You are outnumbered and outgunned, but can still do damage control if you choose. You may lose everything if you choose this ANI as your hill to die on. I don't want that for you. I want you here on Wikipedia, doing the things you love and are good at. Have a good day. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I will not change my view that treating other people with "consideration and respect" is primarly a matter of being truthful and honest, and only secondarily about the words used.

Sadly, some editors seem to think that repeated denial of actual facts is just fine, but that bluntly noting the falsehood is a mortal sin; or in other words, that a known falsehood stated in polite words is better conduct than a hrash correction of that false assertion. Not my values.

So I'm sorry, but I am not seeing any olive branch. And sadly, your efforts to shut down any sustantive discussion here of WP:SMALLCAT do not look like the work of an ally. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl This isn't about SMALLCAT, this is about your future on Wikipedia. This is about making your conduct acceptable to others, and that (in my estimation) you'll be faced with increasingly harsh restrictions if you don't (ranging from topicbans to temporary blocks to permanent blocks). If you don't understand that this is what is at stake, namely, your future on Wikipedia, then I'm afraid neither I nor you nor anyone else can protect you from yourself.

If you'd rather have me join the opposition, I can, but that will be of no use to you. I would take the olive branch if I were you. I know you want to write about women's history, feminism etc. and if you'd like, I could cooperate with you on that and other topics. That seems much more worthwhile. Have a good day. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

You a few others want to amke it about me.

I am here to build an encylopedia, which is why I have taken a stand agaist the widespread destruction of encyclopedic metadata by editors who engage in sustained denalism of the actual content of the guideline they cite, and who continue that denial even after their error has been repeatdly demonstrated.

I will not be bullied into denying reality. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Then I'm sorry, there's nothing more I can do for you in this ANI. Still proposing topicban on SMALLCAT CfDs, because it seems that imposing sanctions is the only way forward to prevent BHG from WP:DISRUPTing the project in this specific area. I hope we will not have to impose other sanctions in the future, but if we should, then we probably will. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

"sustained denalism of the actual content of the guideline they cite" The guideline itself is highly problematic, and has been repeatedly used to destroy entire category trees. I have been discussing it often in real life as one of Wikipedia's self-destructive policies. But I find that shouting about things I dislike is not resolving much. After particularly depressing deletion events, I typically take a few days of wiki-break. I suggest you follow the same idea, instead of burning your bridges with other editors. Dimadick (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like good advice. And @Dimadick sorry if recent deletions have caused you to be upset. It's nothing personal; I generally appreciate your work as an editor very much. I believe to implementing policies and guidelines in each case. BHG probably has a good idea that we should RfC for a better, clearer wording of SMALLCAT to better prevent unfortunate disagreements and unexpected deletions in the future. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Wait, so now it's uncivil to call out people on civility issues? I'm sorry, but I'm gonna call a cat a cat and call out uncivil behavior, even if BHG may be right in her concerns. That's not uncivil of people to call out uncivil behavior. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 20:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

---

Unfortunately, as RevelationDirect highlighted, BrownHairedGirl almost completely ignored what I said, dismissing it as "just wikilawyering and offence-taking", and proceeding to say "the real issue here is the attempt to demolish the categorisation work of many editors without doing WP:BEFORE,(...)". She didn't care. She believed the ends justified the means. By being so repeatedly and (almost certainly) knowingly uncivil to and about others, BrownHairedGirl appears to have hoped to stampede us into agreeing with her Oppose to deleting the categories under nomination. No matter how virtuous one's goals may be, these are not appropriate methods to achieve them. This cannot go on like this. I have rarely participated in an ANI before either, and I don't know what is common here or potential measures to be taken, but if this uncivility is indeed limited to SMALLCAT CfDs, I suggest a sort of topicban, or at the very least strong warnings when it comes to her participation in them. I do not wish to restrict her editing privileges in other ways for now; I want BrownHairedGirl to continue to be able to constructively contribute to Wikipedia in many other ways she is known for. But this must stop. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Many years ago, on a discussion about Signature policy, BHG was the most stubborn, rude, uncooperative editor I'd experienced in years. I do hope something can be done to help her and the wider project. doktorb _words^deeds 07:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

So do I. I want her in this project, but not like this in these SMALLCAT CfD cases. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• On a personal note, I often find myself agreeing with BrownHairedGirl's arguments, and I do believe that both Marcocapelle's nominations and his/her other changes, at times do not match the contents of specific categories or reveal a poor understanding of certain topics. But that list of comments above goes way beyond incivility. It sounds like persecutory delusion at work. BrownHairedGirls is seriously accusing other editors of seeking revenge against her, of conspiring with each other, of bullying her, and of attacking her. Basically, anyone who disagrees with her is an enemy out to get her? Wow, I have seen such opinions expressed in real life, but never from a Wikipedia editor. How can she work with other editors if she views them as personal enemies? Dimadick (talk) 07:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  Well said. And it surprised me, because in other cases I quite like cooperating with her. But the compliments I and others give her for that work elsewhere do not erase this incivility; it needs to be challenged and put to a stop. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Dimadick: I agree that my claims of vindictive, disruptive bad-faith tag-teaming are strong claims, which require evidence.

  The collation of that evidence is a big job, and as I noted below I will present it later, when I have collated it. But I stand my assertion. I will try to remember to ping you when I post it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support what the nominator has written. I contemplated writing something similar but decided not to do so. BTW, I must complement RD on how well laid out, logical, measured and temperate she has done the job. Any such case opened by me here or elsewhere would only have added fuel to the fire and laid me open to the accusation of vindictive action. The long history between BHG & I would have just been viewed as "Yet another BHG-LL ding-dong. Here we go again. Nothing to see here.". Now that it is open, I feel freer to contribute. I confirm that the examples cited above – mainly directed at me – were indeed uncivil and hurtful. Given our interaction history, I made especial efforts to avoid any contribution that might be taken as an ad hominen attack and tried to tackle the ball, not the woman. I may not have always succeeded. Pride, the root of all evil, is what lies behind all this; having constructed an amazing edifice of hundreds (thousands?) of micro-categories, it hurt BHG's pride to think that any of her creations might be flawed or less than perfect. She abandoned mature-wiki-admin-with-many years-of-experience mode and went into Mother Bear mode clawing savagely at any perceived threat to her cubs. In defending her interpretation of the WP:SmallCat exception, she is not even consistent; when it suits her case, she says that some "tails" can be cut; in other cases, such "tails" are part of a structured hierarchy with potential for growth. Anyway, the rights/wrongs of interpretation of wiki guidelines is not at issue here. What is beyond doubt is that BHG has gone beyond the bounds of civility in advancing her interpretations. At this point, she is not just my opponent, she is an actual menace to the Wiki Project in general and to those of us who linger around WP:CFD in particular. Who would enter the fray knowing that Mother Bear might emerge from the cave at any minute with claws sharpened and teeth bared? She is putting people off WP:CFD entirely in my view. ANI cannot propose any remedy that will help BHG – (Personal attack removed) - but it can and must protect the community. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  I just had to quote this bit from her talkpage chat with RD: "..accept that WP:SMALLCAT really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really does say that is about "potential for growth" rather than current pagecount." Wow. Just wow. (Personal attack removed) Also, personally, i was mortified for poor RD who went in contrite and ended up being attacked for her efforts. One more quote: "I struggle to grasp how any competent, good-faith editor could realistically and genuinely fail to understand the difference between "potential for growth" and "current pagecount", and I don't see how any mediation or drama board is going to remedy that." Quite. Perhaps this "drama board" may offer a remedy. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  Wow indeed... Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  Just to be absolutely clear: I still struggle to grasp how any competent, good-faith editor could realistically and genuinely fail to understand the difference between "potential for growth" and "current pagecount".

  What's going on here?

  Why do some editors seem to be in deep denial about this? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  • "a structured hierarchy with potential for growth." That potential of growth typically involves locating suitable articles which have been undercategorized or miscategorized. It sometimes takes me several days of searches just to locate the proper articles, and to correct any obvious errors in them. This is not something that I can complete in an hour or two. Dimadick (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

    I agree, Dimadick. In my recent 6-week burst of work categorising Irish bipographies, I repeaedly find articles to add to a category despite previous extensive searches. Where an article is currently grossly under- or mis- categorised, they will be found only through lengthy trawls through huge sets. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

    • • Big surprise. A couple of years ago, I worked on categories on Welsh women writers. Several of these women had been miscategorized as "English" or "Scottish", based on a Welsh writer spending a year or two in London or Edinburgh, or marrying someone from England or Scotland. When it comes to Irish biographies, I have noticed several Anglo-Irish people miscategorized in "English" categories. Dimadick (talk) 16:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• Laurel Lodged If you speculate on the mental health of another editor again I will block you. I hope this is clear. Black Kite (talk) 08:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  Understood. I would echo the comment of doktorb: "I do hope something can be done to help her and the wider project." Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  I think Black Kite has a good point that I was already considering to mention. I don't think we should be pathologising BrownHairedGirl's behaviour, and be implying that she must somehow also have bigger mental problems in her life that require professional attention. Even if it is well-intentioned, that's way beyond the scope of an ANI inquiry, and I personally don't think it's necessary. RD has identified a specific issue; let's focus on that and not go WP:OFFTOPIC. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  I can accept that. We're editors Jim, not doctors. But if an editor had difficulties with empathy, that might be relevant to the discussion; such difficulties might also be taken into account if sanctions were being considered. Walking on eggshells here. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  It may be that incivility is the result of a lack of empathy, but I believe that investigating that is beyond the ANI inquiry scope and irrelevant. We should assume good faith whenever it is not necessary to suspect the opposite. I believe improvements are possible, and if not, a topicban for SMALLCAT CfDs specifically may provide a solution. I'm not convinced we should take it further than that at this time. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  Wow. That's a blatant personal attack. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• I am concerned with the fact that they seem to be gaming the community sanction by not using personal attacks but otherwise engaging in assuming bad faith and escalating the situation. I think they should abide by the spirit of the sanction rather than the word, that's my two cents. Feel free to consider this opinion as someone "involved", albeit a long time in the past. --qedk (t 愛 c) 09:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

So the merry-go-round is back.

Or, if you would like another euphemism: "This isn't the first rodeo..."

If you would like more diffs, or past history, just search in the noticeboard archives for BHG or BrownHairedGirl

BHG is and has been a very prolific editor.

She's smart and very experienced in Wikipedia and knows policy, and knows the category system, and the XfD processes very well.

Because of these things she can very well be a boon to Wikipedia.

However...

In my experience (and I'm talking this pattern of behaviour goes back well over a decade). BHG treats discussions as a full-on assault, a full throated support of whatever she is championing. In particular, anything involving feminism or women's issues; and anything involving Northern ireland, Ireland, the UK, the British Commonwealth - you get the idea. There may be other topics, but In my experience, those two broad topics are where things usually get the most aggressive and battleground-ish.

It's the sense of "being in the trenches".

And if you engage with her, you are very likely to be drawn into the battleground too. It's just the tone that happens. If you are not a master at debate (and even if you think you are), you will.

Now, all of us argue to support or oppose our perspective in a consensual discussion - it's the crucible that allows us to find consensus. But with BHG, it's way beyond that.

Now remember the part where I said she's smart and knows Wikipedia very well? Well here are a few things to watch out for. a.) if you get baited into being uncivil, or even if not, in order to avoid being called uncivil herself, she will use your phrasing, slightly re-worded, and then when called on it, you get the faux innocence: "But I merely used the same words they did!" b.) Speaking of baiting, that's another one-two punch. Go on the assault, and when someone not as rhetorically capable responds to her, she will feign hurt and accuse the other person of personal attacks, and ABF.

I say all this to try to save you all some time. This will likely be a long discussion, which will get nowhere, because of the above, and also because, she does do enough good work that those who see that and support that, are not going to want to see her sanctioned. which I understand.

But as others have noted above - most CfD regulars seem to minimally engage with her anymore. Once bitten, twice shy, I guess.

Do we sanction her for playing the Wikipedia game more aggressively than others or just accept that this is the direction that Wikipedia discussion is going - as we see examples of this across the Wiki.

I don't know the answer to that. The optimist (and idealist) in me would like to hope for better. But the pragmatist in me? well.... I wish you all well with the time sink.

And I say all this noting, that - while I've been aware of all of this and more - if you look in those past noticeboard discussions, I've defended her too. The world of Wikipedia is an interesting place sometimes.

Oh and one last thing. While I am not currently "involved" in any discussion currently with BHG. From discussions long past and still seeing her pop up on my watchlist, I've definitely formed an opinion of her behaviour (as I think you can see by my words above), so I won't (and don't) use the tools in regards to her behaviour.

I have no doubt I'll be accused of ABF, but the key to AGF is that it applies as long as facts have not proven differently. And I have years of experience where, when it comes to the things I've mentioned above? my "good faith" has been worn away.

Good luck everyone, I wish you well. - jc37 09:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• Special:Diff/1039021442. I don't think inaction is an option here.—S Marshall T/C 09:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for providing that context, S Marshall. This strengthens my case that action is required, but I believe action should be limited to a topicban at this time. Additional measures can be taken later, but are beyond the current ANI inquiry scope. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  • "she will feign hurt and accuse the other person of personal attacks" This is Wikipedia we are talking about. In my years of editing, people have called me a dimwit, they accused me of fanatically supporting certain political or religious causes (even when I have never heard of that specific cause), they tried to convert to this or that religion, and have repeatedly threatened me with sanctions for daring to disagree with them. BrownHairedGirl is surprisingly polite, in comparison with some of the editors I have encountered over the years. Dimadick (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• BHG is a highly valued contributor with whom I have often worked closely. Her eloquent insights about encyclopedic content and navigation are always worth hearing. But I do wish that in discussions she would confine her observations to the objective facts, advantages and disadvantages of the case, without impugning the motives or competence of other editors. – Fayenatic London 09:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  I concur. I've only known her for a short time so far, but this describes how I know BrownHairedGirl as well. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment by BHG. I stand by my comments.
  It will take me several hours to collect all the evidence, but I will make a full response when I have doe so. Meanwhile in summary, this is an attempt to invoke "civility" to punish criticism of a pattern of systemic abuse of CFD by a small number of editors, which has been possible only becaue participation at CFD has fallen to very low levels, and become a bit cliquey.
  The core of it lies in the guideline WP:SMALLCAT (stable for over a decade), whose headlne says "Small with no potential for growth" (emphasis added by BHG), and whose single para makes an exception for an established series of categories.
  Unfortinately, a small group of editors: @Oculi and @Laurel Lodged, often supported by @RevelationDirect, has been sysstematically abusing WP:SMALLCAT by ignoring both the "no potential for growth" part of the headline and the "establsihed series" exception. This has often been done in mass nominations, which were being nodded through by a few editors and approved by NAC closes until I started to challenge them, beginnig with WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 13#Expatriates_A-G, a fundaetally flawed nomination of over 300 categories This pattern was noted on my talk by the otherise uninvolved admin @Liz: see User talk:BrownHairedGirl#CFD comments (permalink).
  Note that this is not a matter of interpretation: "Small with no potential for growth" clearly requires an asessment of potential for growth, and the exception for etablished series is also plain. Laurel Lodged, Oculi and RevelationDirect have been persistently abusing WP:SMALLCAT by treating it as if said nothing other than "currently small", which it clearly does not.
  In revenge for my challenges to their abuses, LL & Oculi have been tag-teaming to vindictively attack my own categorisation work. See e.g. WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 25#People_by_occupation_in_Northern_Ireland, where 7 of the 10 nominated categories were recent creations by me (mostly within the preceding 48 hours). LL's nomination wholly ignored any question of "potential for growth" or of whether they were part of a established series, commeting solely on current size. When I challenged those fundamental omissions, LL repatedly refused to offer asessment on ether point. They were pseedily backed by Oculi.
  LL's allegation that I have been creating slews of "micro-categories" is false, and I note that LL has offered no evidence to support that claim. My recent prolific work on categorising Irish bographies has been done with full regard for WP:SMALLCAT. The issue at stake here is that no editor can safely engage in categorisatio work if the establsihed and stable guideline WP:SMALLCAT is then systematically misapplied to undo their work at whim by editors who repeatedly reject calls to read follow even the six-word headline of WP:SMALLCAT.
  I have to go out now, but when I return I will begin work on diff-farming to show both the extraordinary pattern of abuse of WP:SMALLCAT, and the way that LL and Oculi have been tag-teamig in revenege for my challenges. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  It's disappointing that BHG appears to respond with what seems like a persecution complex defence. I'm apparently not part of the small group of editors which has allegedly been tag-teamig [sic] in revenege [sic] for my challenges. Yet, I've noticed this pattern of behaviour myself at the 13 June Expatriates A-G CfD alone, and have personally been subjected to this incivility by BHG, and was the first to call it out at length within that CfD. I can confirm a lot of the observations made by pretty much all editors here, including people who are not part of this alleged "small group of team-taggers". Maybe there is not an issue with everyone else's behaviour, but with that of BHG? Something with Occam's razor...

  Incidentally, if BHG has good reason to suspect that team-tagging is indeed going on, then gathering evidence for a WP:CANVASSING (or perhaps WP:MEAT?) inquiry may be worth her time and effort. Allegations of editors teaming up to "demolish" her work specifically (WP:HOUNDING?) is a serious accusation requiring evidence. But as long as they are empty / unsubstantiated, this boils down to casting WP:ASPERSIONS, which is to be punished if committed repeatedly. Editors do not deserve their reputation to be smeared by unsubstantiated claims.

  I would further advise BHG to give priority to sifting through those diffs and carefully writing her response before mounting a defence. This comment appears to have been written in great haste (hence also lots of typos, which is uncharacteristic; the BrownHairedGirl I know writes very carefully), and in relative disregard to the points raised by "nominator" (RD) and partially supported by others. I think a carefully prepared defence after diff-sifts is more likely to be have significant importance for BHG herself.

  Good luck; I understand that you are a bit stressed now, but I think I and most editors here genuinely mean well and are trying to find a workable solution for us all. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  • • "Something with Occam's razor..." Speaking of Occam's razor, there is a simpler explanation on why Oculi and Laurel seem to be agreeing so much lately. They may happen to think alike on certain topics, or to be working on the same set of articles or categories. This type of informal agreements happens frequently on certain topic areas, with no conspiracy involved. Dimadick (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

      @Dimadick Could be. An inattentive outside observer might think Marcocapelle and I always agree with each other so much that it must be suspicious....!!1! They obviously haven't paid attention to cases where we might have had a bit of a disagreement... Something like that could also be going on between Oculi, LL and RD; no formal cooperation of any kind, let alone some sort of team-tagging, canvassing, or off-wiki cabal, or anything; just like-minded individuals engaged in the same topic areas often agreeing, but not always. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from CFD the diffs and BHG’s above response are more than enough evidence, I think, of extreme WP:ABF/WP:CIR/WP:CIV/WP:ASPERSIONS problems. This is a disagreement over category policy, not the illuminati. Dronebogus (talk) 09:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  I identified and repeatdly noted a systemic pattern of fundamental misuse of a very brief and simple gudeline, WP:SMALLCAT. That misuse not only continued after being repeatedly challenged, but was weaponised by a tag team to target the complainant's own work.

  Why do you treat this solely as a matter of how the complainant phrases their repeated objections to the ongoing abuse, rather than focuisng on the substantive issue? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  If anyone has serious reasons to suspect a "tag team" being active, they should gather evidence and file a WP:CANVASS inquiry, not cast aspersions. (See my comment above). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  I hoped that the tag team coud be persuaded to desist without the drama of a case discussion.

  Note tag this tag team engaged in little direct canvassing. They just followed each other around, targeting me. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  Oh, I thought such targetted group behaviour fell under CANVAS, but what you're describing seems more like WP:HOUNDING. Just out of curiosity: what kind of measures should be taken in such a case? User Nobody suggested WP:IBANs, but I'm not sure if that would work in a situation in which group of editors A is allegedly intentionally jointly seeking to delete the work of editor B. (I don't see evidence of that being the case here, but if there is, such conduct may have to be sanctioned.) Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  I don't want anyoe sanctioned. I just want the hounding and the tag-teaming to stop, and the sustained abuae of WP:SMALLCAT to stop.

  Note that the hounding by the LL/Oculi tag team does seem have stopped for now, i.e. in the last week. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  Okay, but suppose someone wanted to stop hounding and tag-teaming, where should they report it? And secondly, why wouldn't you want to impose a sanction to ensure it does not happen again? If you genuinely feel hounded as you say, I would want to make sure it stops if I were you. And if you've got evidence of hounding, I may support such sanctions, because I do not want you to be subjected to hounding while you're working on Wikipedia. This should be a harassment-free virtual workplace. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  I am not vindictive. I just want it to stop. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  Well, if they are really doing it as you are alleging, then I don't think they are suddenly going to be nice to you and stop doing it after you've been - in their words - quite uncivil to them. I wouldn't want to think of you as a naive person who engages in wishful thinking; I regard you as smarter than that. If I were you, I would expect them to continue as they have been, so I would try to impose sanctions on those who are allegedly hounding me, and allegedly team-tagging my work. I would not turn every CfD into a battleground, that wouldn't make me particularly cheerful while editing Wikipedia. I'd like you to be cheerful while editing Wikipedia, and not have to deal with editors who (rightfully or wrongfully) are - in your view - demolishing your work for no good reason in violation of hounding/canvass/whatever policy. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  I’d like to point out that BHG has provided literally no evidence for the assertion that these two users are a “vindictive” “tag team” out to systematically destroy her work. That’s clearly casting WP:ASPERSIONS Dronebogus (talk) 16:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  So far, I agree, but she has also indicated that she is currently gathering evidence (e.g. I will begin work on diff-farming to show both the extraordinary pattern of abuse of WP:SMALLCAT, and the way that LL and Oculi have been tag-teamig [sic] in revenege [sic] for my challenges, and elsewhere). What I don't understand is that BHG wants to use evidence, not to sanction those who are allegedly hounding her or team-tagging her work, but for everyone to stop doing bad things and get back to business as usual. I don't think that's realistic. These clashes are almost bound to happen again. I think sanctions will have to be taken, one way or another, perhaps both. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment This should be the type of issue that could be well dealt with by ArbCom, who would (theoretically) look at the actions of all parties in a dispute, but since that's exactly what didn't happen last time ArbCom got involved with BHG, I wouldn't blame her for not wanting that. However, can I suggest that if people are going to comment, they read the whole thing? There are a lot of diffs from either viewpoint. Black Kite (talk) 10:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
• I find myself generally in agreement with BHG's reasons for opposing these nominations at CfD and her comments about a handful of editors attempting to impose their interpretation on others in poorly attended CfD discussions. I have myself in the past clashed with BHG over some issues, but I also recognise her valuable contributions to Wikipedia. She definitely needs to tone down her language at times and not attack other editors, but I do not believe any formal sanctions are necessary at this time. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
  • "in poorly attended CfD discussions" Necrothesp, this is not a new development. See for example the discussions from March 21. Some of these "discussions" involved only 2 or 3 different editors. Few Wikipedia editors even bother to comment on CfD, much less actively participate in the discussions. Dimadick (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• Note on OP: It is a surprising and unhelpful omission that the OP here @RevelationDirect did not open their ANI complaint by noting and linking to the discussion which they initiated about this issue on my talk: User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Apologies_for_CFD_comment (permalink).
  Instead RevelationDirect chose to cherrypick decontextalised comments which ignore my substantive points:

1. it is not matter of interpretation or opinion that the guideline WP:SMALLCAT says "Small with no potential for growth" rather than just "small".
   The guideleine says "will never have more than a few members". It does not refer to current size. In fact, WP:SMALLCAT explicitly says the opposite: "this criterion does not preclude all small categories".
2. it is not matter of interpretation or opinion that the guideline WP:SMALLCAT includes an exception for established series of categories: "unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme".

RevelationDirect repeatedly ignores the substantive issue that by repeatedly ignoring those two factors, they and a few others are sytematically misapplying a brief and simple guideline by failing to apply the two key tests set out in the guidleline. Instead they are taking an approach which the gudeline explicitly rejects; they focus solely on my mounting exasperation at their avoidance of the substance. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I have no objection whatsoever to you presenting your different view on applying WP:SMALLCAT at CFD or in our talk page conversation. I welcome it! Here is a a nom from BrownHairedGirl, a nom from me, and a a controversial one that still remained civil. I want to see more collaborative discussions like those, disagreements and all, were we can really dig into those substantive issues. - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@RevelationDirect: Aaaargh!

1. This is not a matter of a "different view". It is a matter of you and a few others wholly ignoring the actual words in WP:SMALLCAT.
   "This criterion does not preclude all small categories" is simple, plain English. The guideline makes it very clear that current size alone is not sufficiet reason to delete or merge.
2. In our discussion on my talk at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Apologies_for_CFD_comment (permalink), I repeatedly tried to engage you on that substance, and you repeatedly refused to do so. So it's bizarre of you to now say that you want collaborative discussion.

BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@Laurel Lodged Again, pease don't tease/provoke her by copying her behaviour. You're not helping the inquiry, and undermining your own input. I suggest you keep WP:COOL and go do something else for a few hours or a day before coming back here. I would like your input to be valuable. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I've deleted the offending material per the JC37 trap. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• I don't spend nearly as much time at Cfd as I used to, but I have noticed a number of recent noms that attack the long-standing interpretation of SMALLCAT. Cfd debates are so poorly attended these days that it easy for a small number of editors to take over. So I find BHG's basic complaint rather plausible. Like Necrothesp above "I have myself in the past clashed with BHG over some issues, but I also recognise her valuable contributions to Wikipedia". She is not the only editor here who can be combative. Johnbod (talk) 14:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
• I agree almost universally with Johnbod and Necrothesp. It is not all that uncommon for discussions to get heated on Wikipedia and to me this seems as much of an issue of provocation as it is about incivility. I think BHG is making good points and those ought to be taken into consideration. A ban of any kind is excessive. --Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  BHG's conduct is evidently repeatedly WP:DISRUPTIVE. If you believe there are also issues of provocation, we can look into that separately, and see if other editors should also face sanctions. It's not sufficient to go tu quoque; that won't exonerate BHG from any policy violations she may have committed. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  Nederlandse Leeuw appears to believe that it is not disruptive to repeatedly and persistently misreprepresnt a simple and stable guideline, and that the diruption conists only in objecting to those repeated misrepresentations, even when they continue after multiple corrections so that there is no posisbility whatsoever of the misrepresentations being good faith errors or oversights.

  That denialim is no way to work collaboratively, no way to build an encyclopedia, and no way to treat other people.

  Nederlandse Leeuw has agreed below to my suggestion that we should discuss this at an RFC. That is a welcome development, but I remain appalled that NL and a few others have tried to savagely to smear me for upholding what the WP:SMALLCAT has said for a decade in very simple words. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  Well, if there is such evident long-standing disagreement over what WP:SMALLCAT says, then evidently the text of SMALLCAT is not clear enough, and should be clarified. Who misrepresented what seems to be a POV until there is agreement on what the text actually says. That's why I support an RfC and take no side on how to interpret the present text of SMALLCAT. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  No, there is not long-standing disagreement over what WP:SMALLCAT says.

  It is short, simple and stable. Al that as hapned is that for a few moths, a few editors have bene pretending that it says somethig other than what it actually says. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  Then let me rephrase that: there has been long-standing disagreement over how WP:SMALLCAT should be interpreted. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: Going through all the diffs and reading this discussion I personally think/believe that:

• Conduct problems were part of why BrownHairedGirl was desysopped in the past.1
• BrownHairedGirl Conduct got her blocked in the past.2
• BrownHairedGirl has repeatedly clearly violated Conduct policies (See the diffs at the discussions beginning)
• While disagreeing with someone/others about how to apply a policy/guideline (in this case WP:SMALLCAT) is fine (WP:CONTENTDISPUTE), but then talking about the user and not the guideline/content is clear conduct failure (See Graham's hierarchy of disagreement)
• If ignoring the past conduct, this can be handled with either a warning or some IBANs I believe
• Otherwise I believe a stronger type of sanction will be necessary. Nobody (talk) 14:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for providing this context, Nobody. I'm proposing a topicban for now, but I do not exclude further sanctions in the future. IBANs may also be a good idea. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@1AmNobody24: you seem to me to saying that when an editor persistently misrepresents a stable guideline and persistently refuses to corect their error, then any criticism of that editor is automatically unacceptable. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

No, that's not what Nobody is saying, namely talking about the user and not the guideline/content is clear conduct failure. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

The issue is not the guideline. It is clear and simple.

The problem here has been that a small set of editors persistently misrepresents a stable guideline and persistently refuses to correct their error. That is a serious problem with the conduct of that user. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl I linked WP:CONTENTDISPUTE as a hint of what I would've liked to see. Namely, a talk page discussion, be it a user talk, CfD talk or Overcategorization talk. And if a talk page discussion didn't bear fruit, there's WP:DR/N and WP:RfC. If there really is a consensus that "has long been broadly accepted", then at best, a talk page discussion and at worst, a RfC would've solved this. And as someone who's been here for over 15 years, with nearly 3 million edits and who has been an admin, I would expect you to know these steps already. But that's just my assumption. Nobody (talk) 17:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@1AmNobody24: see below, at #The core issue of WP:SMALLCAT where nobody dissents from my summary of WP:SMALLCAT. One of the tag-teamers actually described my post as "bait"ing.

A talkpage discussion may help resolve a good faith disagreement about a policy or gideline. It cannot resolve the situation we had here, where a bunch of editors have been knowingly and repeatdly misrepresenting a simple guideline. That's why I chose instead to bring the abuse to the attention of the closer, who is required per WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS to weigh argments against the actual guidelies and policies.

Posting on the talkpage woukd probably not get the attention of the closer.

This is not a "content dispute". It is a dispute about how to apply a guideline, which is precisely what CFD debates theselves are for. Where a guideline is being abused, or when a nomination in made in clear bad faith, the closer needs to see that assertion in the main discussion. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

where nobody dissents from my summary of WP:SMALLCAT. Not really; I dissented from 4. unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme. by telling Johnbod:

I have no objection against the "part of a wider scheme" exemption in theory. However, in practice, it is unclear what "wider scheme" even means, and even if it is clear, whether that is a good excuse. If you've got a series of five categories with only 1 item, I don't think "wider scheme" is a good excuse; I think those are five shit categories that should be (up)merged. I see this all the time with Fooians by century, especially when created with Template:Navseasoncats. It doesn't help navigation, it just makes items harder to find (for both readers and editors) and categorise (for editors).

So if you want a simple "yes" or "no", I say: no. As long as we haven't defined what a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme actually is, anyone can claim anything is part of such a scheme and thus claim SMALLCAT doesn't apply and the nomination is invalid. That means this text is worthless. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@Nederlandse Leeuw: this is significant.

BL writes I dissented from 4. unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme. by telling Johnbod

Really? Do you disagree that it is currently, in the guideline, as it has been for at least a dec?de BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

No, I don't disagree that it currently is in the guideline. I disagree that it should be in the guideline just because it currently is in the guideline. It shouldn't, because it is way too vague, and therefore impossible to adequately apply in practice.

Moreover, this rule allows editors to set up an elaborated completely unnecessary subsubsubsubsubsubcategorised scheme with 1 or 2 items each (e.g. some sort of intersection between country and century), claim that "by country" and "by century" are "large overall accepted sub-categorization schemes", and thus, the completely unnecessary subsubsubsubsubsubcategorised scheme as a fait accompli. And there's nothing anyone can do about it once it has been created. That's just unworkable. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

At last! So you agree that I have accuately presnted what the guideline says.

You are of course fully entitled to your own belief. But you are not entitled to your own guideline.

It's utterly outrageous that you and a few others others choose to act as if the guideline says something radically different to what it actually says, and to berate me for challenging your denialism.

If you want to change a guideline, the proper consenus-based approach is to go seek a consensus at an RFC, and to accept the outcome, whatever that is.

But instead you have chosen in this discussion to repatedly suggest that I recuse myself (or be banned) from CFDs involving WP:SMALLCAT, because I have had the allegedly appalling rudeenss to uphold what the guidleine actually says. In what sort of a weirdly dysfunctioanl uiverse would that sort of approach be tolerated? This is a very nasty form of bullying, with a strong tint of gaslighting: you gnore the rules, but you smear BHG as the baddie for upolding them. I do not want to work in an environment like that.

I regard your dismissal of the "established series" clause as hopelessly simplistic, but this is not the place for that substantive debate. What is at issue here is your choice to repeatedly attack me for upholding what the guidline actually says. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

To BHG,

Well well, you can quote verbatim what a publicly available online text says. Congratulations.

Before you, in your typo-riddled misspelling flurry, accuse even more people or uiverses [sic] of being dysfunctioanl [sic], I suggest you keep it WP:COOL, then decide what you want your future on Wikipedia to be, which approach is most likely to lead to that outcome, and follow it. E.g.

• If you're looking to be banned or blocked, then you shouldn't care if you're being uncivil in an ANI about your alleged incivility, because anything you say in a potentially uncivil manner here can and may be used against you. (I presume that is not your goal, but that may be the consequence of your conduct here; you're undermining your case by recklessly criticising the very people who are saying you should be more WP:CIVIL. If you entered this conversation being all nice to everyone and apologising for any offence you might have caused, your case might have been credible, but we're seeing the opposite).
• If you're "gathering evidence" and "diff-sifting", ask yourself why. If you're not doing it in order to sanction those you want to stop allegedly "hounding" you or "team-tagging" your work, why are you gathering evidence?
• If you don't want to have to deal with all this shit anymore, but just write great articles about topics you care about, then WP:LETITGO, do damage control, and secure the editing privileges you may still be allowed to keep after this is over.
• Alternately, you always have the option of WP:RETIRE.

I've done my best to offer an olive branch to you. What did you do with it? You threw it out of my hand, broke it in little pieces, set it on fire and poured petrol on it, declaring you are right and everyone else is wrong. Allow me to introduce myself as a new member of your opposition. Good night.

To the rest:

Per S Marshall, I do not think inaction is an option anymore. Nor do I think telling people to stop doing bad things without imposing sanctions (BHG's stance) is realistic anymore, but wishful thinking. These clashes will probably occur again at SMALLCAT CfDs in the near future. Therefore, I think sanctions are called for.

So far, we have seen a compelling case being made from multiple editors why a topicban, an IBAN, or potentially other sanctions such as temporary blocks imposed upon BrownHairedGirl would be justified, and have in fact already been imposed upon her in the past for much the same reasons, including desysoping and temporary blocks (as summarised by Nobody). My recommendation would be to start with a topicban on SMALLCAT CfDs (as proposed by me) and an IBAN vis-à-vis Oculi, RevelationDirect, and Laurel Lodged (as proposed by Nobody). Further sanctions do not seem necessary at the moment, but should incivility take place in other contexts and involve other editors, these may be considered.

On the other hand, we have seen BHG make unsubstantiated claims of hounding and team-tagging by the three editors mentioned; perhaps she is indeed gathering more evidence, but has also indicated not to desire any sanctions to be imposed upon anyone. So even if BHG will present this evidence eventually (instead of wildly responding to other editors in typo-fuelled CIVIL-skirting replies), there seems to be no case for sanctions against anyone but herself. I'm calling it a night, good night everyone. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Wow!

Nederlandse Leeuw is not only continuing to demand my exclusion from CFD because I uphold the actual, stable guideline which Nederlandse Leeuw rejects ... but NL is overtly trying to drive me off Wikipedia etirely, suggesting that I retire.

This is utterly appalling conduct.

And they also have a go at mocking the typos caused by the dying keyboard on my laptop, which is a mess of sticky keys, dead keys and consequnetial remaps. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:53, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl I'm not proposing to exclude you from CfD entirely, only a topicban on SMALLCAT CfDs.

How the guideline should be interpreted has been unstable for years, e.g. no agreement on the minimum number of items required.

I've suggested 4 options for your future on Wikipedia:

Option #4 "voluntary retirement" is one way to achieve what you want, namely, for the alleged hounding to stop. This is preferable to retirement by admin, which is what you currently seem to be on track to, in several stages (option #1: "various types of bans and blocks").

Option #2 "gathering evidence" is probably going to be inconsequential (see my replies to Dronebogus and DIYeditor).

Option #3 "to let it go, do damage control, and secure your future on Wikipedia" is what I'm actually recommending, and in my view that involves accepting a topicban on SMALLCAT CfDs. But this requires you to take an olive branch (you've already rejected mine), or to disengage from this ANI and let it run its course (which you're not doing; you're actively responding to everyone everywhere, making option #1 more likely as you are skirting WP:CIVIL again and again in the process). The longer you fight against this option #3 in this belligerent manner, the closer you will get to option #1, and the more uncertain your future on Wikipedia is looking.

Incidentally, if you've got a dying keyboard on my laptop, which is a mess of sticky keys, dead keys and consequnetial remaps, that is not our problem, but yours. You can still correct any typos before you hit the "Save" or the "Reply" button, or even after. (Alternately, you might want to have your keyboard repaired, or buy a new one).

You might have noticed I have corrected some of my own typos after I posted some comments, because I want to make sure everyone here understands me correctly. FYI I used keyboards on 3 different devices so far to participate in this ANI; all of them work fine, and still I correct my own typos. Your failure or unwillingness to do so is entirely your own responsibility.

I didn't even know you had a dying keyboard on my laptop, which is a mess of sticky keys, dead keys and consequnetial remaps until you just told all of us this. You could have kept that information private, to prevent people from mocking you for it. Now it's out in the open, and that is on you.

Have a good day. Greetings from the opposition benches. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: I struggle daily with typos even though my equipment is working just fine. I went back and forth with the list of Diffs on whether to quote verbatim or clean up a few typos. I ended up going with the former to ensure an exact match, but no disrespect was intended. - RevelationDirect (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, @RevelationDirect. Either approach is fine with me: quote verbatim or tidy up, as you prefer. Both ways show consideration and respect.

What is not in any way considerate or respectful is NL's mockery of me for typos, and their comment that disclosig my keyboard prolems makes me a legitmate target for mockery. That's no way to behave anywhere. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

PS: I don't understand why the *peep* we should have a very special exemption just for works by creator: Also, subcategories of Category:Works by creator may be created even if they include only one page. This is completely random. Just special pleading. No reference is made to any precedent or discussion or agreement. Moreover, there are many Category:Works of uncertain authorship, so that one page in that one subcategory may not actually have been created by the alleged creator but by someone else. I really don't get it. This is one of the worst categorisation rules ever made. We should scrap it. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• Question BrownHairedGirl, if you believe(d) there was a disruptive, vindictive tag-team effort, why didn't you bring your evidence of bad faith here rather than sprinkling accusations around places where there is no way to address it? —DIYeditor (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  I've been trying to get BHG to answer that question. So far she has said: I don't want anyoe [sic] sanctioned. I just want the hounding and the tag-teaming to stop. (...) I am not vindictive. I just want it to stop.

  As I told Dronebogus above, what I don't understand is that BHG wants to use evidence, not to sanction those who are allegedly hounding her or team-tagging her work, but for everyone to stop doing bad things and get back to business as usual. I don't think that's realistic. These clashes are almost bound to happen again. I think sanctions will have to be taken, one way or another, perhaps both. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  Because ANI is a masively dysfunctional shitshow which I prefer to avoid until other paths have been exhausted. I find ANI to e deeply unpleasant and distressing timesink, even if it produces a broadly favourable outcome. (See e.g. my comments at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#5-JUL-2023 (permalink), about my othe recent trip to ANI, which I initiated.)

  In this instance, the worst of the tag-teaming stopped about ten days ago, and there seems to have been none this week. So there was no need to spend a day diff-farming. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  I think this is pretty much the only venue on Wikipedia (other than e.g. arbcom, sock puppet investigations, and dealing directly with obvious vandalism) where it is appropriate to outright allege bad faith, with evidence of such. Doing so repeatedly elsewhere is an AGF/CIVIL problem. Either get the problem addressed properly or ignore it. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  I strongly agree with DIYeditor. Whatever gathering evidence, diff-farming, diff-sifting etc. BrownHairedGirl is doing or planning is likely to be inconsequential if she does not want to impose sanctions on the three editors who she accuses of hounding and team-tagging. And as long as these accusations are presented, repeatedly, without the evidence for it, this is an WP:AFG/WP:CIVIL//WP:ASPERSIONS problem which strengthens the case of this ANI, and for sanctions to be imposed on BHG. Simultaneously, BHG is hereby undermining her own "defence", for lack of a better word, because I'm really struggling to understand what she's trying to do, and how she believes this will be successful in this situation. She appears to have chosen this as her wikt:hill to die on, rather than picking her battles. If this continues, it may be one of her last. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:54, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• I agree with the general sentiment of those who can see how BHG would feel put upon by these nominations. BD2412 T 18:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as of now. A lot of this seems passive aggressive and snarky, but very little crosses what I would consider the threshold for TBANs given the circumstances. IMO, Chide and issue a warning to BHG, and issue a two way IBAN if necessary.
  As someone who has been in my fair share of arguments, @BrownHairedGirl - Accusations like "tag-teaming" are quite serious violations, and if you are unwilling to take it to ANI it is best not to insinuate as such. If you feel you are being targeted, either bring it to ANI, or else just live with it. Unpleasant interactions do not help the project, and these accusations do not help your case in discussions. I would especially point to the usage by you of the term "vindictive, disruptive bad-faith nomination" - No closer will see this and see it as an argument that will change their mind. You are simply creating an unpleasant environment by using them, and I would expect you to not use such terminology in future. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  @CapnJackSp: it is terminology which I have never used before this episode. I used it here because that is exactly what happened.

  My diff-farming is more time-consuing than I had hoped, and it may now not be until tomorrow that I post the evidence. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  Sure, I expect you to not use it future either. Try to resolve issues on user talk pages, and if it doesnt work, bring it to ANI. Accusations in discussions help no one. As for the diffs, you can take your time. I doubt there will be a sudden closure to this. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• If even this does not cross the threshold, then what would? Is WP:CIVILITY perhaps entirely redundant? I'd be curious to know. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  Given the circumstances, (which include the other editors being uncivil as well, including in this thread itself with violations I would categorise as far more egregious) I dont think the contribution by BHG in these discussions is a net negative. It is certainly unnecessary, and it should be avoided, but I do not think a TBAN results in a better space. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  @CapnJackSp That's just tu quoque.

  • Saying "Well everyone's doing it, so what BHG is doing is only fair, let's get back to business as usual" doesn't solve anything. It won't exonerate BHG from any policy violations she may have committed, and won't prevent the same clashes from happening again at SMALLCAT CfDs, the probability of which is extremely high. BHG's own estimation that it will not happen again just because it has been quiet for a week seems wishful thinking to me. Particularly after this ANI, business as usual can safely be ruled out.
  • If other editors have allegedly been uncivil, she or you or someone else should make a case for that, and present evidence for it. As long as BHG or anyone else presents accusations of hounding, team-tagging or other violations on the part of other editors without the evidence for it, this is an WP:AFG/WP:CIVIL/WP:ASPERSIONS problem that undermines BHG's own "defence", and strengthens the case of this ANI and for sanctions to be imposed on BHG (see my reply to DIYeditor above). As it stands, only a case with evidence against BHG has been made by nom, and supported by several participants (myself included).
  • I note that nom herself has admitted to having been uncivil on at least one occasion, but having apologised for it to BHG. She recognises the importance of WP:CIVIL.
  • I also note that when LL made several provocations/teasings towards BHG in this ANI, and was called out by Black Kite and me not to do that and disengage from this ANI, LL removed the comments in question and disengaged. He recognises the importance of WP:CIVIL.
  • I finally note that BHG has not admitted to any wrongdoing whatsoever so far, let alone apologised for it. She does not recognise the importance of WP:CIVIL (except in an attempt to counter-accuse others; a tactic criticised by LilianaUwU above: That's not uncivil of people to call out uncivil behavior.). As I highlighted, when I first presented my findings with care and nuance to BHG that I found some of her comments to be uncivil, she responded by saying "That's just wikilawyering and offence-taking", confirming for me several weeks ago already that BHG does not recognise the importance of WP:CIVIL. In this ANI, too, almost every comment is filled with more WP:CIVIL-skirting belligerence and accusations addressed to her detractors, not just the three of the alleged "tagging team", but anyone else here who disagrees with her. This includes myself, despite my best efforts to be diplomatic, offer an olive branch, and work out some sort of compromise that could secure BHG's future with proper damage control. I have now joined the opposition, and concluded that limited sanctions against BHG must now be taken, for the good of the community, and for her own good.

  Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  You have argued passionately in favour of the TBAN, but it doesnt affect my analysis.
  The only aspect of WP:CIVIL I see being a clear violation would be WP:AGF, which does allow you to drop the assumption of good faith if it is a repeated pattern. I dont think it was right to accuse as such in a discussion, but that isnt by any way ban worthy.
  As for LL, they not only kept the mocking attitude, but also continued to insinuate regarding the extremely distasteful comments regarding her mental status after the warning that they would be banned. Such an attitude, to me, shows that there may have been grounds to disregard the good faith assumptions we usually expect.
  If BHG's version of events is true, she may not have much to apologise for. As such I reserve that judgement till later. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  If Foo's version of events is true, Foo may not have much to apologise for. That is to be expected, and why self-policing is generally not a great idea. What's more important is the testimonies of the rest of the community with regards to individual editors. I'm seeing a pretty strong majority of people here who have confirmed and added to the evidence provided by nom. On the other hand, I also see that the suggested sanctions are generally limited, and will allow BHG to continue editing Wikipedia in other areas, just not SMALLCAT CfDs anymore, both for the good of the community and her own good.

  Given that BHG has been blocked 4 times already from 2019 to 2022 already, in almost every case because of or related to WP:CIVIL, and been desysopped, prohibited from all portals, and given an IBAN in 2020 because of similar violations, this is not unfamiliar terrain, and sanctioning BHG is not unprecedented. If anything, it suggests past sanctions have not been sufficient to prevent further violations.

  I still want BrownHairedGirl on Wikipedia. But if she is not able to improve her own conduct, the community should take actions so that she can no longer engage in misconduct in areas or in interactions with certain editors where that is likely to happen again and again without sanctions. I am of the opinion that inaction is no longer an option, and mere warnings will not suffice. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:28, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  This is essentially restating what has been stated in comments above in much more detail. As such the assumption that I must have come to my conclusions by overlooking those comments seems inappropriate.
  I dont see a case prima facie for sanctions; And I will wait to hear BHG's side of the story with diffs. If you want me to pass judgement prior to that, I dont agree. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:07, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban for BHG, and seriously consider a topic band on CFD and removing categories for RevelationDirect, Oculi, and Laurel Lodged. who do not seem to understand what they have been doing is detrimental to Wikipedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

The core issue of WP:SMALLCAT

Small cat

A question for @RevelationDirect, @Oculi, @Laurel Lodged, and their supporters. Do you agree that WP:SMALLCAT says:

1. Small with no potential for growth
2. this criterion does not preclude all small categories
3. will never have more than a few members
4. unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme

... and that a CFD nomination citing WP:SMALLCAT therefore needs to go beyond current size and address both potential for growth and whether the categorie(s) are "part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". ????

A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Does User:EEng's feline both represent small categories and a dialogue of the deaf, which seems to be the case here? Many white blue-eyed cats are deaf. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, er, um... Why, yes! How perceptive of you to see the joke within the joke. EEng 20:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

All kidding aside, that is one cute kitty. Thanks for your illustrations. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@EEng: Love seeing this come up from time to time. That's my cat! She's named Zen and is still doing great, even though that photo was taken 11 years ago. Here's a photo from a few months ago of her, all grown up on the same chair! Leijurv (talk) 07:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

They start off so tiny! –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

"Yes" or "no", please. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@Laurel Lodged Please don't tease/provoke her by copying her behaviour. You're not helping the inquiry, and undermining your own input. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl no, the core issue is your lack of WP:CIVIL. Don't go WP:OFFTOPIC, please.

I suggest we close this irrelevant subsection. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

On the contrary, @Nederlandse Leeuw, this whole thread is entirely about a sprawling dispute which arises from the sytematic misuse of WP:SMALLCAT by a small set of editors.

I do undestand that it suits some editors to ignore the sustance and to try make an ANI drama focused solely on the tone of my challenges to that sytematic misuse. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I fell into the trap that JC37 mention: "a.) if you get baited into being uncivil". Stupid of me. I've deleted the material. --Laurel Lodged 12:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

It's a great summary of this whole dispaute that my attempt to engage editors on the core substance of the whole dispute is labelled by Laurel Lodged as being baited into being uncivil.

LL's unwillingness to reply with civility to a simple question is a key part of the reason why this became heated. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

No, LL, you aren't being baited at this ANI. You're just being uncivil for the sake of being uncivil, and this is twice now today. Anyone unfamiliar with the dispute would assume that it is your modus operandi. I notice that most of the OPs "uncivil" diffs are from BHG to you; if this is level of how your discourse runs I am unsurprised that other editors may sometimes talk to you like that. I suggest you disengage from this ANI completely and let your fellow editors involved in the situation handle it. Black Kite (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Sadly, this is indeed LL's modus operandi, and has been for many years. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:55, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@Laurel Lodged Good on you for deleting the material. I recommend you take Black Kite's suggestion and disengage from this ANI, at least for now. We'll take it from here. Have a good day, see you elsewhere. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I didn't see the comments before they were deleted, but I'm against repeated incivility by any editor. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@RevelationDirect: Here they are: [2][3]. Please note that LL removed them completely instead of striking them out. This is in violation of WP:TALK#REPLIED. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Why has the edit history of those two comments been suppressed? How does WP:SUPPRESS apply in this context? It feels a stretch to class it under criteria #4. Cashew.wheel (talk) 09:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The suppression was to hide something else that was unrelated. These two edits just got caught in the middle. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

To the detriment of my rapidly diminishing time on earth, I'm following this discussion. The problem seems to be that the Wikipedia instruction WP:Smallcat does not define the words "small" and "few." Let's amend the instruction to define "small" and "few" as fewer than ten articles -- and going to stay that way, i.e. Elizabeth Taylor's husbands will never reach 10 in number and therefore Husbands of Elizabeth Taylor is not a valid category. In other words, a category has to have at least 10 articles or the potential to rise to that number. If it doesn't, it will not be a category. Smallchief (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I would support a possible amendment of WP:SMALLCAT. @Smallchief has a good point. Established practice in recent months has, as far as I have experienced, shown that most editors consider a category to be a SMALLCAT if it has only 1 or 2 items (not counting subcategories), and that new categories should only be created if it has at least 5 items. I personally find that a good rule of thumb; if 1 or 2 items were miscategorised by the category creator, then we don't have to immediately delete the newly created category, because 3 is enough for a Keep.

Smallchief is suggesting that a category should have 10 items at all times, from the moment of creation until eternity. I'm not sure if that is necessary, but I would not be opposed to having more stringent criteria than 5 at creation, 3 until eternity.

At any rate, this is not the place to discuss this in detail, but I thought I'd give my 2 eurocents. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

For years, "small" was generally accepted as meaning fewer than five, but if there are subcategories that would be different (obviously, I hope). But that is not the only issue or problem; there is also the "part of a wider scheme" exemption, also long accepted, which some editors are also now attacking. Johnbod (talk) 14:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm okay with making 5 the lowest limit, but at least we should have a limit. I don't wish it on anyone to have to continue to debate the limit for another decade.

I have no objection against the "part of a wider scheme" exemption in theory. However, in practice, it is unclear what "wider scheme" even means, and even if it is clear, whether that is a good excuse. If you've got a series of five categories with only 1 item, I don't think "wider scheme" is a good excuse; I think those are five shit categories that should be (up)merged. I see this all the time with Fooians by century, especially when created with Template:Navseasoncats. It doesn't help navigation, it just makes items harder to find (for both readers and editors) and categorise (for editors). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

A hard limit would be major change to WP:SMALLCAT.

Nederlandse Leeuw is quite entitled to their view that the "wider scheme" clause is a bad idea, but they ar not entitled to continue to act as if it that clause had not been a stable part of WP:SMALLCAT for over a decade.

I strongly disagree with NL's view, but I am happy to discuss it at an RFC. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Noted. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@Smallchief, actually the lack of a definition of "small" is not contentious. A threshold of five as a safe number has long been broadly accepted at CFD. Lower numbers may be acceptable if there a reasonable possiility of growth, or if the category is part of a wider series. (The poblem with Elizabeth Taylor's husbands is not that the number is currently small; the probem is that is "Small with no potential for growth", on account of Taylor being sadly unable to marry again).

The dispute is about the fact that a small group of editors have been persistently and stubbornly refusing to take any consideration whatsoever of WP:SMALLCAT's caveats about "potential for growth" and "established series". This whole ANI discuson is about their efforts to frame me as "ucivil" for objecting to their abuse.

There may be a case for changes to WP:SMALLCAT. But as I have repeatedly pointed out at CFD discussions, any changes should be proposed and discussed at an RFC, to establish a broad WP:consensus. It is quite wrong for a small group of editors to try to use a WP:LOCALCON to simply ignore the actual contet of a short, stable guideline which they wholly misreporesent... let alone do as they have done here, to try to bully the objector into silence.

To Nederlandse Leeuw and any other would like WP:SMALLCAT to be amended: RFC is thataway. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah perhaps we should make it an RfC, that's a good idea. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

PS: I support setting up an RfC, but I've never done that before, so I would suggest a more experienced editor set it up. @Smallchief are you willing to do that? You seem like the experienced editor we need. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I have started several RFCs, and participated in many more.

So I strongly urge that before opening an RFC, there should be a discusison about what issues should be adressed, and how to frame them in a neutral way. I suggest WT:CAT as a venue for that preliminary discussion. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it's best if neither I, nor BHR, nor RD, nor Oculi, nor LL, starts this RfC; we are all too closely involved in this ANI already, and I think we need a neutral party to pose this question. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Whoever opens the RFC, we need to start with a scoping discussion. That's the only way to ensure that the RFC does address all issues and that is actually neutral.

I think it is highly unlikely that even the best-intetioned and most skilled editor can cover all the bases without a scoping discussion to find out what needs to be resolved. Note for example that I would want to propose several changes which have not been discussed so far, some of which are to keep up with technical develpments. There will probaly need to be several questions.

One path which has often been successful is for the final draft of the RFC to be hammered out between two or more editors with opposing views. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Having a team preparing a draft RfC seems like a good idea. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

PS: But I think it will not be possible to have a proper RfC before this ANI is closed. We're in the heat of the moment, IBANs are being suggested to be imposed between several editors, as well as other suggested sanctions. There will not be a way to keep things WP:COOL until the issues here have been addressed. I support an RfC after this is all over, because we do need a long-term solution. But first things first. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• In 2018 May 18#Category:Mayors of Daly City, California, User:Bearcat said of BHG "... your interpretation of what SMALLCAT means inherently causes SMALLCAT to defeat itself, because every SMALLCAT could always claim to be theoretically expandable someday, and thus no SMALLCAT would ever fail to qualify for that exemption from SMALLCAT." Exactly.
  Since 20 June 23, as well as excoriating any editors with the temerity to disagree with her, BHG has created 959 new categories in 18 days, a prodigious output. All of these will be properly named, parented and described, but not necessarily populated: BHG seems to think 1 member is enough (how navigation is improved by hiding a single article deep in an elegant web of tiny categories is never explained). Population is left to other editors, who may have no interest in populating say Category:17th-century bagpipe players or Category:Swiss emigrants to Ireland. It has certainly been a toxic atmosphere at cfd since BHG returned after a welcome break of many months.
  I am not particularly likely to tag team with Laurel Lodged, after their recent disobliging remarks on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 May 11#More emigrants "What makes this procedural lapse all the more egregious was the supercilious replies by the nominator [Oculi] to a GoodFaith query on his talk page", and after long-running disagreements at speedy and cfd based on LL's irrational objection to the demonym ("Down with the tyranny of demonyms!"). In any case it would have been an ineffective tag team as LL contributed nothing (until recent enigmatic remarks) to 2023 June 24#Irish field hockey players by county or 2023 June 24#Irish trade unionists by county (same page as LL's own nomination 2023 June 24#Irish police officers by county).
  BHG seems to be trying to create an atmosphere at cfd where (a) all her category creations are sacrosanct; (b) nominations are subjected to all manner of novel restrictions, rendering nominations almost impossible; (c) WP:SMALLCAT is disallowed. "a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme": 'accepted' by whom? Where is the 'accepted' part to be tested if not at cfd, preferably in a civilised conversation not bludgeoned to death by one remorselessly argumentative editor, capable of adding more bytes than the rest of the contributors combined?
  Accusing RevelationDirect of any impropriety is ridiculous: RevelationDirect typically supports SMALLCAT nominations with a remark such as "With no objection to recreating if any ever reach 5+ articles"; see eg this cfd search - 103 hits going back to 2016. Oculi (talk) 11:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Oculi writes a pile of blatant falsehoods BHG seems to be trying to create an atmosphere at cfd where (a) all her category creations are sacrosanct; (b) nominations are subjected to all manner of novel restrictions, rendering nominations almost impossible; (c) WP:SMALLCAT is disallowed. "a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme": 'accepted' by whom? Where is the 'accepted' part to be tested if not at cfd

  I note that Oculi offers absolutely no diffs to support these wholly false allegations.

  1. I have never argued or implied that my category creations are sacrosanct. I have asked that they not be targeted vindictively, that they not be immediately nominated for deletion, and that when discussed, they should be assessed against the actual guideline that I followed when creating them.
  2. It is a total inverson of the truth for Oculi to claim that I try to make nominations are subjected to all manner of novel restrictions.
     All I have asked is that the existing, long-term stable guideline be followed. It is absurd to claim that upholding a stable guideline is any form of "novel restriction"; more than absurd, it is a monstrous inversion of reality.
  3. WP:SMALLCAT is disallowed. "a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme": 'accepted' by whom? Where is the 'accepted' part to be tested".
     Again, utterly false. I have never argued that WP:SMALLCAT be disallowed; but what I have repeatedly argued (and got angry about) is that WP:SMALLCAT is not just a single word "small", but a set of simple principles in which current size is never the sole criterion: WP:SMALLCAT eplicity says "this criterion does not preclude all small categories", which could not be more clear.
     Oculi wants to ignore all of that guideline except the one word "small", even when he seeks to delete over 300 categories (WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 13#Expatriates_A-G) in one nomination, with precisely zero asesment of either their potential for growth of whether they were part of an accepted sub-categorization scheme.

  What on earth is going on here?

  I cannot know why Oculi and others repeatedly deny what WP:SMALLCAT actally says, and I make no claim to know why. I can ask questions: Is Oculi somehow unable to read the 100 words of WP:SMALLCAT? Does Oculi not want to read it? Is Oculi bluffing? -- but I cannot know the answers.

  All I do know is that this sustained denial of what WP:SMALLCAT actally says is happening, both at CFD and right here at ANI.

  What on earth is going on?

  Why is this sustained denialism of stable consensus not treated as gross misconduct?

  Why are attcks on me for upholding a stable consensus not treated as gross misconduct?

  It saddens me deeply that I come here to buld an encyclopedia, but find my categorisation work and that of others being subject to a large scale demolition effort by a small group of editors who systematically misuse the guideline which they namecheck. But what absolutely breaks my heart is the sheer sustained viciousness of their inversion of reality -- not primarily because it is directed agaist me, but because if en.wp cannot uphold the principle of honest use of a simple guidline, then what possible chance do we have of either creating an actual encyclopedia? If challenging outright falsehood is punished, then we are creating a savagely toxic environment.

  In over 40 years of adult life, much of it spent working on the edges of the dark and dirty world of politics, I thought I had witnessed far too much horrible behaviour. But have never before had such a close encounter with a concerted effort to invert reality and monster the person who points out that the rules are written down. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:46, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  Accusing RevelationDirect of any impropriety is ridiculous: RevelationDirect typically supports SMALLCAT nominations with a remark such as "With no objection to recreating if any ever reach 5+ articles

  That quote is entirely the opposite of the gotcha that Oculi thinks it is.

  WP:SMALLCAT's 6-word headline says "Small with no potential for growth", but Oculi's search demonstrates that RevelationDirect is systematically failing to assess potential for growth, and wrongly asessessing only current article count, even tho WP:SMALLCAT says "this criterion does not preclude all small categories".

  Thank you, Oculi, for illustrating so persuasively how RevelationDirect's abuse of WP:SMALLCAT is much more widespread than I had realised. No wonder Oculi It has certainly been a toxic atmosphere at cfd since BHG returned after a welcome break of many months. -- it must be deeply uncomfortable to have someone repeatedly challenge sytematic abuse of a guideline after so many months of it being unchallenged.

  Oculi, RevelationDirect: which part of "this criterion does not preclude all small categories" is unclear to you both? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Smallcat

• Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Small with no potential for growth

Just for those who have not been around CfD:

There is no consensus for a 'set value' for when WP:SMALLCAT is applicable.

Over the years, people have argued back and forth about whether it should be 4, 5 or even 10.

But in the end, things really are, and have been, a case-by-case basis.

And note, as per "no consensus", you will find those who very much want there to be a set number, and those who do not.

I'm not joining in the specifics of whatever is going on with the CfD(s) in question (I have been, and am, staying out of that), this is merely an historical note about the policy/guideline. - jc37 14:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@Jc37: your good faith observation is, as you note, historical. Am I right in thinking that your former frequent participation at CFD is now more than 5 years behind us?

In recent years, a threshold of five as a safe number has long been broadly accepted at CFD. Lower numbers may be acceptable if there a reasonable possibility of growth, or if the category is part of a wider series.

But as noted above, this dispute is not about the definition of "small". It is about the sustained disregard shown by a few CFD regulars for WP:SMALLCAT's very clear caveats about "potential for growth" and "part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I read your comments above, and the first phrase that came to mind was: Suppose They Gave a War and Nobody Came.

I hope you have a good day. - jc37 16:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Not the most helpful response ever to polite request for clarification. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Laurel Lodged at CfD

• Laurel Lodged (talk · contribs)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1065#Emptying categories out of process

Okay, so I know this has the chance to completely derail the discussion about BHG, but she said something that sounded particularly familiar to me about Laurel Lodged. For starters, LL has a documented history of pushing hard at CfD for his preferred outcomes (an issue brought up 2 years ago by Fram in this AN/I report).
If he was willing to wait 3 years for a non-consensus close at CfD just to empty a category anyways despite the lack of consensus, then I seriously think we should fully investigate BrownHairedGirl's concerns about him potentially tag-teaming to get his way. People should not be so ready to dismiss her concerns simply because she was desysopped for incivility.
I especially think this is true given Laurel Lodged's first response to this thread was to immediately devolve into personal attacks and undue speculation about BHG's motivations, mental health, and character (complete with total misogyny by characterizing BHG as a Mother Bear unable to think rationally while trying to protect her cubs). It astounds me how anyone is able to get away with saying these outlandish and terrible things in one of the most visible parts of projectspace, but this is literally the second time I've seen him do something like this (when he openly speculated an editor was involved in a child-trafficking ring to recruit pro-Azeri Wikipedians). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree here, wrt the sort of language used and especially the mocking of her supposed mental health status. I'd wait to see more before announcing any judgement on LL, but from their conduct in this thread it does seem to suggest a vendetta. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 20:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

LL's vendetta against me has been going on for years, but I doubt that I will have the energy or stomach to diff-farm through about a decade of bile.

The new develoment has been LL's vindictive tag-teaming with Oculi, on which I am collecting diffs. That tag-teaming is a massive escalation. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

The problems can be distinct, alleged tag-teaming behaviour is not any justification for being incivil. --qedk (t 愛 c) 22:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@MJL I didn't even know BHG was desysopped for incivility when this ANI was submitted; it has not been part of my case until S Marshall mentioned it, and it has not been a central part of my case after.

As I have said elsewhere, it's always possible to file a complaint against other editors who may have engaged in similar or other violations, but only if evidence is presented for it (see my comments to Dronebogus, DIYeditor and Captain Jack Sparrow above).

• The 1065 ANI report on "Emptying categories out of process" might count as evidence for a case on LL, but what I'm reading is that no agreement was reached on a sanction, and as a result no sanction has been imposed on LL.
• The 1092 ANI report on "Laurel Lodged at WP:AN" might count as more serious evidence, but again no agreement was reached and no sanction imposed on LL.
• I also note that when LL made several provocations/teasings towards BHG in this ANI, and was called out by Black Kite and me not to do that and disengage from this ANI, LL removed the comments in question and disengaged. He recognises the importance of WP:CIVIL. The same goes for RD (see my comment to Captain Jack Sparrow above).
• As Nobody suggested above, mutual IBANs between BHG and LL could provide a partial solution to the "vendetta" Captain Jack Sparrow has also identified here. That seems to me to be a reasonable sanction to be imposed on both LL and BHG. (For the moment, I don't think it's necessary to consider IBANs between BHG and Oculi/RD; especially RD would really like to be able to continue cooperating "collegially" with BHG as she has stated in the OP, and that still seems possible.)
• I support qedk's comment The problems can be distinct, alleged tag-teaming behaviour is not any justification for being incivil. As LilianaUwU also noted above, BHG has attempted to accuse those who accused her of being uncivil of incivility, but that very act is itself not uncivil: That's not uncivil of people to call out uncivil behavior. This is tu quoque behaviour, and without evidence also a WP:AFG/WP:CIVIL/WP:ASPERSIONS problem (see my comments to DIYeditor and Captain Jack Sparrow above).

Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@Nederlandse Leeuw: Laurel Lodged had to be told twice by Black Kite to knock off the behavior in this AN/I thread before backing down. That is far, far, from supportive of the statement He recognises the importance of WP:CIVIL. You don't get to call someone a actual menace to the Wiki Project and get to turnaround saying you'll disengage. The damage has been done, and I never saw an apology to BHG (only a thing further accusing her of "baiting" him which isn't an excuse). He's just going to keep doing this kind of thing.

@qedk: The way I see it; regardless of BHG's conduct here, LL should be considered for sanctions. No reasonable person acts the way he has acted here, and it's only made the situation worse. What kind of message are we sending out by saying Laurel Lodge's actions are in any way acceptable on Wikipedia? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

My point is not to say that LL's conduct should not be examined, my point is to say that BHG's conduct should be examined with due diligence to past behaviour, and not treated as an isolated incident. --qedk (t 愛 c) 22:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

IMO they cannot be treated in isolation. AGF does allow the assumption of bad faith if the opposing editor acts in a way as to lose that privilege. Both are connected. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

The side issue of WP:SMALLCAT

I find editing Wikipedia enjoyable to relax in the evening versus, I dunno, figuring out what Wordle is. That makes me value civility over other concerns.

I honestly don’t see the underlying difference of opinion on WP:SMALLCAT as being relevant here. But my insistence on focusing on civility is part of the reason BrownHairedGirl and I talked past her on her talk page. And it’s been repeatedly been pointed to as more proof of my bad faith. So I’ll briefly break my silence on WP:SMALLCAT:

I think there is consensus that WP:SMALLCAT is imperfectly written but I don’t know if there is a consensus on how to fix it. (Actually, I thought I created an unsuccessful RFC at one point but I can’t find it so maybe I just meant to.) My main concern with WP:SMALLCAT is that, unlike with other CFD closures, editors should be able automatically recreate categories if 5 articles unexpectedly appear, like I did with Category:The L Word. (I checked with the closer.)

The dispute here though is this phrase in WP:SMALLCAT: "unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". I take that phrase to mean that the sub-categorization is accepted if it is generally well populated with a few small categories to complete the set like with Category:1940s establishments in Puerto Rico where 2 subcats will likely be small forever because of WWII. In contrast, BrownHairedGirl appears to be looking at the total number of categories: "Note that Category:People from Northern Ireland by occupation has 584 Fooers from Northern Ireland subcats. If 58 is not enough, what's the threshold?" (Diff: This is a good faith quote BHG; if it’s out of context let me know.)

But the truth is WP:SMALLCAT doesn’t explicitly endorse either of our perspectives emphasizing average article count versus total number of subcats. This simple acknowledgement would help things tremendously:

Both RD and BHG have differing but plausible interpretations of the current editing guideline. Editors can disagree with one or both in CFD nominations and still be acting in good faith.

Instead, during this nomination BrownHairedGirl continues to accuse me of tag teaming without evidence:

25 ... “the nominator and their tag team pals” ... (Diff)

I have no interest in participating in a potential RFC discussion if it lacks WP:AGF. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:03, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but @RevelationDirect absolutely does not have a plausible interpretation of the current editing guideline

See the section above, #The core issue of WP:SMALLCAT. It's a series of quotes from WP:SMALLCAT.

RevelationDirect has repeatedly rejected all of those parts of the guideline. I had a lengthy discusion with RD at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Apologies_for_CFD_comment (permaink), where they simply refused to engage on those simple points.

This sustained denialism is not in any way a "plausible interpretation". And it is deeply to uncivil to disrespect other editors by pretending that the words of a guideline do not exist or have nothing remotely like their plain English meaning. WP:Civil reuires that oe editosr be treated with "consideration and respect" ... but this sustained denialism is thoroughly inconsiderate and deepy disrespectful.

I am not obliged to sustain an assmption of good faith when someone repeatedly asserts that black is white. RD won't even agree that the 6-word headline "Small with no potential for growth" actually means what that ootential for growth is a factor!

I do undestand that RD likes to come to Wikiedia to relax. But repeatedly winding up other editors by denying reality does not seem to me to be a good way to ensure a relaxing experience.

. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Because you wanted us to have a substantive discussion on WP:SMALLCAT, I tried really hard above to even-handedly contrast our interpretations of the guideline without any negative characterization of your perspective.RevelationDirect (talk) 04:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it will not be possible to have a proper RfC before this ANI is closed. We're in the heat of the moment, IBANs are being suggested to be imposed between several editors, as well as other suggested sanctions. There will not be a way to keep things WP:COOL until the issues here have been addressed. I support an RfC after this is all over, because we do need a long-term solution. But first things first. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@RevelationDirect: again, I remind you that the headline of WP:SMALLCAT says "Small with no potential for growth"'. It had exactly the same headline ten years ago.[4]

Ten years ago[5] the body text of the guideine said "Note also that this criterion does not preclude all small categories". The current version[6] of WP:SMALLCAT uses exactly the same words "Note also that this criterion does not preclude all small categories".

This guidance is clear and simple. It has been stable for at least a decade.

That is not a matter of "interpretation", as you insist. It is a matter of fact.

Yet you repeatedly deny that "potential for growth" is a factor when applying WP:SMALLCAT. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I didn’t mention the header of WP:SMALLCAT because we both treat it the same. If you look at our two current nominations (yours, mine), our views are so similar you could switch the signatures and no one would notice: we both nominated categories that were part of a series, both categories had at least some growth potential, but we didn’t see that growth potential as plausible. I do think growth potential should be considered (see here and here) but we have an honest disagreement about who should do that assessment work when an editor creates small categories en masse. Even if the positions you ascribe to me were true though, it wouldn’t show I’m part of an attack dog for a secret tag team.

Your thesis here and on your talk page seemed to be that, if only we engage in a substantive discussion of the editing guideline, then the frank comments I've mischaracterized as uncivil would evaporate. (If that’s not a fair summary of your view, let me know.) But when I provided just the engagement you asked for, I received yet more aspersions about my motives and competency. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

That is not true, @RevelationDirect.

In the discusion User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Apologies_for_CFD_comment you repeatedly refsued to uphold the "Small with no potential for growth" principle. Instead you retained the position you had taken at WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_June_25#People_by_occupation_in_Northern_Ireland, when you expilicitly !voted to upmerge because, as you wrote in your reply to me Your clarification that you're not planning to populate these categories moves my !vote to Merge.[7]. A I noted in my reply, that both grossly misrepresented my position (I did not say that I was not planning to populate these categories), and also breached both WP:SMALLCAT's empahasis on "no potential for growth" and the "accepted series" clause. Your hostile repsose accused me of refusal to compromise.[8]

It may be that you have since changed your view. Any editor is entitled to change their view on anything, and if you now upold the guideline as actually written then of course I welcome that.

But if you have changed your mind, you should say that you have changed your mind. Instead, you picked a fight with me because you woudn't uphold the gudeline as written: you ignored both the "potential for growth" and the "accepted series" parts of WP:SMALLCAT. Then you refused to correct your view in your discusion on my talk. Then you cherrypicked diffs from our discussison to try to paint a black picture of me for ANI.

And yet after all that you make a balatantly false asertion here that our positions are similar.

That sort of warping of history to paint me in a bad light is the complete opposite of WP:civility's requirement to "consideration and respect". It is a very deeply uncivil way to treat any other person, in any context.

Secondly, I did not accuse you of being part of a secret tag team. That is a straw man fallacy which you invented, and which I replied to on my talk 8 days ago: I also do no know whether you are a part of the tag team. All I do know is that you both repeatedly endorse the tag team, and that you repeatedly act as their attack dog by piling on me for criticising them.[9] BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:55, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Let's see if I can craft a draft summary of our disagreement that we can both agree on:

"We disagree on whether WP:UNCIVIL or WP:SMALLCAT is the most important issue. We disagree on how to apply the first sentence of SMALLCAT discussing an "overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". (We disagree on the nature of that disagreement though, whether it's an honest difference of opinion or a deliberate misrepresentation.) SMALLCAT has two more sentences and a headline and we disagree about whether we disagree on all three of those. The layered nature of these disagreements has caused us to sometimes talk past each other."

Any suggested edits @BrownHairedGirl: or am I on the wrong track? (I'm hoping that by naming our disagreements, we can lay the foundation for more constructive conversations on both sides!) - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @RevelationDirect, but I do not agree that this in any way a fair summary.

What do you mean by We disagree on the first sentence of SMALLCAT discussing an "overall accepted sub-categorization scheme"????

Do you disagree that WP:SMALLCAT says that???

Or do you disagree that those words have their plain English meaning????

I would like to move on to more productive discusion, but this draft gets us no closer.

It also omits the fact that you pay no heed at all to WP:SMALLCAT's headline "Small with no potential for growth", or to its clear statement "Note also that this criterion does not preclude all small categories; a category which does have realistic potential for growth, such as a category for holders of a notable political office, may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time."

I find it very surprising that after all ths drama, when you want to build bridges, you still have not ackowledged what WP:SMALLCAT actually says. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC:

You're right, that sentence was pretty unclear so I added a little to it, but it sounds like I'm way off from your perspective. Would you rather do this the other way around and take a stab at a neutral summary of our disagreement that I might sign off on? - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I will try, @RevelationDirect. The gap between us is such that I doubt there is some sort of middle ground, but I will sleep on it, I will try my best to post something tomorrow.

For now, I will simply note that in all our discussions, I can recall not a single instance you trying to apply either "no potential for growth" or an "overall accepted sub-categorization scheme".

As Oculi's search found, you have a long history of simply assessing current size. Oculi found 103 hits for you writing "With no objection to recreating if any ever reach 5+ articles".

Do uou disagree with Oculi's findigs? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, his report was accurate. If you don't think this is a fruitful avenue, you're under no obligation to spend time on it. I (mistakenly) thought my summary just needed a few words changed but this is harder than I thought. - RevelationDirect (talk) 04:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I really will try. I do believe that you want to resolve the dispute, so I wanna try to see if I can help build the very long bridge needed. Peacemaking is never easy {{smiley]} BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support the proposed injunction against BHG, per my reading of the discussions above. Lourdes 10:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  My apologies, Lourdes - but which proposed injunction? - jc37 10:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• WP:SMALLCAT says Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme. Most of the categories which started this discussion, such as Category:Geneticists from Northern Ireland, are part of an existing hierarchy, along with Category:Scottish geneticists - parallel categories for the consituent countries of the UK. I don't see how WP:SMALLCAT can be used to oppose these categories, as I have already said in the discussion at CfD. I was not aware of this gigantic discussion here at ANI, having had a few days largely off-Wiki, but I must add that I have interacted with BHG on many occasions and admire her as a very energetic editor dedicated to improving the encyclopedia, willing to help other editors, super-knowledgeable about all matters of categories, and usually perfectly collegial with other constructive editors though sometimes pretty brusque with time-wasters. I am disappointed to see her being maligned and threatened with sanctions. PamD 15:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Thoughts about possible restrictions

I think it's time to discuss ways in which the present situation can be adequately resolved. There appears to be a broad consensus that sanctions / restrictions are due, but not yet against who, nor what kind of restrictions. As I'm relatively inexperienced in this area, but do seek an adequate solution (separate from all discussions about what had happened or how to possibly update the guideline), I'm opening this section here. Please correct me if I'm wrong about something, or if my suggestions won't really help.

• Two-way WP:IBANs between BrownHairedGirl and Laurel Lodged; between BrownHairedGirl and RevelationDirect; and between BrownHairedGirl and Oculi.
• Limited WP:TBAN on SMALLCAT CfDs, and limited nomination ban, for BrownHairedGirl. That means, if any nominator explicitly mentions WP:SMALLCAT in their rationale in order to propose deleting, merging, renaming or splitting a category, BrownHairedGirl is not allowed to participate in the discussion. BrownHairedGirl is allowed to nominate any category for discussion and invoke WP:SMALLCAT in her rationale, but she may not nominate any category created by Laurel Lodged, Oculi, or RevelationDirect.
• Limited nomination ban for Laurel Lodged, Oculi and RevelationDirect: they may not nominate any category created by BrownHairedGirl, nor may they ask other editors to do so (WP:CANVASS).

Might something like this restrictions package be a realistic solution? I'm especially asking everyone else who is not one of these 4 people to comment. Although I am so far not convinced that there is "team-tagging" going on, I think the limited nomination ban for Laurel Lodged, Oculi and RevelationDirect is necessary in order to make things fair, and not allow them to abuse the restrictions imposed upon BrownHairedGirl, and because I think we should take the experience of BrownHairedGirl seriously. I'm open to be corrected or supplemented on these suggestions, and obviously I'm not an admin making the decisions. Good day to everyone. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

1 seems okay. 2,3 seem like something that will be gamed, and Im not convinced that the TBAN is necessary regardless. Though this discussion is moot till @BrownHairedGirl actually shows diffs that she said she would bring. I dont believe it would be appropriate pronouncing judgement prior to it. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, for sure we are not ready to pronounce judgement yet. On the other hand, BHG has already indicated that, regardless of what evidence she might bring to the table, she does not want anyone to be sanctioned. So I don't think she will want us to use her evidence in order to consider sanctions. Nevertheless, I believe the limited nomination ban on the three would be fair and appropriate to balance things out for BHG as well. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Note that this whole section is proposed by one of the troublemakers, Nederlandse Leeuw (NL), who repeatedly refuses to uphold WP:SMALLCAT as it is actually wrtten. NL wants the guideline to be changed, which of course a legitiate aspiration; any editor may legitimately believe that any guideline or policy needs changes, or that it should be abolished. But unless and until there is a WP:consensus for changes, en.wp policy is that editors should uphold the existing consenus. This is absolutely fundamnetal to the WP:consensus principle of how en.wp works.

However, instead of taking the collabaorative approach of seeking a consensus for change, NL has beeen posting repeatedly to this ANI, demanding that I be restricted from WP:SMALLCAT-related discussions. Why? Becuase I uphold the stable guideline as actually written.

NL has also made a number of blatant personal attacks on me here at ANI, which include an allegation of lack of empathy, a typo flame[10] (after I challenged it, NL doubed down on it[11]: you could have kept that information private, to prevent people from mocking you for it. Now it's out in the open, and that is on you.). NL also wants to drive me off Wikipedia, suggesting you always have the option of WP:RETIRE.[12]

This is overt hounding of me, being carried out right here at ANI. And it is overtly driven by a desire to silence me for upholding the long-term stable guideline.

Tihs is completely Kafkaesque, and it's clearly a wild abuse of ANI. No organisation, company or project can function with any form of sanity if its procedures are weaponised to punish somone who upholds the existing rules unless and until they are changed. The worst possible consequences here are not life-threatening, but NL's logic reminds me of the Stalinist show trials. OMG! BHG uholds consensus!!! Mock her! Insult her! BAN HER' BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: I understand you may be upset by this proposal (I am too; it's simply unreasonable), but this comment isn't going to help your case at all. Try to relax with the comparisons to Stalinism and the bolded sarcasm, okay? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:37, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

this comment isn't going to help your case at all. Try to relax with the comparisons to Stalinism and the bolded sarcasm, okay? Hear, hear. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:00, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@Nederlandse Leeuw: I don't think you are being particularly helpful at this point either. As has been said to you already, you should really consider disengaging with this thread. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@MJL Oh, this is the first time I'm reading this (have I missed this? I do see DIYeditor saying something similar below), but I guess you're right. I'll see if there are some final things I should contribute before disengaging. Thanks for the advice, I will take it to heart. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

No, just disengage, period. Let the community handle it at this point. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 11:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment The two-way IBAN between BHG and LL is reasonable; the SMALLCAT TBAN for BHG is just asking to be gamed, and the third restriction could possibly be as well. Black Kite (talk) 20:38, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, I'm wary of ways in which suggestion #2 and #3 could be gamed. Initially I was thinking about not allowing LL, Oculi and RD to nominate any category created by BHG per SMALLCAT, but that is probably too easy to circumvent, so I decided to propose a complete ban on nominating any category created by BHG fullstop. In return, I decided to add a nomination ban for BHG on any categories created by the three in return (even though I think that's unlikely to happen), in order to balance things out. This should prevent "team-tagging" or "revenge-nominating" either way.

  What I haven't yet figured out is whether these things can be circumvented in other ways. Maybe I should add that BHG should also not be allowed ask anyone else to nominate cats created by LL, Oculi and RD (per CANVASS)? What if any of the 4 deliberately created categories that the other party is not allowed to nominate? This would mostly be an annoyance and burden for other users who need to clear them up. Other issues may also arise. That's why I'm saying I don't have all the answers, and I stand to be corrected or supplemented if needed. But I think something like this restriction package will be necessary to resolve the core issues at hand. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• Defer I'm here because I don't know how to fix this so I am open to whatever resolution the community thinks is appropriate. (I would need a little coaching on how IBANs would work in practice at CFD though.) It took me 3 evenings to put together the original list of Diffs; Captain Jack Sparrow's request to give BrownHairedGirl additional time to fully respond seems quite reasonable. - RevelationDirect (talk) 21:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:28, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  Btw I suggested a two-way IBAN between you and BHG. In your OP, you still said If anyone has a magic wand, what I really want is for me and BrownHairedGirl to go back to collegial discussions in CFD; I understand and appreciate that sentiment. But there have been some sharp interactions between you two afterwards, and I'm getting the impression she would prefer to no longer interact with you in the long term (even though she does not want to impose any sanctions on anyone). How are you feeling about a two-way IBAN, or is that too soon for you to say? At the moment, I'm thinking it may be best for both of you, but I'm just an observer. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm just an observer. No, you're not "just an observer." You've made approximately 70 edits to this AN/I thread, and persisted in editing here after you were warned about WP:BLUDGEON. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Each person's conduct should be evaluated in isolation and with respect to past behaviour, it is highly unlikely that a simple three-way IBAN would be a long-term solution for the good of the wiki. --qedk (t 愛 c) 22:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  I agree. That's why I'm suggesting a mutual limited nomination ban for each other's created categories, and a SMALLCAT TBAN for BHG. Whether this is (A) fair and balanced, and (B) will work in practice, is something I hope to get people's feedback on. Hopefully we can work towards building a consensus on what should be done. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  That isnt possible; While two wrongs dont make a right, WP:AGF does allow the assumption of good faith to be dropped if the actions warrant as such. Therefore, actions must be evaluated in context and that involves evaluating the actions of others as well. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose BHG topic ban - The IBAN seems like it would be useful, but, as I read the evidence here, the problem is not emanating from BHG, it's from the editors who oppose her position and are bound and determined to get her sanctioned when it's not appropriate to do so.
  An important part of this issue is that some Wikipedians seems to believe that civility is the most important thing here, but it most decidedly not of paramount importance - improving the encyclopedia is the most important thing, close to being the only important thing about editing Wikipedia. A certain degree of mild incivility is quite appropriate when interacting with editors whose actions serve to degrade the quality of this encyclopedia. This is not a "Get Out of Jail Free" card for BHG, but her contributions to the project over the years have earned her a little leeway when dealing with unreasonable editors. (And on a side note, the desysoping of BHG is irrelevant here, because the standards of behavior for an admin are stricter than for an ordinary editor, which is as it should be.)
  I am also opposed to any other sanction being levied against BHG without an opposite and equal restriction against her opponents in this argument. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:44, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  An important part of this issue is that some Wikipedians seems to believe that civility is the most important thing here, but it most decidedly not of paramount importance. Well, given that Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility is one of the Wikipedia:Five pillars, the paramount importance of civility is beyond doubt vis-à-vis "improving the encyclopedia", which isn't.

  This is not a "Get Out of Jail Free" card for BHG, her contributions to the project over the years have earned her a little leeway when dealing with unreasonable editors. Well, that looks a lot like proposing a "Get Out of Jail Free" card for BHG. Given that BHG has already been blocked 4 times in the past 4 years, as well as desysoped, prohibited from all portals, and given an IBAN before, there is no reason to suddenly bring up her past achievement as an excuse for later, current and future misconduct. In fact, it suggests previous sanctions have not been effective enough yet, and require expansion. I think inaction is no longer an option, and the community should not engage in wishful thinking that these clashes won't happen again at SMALLCAT CfDs, especially between her and the three.

  I do read you support #1 and the limited nomination bans of categories created by the other party in #2 and #3? Then you mostly agree with me already, just not with the TBAN. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:19, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  There is one pillar about rules and policies ("Wikipedia had no firm rules"), THREE about Wikipedia's content "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia", "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view", and "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute") and ONE about behavior ("Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility"). "Respect and civility. It's worth considering that "respect" means not only "due regard for the feelings, wishes, rights, or traditions of others", but also "a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements". BHG has been here a long time (almost as long as me), and her "abilities, qualities and achievements" in helping to edit and improve Wikipedia have earned her the right to be respected. Again, this is not to say that she can misbehave at will, but it does put things into context, in my view. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Beyond My Ken So what you're saying is that: Because BHG has been here long and has made good contributions, we should forgive these repeated conduct problems with a Slap on the Wrist, basically saying BHGs part of the Unblockables? Nobody (talk) 06:12, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  Nope. Did you miss the parts about "Not a Get Out of Jail Free card" and "this is not to say she can misbehave at will"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  Just a caution at this point about WP:BLUDGEONing the process, Nederlandse Leeuw. Everyone is aware of your desire for sanctions. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  I guess you're right. Thanks for the advice, I will take it to heart. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Beyond My Ken: I had preferred not to discuss the desysoping stuff in too much depth but since you brought it up in that way. The reality is if BHG weren't an admin at the time, they likely would have been long indeffed. The continued behaviour include horrific personal attacks that lead to BHG's desysoping was beyond the pale, not something we ever accept from nearly every other editor. These included continued personal attack of a nasty personal nature that share fair similarities in nastiness even if in a different personal characteristic of the editor, that people are trying to sanction LL over for a single instance which LL to their credit seems to have at least partially recognised went way too far. So not, it wasn't simply a case that the behaviour expect from admins is stricter, in reality they were far less strict in that instance. Nil Einne (talk) 03:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  I do not agree that the Findings of Fact in the Portals case support your opinions, which is all I intend to say on that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:35, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• We've been incredibly patient with BHG in the past, and I see that we're still bending over backwards to keep her at CFD. I can't see these insipid measures will have much effect.—S Marshall T/C 09:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  To be fair (my own past experiences of interactions with the editor, aside), in general, I think it's been mostly around the two topics that I noted above ("...anything involving feminism or women's issues; and anything involving Northern ireland, Ireland, the UK, the British Commonwealth - you get the idea..."). So, (to try to say this as neutral as possible), if, one feels that BHG is being disruptive, and thus if they are looking for sanctions to reduce/prevent such disruptions, then, probably an indefinite topic ban from those two general topics broadly construed, would likely be a step in that direction. But, call me jaded if you like, I am very doubtful that that will find consensus on AN/I. Plus, again to be fair, she has shown to be a positive contributor at times at CfD. In my opinion, the above has not shown her at her best, even if it may somewhat rather exemplify and illustrate some of the rhetorical WP:BATTLEGROUND, that I mentioned above.

  Also: While some of it maybe could be accounted for as baiting, there are some edits by others that probably should be looked at as well. For example, I don't know how extensive of a history Laurel Lodged and BHG have, but even if only from what we've seen in these threads, an interaction ban between those 2 at least, might not be a bad idea either. And if the seeming CFD battleground WP:DE by LL doesn't stop after being disengaged from interacting with BHG, then perhaps the community might need to look at a topic ban on the latter topic for them as well. - jc37 10:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

While some of the categories were in one of those topic areas, I think that was only incidental. Other editors can of course express themselves how they wish, but my intent here was to raise specific concerns about incivility, not to make a broadside against BrownHairedGirl's contributions in general. - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:43, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I have to say, while I have not read everything, you really seem to have tried to keep collegiate discussion open with BHG. Yes, you both seem to clearly disagree on certain policy/guidelines, and you did lose your cool a few times, but you apologized and came back to the table to discuss. I don't think those discussions would win awards for positivity, but to me, it looks like you have tried. - jc37 10:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Oppose topic ban. It's not the topic, it's the incivility. BHG, honestly, I'm seriously asking: why can't you control yourself when interacting with other editors? What is it going to take to get you to comply with CIVILITY? What is it going to take for you to stop fucking talking about other people? What is it going to take to get you to stop using the words vindictive, malicious, stalking, tag-teaming, bad faith, revenge? You are a highly-valued editor. We:re how long it's taking you to find diffs: IMO you should never, ever, ever again talk about another editor's behavior without providing a diff in real time. Valereee (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• I wish we had a better way to mediate disputes here. We've spilled a lot of text because all three users are steadfast in their position to the point of incivility over something which on the scheme of things is very minor, and CfD isn't a place where the disagreement can be resolved because of low participation rates. I'd certainly want to know that the work I'm doing isn't going to be deleted (and I've created categories with only one starter article before, as part of a larger established structure - please don't delete them) and I'd also like to not be hounded for my creations, but I'd also want to make sure we're not overcategorising things. I don't want to say we shouldn't do anything, but I'm not sure bans or blocks are the way to fix the problem here. SportingFlyer T·C 21:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Miscellaneous Comments

This WP:ANI thread has become a sprawling 21,000-word monster, which is often what happens when a divisive issue that may call for a multi-part resolution comes here and grows tentacles. One of the reasons that I think that cases like this should be handled by ArbCom is that the structure and clerking of ArbCom cases result in each remedy being mentioned once. An interaction ban between BHG and LL has been mentioned more than once, and then the subject gets changed, so that monster cases become nearly impossible to close with anything other than an exasperated No Consensus.

We know what BHG said. It's all up there at the beginning of this thread, the head of the cephalopod. Most of us don't know what LL said, and so may have a biased interpretation of the conflict. I don't know what LL said either, except that it had to be expunged. I know that BHG is almost always right about technical details of Wikipedia and about Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I think that BHG has made the same mistake that she made with the portals case, which is being technically correct but in an undiplomatic way that amounts to a personal attack. It appears that BHG is arguing against the existence of stupid categories, just as she was arguing against the existence of stupid portals. At least we have guidelines about categories. The portal guidelines went away, because they turned out never to have beem approved.

We don't see LL's personal attacks; we see that they were warned and expunged. That is another reason why maybe this monster should be dissected by arbs with special glasses.

Since I don't think that this matter will go to ArbCom, I will propose two interaction bans, which I think are the only sanctions that should be imposed on BHG. (I haven't researched the categories well enough to know whether there are a Category Company of disruptive editors to parallel the Portal Platoon of disruptive editors.) I don't know whether anyone else needs to be sanctioned. If anyone else wants to propose sanctions, they can give their proposals letters or numbers.Robert McClenon (talk) 01:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I may be misunderstanding things, but isn't BHG arguing for the existence of certain categories here? The main non-behavioural similarity with the portals case that I can see (so I am ignoring assumptions of bad faith, walls of text and bludgeoning) is that BHG is arguing for her preferred outcome using the wording of a policy that may or may not still represent consensus on an issue, and is unwilling to accept that policy can change even without a formal RfC that says so. Basically she says SMALLCAT should override vote-counting "consensus" at CfD; the opposite point of view might be that consensus in multiple discussions at CFD can show that the wording of SMALLCAT needs to be updated. Another similarity with the portals case is that portals and categories are fairly niche areas of Wikipedia, and the majority of editors ignore them most of the time. —Kusma (talk) 12:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

IMO guidelines should be enforced uniformly, and unless the guideline is changed, the opinion of some editors in a discussion cannot overrule the accepted meaning of the guideline. If the guideline needs updating, they should update it using a well publicised RFC. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:BOLD changes to guidelines do happen, and that is a Good Thing. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and it is fine to update the written rules without a formal RfC. (There is an old wiki-philosophical debate between the descriptivist and prescriptivist schools of thought). Wikipedia is not Nomic. —Kusma (talk) 13:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Kusma - Yes. After reading the diffs again, I see that BHG was defending the existence of small categories that were part of a subcategorization scheme or had the likelihood of growth. BHG had read the guidelines enough times to understand them, and the other editors only thought that they understood them. With both portals and small categories, BHG was thinking analytically based on what the guideline said, and had no patience with sloppy thinking. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon — I agree with your comments. Wikipedia needs editors with the patientience, analytic ability, and knowledge to build and maintain categories. This long bonfire does not help build Wikipedia. I am afraid BrownHairedGirl is not as good tactically in arguing her case here as she is in building the smallcat case. Using 'incivility' as a a few have done bludgeon to change guidelines is not building Wikipedia, which, after all, is not paper. Since I have rarely worked with categories since all 'American women novelists' disappeared from the 'American novelists' category, I hesitated to post. But I have read this whole slugfest. I hope everyone else commenting has done the same. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 04:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC) —

Proposal A: IBAN Between User:BrownHairedGirl and User:Laurel Lodged

A two-way interaction ban between BHG and LL should be imposed.

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
• Neutral - I have been persuaded that the conduct of Laurel Lodged is much worse than that of BHG, and have agreed that it should be a one-way ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose I break my promise to disengage from this because I have been tagged. This proposal is wrong-headed. The issue is clear: BHG has been accused of uncivil behaviour; it is up to ANI to judge if that is true; if true, what sanctions are appropriate and likely to be effective both as a punishment and a remedy; if not true, close the case. Later, if other parties mentioned in this thread also feel that they have a case for uncivil behavior, let them take that to ANI. It really is that simple. I now withdraw permanently. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Support I strike my original vote and now vote "support". I would like to formally request the protection of an IBAN from BHG. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  The proposer may not have seen your comments before they were expunged, but I did. Trust me, IBAN is a very lenient measure. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support - key words: disruption and uncivil. And, I'll agree - this is very lenient from some of the other options on the table. - jc37 10:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
• SupportOppose - I was minded to oppose until I saw that Laurel Lodged doesn't see their own uncivil behaviour as part of the problem. Whilst not a big fan of interaction bans, where two editors rub each other the wrong way, a break from that friction is often helpful. WCM_email 12:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Comment given the bear poking at WT:IE and below I'm minded to suggest a one way interaction ban instead forbidding LL from interacting with BHG. @Robert McClenon: its your proposal and I don't wish to disrupt it whilst the discussion is ongoing. I'd also strongly suggest to BrownHairedGirl that they ignore such provocation. WCM_email 14:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Changed to oppose, very much in favour of a one sided ban. This would be my 2nd option. WCM_email 13:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support - I dont expect civil cooperation after the aspersions and resulting discussions.

Changing my vote to oppose per the discussion below - It does raise the valid issue of trying to prevent communication between two longtime editors while allowing edits in the same space, which is likely to create more issues than it solves.

Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. See e.g. #Disruption_by_Laurel_Lodged as an instance of how LL is the disruptor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs) 14:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  I dont think that this IBAN is intended to punish you, per se, and more so to prevent unhealthy conversation. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  An IBAN would prevent me from challenging LL's repeated errors, such as

  1. WT:WikiProject_Ireland#Local_councillors_by_city_categories, from June 2023, where I was the only editor to spot that Laurel Lodged has seriously misuderstood the issue.
  2. WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 16#Emigrants from Ireland (1801-1923), where Laurel Lodged failed to understand that neither start date nor end date was relevant, and lashed out at me for proposing an ALT action for which the closer found a consensus.
     An ALT propal is routine in en.wp discusios, but LL accused me of trying to hijack this nom[13] and anounced that It's my [i.e. LL's] anointed role in Wiki to make BHG sigh[14]
  3. WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 March 3#Template:S-par/ie/oi, which LL weirdly and disruptively brought up today in an attempt to disrupt work at WT:WikiProject Ireland#TD_navboxes:_getting_there. I have brought that to ANI at #Disruption_by_Laurel_Lodged. In that 2016 TFD, LL proposed an action which coud not resolve the stated problem, and lashed out at me repatedly and cruelly for having demonstrated how the issues could be resolved.

  That's just three examples amongst literally thousands of instances in the last decade here LL has radically misuderstood the facts, and either lashed out at me when I corrected them or simply ignored their error, as in #1 above.

  LL repatedly smears the motives of editors who disagree with LL. See e.g. WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_March_12#Category:Local_councillors_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland wher the nomiation opened with an attack on zealous irredentist guardians ("irredentist " is a regular smear term used by LL; see e.g. this[15] from 2010 when LL smeared other editors as uber-nationalist and irridentist).

  Note that in that 2011 discusison I raised the failure of LL to undestad the previous existence of a second tier of Irish local government, rural district councils and urban district councils; my first item above is LL repeating that same error, 12 years later. LL promptl proceeded to recategorise many hundreds of article on Irish local counillors, despite their reckless disregard for the history. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, that's what it would do, and it's a real loss. If you would start describing things objectively and stop using terms like lashed out, weirdly and disruptively, in an attempt to disrupt work, cruelly, smears the motives, regular smear term, reckless disregard, we could maybe figure our way out of this without sanctioning you. Valereee (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  For goodness sake!

  You entirely overlook the serial misconduct by LL, but seek to sanction me for descriing it as it is. That's an inverted sense of priority which gives a free rein to a long-term disruptor like LL. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support, both editors seem to be good at provoking each other and bad at de-escalation. Wikipedia is probably better off if they do not interact with each other at all. —Kusma (talk) 15:10, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support - I had originally intended to abstain, but since LL is now requesting it (NB: to only BHG's opposition so far) I now believe it would be a net positive for both. This won't solve every issue that's been brought up about either of them in this ANI but it might make more of those problems tractable and improve CFD for everyone else. - car chasm (talk) 15:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

*Reluctant support. Ibans are hard on editors, and generally I don't like to see one imposed unless both parties agree to it. In this case I think it might be necessary. I'd like it to be appealable in three months after BHG has shown in other interactions that she can stop commenting on other editors' behavior and motivations. I'm going to back off this for now, as it was relucant in the first place. Valereee (talk) 16:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• @Valereee, are you seriously saying that it is wrong to comment on a propsoal to delete categories based on a fundamneatl misuse of the relevant guideline? And wrong to note that the same editor repeats the same misuse despite being corrected? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  @BrownHairedGirl, I am saying that personalizing such discussions is counterproductive. We don't have to call someone a liar. We can simply say their statement isn't true. Valereee (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  In these CFD discussions I have tried to not call anyone a liar.

  What I have done is to note bot the utrith and the fact that someone has repeatedly made similar misrepresentations of a very simple guideline.

  I reain deeply troubled that some editors focus solely on how the challenges are phrased, rather than on the substantive issue of consensus-forming being misled by the repeated misuse of a simple guideline. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  "You are a liar" vs. "That is not true" was just an example to make the problem easy to understand. You've called them malicious, vindictive, and operating in bad faith. Phrasing is important, BHG. Discuss the edits, not the editor. It's extremely frustrating to me that someone with 17 years and 3 million edits hasn't grokked that. Valereee (talk) 21:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  Two of them have indeed been malicious, vindictive, and operating in bad faith: Laurel Lodged and Oculi.

  I will not refrain on Wikipedia or any other conte§t from noting such conduct when it happens, and I remain deeply sad that some editors are far more worried about those who challenge malicious, vindictive, bad faith actions than about the people engaging in malicious, vindictive, bad faith conduct. That's an inverted set of priorities. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  I get it. You believe that's what's going on, and you believe in telling your truth. But it's counterproductive to come out and say it because saying it baldly weakens your argument. You may think that's deeply sad, but it's the wiser approach: describe what is happening objectively and let others connect the dots. Many of us are actually pretty good at that. Valereee (talk) 22:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  I admittedly was reluctant to engage in the details of SMALLCAT until after the civility issues were resolved, but I finally did so above in the "The side issue of WP:SMALLCAT" section. Up to this point, that conversation hasn't lowered the temperature but I just added what I think is a neutral summary of our disagreement (diff). Shall we try again? - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Question - would this mean that LL could not nominate categories created by BHG at cfd, and vice versa? Would it mean that BHG could not opine at cfd on nominations brought by LL and vice versa? (WP:IBAN says nothing on this.) Oculi (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Interaction between the two parties does indeed need to be contained. But by about 50%. SN54129 09:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - per my comments elsewhere and the obvious detriment to the project. Wee Curry Monster, you may wish to update your contribution above given Robert McClenon's newer proposal? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I have supported the one-way IBAN below. SportingFlyer T·C 15:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support I think we need to do something and I think this is more likely to improve the situation even if only slightly and I see little chance of anything better coming out of this thread so I support even if it seems unlikely even this will pass to so I sort feel this is going to be another case where we fail to do anything until it eventually makes it to arbcom and then everyone complains when they don't like the outcome. Nil Einne (talk) 02:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposal B: IBAN Between User:BrownHairedGirl and User: Nederlandse Leeuw

Not going anywhere. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A two-way interaction ban between BHG and NL should be imposed. Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC) Oppose as targeted party. I can't speak for BrownHairedGirl, but she has indicated she does not want any sanctions, and I don't think she and I need a two-way IBAN. As far as I'm concerned, she and I will still be able to work together constructively in other areas. Evidently, there have been some tensions, but not nearly as strong as between BHG and the three. I can handle a few overblown Stalinist comparisons or some such in the heat of the moment, and I hope from my part some of my jokes weren't too harsh (otherwise I'm willing to apologise). But strange as it may sound, I think BrownHairedGirl and I will still be able to get along eventually. Just not during this ANI. BHG and I haven't got a long history of disagreeing, this is all recent and not that irreparable as far as I'm concerned. With that said, I shall disengage again as recommended; I only respond here because I was tagged. Good day to everyone. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:17, 12 July 2023 (UTC) PS: Reading your comments again I can't see a reason why you would propose this. Are you sure you wanted to tag me, not someone else? (I'm not in a position to speculate). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC) Oppose per above. Even more head scratching that an editor who is not the subject of the complaint would be sanctioned instead of the accused. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC) Oppose - I don't think we're seeing here anywhere near the vitriol that we're seeing with BHG and LL. If NL stays cognizant of bludgeon, and of the possibility of being baited, I don't think there's an immediate need for this. - jc37 10:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC) Oppose both in principle primarily because it is highly unlikely that will resolve long-term conflicts at CfD and/or result in improvement of conduct amongst the parties, I should also add that NL's conduct is nowhere near as vitriolic to BHG/LL and they should not have sanctions levied against them, at worst, they were badgering and even then, as soon as they were made cognizant of it, they stopped which is more than I can say about either of the other two parties involved. --qedk (t 愛 c) 11:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC) Oppose - as far as I am aware the only interactions between Nederlandse Leeuw and BHG are in this thread. (And Nederlandse Leeuw is part of the consensus against most tiny categories at cfd which prevailed peacefully until BHG returned with her view that the smallcat exceptions apply in almost all cases, rendering the argument toothless.) Oculi (talk) 12:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC) Support - per nom. As noted above, I'm not a big fan of interaction bans but its clear there is friction here and a break from that is often helpful. WCMemail 12:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC) Oppose wrt NL-BHG IBAN. Isnt disruptive to the extent it needs sanctions as of now; Both editors have shown the ability to talk in a civil manner. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC) Oppose per above. I can see the rationale both for and against an LL-BHG interaction ban, but from my experience with NL they have been much more consistently civil at CFD, and I see no evidence of any pattern of non-constructive interactions between them and any other users. - car chasm (talk) 14:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC) Oppose This doesn't yet rise to the level of an IBAN. I'd be willing to support if the sanction were NL not proposing BHG-created categories at CfD for a certain time period. SportingFlyer T·C 15:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Sorry, can people just remove proposals now? I'm just wondering what's happening to the process here. NL seems to be a) involved in the issue; and b) has contributed, by my count, in excess of 60 times to this discussion, to the extent they were warned about WP:BLUDGEON and only reluctantly stepped away. If ibans are being discussed, then to me, this is a valid proposal. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
  • [Discussion re-closed, above comment moved outside it.] @Bastun: I didn't say it was an invalid proposal. It's obviously not going to gain consensus, so I closed it. That is what admins are expected to do at the adminstrators' noticeboard for incidents. If you object to this close, you may file a close challenge at WP:AN. Please do not revert this close again. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

    Yeah, this was going nowhere. I considered closing it myself last night. @Bastun, that doesn't mean some other proposal is inappropriate if you think you can propose something that would gain support. Valereee (talk) 18:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

    Wasn't it? I understand WP:SNOW. This proposal was allowed remain open for only 14 hours, it was 8:2 against, and two of those opposes were people who were/are directly involved. I mean, the section below, proposal C, has been open for over 14 hours now, and has a ratio of 8:1 in favour. By the same token, should that proposal be snow closed now as carried? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

    There was only a single support other than the proposer. It's a fair argument to let go for at least 24 hours, but this was extremely lopsided and this section is unwieldy. Valereee (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

    Re: the one below. So, there's actually a lot of discussion going on. I wouldn't close now. Valereee (talk) 20:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

    That highlights one reason why we need to be careful about closing discussions too early and why policy (or is it a guideline can't remember) says they should nearly always be left open for 72 hours. Even if it initially looks clear, things can change quickly. However I'm not complaining about Tamzin's closures here especially since it's generally far less harmful to close something as snow oppose than snow support. Beyond the differing consequences something closed as oppose vs support, a key point is that it's very rare something will completely turn. The more likely thing to happen is something which initially seems to be snowing will turn out no consensus. For oppose, that remains a very similar outcome. For support it does not. Nil Einne (talk) 02:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

    The policy you're thinking of is WP:CBAN, and it matches your (and my) sense of the distinction between successful and unsuccessful proposals, in that it sets a 24-hour minimum for enacting a TBAN, but no minimum for closing one as unsuccessful. (So WP:SNOW, an essay about not waiting for deadlines, doesn't even apply to closes as unsuccessful, although its spirit might.) The 72-hour rule you're thinking of is for sitebans (although it has a sort of baked-in SNOW rule from 24 hours onward). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposal C: One-Way IBAN of User:Laurel Lodged against User:BrownHairedGirl

A one-way interaction ban of Laurel Lodged against BrownHairedGirl is needed. If what Laurel Lodged posted against BHG is as bad as I am told, then the community must ensure that it may not ever happen again. That does mean that LL cannot nominate BHG's categories for deletion, but she knows more about categories than almost anyone else. I have concluded that I was mistaken in trying to deal with the evenly. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom. As noted above, I was minded to oppose an interaction ban as I'm not keen on them. Then I saw the bear poking at WT:IE and here, concluding that LL was the main issue. WCM_email 06:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, this gives BHG (and only BHG) the unilateral power to ban LL from any discussion, including discussions started by LL. If LL is the problem, this is too weak. It is also weird to give enforcement power only to BHG. If there are any problems with BHG's civility towards LL (and it looks like there are), banning LL from even flagging those up is not an even handed solution. —Kusma (talk) 07:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  Given also that BHG is under at least three editing restrictions, I am uncomfortable giving her so much power over another editor. —Kusma (talk) 12:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  Wouldn't LL just be prohibited from naming and directly replying to BHG, not merely participating in a discussion where BHG is also present? —DIYeditor (talk) 12:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  I think it would completely prevent participation once BHG has opined. —Kusma (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support effectively per McClenon. This should calm the topic area down without inhibiting otherwise useful work from being continued. SN54129 09:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Question I can't effectively form an opinion without some understanding of what happened here[16][17]. If the edit history needed to be suppressed that seems pretty severe? Is a one-way IBAN even adequate to address it? —DIYeditor (talk) 10:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  @DIYeditor: The suppression there has nothing to do with BHG and LL, but was in response to a comment in a different section (@Primefac may wish to confirm this once again). For technical reasons, that makes these diffs inaccessible, so you can't see anything that was edited or removed, but anything added by editors and subsequently not changed can be found just by searching for the timestamps. —Kusma (talk) 10:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks. Unfortunately those timestamps only show was LL replaced the offending material with, not the original material. Maybe the original comments are still somewhere in the edit history? —DIYeditor (talk) 10:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  I will quote those diffs below. (please ping on reply) Primefac (talk) 10:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Primefac I think those diffs werent the ones that got him the warning, those were [18] (I think). Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  I did wonder, but those were the two diffs in question so I posted them. Primefac (talk) 10:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Primefac thanks. I also see that there were personal attacks redacted in LL's 07:42, 7 July 2023 and 07:56, 7 July 2023 comments that are now coincidentally suppressed as well? —DIYeditor (talk) 10:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  The first is summarised by CapnJackSp below, the second is pretty much the same as the two I quoted below that were later removed. I've also converted your timestamps into diff links just for ease of finding such things. Primefac (talk) 11:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  I dont recall it verbatim, but heres the gist - (Redacted) ← content attached in-line (edit to view). Pinging Black Kite & MJL to make sure I'm not misremembering anything. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Captain Jack Sparrow: It was pretty much speculation into BHG's mental health, yeah.
  @Primefac: Could you also pull up this diff as you did the other two? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yes. Primefac (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1163981973

− Really? Is that what you think this case is about? Really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really? [[User:Laurel Lodged|Laurel Lodged]] ([[User talk:Laurel Lodged|talk]]) 11:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC) + I fell into the trap that JC37 mention: "a.) if you get baited into being uncivil". Stupid of me. I've deleted the material. 12:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1163982760

− I empathise with your problem. It's so annoying when people cannot accept that WP:SMALLCAT really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really does say that is about "potential for growth" rather than current pagecount. [[User:Laurel Lodged|Laurel Lodged]] ([[User talk:Laurel Lodged|talk]]) 11:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC) + I've deleted the offending material per the JC37 trap. [[User:Laurel Lodged|Laurel Lodged]] ([[User talk:Laurel Lodged|talk]]) 12:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1163946868

Support what the nominator has written. I contemplated writing something similar but decided not to do so. BTW I must complement RD on how well laid out, logical, measured and temperate he has done the job. Any such case opened by me here or elsewhere would only have added fuel to the fire and laid me open to the accusation of vindictive action. The long history between BHG & I would have just been viewed as "Yet another BHG-LL ding-dong. Here we go again. Nothing to see here.". Now that it is open, I feel freer to contribute. I confirm that the examples cited above – mainly directed at me – were indeed uncivil and hurtful. Given our interaction history, I made especial efforts to avoid any contribution that might be taken as an ad hominen attack and tried to tackle the ball, not the woman. I may not have always succeeded. Pride, the root of all evil, is what lies behind all this; having constructed an amazing edifice of hundreds (thousands?) of micro-categories, it hurt BHG's pride to thin that any of her creations might be flawed or less than perfect. She abandoned mature-wiki-admin-with-many years-of-experience mode and went into Mother Bear mode clawing savagely at any perceived threat to her cubs. In defending her interpretation of the WP:SmallCat exception, she is not even consistent; when it suits her case, she says that some "tails" can be cut; in other cases, such "tails" are part of a structured hierarchy with potential for growth". Anyway, the rights/wrongs of interpretation of wiki guidelines is not at issue here. What is beyond doubt is that BHG has gone beyond the bounds of civility in advancing her interpretations. At this point, she is not just my opponent, she is an actual menace to the Wiki Project in general and to those of us who linger around WP:CFD in particular. Who would enter the fray knowing that Mother Bear might emerge from the cave at any minute with claws sharpened and teeth bared? She is putting people off WP:CFD entirely in my view. ANI cannot propose any remedy that will help BHG – her problems require more specialist care - but it can and must protect the community. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support this should reduce the heat. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Reluctant support I see this as a two sided issue where BHG ought not levy accusations of bad faith outside proper administrative venues and seems overly combative. I was a bit annoyed at BHG in the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1132#User:Timfoley50 and the explorer Tom Crean for combativeness as well, and for those reasons I would lean toward a two-sided IBAN. However, I see an IBAN as a pretty severe measure that could disrupt BHG's normal and productive business on Wikipedia. On the other hand, to come here and be uncivil in the open on ANI is problematic and LL ought to know better than to do that. If BHG is a problem in the future LL can let someone else handle it. —DIYeditor (talk) 12:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom, especially given the completely out-of-order personal attacks mentioned above. There's an order of magnitude between incivility (which BHG needs to address!) and the personal attacks levelled by LL and NL. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support I think this makes a lot of sense in the short term, but I'd also put a time limit on it. It's better than a block. SportingFlyer T·C 15:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Tepid Support. I genuinely think that a more severe sanction is in order given everything I outlined above. A total projectspace block is in order in my opinion, but I'll take the one-way IBAN since that seems to be what's most likely to pass here. Whatever gets him to even partially stop with his seriously weird behavoir. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  I would much prefer a pblock from project space for this user to a one way IBAN. Much simpler and cleaner. —Kusma (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support Seems like a fairly obvious way of reducing the issues, but a projectspace ban per Kusma works for me as well - anyway, perhaps best not to confuse the issue. Black Kite (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per @Kusma WaggersTALK 09:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, a one-way Iban should be reserved for cases in which only one person is behaving badly. I'm not sure that's what's happening here; the level of incivility from BHG muddies those waters for me. Valereee (talk) 11:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose too gameable, per Kusma. DanCherek (talk) 13:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Kusma. BHG has a long history of incivility and harassment, and should not be given this power. I would support a two way version of the interaction ban as that would reduce drama. Orderinchaos 00:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Orderinchaos: That would be Proposal A. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:11, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose a one way iban is only appropriate when one editor's behaviour towards the other is so bad in comparison that it's the only fair option. While there's no question that Laurel Lodge went way too far in this thread, and for clarity I think I did see all their comments as I investigated about an hour or two after Black Kite's warning, there's also no question that BHG is guilty of high levels of persistent incivility against LL. LL also seems to at least partially recognise they went way too far. BHG's incivility in general is well recognised as a long term problem and yes this includes behaviour just as bad as LL over a very long time that took ages for any reasonable sanction. Possibly that extreme level of incivility and personal attacks has finally ended, but nevertheless high levels of incivility from BHG persist and it something we've continually failed to resolve. BHG also rarely seems to recognise their behaviour is a problem, which I suspect is one reason we're still here now so many years later with the same problem. Therefore there is no way a one way iban is a fair or reasonable outcome. Nil Einne (talk) 02:45, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support I was originally undecided on whether this was necessary, but seeing Laurel Lodged start another round of bear-poking against BrownHairedGirl below made it clear it was. Prefer a one-way Iban, because in every case of alleged misconduct presented here Laurel Lodged was the initiator, but would accept a two-way Iban as a second choice. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  I am not in the least bit surprised LL has continued to try and mess with BHG. He did this exact type of thing 2 years ago with The Banner like when he acted like The Banner couldn't speak proper Hiberno-English since he wasn't born in Ireland.The Banner isn't even German by the way; he's Dutch. Also, in case you think I am assuming bad faith, LL admitted he did it as a bit of mischievous humour. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposal D: User:BrownHairedGirl is TBANned from all CfDs

Also not going anywhere. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 17:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I've seen some people suggest it in the main trunk of this behemoth, but here I am formally proposing a TBAN on all CfDs for User:BrownHairedGirl. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 05:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Support as proposer. BHG's conduct is unacceptable, even if she may be right, as I mentioned before, and I'm gonna call a spade a spade and call out incivility issues when they happen. If it were just me, she'd be blocked, but we all know how some users are basically unblockable, so why bother. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 05:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC) LilianaUwU's view seems to be that even if errors are repeatedly misusing and misreprseting a simple guideline to delete hundreds of category, the only sanction needed is on an editor who they believe has been too harsh in her challenges to the disruption. Boggle. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC) I offer this in the hope that it gives you the same Damascus moment it gave me. When there is a pile on, there is a tendency to defend yourself against all accusations. Your detractors will point that out as an example of a WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality. Which you defend yourself against vociferously. How is that working out for you? WCMemail 06:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Oppose for the same reasons as my vote above. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Oppose I hope BHG gets the message I tried to convey, don't think this is an appropriate remedy. WCMemail 06:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Oppose and Rees-Mogg applies. For once. SN54129 09:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Oppose I haven't seen adequate evidence to support this but as in BHG's recent prior ANI I am feeling a bit of annoyance at this whole thing, not limited to one party or another. There's a lot of bickering but little meat on the bones that I can tell. BHG would do well to "chill out" a bit but for all I've been able to extract from this she might well be in the right. —DIYeditor (talk) 10:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Oppose. As I have already said. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Oppose. Seriously? BHG does a tremendous amount of good work in this area, and keeps to policy and guidelines when doing so, from what I've seen. A tban is not the solution to incivility, which in part was the result of badgering an provocation, from what I can see. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Support, in fact I'd support a tban from all XFD activities. BHG is generally an excellent and prolific editor and I believe she is correct on the issue of small categories that led to this discussion - but wholly incorrect in the way she conducts herself in deletion discussions. We saw exactly the same issue at MfD for portals and we're seeing it again here. Since bans and blocks are intended to be preventative not punitive, it makes sense to try and avoid a similar repetition of exactly the same behaviour again at some other XFD forum in the future, since clearly BHG has failed to learn the lessons on civility from the last time around. BHG being a good and prolific editor is no excuse for inaction on our part; civility is central to making Wikipedia work and we cannot allow this level of disruption and incivility to continue unabated if we want to avoid driving other contributors away. WaggersTALK 12:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC) As I see it, the issue here is that BHG is vociferously defending herself, which is giving the impression of a WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality. She is probably in the right here but is going the wrong way about it, a ban removes a knowledgable editor, which is rather throwing the baby out with the bath water. Best option really is for some wiki friend to give BHG a good clout with a clue stick. WCMemail 13:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Oppose Per various above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Oppose This makes no sense as it's a multi-party civility issue, not a single-party CfD issue. SportingFlyer T·C 15:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Oppose - It is my opinion that BHG is a net positive in dealing with Categories, and may know more about them than any other editor. She should be more patient and more civil with other editors who lack her technical detailed knowledge, but they should recognize that usually she does know more than they do. It would be better if she were polite. It would be better if some of the editors understood the complexity. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposal E: User:Laurel Lodged is partially blocked from projectspace

Withdrawing this in favor of just sending it to arbcom. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Since others have commented that they would support this sanction, I'll add this a formal option. For the reasons I outlined here, Laurel Lodged is partially blocked from projectspace. He may appeal this sanction anytime by making an edit request at WT:AN. Laurel Lodged is strongly discouraged from using Project talkspace for any reason besides making an appeal (or reverting obvious vandalism). This proposal is not exclusive with Proposal C (though folks are free to give conditional supports, I guess). Support. As proposer. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC) Oppose This bans Laurel Lodged from talking about categories (at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion), but not making category changes, which seems likely to aggravate problems like User talk:Laurel Lodged#Emptying categories out of process to a greater extent than it solves them. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC) @Pppery: The only way to solve that then would be an indef block or a topic ban of all categories. Are you suggesting one of those? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC) I'm not personally convinced there's a need for any sanctions beyond the interaction ban above. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC) I am not convinced that this is necessary and do not know what extent and length (does it need to be indefinite?) would be appropriate (the whole thread is getting so complicated that I think it might be better handled by Arbcom). I would indeed prefer this to a one-way IBAN, but a two-way IBAN would be better. Other sanctions might be more suitable (short sitewide blocks? who knows). —Kusma (talk) 06:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Disruption by Laurel Lodged

Laurel Lodged (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has tried to turn a productive collaboration into a fight. First, the context:

At WT:WikiProject Ireland#TD_and_MEP_articles_and_the_'s-par'_template, @User:Bastun initiated[19] on 10 July a discussion on misleading uses of succession boxes for Teachtaí Dála (TDs), i.e. members of Dáil Éireann, the lower house of Ireland's parliament, the Oireachtas. The discussion has so far involved 4 editors: @Bastun, Iveagh Gardens, and Spleodrach: and me (BHG). It sooned reached agreement that while properly-built succession boxes for multi-seat constituencies can be made, not enough editors have been willing to do the very time-consuming work required.

So I proposed an alternative: making navboxes. I thought it might be possible to make semi-automated navboxes which used the existing lists of TDs in the articles, e.g. at Kildare South (Dáil constituency)#TDs. The others agreed that this was worth trying, so I set about developing them. I created the metatemplate {{Constituency Teachtaí Dála navbox}}, and put in about 20 hours of intensive work refining, documenting and polishing it. It's still experimental, but is working well enough to be used in some trial cases: e.g. Bastun created {{Dublin Bay North (Dáil constituency)/TDs}}, and deployed it on the relevant articles, e.g. Cian O'Callaghan#External_links.

The discussion has been wholly amicable, constructive, and focused on finding a solution to a long-term issue. I have found it a great pleasure to work on this with Bastun, Iveagh Gardens, and Spleodrach. I think we are creating something which will be helpful readers, easy for editors to use, and require no maintenance. It has been one of my most enjoyable periods of wiki-collaboration.

Then today, Laurel Lodged posted two comments[20][21] to the sub-thread WT:WikiProject Ireland#TD_navboxes:_getting_there. Those comments have nothing whatsoever to do with the refinement of the navboxes, or with any alterative solution. They are pure snark, whose purpose is solely to score points, and to try to stoke a dispute in an otherwise highly productive discussion. So I inserted[22] a new level 2 header above LL's comments, to allow discussion of the navboxes to proceed uninterrupted.

Laurel Lodged's substantive point is that since their 2016 nomination of WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 March 3#Template:S-par/ie/oi those of us now working on the navboxes of us have revised our views, based on our experience of doing the work, and esp from the lack of other editors doing this work. LL seems to think that this learning from experience is a bad idea, and still seems to be unaware that their 2016 TFD nomination was wholly misconstrued: LL's proposed deletion of {{S-par/ie/oi}} would have left the succession boxes in place, just without their header. (I pointed this out[23] in the 2016 discussion).

LL's conduct in that 2016 discussion was terrible. After I demonstrated a solution by adding properly-formatted succession boxes to some articles, LL falsely acused me of attempting to subvert, or at the very least to render moot this discussion by doing a solo run of a load of the boxes for TDs[24] with the edit summary "deplorable&nsp;behaviour". Nobody else supported LL's complaint, and @Wikimucker denounced[25] LL harshly: a User edits articles to give an example of what they are talking about they get swarmed by nutters indiscriminately quoting WP:*.* at them on talk pages all the time. Anyway I highly commend User:BrownHairedGirl for the given examples

Not only does Laurel Lodged appear to have learnt nothing in the 7 years since their misconceieved TFD nomination; they have tried to turn a higly productive collaboration into a fight. This has been LL's modus operandi for a decade: misundesrtand the issues, make no effort to learn, and when challenged, lash out with false allegations and snark. I am sick of this whole thing, and especially disgusted that my hard work this week has been disrupted by LL explicily trying to get one last jab in before a possible IBAN: {{Ping|BrownHairedGirl}} before our likely interaction ban comes into effect. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Please clarify the supposed disruptive behaviour. Is it: (1) the 2016 material; (2) today's material; (3) both. If (1), isn't there a wiki statute of limitations? If (2), I linked to an old related discussion. That's a sin now? Lastly, I'm not the only one to get in a final dig before the imminent IBAN. I'm minded to request an IBAN in case the ANI doesn't recommend same. I need protection from BHG. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

1. The 2016 discussion at WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 March 3#Template:S-par/ie/oi showed disruption by LL:
   • a nomination which coud not resolve the problem asserted. As I noted above, LL's proposed deletion of {{S-par/ie/oi}} would have left the contested succession boxes in place, just without their header.
   • a bogus allegation by LL that I engaged in deplorable behaviour[26] by creating examples of succession boxes which resolved the problem described by LL. That's why Wikimucker referred to LL as an example of nutters.[27]
   • LL's continued hostility[28] to my demonstration of a fix, even after 3 editors (NSH002, Wikimucker & Bastun) supported BHG's efforts.
     • LL's comment in the same edit An Admin has spoken, causa finita est, which falsely suggests that I used admin powers or status, and tries to smear me as some sort of Roman commander.
2. The disruption in today's material is in two parts, as I explained in my initial post:
   • LL disrupted the sub-thread WT:WikiProject Ireland#TD_navboxes:_getting_there by posting comments which had nothing whatsoever to do with the refinement of the navboxes, or with any alternative solution. They were wholly off-topic to that discusion.
   • LL's posts today included unhelpful and misleading snark: The positions taken then versus now are amusing and instructive.[29] Remarks like that do not in any way help anyone to agree and build better solutions.

In both 2016 and 2023, LL has poisoned discusions by failing to undestand the issues, and weaponising their misunderstading by attacks agaist me. This is long pattern, as LL has illustrated today by their own choice to draw attention to their 2016 antics. LL's question above isn't there a wiki statute of limitation is hypocrtical, because it was LL who chose to raise that 2016 discussion.

LL does not need protection from BHG; LL needs to be proteced from their own persistent failure to behave collaboratively. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@Laurel Lodged, forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, but re: isn't there a wiki statute of limitations?, wasn't it you who brought up 2016 here? Valereee (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• This complaint is lengthy and difficult to parse. Much like the now virtually impenetrable but still ongoing WP:ANI#BrownHairedGirl's lack of civility in CFD, which already contains the WP:ANI#Laurel Lodged at CfD subsection. Why is this thread separate from it? El_C 15:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  @El C: I was unsure whether to post it as a sub-thread of the other or as a new thread.

  I the end, I decided that since this issue is about neither CFD nor allegations against me, it was on balance better as a new thread. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  I'm gonna merge it, sorry. It's still about CfD, so it's best that everything be kept in one place. El_C 15:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  Merged. El_C 15:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  @El C, no it is not in any way about CFD. It's about WT:IRELAND and about TFD. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  Well, whatever X the -FD is, it needs to be contained. Otherwise, outlining those grievances separately is hindering the normal operation of this noticeboard (such as it is). El_C 22:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  @El C, I am sorry to say that your decision to take action on grounds that are simply wrong (even the error was pointed out to you before your action) shows a lack of care. And I am sad to see the lack of apology when you belatedly decided to assert a different rationale. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  You should not have filed a separate complaint. It's borderline disruptive that you did that, regardless of what those fine details are. El_C 22:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  As I explained above, I kept it separat because it involves separate issues, which are outside the scope of the headline "civility in CFD".

  You may disagree with that decision, but calling it borderline disruptive is very ureasonsable response. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  No, BHG, you don't get to do that while WP:ANI#Proposal A: IBAN Between User:BrownHairedGirl and User:Laurel Lodged is still live above. I won't allow you to disrupt this noticeboard, so take that as warning from an uninvolved admin. El_C 23:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  @El C, I had hoped that any admin would accept that my decision was made in good faith, on reasoned grounds which I explained when challenged.

  I would also hope that per WP:ADMINACCT any admin would apologise for their repeated error about the nature of my complaint, rather than issuing a warning.

  I am also very saddened that instead of considering the substance of my complaint, you focus solely on your view that it would have bene better posted in a different place.

  . BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  Your view of that be as it may, if you create a new ANI complaint about other persons prominently featured above rather than adding it as a subsection here, you will be sanctioned (no additional warning). I just want to make it perfectly clear you understand this. El_C 23:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  You have indeed made it abundantly clear that you are wholly unrepantant about your failure to read and comprehend the the ten words this issue is about neither CFD nor allegations against me.

  And yes, you have made your threat absolutely clear.

  In return, I hope that I have it absolutely clear to you I view it as a serious breach of WP:ADMIN that you have made and sustained a choice to ignore both the disruption of which I complained and the barrage of personal attacks for which I posted diffs, and that you instead chose to threaten me for what was at worst a good faith filing error. I just want to make it perfectly clear you understand this. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  Don't label my warning as a "threat," BHG. You need to dial it down. El_C 00:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  It is a clear threat which follows you taking an action of the basis of a reason which was clearly false, and which you been explicitly warned was false.

  Please dial down your aggression. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  Well, I am of the opinion that it was not a good faith filing error, in light of your experience, but not everything needs to be argued to exhaustion or doubled down on. And I'm sorry to say that I have low confidence that this will resonate with you. But I guess we'll see. El_C 01:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  @El C: If it helps reduce tension, I give you--and only you--permission to rename this incident whatever you feel makes sense at this point. (Not sure if that would cause issues with any programs that track ANI though.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  El_C, this exchange would have ended long ago if you had had the courtesy to simply apologise for your error.

  Instead you escalated and prolonged our exchange by threatening me and by assuming bad faith in my straightforward explanation of how I made my decision on where to post.

  I undestand your view that my complaint shoukd have been posted as part of an existing thread, and I have not objected to your moving it

  But kindly don't attempt to depict your failure of WP:ADMINACCT as some sort of flaw in me. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  RevelationDirect, you lost me. Negative, BHG, that is not an error of note here and you are owed no apology. It's obviously the same person, regardless if it's TFD or CFD. For someone with your experience, you are displaying surprising WP:CIR inability, or unwillingness, to understand this. But that is on you. El_C 03:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  You took an admin action on a stated basis which was clearly false. That is an error of note.

  You are displaying surprising WP:CIR inability, or unwillingness, to understand this. But that is on you.

  My complaint about LL relates to one of the same people involved in the other thread, but the issues are different. I realised that there was a case in favour of both options, and also a case against both options. I reckoned that I could be praised or criticised for either choice.

  Butt for the reasons already stated, I thought a separate thread was on balance the least worst option, and the least likely to cause drama. You disagree, and you moved the thread. That's done. Now will you please back off? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  Anyway, now I better understand why there are so, so many complaints against you, and why you are under behavioural restrictions. I was quite nice, actually, in merging a thread that, posted separately as it was, could easily be read as retaliatory. Instead, I'm faced with all of the above. That is to your discredit, I challenge. El_C 03:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  So you not only fail to apologose for your error, but you also appear wholly unwilling to cosider the substance of my post here. You repeateadly assume bad faith in me even when you are demonstrably wrong on points of fact.

  It is amazing that you claimed not to understand what my complaint was about, wrongly asserted that it was about CFD, ignored my detailed evidence of personal atacks by LL ... yet despite this string of incomprehension, you somehow seem confident in your ability to judge my intentions as malevolent.

  o BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  Could be. Maybe stop assuming bad faith? As I recall, ABF is a major component of your behavioural restrictions. El_C 04:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  On the contrary, the ABF is entirely yours, as is the failure to read and the rapid resort threats. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  Oh, I AGF'd, originally, but, no, not anymore. Obviously. El_C 04:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  You took action based on a false statement. You have had ample opportnity to demstrate your good faith by apologising for your error. But you didn't; you chose to act like someone of bad faith. You also to chose to threaten me, and to ignore he sustance of my complaint, and to accuse me of lacking competence, when you failed to read and comprehend the ten words you replied to.

  So don't accuse me of "projecting", as you did in a edit summary. This is on you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  I am unmoved by your bluster. I stand by the merger and my reasoning for it. You've been warned not to misuse this noticeboard again, there's not much else to say. El_C 06:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  This is just another example of the fundamental problem with BHG's attitude to discussions: when she assumes she is right (and especially when she is), she will not cease to insist on her point, even if it is minor, and will actively prevent any de-escalation, but start assuming that those who disagree with her lack competence or act in bad faith. I think it might be time to clarify the third of her editing restrictions in a way that prevents threads like the one here. —Kusma (talk) 10:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  You know Kusma, I had forgotten that that discussion actually had a resolution. Thank you for the reminder. - jc37 00:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

So, BHG, forgive my ignorance, but why did this feel like a jab? Valereee (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Please read the LL's two edits[30] together.

And please also read my explanation above. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

So to you the "amusing and instructive" felt like a jab? I'd tend to agree that it looks like an attempt to bait you. @Laurel Lodged, can you comment on why you would be baiting BHG? Valereee (talk) 22:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@Valereee, the baiting was partly in the comments themselves, but mostly in the invitation to other editors to come and re-open a debate from 7 years ago in the midst of a highly-focused discussion on developing what we hope may be a series of over 100 navboxes (if all the issues can be resolved).

In my view, the core of the jab was the disruption that would have been caused if LL had succeded in that attempt to divert the productive discusison. That would have really screwed with my work.

As @Spleodrach replied to LL this evening, If Laurel Lodged has nothing construtive to add then perhaps they should bow out of the discussion[31] BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Laurel Lodged's comments on Wikiproject Ireland, linked above, were the first inkling I had of... well, all of the above. It certainly struck me when I read it as a needless and pointy jab. Looking at all of the above, it was clearly baiting. Especially when you add in LL's subsequent comments about needing "protection from BHG."Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Thank You/Neutral I'm really glad to see this dispute over Irish navboxes going back to 2016 is now here at ANI instead of being worked in as subtext at CFD. Thank you for following up on MJL's earlier nomination within a nomination! (I defer to other editors on the merits of the points raised above.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Note that Laurel Lodged has stopped responding to pings to direct questions and hasn't edited in two days. Valereee (talk) 11:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  Could be a case of the WP:ANI flu, or he's just taking a break due to the stress. Either way, I don't think we can read much into his lack of recent activity. He hasn't edited every day even since this thread was started (see here for example). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

• He has resumed posting, at WT:WikiProject Ireland#Comment_on_previous_debate_about_succession_boxes, and is being pointy/snarky (and incorrect) with it. I think the proposed one-way iban (Proposal C) is definitely needed. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Resumed disruption by Laurel Lodged

Laurel Lodged (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has returned to WT:WikiProject Ireland#Comment_on_previous_debate_about_succession_boxes, to post more snark.[32]

Yet again the snark is accompanied by no understanding of the issues, as I noted in reply.[33]

This is getting absurd. Please can someone put a lid on LL's attempts to derail the successful collaboration between other editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:22, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Laurel Lodged is still sniping away at WT:WikiProject Ireland#Comment_on_previous_debate_about_succession_boxes: see [34].

No attempt whatsoever to assist collaboration or to find solutions to anything. Just attempts at point-scoring, based on wild assertions.

Please can someone make it stop? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Now what

Um, we're at 31,000 words and counting, folks. In ANI cases like this, I'm always curious if the hope is that some wise, patient, uninvolved admin is going to come by, carefully and diligently read and digest this sprawling mess, and block/warn/advise one or more editors? Or is it that one of the 5 (?!) proposals for various combinations of topic/interaction bans will gain sufficient traction that it will be called "consensus" and we'll decide it's all "solved"? Or are we waiting for additional proposals (maybe mine below!)? Or is the hope that everyone involved will blow off enough steam that they'll eventually get tired and this dispute will eventually dissipate, and someone will come by and close it as stale (or, if people keep snarking, "more heat than light", or the related "everyone just go back to your corners and edit the encyclopedia")? After all this, it doesn't appear that anyone thinks they did anything wrong (although I might have missed one of them admitting that; it's a big thread, and my whole point is that it's too much to digest now). Sprawling, multi-faceted, argumentative cases like this aren't really set up to be "solved" in a forum like ANI.

If anyone is interested in a drive-by close (bolding for truth-in-advertising's sake), I'd close it as

(a) anyone involved will be blocked if, starting now, they continue to question the motives of other editors,

(b) anyone involved will be blocked if, starting now, they try to bait one of the other editors,

(c) everyone involved will stand down from nominating/commenting on category deletion discussions related to SMALLCAT until there's been an RFC on SMALLCAT, and

(d) anyone involved who is rude to anyone else during that RFC will be blocked from the remainder of the RFC (and thus lose the opportunity to affect the outcome).

If anyone is interested in a better place to take diff-heavy, multi-faceted complicated conflicts that the ANI community cannot adequately handle, there's ArbCom. (this is the scaring-straight option).

It just seems counter-productive at this stage to keep this open for much longer. I really don't think ANI is set up to handle this kind of thing, and all it seems to do is make people even more angry/disillusioned, at lets the dispute fester until next time, one or more people get indef blocked for something. Sorry for the chutzpah of thinking my comments are clever enough to warrant a sub-heading, but I don't know where else I'd put them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I can't link to the diff of my comments above due to the mass oversaight of everyone's edits, but they're at timestamp: 09:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

The above threads are just another example of what we've seen before - which is why I called it a "merry-go-round".

I think your proposed solutions might not be bad, except that - based upon what we've seen here - I am doubting they could be effectively applied, much less achieve the hoped-for ends of reducing disruption.

So I guess I am going to have to agree with you that AN/I does not seem to be effective for resolving these things.

But I guess we'll see what we'll see.

Thank you for taking the time to look this over Floquenbeam. I'm sorry you were drawn into this seeming time sink too. - jc37 17:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

To be very clear: I wasn't drawn into this time sink, because I recognized it as a time sink. This is a drive-by suggestion in the sense that I only skimmed this once. My interest is more in pointing out how ANI doesn't handle this kind of thing well, rather than in trying to achieve some kind of actual "justice". I am most certainly not an example of the "wise, patient, uninvolved admin [who] is going to come by, carefully and diligently read and digest this sprawling mess, and block/warn/advise one or more editors". I'm just suggesting we try to salvage something here, but that we should give up on adding much more to this wall of text. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I understand. I've been that "nice person" myself at times, though (obviously) won't be this time. - jc37 18:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support (a), (b), (c), (d) above. I will withdraw all open contentious cfd nominations of mine relevant to (c), which will probably be 'no consensus' anyway. I look forward to a harmonious RFC. (Sub-heading fully warranted.) Oculi (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Unless I have missed some the contentious open ones nominated by myself, BHG or LL are 2023 July 5#Category:Rugby union players from Monaghan, nominated by BHG on WP:SMALLCAT grounds, 2023 July 11#Irish trade unionists (withdrawn by nom, Oculi); and LL's nominations 2023 July 13#Irish police officers by county and 2023 June 25#People by occupation in Northern Ireland (which could be closed as keep or no consensus). Oculi (talk) 00:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support abcd, assuming a/b refer to the involved parties, and not never be rude ever again. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  Well, I didn't think about specifics much, because I didn't think this would gain traction, and because - as I said - it's too sprawling to get into too many specifics. But... sure, it makes sense that a/b refer (as far as this close would be concerned) to the involved parties, and aren't blanket requirements. Not because such a blanket requirement may or may not make sense, but because the justification for a blanket requirement would require more work than a drive-by close could justify. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support Personally I think your skim got the gist, at least as far as I can figure it all out. Valereee (talk) 18:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if we can link to the diff, but I think you very much understand with your post of time stamp: 16:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I know I sound as if I despair of anything fruitful happening, but we could fill this page and many more with diffs of this stuff going back years and years. This isn't about being "unblockable" due to friends, so much as knowing the policies and knowing just what to do to try to discredit one's "adversary" in a discussion. Look no further than the interaction with El C, above. And that was literally just over section threading. It's a long-term editor who knows the policies and knows what to do to weaponize them against their opponents.

It's just not worth engaging. Which I rarely do anymore. It's funny that she thought I haven't been active at CfD (above), because I have actually, quite a bit. But just been avoiding her nominations and nonsense, because, really, who needs that? - jc37 19:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Jc37, so is that a support for a drive-by closing by Floq on the terms he described? Valereee (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, hmm. It looks like someone reframed this as more of an RfC. Ok, so, I think a, b, and d, are going to be subjective assessments and would prefer them re-worded for a bit more clarity if we're talking about blocking people. And c is a straight Oppose, because there are several open discussions at CfD right now in which smallcat is cited. And even if not, a person could just instead say "small category, with little to no prospect for growth", which is what was done before smallcat was adopted after many of such discussions. So like I said above, not a bad idea, but in practice, probably not easily (or fairly) applied, as written. I know it's a catch-22. But that's also part of why it's been a merry-go-round. As an aside, I think your solution above (16:08, 12 July 2023) is potentially workable, and would support that being applied indefinitely for all involved editors. - jc37 23:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

You know, thinking about smallcat, and what I just said. Technically it, and most of WP:OC, for that matter, are just sections done so that we wouldn't have to have the same arguements again and again at CfD, so most of them are as a result of repeated results at CfD. ("defining" and a few other things were RfCs) - so really, if you get right down to it, they are all arguing about something that was set in place to try to prevent exactly this arguing. In the case of smallcat, the no consensus that I mentioned above about the exact quantity is precisely because no one really agrees on it - it's always a discordant discussion about applicability except in the most obvious cases - As we're seeing here. So in truth, everyone is really just spinning their wheels here about pretty much nothing as far as "smallcat" is concerned. Which, to me anyway, is disappointing. - jc37 23:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, you mean requiring a diff in real time for any comment about behavior or motivation? I'd actually prefer no one do that anywhere except at ANI. But yeah. Valereee (talk) 23:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:SMALLCAT has always been challenging because it's an exception to WP:CRYSTALBALL, requiring a prediction about growth potential on the article side. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Not exactly, no. It depends on which way you are looking at it. CRYSTAL is about guessing about future events outside Wikipedia, and whether they should be added. But when looking at SMALLCAT, there are several ways to look at it. One is that there is stuff already out there, but a Wikipedian merely hasn't added it yet (written an article, added an existing article to a category, whatever). And then there is the negative side of SMALLCAT: Applied - in reverse - to what is presumably no longer possible. Like the presumption that a dead woman is unlikely to be married again. And of course there are also regularly recurring events, like the election of a politician to office. But, in none of these cases are we guessing without concrete evidence that something may exist out in the world in the future, when it does not now. Either it does, and we're waiting for the stuff to be added; or, we know factually that it cannot. So there is no WP:CRYSTAL exception here. Not that we don't see people trying to assert information existence without evidence : )

Anyway, I'm just talking generalities. Maybe you're talking about some event more specific to the current nominations? - jc37 01:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

An example of crystalballing is projecting past trends into the future, a common technique for guessing the future. For example, a young talented movie star has been in 2 films, we might assume they will be in many more. However the longer it's been since their last film, the less likely it becomes they will be in another. So it's messy with multiple factors and opinionated weights: past trends, time factors, degree of notability. Given this, the rules should try to reduce complexity with guardrails, like the suggestion of 5 or 10 articles, to keep things easy. -- GreenC 15:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

• Send it to ArbCom. The community has proven themselves to not be a just arbitrator in long-standing conflicts. --qedk (t 愛 c) 20:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• That may be good advice. The discussion should have been about uncivility of BHG towards RD, but in the end maybe just 1% of the discussion adressed that issue. It went all over the place. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  I agree, this needs to be handled in a structured and considered way; Arbcom can do that, AN/I can't. AN/I is for quick-fire, rapid response issues that need urgent attention, not meandering drawn-out discussions like this. WaggersTALK 10:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Ideally, this would have been an ANI against me for WP:MEAT with the Diffs provided up front. That would have been more manageable. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose sending to ArbCom if it's framed as a problem solely about BHG. If it sent as a problem involving all the involved editors, that might be acceptable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support - Floq's "drive-by" solution above, which I somehow missed earlier. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support sending to ArbCom because I think everyone involved has lost track here. This has escalated quickly beyond what ANI is built to deal with, namely large elaborate cases with accusations a-flyin’ left and right between several entrenched parties. Dronebogus (talk) 02:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I just opened an ArbComm request. It's my first time there too, so no idea how likely they are to accept it. - RevelationDirect (talk) 22:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• For anyone looking for the request, it's Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:28, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support per my comments in the ArbCom case request. DFlhb (talk) 22:24, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support with a depressing expectation that none of it will be implemented and we'll be back here in a few months with more incivility and another multi-thousand-word shouting match. A smallcat RfC seems like a good idea. An Arbcom case on conduct issues also seems like a good idea, with the proviso per BMK that it looks at all involved parties. But Arbcom doesn't seem very keen, so if it's Floq's way or nothing we may as well go Floq. Apologies for the somewhat negative tone. And thanks Floq for making a suggestion that might bring this to a close.-- Euryalus (talk) 04:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support the proposed closure, like others I fear this isn't going to succeed, but it's IMO better to at least try. If arbcom chooses to take the current case, I don't care either but ultimately I think we need to do something while trying to be as far as possible to everyone which includes recognising there have been significant problems on all sides. Nil Einne (talk) 06:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Floquenbeam: probably my greatest concern with your suggested closed is the RfC aspect. It's a great idea, and I know at least some parties on both sides started talking about an RfC above and agreeing it would be good to have one. But being realistic here, we didn't need ANI for an RfC. Perhaps this ANI and/or the ban on commenting/start nominations will indeed be enough for all parties to come together to agree on the appropriate question/s for an RfC and put one to the community, but I'm not convinced. So for clarity is part of your proposal you'd help prod the parties as much as necessary, hopefully not much but I fear it'll need to be a lot so they come to some sort of agreement on an RfC and put it to the community? Otherwise my main fear with this proposal is several months later there will still be no RfC and perhaps some blocks will have been handed out but frankly any peace will be bursting at its seams. Nil Einne (talk) 12:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  Also one final comment, IMO it might make sense to be more tolerant in the pre-RFC stage where editors are drafting the RfC. So unless behaviour is really bad, instead of banning the editor from the pre-RfC and RfC, instead warn them if they do that in the RfC (or perhapd if they do it again point blank), they'll lose the privilege to take further part. Once the RfC has started it's reasonable to be far stricter IMO. Nil Einne (talk) 12:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  As I've said above, this is not a fully formed "proposal"; I don't plan to help prod anything or do anything else. There is no part of the proposal that hasn't already been written. It's an observation that ANI sucks at this, and a suggestion that might make it easy on everyone. It is entirely possible it is a bad idea. I am not closing this; I might have been willing to close before, if it was unanimous, but it is too complicated now, and - I can't say this enough - I haven't even read the whole thing thru. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support I wish we had some sort of in between ANI and ArbCom mediation service, but we don't, and ANI is not adequate for this. SportingFlyer T·C 20:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support Floqs closure - As I stated at the Arbcom case nothing good will come of the case or this ANI thread - An RFC really is the best course of action here, If BHGs incivility was a frequent thing then sure I can understand the need for sanctions but it's not so I don't. RFC is the best way of dealing with this. –Davey2010^Talk 22:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Providing Diffs for Tag Teaming by 5 Or So Other Editors?

While 10 of the Diffs at the beginning of this incident involved only Laurel Lodged, 14 of them involved myself, Marcocapelle, Oculi, Nederlandse Leeuw or car chasm. You perceived coordinated misconduct at CFD, but I’m not sure if it involved all of those editors.

I inadvertently frustrated you above when I incorrectly referred to myself as a “part” of a secret tag team when I was really only their “attack dog” (Diffs are suppressed but were timestamped 18:55 08 July 2023 and 19:04 08 July 2023 on this page.) In the intro of WP:TAGTEAM essay, it reads as follows:

"Unsubstantiated accusations of tag teaming are uncivil."

Fortunately, both in the CFD discussion and here, you promised to provide Diffs to support this claim. (See Diff for CFD while the ANI Diff was suppressed but is timestamped 09:31, 7 July 2023 on this page) That means we’ll know exactly who all is potentially involved and be able to assess to what extent this type of WP:MEAT occured.

@BrownHairedGirl: Do you need additional time to collect the Diffs on tag teaming? (Or did you already provide these and I just missed these somewhere in this sprawling discussion?) - RevelationDirect (talk) 17:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@RevelationDirect, seriously no snark intended, but I'm having a hard time following this. Can you just state as objectively as you can the series of events that you are concerned about. Valereee (talk) 18:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Valereee: I don't think I intended snark, but I was frustrated and it sure reads that way when I take a fresh look. Put a strikethru to extraneous sections. - RevelationDirect (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

For those following along: we had an edit conflict because I removed a section of my own initial post that I decided was, well, snarky. Valereee (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Believe me, I get it. I have to fight against snarkiness myself often, because, well, it's delicious. So basically what you're asking for is the promised diffs? I do know BHG had mentioned, maybe on her user talk, that she'd said she'd dig the diffs, IRL was currently busy, and then this particular ANI developed tentacles, and it might take some time. Given how long and involved it is, I'm willing to give her a lot of slack on that. Valereee (talk) 19:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry -- totally off topic here -- but whoever posted the smallcat cat picture, that is off-the-scale adorable. Thank you for making my day.  Spintendo  01:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry again, totally off topic here, me too -- but is this the longest ANI thread ever? Lourdes 09:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I doubt it. I've seen a lot of very long threads at ANI. We used to much more readily spin off threads into subpages although I'm not sure if that made them longer (because editors cared less they were filling up ANI) or shorter (because they were more easily missed). Nil Einne (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl blocked

BHG has been blocked for 48 hours by User:Paul August as a "community sanction" for apparently breaching the civility ban imposed in 2021 [35], despite the fact that there does not appear to be any community asking for a block here (which whilst not strictly necessary, you would expect there to have been rather than a block out of the blue). Since he did not bother to leave a block notice on BHGs talkpage, however, it is uncertain which edits he has actually blocked for. Quite apart from those two issues, this seems to me to be a spectacularly tone-deaf block given that BHG is taking part in this thread and on the case page at ArbCom. I would merely note that this is only Paul August's second block in three years. Black Kite (talk) 13:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment (as a very involved editor) BrownHairedGirl should be allowed to respond to questions at ArbComm for the next 48 hours and participate at ANI. That just seems like a simple matter of fairness to me. (I defer to admins on the overall block.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
• They've only made a small number of blocks in over 18 years as an admin, so frankly, I'm not surprised at such blatant misreading of the room. I would support overturning the block now that the case is at arbcom, and as for not even posting a block notice... that's just rude. (BTW, before anyone mentions WP:WHEEL: it wouldn't be.) SN54129 13:34, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

• I have now left a block notice on BrownHairedGirl's talk page. BrownHairedGirl is under an editing restriction, as documented at WP:EDRC, which says:

Should BrownHairedGirl behave uncivilly or make personal attacks, she may be blocked first for twelve hours and then for a duration at the discretion of the blocking administrator. Blocks made under this restriction must not be reversed except by consensus of a community discussion.

It's my opinion, as an uninvolved administrator, that BrownHairedGirl has violated this editing restriction, per remarks documented above. Paul August ☎ 13:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

• So regardless of the fact that it is particularly unhelpful to a number of discussions at this juncture, what made you use the block button, which you almost never use, on this particular occasion? Black Kite (talk) 13:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

• And furthermore, why now, considering the comments made by BHG that are the subject of this ANI were made a significant time ago, and no other admin had thought to block her even while this ANI was open? Black Kite (talk) 14:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

• My block was in response to two user statements at the ArbCom case request: by Tamzin (Tamzin) and by Lourdes (Lourdes). Paul August ☎ 15:15, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Paul August: Did it really not occur to you that possible actions arising from statements at an ArbCom case request should be assessed by the arbitrators who are hearing the request rather than by a driveby admin? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  In my view an editing restriction can be enforced independently from other events. I agree with the statement made here by Alanscottwalker. If we are not going to enforce such things we should not have them. Paul August ☎ 15:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Paul August: the diffs had been posted here at ANI over a week ago. It is weird to take action only when the matter is before the Ars.

  Admin actions require some consideration of context, which was lacking here. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  I hadn't yet seen this discussion. I only became aware of it a few hours ago, while reading the ArbCom case request. Paul August ☎ 17:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Considering that "Blocks made under this restriction must not be reversed except by consensus of a community discussion." applies, community consensus must be gained to overturn the block. If BHG wishes to make comment at ArbCom, they can email submissions to the arbitrators. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 13:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@Dreamy Jazz: which is precisely not what an arb has just advised. SN54129 14:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

It seems that was posted as I was posting this comment. My understanding is that blocked users could usually email arbcom to make statements. Regardless, I'm not sure how it would work if Paul August did not want to unblock (at least without getting community consensus). Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

So there's no community consensus to block, but you need community consensus to unblock. Got to love Wikipedia sometimes. Black Kite (talk) 14:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

No opinion on the block (have kept myself away), but regarding appeals it is what consensus found previously. I presume there is a reason for this appeal structure. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I presume it assumes that administrators will not make poor blocks using it, or if they do, will undo them when this is pointed out to them - neither of which seems to apply here. Black Kite (talk) 14:12, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

More likely, the administrators besides Paul August have failed to protect the project, which we may not realize until the next BHG ANI. It is a broken record at this point. (And in case it needs to be said again, this does not and has never meant that other actions may not also be taken against other users). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I think you'll find you're in the minority there. More likely other admins, quite correctly, realised that blocking a party in the middle of a complex case was suboptimal. Black Kite (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

That's called a false dilemma, and if some admins were working on that premise, it shows they have further failed. Blocking does not stop a complex case and never has. Blocked parties even pursue appeals of conduct matters while being blocked, blocked parties may also continue discussion while blocked, and when, as here, time limited blocks expire. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

No, that's not how it works, as you should know. We have 800 admins and none thought it useful to block BHG during that time. Meanwhile, an admin who has blocked precisely one editor in the last three years decided it was a good idea (or was asked to do it by someone else). What was the usefulness of the block for alleged incivility that happened weeks ago? There was none. Simply, it was punitive, not preventative, and we don't do that. Black Kite (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Essentially this is why I unblocked when I did. A 2 day block for conduct first reported to ANI 9 days ago was purely punitive, and the commentary showed it. Courcelles (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Plainly you are wrong, and you should know better. You should also already know why it was preventative, as I clearly already said why below, and alluded to it above. BHG's interactions are an ongoing repeated issue which transcend this matter (just reread the interaction with ElC and Kusma above for further proof). Also, 800 admins have not looked at this and yes the few (uninvolved) who took the time failed, that is the point (to clarify, the involved did not fail because they could not do anything). Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

While I rolled my eyes at Black Kite's invocation of the total number of admins as if they had all reviewed this case, there is much merit in the argument that if the several dozen admins who regularly patrol this noticeboard have declined to take administrative action, it is probably not a good idea for an admin who almost never issues blocks to try to handle a situation that clearly has the community deeply confounded. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

The few uninvolved who may have looked at this and the history in depth in order to decide are almost certainly not dozens, doubtful they could be counted on more than one hand. (again putting aside the involved). 18:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Given the size and duration of this megathread, I am quite happy to stand by 'dozens' as a label for the quantity of admins who understood this situation as well as Paul McDonald did. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:15, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

But that's even putting aside, that the appeal to numbers (dozen or not) is poor reasoning. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I have no intention of changing my mind and presumably neither do you, so let's just agree to disagree. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Just so we are clear where we stand, and relevant to explain that appeal to numbers is unpersuasive. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the 800 figure is obviously not the number who have looked at this (it's the only fixed metric we have though), but a significant number clearly have. As regards your comment, much as I respect El_C, I do not think he was right in that particular interaction. Regardless, the point is - this was punitive, not preventative; BHG was not going to break the encyclopedia during this discussion. Black Kite (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

That's not the standard, and is clearly wrong. No one breaks the encyclopedia, ever. What they do break is restrictions. And BHG has done so in the past, and unless enforced is like to continue in the future (thus, the block is prevention). Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

So we are blocking because something might happen in the future? That's not what prevention means. Black Kite (talk) 19:15, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Likely. because it has happened before. And it's the only thing prevention means, no one knows what will happen in the future (even admins are not given the 'know the future' tool). Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

• I'm chiming in here because there seems to be some needless badgering going on here. Let's not forget that one of our core principles is WP:AGF. Firstly, was the block an appropriate enforcement action? Yes, because an uninvolved administrator (i.e. Paul) determined there was an infraction. Now, should we apply context with respect to the already ongoing ARC? I would say reasonably yes, since the matter is already technically forward to the committee, this does not mean that Paul still cannot block or unblock, it just means that the decision to do so is much more subjective. In my view, this was a potentially bad block at worst and the unblock following the very limited discussion below this is much worse. --qedk (t 愛 c) 17:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I think this was unambiguously a bad block, albeit one seemingly made in good faith. If the matter had been referred to ArbCom, then substantial oversight was already forthcoming, and blocking BHG at precisely that juncture could only serve to disrupt process. I'd also argue that, insofar as Paul has indicated they were unaware of this discussion at the time of the block, they didn't really engage with the level of investigation of context I would expect of an admin using the block function in these circumstances.

All that said, there's a larger issue/lesson to be learned here: whoever put the "Blocks made under this restriction must not be reversed except by consensus of a community discussion." language into the sanction (whether it was the proposer, the closer, or the person who logged the ER), majorly blundered. This is clearly an ill-considered effort at restricting the normal blocking policy/procedure, which has much broader community support than anyone one discussions to sanction an individual editor could ever have.

It's also outside the scope of what could have reasonably been decided by the local community discussion that lead to that sanction: they were empowered to decide what kind restriction for BHG was reasonable on the basis of the facts as they stood at the time, but not to restrict later admins in how they enforce (and regulate enforcement) of any resulting blocks made for violation of that restriction. The participants in that discussion could have no real way of knowing how any future violations of the editing restriction / responses to same would play out, and even if they did, they were not in a position to abrogate the normal procedures. It was incredibly dumb and policy-inconsistent language that should have been caught at the time and should most definitely be amended now. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

The language is merely a restatement of the standard rule for community sanction enforcement. Blocks that enforce community sanctions cannot be reversed unilaterally. However, adding "by any other admin" after "reversed" seems reasonable to clear up the confusion that caused here. Would anyone object to that? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I've never known that to be a standard condition on CBAN, except in cases where someone was removed from the community at large. In that case the block that is not meant to be reversed is the one implemented by community consensus: the block that goes into effect when a person is completely CBANned. What we are talking about here is very different situation, and one where that language does not make rational sense. Here it is being interpreted as "once another admin makes a block on the basis of a previous community-instituted TBAN/IBAN/ER/What-have-you, that block cannot be reversed by another admin, short a community affirmation. Well, that's just nonsensical. That's an entirely different context, and how could the previous group of community members possibly know that the future admin's block was going to be good or bad, or anything else about the situation as it stood? Further, they wouldn't have community standing to overrule the normal blocking policy in any event, as that is a much higher level of community consensus, even if they were psychics.

So the language you are talking about applies to an entirely different procedural context, and I've never known it to be logged or interpreted in the way that happened here. Again, I have no idea if this error cropped in at the proposal, closure, or logging stage, but it should have been caught. (I could easily be wrong about this having happened before, but if so, it only highlights the need to correct this issue ASAP). And, with respect, I don't think your language at all captures the distinctions / issues here. "No unblock without community consensus (in reference to an existing block made at the end of a complete community CBAN, enforced by an indef)" ≠ "No unblock without community consensus (in reference to a speculative future block that may be perfectly valid or deeply problematic for all we know, and which would involve us restricting the normal blocking policy in a way no local group of editors is entitled to do without a much bigger discussion)". The language logged here was developed for the former context and never meant for the latter.

Because (at the risk of sounding like a broken record, but wanting to be clear here) in the former case the "don't unblock without community consensus" refers back to a decision made with broad community consensus (the CBAN discussion itself, which the block was immediately instituted to enforce). But in the latter case, the "don't unblock without community consensus" is being invoked to (inappropriately) "power up" a single admin's later action, which action was not the subject of any kind of community consensus at all. Do you see the distinction and why that language has been historically used in the one context, and not the other? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

No. The reason is straight forward. The community has had a long history of having and disapproving of these block/quick-unblock kerfuffles (by friend?) in this type of matter, and for good reason does not want to do it that way. The purpose of such blocks is to work a change in behavior, which can't even begin to try to work without some stick-to-itiveness.-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Really? Can you point me to anywhere where this supposed community consensus was adopted, or even expressly discussed? For this sanction, or another, or just more broadly? Because I've never seen any community consensus to that effect before and, again, this is contrary to manner and context in which the language in question has been historically deployed. If there's been a change in perspective on this in recent time, I'd like to stay informed about it, but, forgive my bluntness, it looks to me as if you are coming up with a post-hoc rationalization for this mistake. Which application I would reiterate is not rational here, and is contrary to the blocking policy and the level of consensus needed to amend its application. I'd like to see the suggested consensus that this is "to prevent friendly admins from unblocking later blocks made under this sanction", if that was really the reason for adding language in an atypical context, creating the circumstances that (almost inevitably) lead to issues here. Again, that language just doesn't make sense in this context--even if the original proposal included the problematic language (and no one has yet demonstrated that was even the case here).

"The purpose of such blocks is to work a change in behavior, which can't even begin to try to work without some stick-to-itiveness."

I think you might be missing the important distinction here. No one is questioning whether the consensus to impart the editorial restriction in the first instance was valid or well-considered. We'll take that for a granted here. The point is that the community consensus was to validate that such a restriction was appropriate--not that any one future block made under that ER would be automatically deemed by the community to be valid, appropriate, and helpful. Why would the community try to crystal ball something like that? I don't think your "because they presume some admin will wheel war over this" theory is supported by any established community consensus. Any such consensus would need to be well documented as established in the discussion (i.e. would have to come at the sanction proposal and be supported by the !votes, not just routinely added at the closure/logging stage).

And even if it did happen at the proposal stage, there's a big open question about whether or not the local group admins/community members in one ANI discussion can abrogate community consensus about how the block/unblock functions are meant to operate, especially if that local group is basing their decision on mere predictions about how things might play out regarding the future blocks. I'm sorry, but I think your argument is deeply flawed, and if you're going to convince me (or anyone here), I daresay you're gonna need to show a pretty clear indication that the community was implementing the "keep the friendly admin away" principle you claim is controlling here. At least some kind of express discussion of such a supposed motivation. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

No. You are not forgiven for your bad faith. If anyone has watched civility issues over the years they would know there is nothing post hoc about what I have said. Civility paroles are suppose to be enforcement ready and sticky because the consensus of the community has already established there is a problem, so much so, that the community had to spend time constructing the parole. Paroles are not, in the least, business as usual. They are extraordinary measures and always have been. And you are wrong about Wheel War, the unblock is not a Wheel War, but what it does is give second mover advantage, and this approved parole works to put a speed bump on the second mover advantage for the sake of sound administration with respect to an already established long standing known problem. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Again, can you prove any of this supposed "exceptional parole" concept with reference to a closure or any other demonstration of community consensus that this is what is going on here? You seem to be ((intentionally or not, I really don't know at this point) confusing two separate issues: As I said before, no one is questioning the validity of the original close, or even whether it should be aggressively applied: we can assume both of those as givens for our present needs. The question is whether any future block by an admin in accordance with an existing ER can inherit the presumption of community consensus. I'm telling you that strikes me nonsense, for the numerous reasons detailed above, and that it is distinct from the historical situation in which the "don't unblock" language was used (with regard to a block made commiserate/simultaneous with a CBAN, not a block made by a single admin, interpreting an ER).

Now, you have what seems to me to be a theory: that the community intentionally extrapolated this old language into a new context because they were concerned that without such a limitation on unblocks, friendly admins would unblock on cases of future blocks and thus enable the bad behavior of the sanctioned party. I've never seen such reasoning expressed here ever. It seems like a very novel concept to me. But I don't know everything that happens in this community, and you keep insisting this was an intentional affirmative action taken by the community. So I am asking, quite simply, if that is the case, can you please direct me to where I can find this community consensus? A broad discussion of the idea that this kind of restriction was necessary, or an example of it being expressly implemented for this BHG sanction, or a similar ANI sanction discussion? Even one link? If you respond again without providing that, I'm not going to engage with you on the matter further, as I will have to assume you have no such community consensus to refer back to, in which case this line of discussion threatens to do nothing but go around in circles. Again, I could have missed some big sea change on procedure: it's possible. But yours is an exceptional claim about supposed community consensus that turns established policy on its head, and leads to situations like that which occurred here, so I'm just not prepared to take this on faith without being able to see evidence of community support for these notions, where I have never seen it before. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Not confused in the least, I knew what a wheel war is. The community consensus is in the parole. Why such sticky against second mover exists, was developed more than a decade ago and their no reason to believe its rationale changes. And looking at the comment below, perhaps you did not realize its also part of other specialized sanction regimes. And just like that, a parole is a specialized sanctions regime tailored and targeted at a problem demonstrated already (we even list it in a page for special sanctions regimes). Finally, your seeming insistence that blocking and effective blocking are completely different issues is neither true nor sensible. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think Tamzin was referring to CBANs in her comment, but rather community-authorized general sanctions. For instance, if an administrator blocks an editor under the general sanctions for blockchains and cryptocurrencies, then that block cannot be undone by another administrator without approval of the sanctioning administrator or by an appeal to WP:AN (as laid out at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies § Remedies). DanCherek (talk) 03:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Community consensus

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

---

• Well, then, if community consensus is needed to unblock, then I move that the block be lifted. Any perceived incivility happened some time ago at this stage, it is being discussed here and at Arbcom, and blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support as nom. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support unblock. Uninvolved admin here. I agree with the assessment of others that this is "out of the blue" and not a correct assessment of the current tatus of the situation. Might be by-the-letter of the existing editing restriction, but there is no instant problem cited (and also impolite lack of notice) and instead there is ongoing proper use of editing privlege (edits in other areas, following the spirit and letter of the proposed remedy here for the problem that led us here, and discussion in this thread and arbcom). The block seems more punitive than preventative. DMacks (talk) 14:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn poorly timed block, could've been more appropriate before this was all being hashed out here and at arbcom, now it just throws a wrench in the works. I agree BHG is combative and has not AGF properly (or chooses to not-AGF out in the wild rather than where it can be addressed), but this is not news at this point. We're trying to work out a solution. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:11, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support overturn of cluelessly timed block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support unblock per my points above. SN54129 14:28, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse block obviously called for, and the failure to carry-out the community parole is one reason why this has lasted. The parole exists because it is already established that BHG in one way has a tendency to harm (eg, making claims in project space instead of bringing them to behavior boards with evidence), this block thus does seek to prevent probable future disruption by reinforcing the message that this mode of BHG's handling is counter-productive now and in the future, as it was in the past. Now, the community can turn to what if anything else needs to be done (quite apart from blocking BHG), so it considerably advances the matter toward settlement. BHG is also able to continue to comment, as she has on her talk page, and that's even if there is anything really new to comment on during the short block, short in relative comparison to this ANI. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

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

• This was a potentially bad block and an even worse unblock. @Courcelles: can you explain how a discussion lasting 1 hour was determined to be a valid community consensus, thank you. --qedk (t 愛 c) 17:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
• Well, the overall length, including above, was closer to three hours. A 48 hour block, how much discussion does it really merit? If you let it go on too long, the block is substantially served no matter what the consensus develops, and at the time I unblocked, there was no one supporting the block. (The sole endorsement came after I unblocked, and the discussion closing script didn’t even give an edit conflict, nits the same minute timestamps). It could be argued that the block would have been a good idea… 9 days ago when the thread was opened. Now? It cut off an editor when at jeopardy for significant sanctions for non-current problems. The discussion showed a consensus against the block, so it was, in my opinion, time to unblock and get back to actually trying to solve this quagmire. Courcelles (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  No, the discussion was open when I commented. And it's your unseemly haste which would be the cause of any editing conflict. It's done now, so there is no point in going back, but the editor was plainly not cut off by the block. They were blocked pursuant to the community restriction after saying 1000s of words, and still had the power to respond during the short block and after. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  Particularly regarding A 48 hour block, how much discussion does it really merit?, please note that you have said that you have unblocked via consensus, my question to you is as an uninvolved administrator, how did you determine a consensus for an unblock when the actual discussion lasted for 1 hour (your 3 hour comment is a technicality that does not apply since the actual discussion was opened at 14:08), even assuming that you did not see Alansw's !vote, please explain how you construed 5 supports as community consensus, thank you. --qedk (t 愛 c) 18:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  No, the actual discussion started at 13:19, that a separate sub header was added later is not really that relevant. And we regularly make more important decisions on less commentary. Short blocks have to be reviewed quickly, or the review mechanism is meaningless, and at the time I read the discussion, no one thought it was a useful block, with the blocking admin taking the position they could not undo their own block. Courcelles (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  There was still no need for your haste, the editor has thousands of words of comment, could continue and did comment during the 48, and comment after. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  That is an incorrect representation of what happened, Black Kite opened a "discussion" regarding the block, there was no actual proposal until Bastun's "proposal", which was done specifically because Dreamy mentioned it cannot be overturned without community consensus - hence the actual "proposal" being started to gain consensus. Regarding Short blocks have to be reviewed quickly, please explain why community consensus was needed to be determined so quickly (~1 hour, or even with your broadly construed ~3 hour discussion taken into account, which had conflicting opinions), and why a wider community purview that is reflective of the actual terminology of "community consensus" was not warranted. Although I am dissatisifed with your explanations, I do not intend to badger you and in that interest, this is the last explanation I will request. --qedk (t 愛 c) 18:46, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  I don’t know what you want me to say I haven’t said. I saw a consensus it was a bad block, one I agreed with, and it was interfering with a process where I expect the blocked editor is, should the process be continued, going to eventually face a vote which will decide their ability to have a continued presence on this project. (Don’t have any hard data to back that up, just years of watching what happens to editors who repeatedly come to Arbcom’s attention). So, yeah, this block turned out to have some supporters later, but at the time, I read the discussion as seeing it as punishment being so far after the infractions. Courcelles (talk) 20:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  No. The block was not interfering with a process it was in furtherance of proper process. The parole exists because it is a long-term issue of years, not an issue of just a moment in 2023. Second, there is no likelihood that any process would not follow its normal generally slow course. But even so, your own personal rationale has, and had no basis, BHG has been given multiple words to say their case, had already said their case in excess of word limits, and would continue to say their case during the block and after. So yes, you are only left with the quick vote. (If the editor should face a site ban in a month or so, which seems unlikely at this point even if there is a case, it is likely that part of the reason it will have occured is because admins have been failing BHG and the community in this long term area.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  The considerable volume of comments and the depth of disagreement that your hasty decision to unblock has engendered strongly suggest that your action was, in fact, a misstep. It's water under the bridge now, nothing can be done to reverse the course of events. However, this experience serves as an invaluable lesson for the future. Let it be a guide, steering you away from similar misjudgments and impetuous decisions. Contemplation and caution, rather than haste, will likely serve you better in the instances to come. PackMecEng (talk) 18:52, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

• Looks like a rushed and bad unblock. The block did not hinder the on going case and a poorly considered unblock only served to cause drama and confusion. Please be more careful in the future. PackMecEng (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  I'm sure your suggestion will be given the weight it deserves. SN54129 17:52, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  The only thing that caused drama and confusion was the block, as you can easily see from reading the above section and the case page, especically the comments from ArbCom members. Black Kite (talk) 18:16, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

• The block was well-intended but ill-advised, and the unblock – although probably inevitable – was premature. After all, community consensus seldom forms in a single hour. However, since it would be very, very foolish to cause even more disruption by reinstating the block, there really isn't anything left to discuss here, so maybe an admin can collapse this subthread before any more heat is generated. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed yes, I agree that any more enforcement actions, one way or the other would be unwarranted, but it is absolutely confounding to have a pending discussion about a potentially bad block, and then make an unblock that is considerably worse. --qedk (t 愛 c) 18:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  Have you read the ArbCom case page which contains comments from at least two ArbCom members asking Paul August to undo the block as unhelpful? Black Kite (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  I'm sorry but that is treated as "community consensus" since when? My point is not that the block was 100% warranted, it is that the unblock was not per community consensus as it should have been. --qedk (t 愛 c) 18:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  Don't get me wrong; I think you are 100% correct on the merits. I just don't think there's anything to do about it now. Also, I'm less inclined to get worked up over a poor unblock when it was preceded by (IMO) a bad block. I see it as too mistakes cancelling each other out. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  We just un-admined an admin because of a well-intended but ill-advised block - are we going to un-admin another? SportingFlyer T·C 20:28, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

• As others have said the unblock was rushed and ill-advised. It would have been a bad idea if this was a normal unblock where it was felt community feedback was needed, but as an unblock for which specific conditions had been laid down by the community, it's deeply disappointing that this is how they were "followed". No comment on the block itself since I can't be bothered looking into that especially since I agree with others that I don't really see what we can do here since a re-block is unlikely to be helpful. This combined with various discussions adds to my doubts that anything short of arbcom will resolve this. (Whether we want to also implement Floquenbeam's proposed closure I dunno but this episode does emphasise we probably need to specify how any blocks under it would interact with any arbcom case.) Nil Einne (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  One thing I would add is we should consider why an apparent initial community consensus may develop in one way over a short time. This is a very very long thread, and also an old one. So there's a good chance even editors checking out ANI did not notice this latest development in that short time, unless they already knew of the block. (I only noticed it because I was checking replies to my earlier comments.) There is an active arbcom request which is one area editors may have became aware of it, editors here are likely to have diverse views so that's fine. However the other arena is likely those following BHG's talk page. I would hope most of these editors who are somewhat friendly to BHG since it's generally inappropriate to follow the talk page of someone you dislike or find problematic. So any rushed decision could easily be biased by the self-selection of participants. (The last one is actually very common so a reason we need to take great care about rushed decisions.) Of course as we've seen several times before, some initial apparent consensus can easily change at ANI for whatever reason anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 19:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

• FWIW I think this was a good unblock; there was consensus forming that the block was potentially an issue for the ArbCom case request. Comments were spread between here and the case request, which makes untangling things trickier, but doesn't change that there was apparent consensus. Blocks are not punitive and this is a case where a block was causing more disruption than it was preventing. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 20:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
• Now this is at Arbcom is involved, perhaps someone should close the entire discussion. Unless someone wants to propose sanctions against an editor very POINTedly blocking someone WHILE they are involved in an Arbcom discussion, with no new evidence since the Arbcom discussion started! Nfitz (talk) 22:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

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

Copy vio

Someone is using multiple IP addresses and adding what the sources say verbatim, without paraphrasing in many different articles. Some diffs are: this, this, this, this, this and this. I suggest all those IP addresses should be blocked. Let him/her create an account and use it, so that we can ping him/her. When I suggested the same on a Talk page, s/he just replied that we should not worry, s/he can see the replies (see this) but s/he cannot be pinged because the IP addresses are never the same!-1Firang (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Some of the IP addresses are -

"94.5.50.5", the others begin with "2A02" which should be range blocked-1Firang (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Courcelles, Lourdes, Cullen328, please respond to my request also.-1Firang (talk) 06:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

1Firang, IP editors are perfectly welcome to edit as IP editors, as long as they comply with policies and guidelines. You can encourage such editors to register an account, but you cannot demand that of them. Cullen328 (talk) 09:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Cullen328, s/he has been adding unparaphrased text from the sources. I have paraphrased some and warned her/him not to do so again but to no avail (s/he probably doesn't get to see what I post on the IP's page as s/he is using different IP addresses each time). I am therefore requesting a range block, so that the copyright violations stop (and other editors don't need to paraphrase or revert those edits).-1Firang (talk) 14:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I have also pinged and requested her/him to paraphrase whatever they add here on the "Rape in Saudi Arabia" Talk page.-1Firang (talk) 16:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

NJA, Ohnoitsjamie, Daniel Case, Ad Orientem, you have all partially range blocked at least one of these IP addresses before; please look into it again.-1Firang (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@1Firang (courtesy ping @Cullen328) A couple of quick observations. As far as I can tell no warnings were issued to any of the IPs in the linked diffs. Their talk pages don't show any. It is true that 94.5.50.5 was briefly blocked by me back in June (see the edit filter). While having to revert or paraphrase another user's edits due to copyright concerns may be inconvenient, it's not enough to justify, ipso facto, a no warning block. If warnings have been issued and I am missing them, please provide diffs. Beyond which, range blocks are not done lightly. There would need to be evidence of widespread and persistent disruptive editing within the range to a degree that justifies the likely collateral damage. The idea of rangeblocking everyone starting with 2A02 is not even possible as the range would be insanely wide. The diffs cited are all to edits in Rape in Saudi Arabia. If this is where most of the disruption is occurring, and lesser measures have proven either ineffective or obviously impracticable, at some point page protection may be justified. But for now, the diffs presented and lack of warnings on any of the offending IP talk pages (as far as I can see), leave me unconvinced that there are grounds for any kind of admin intervention. ANI should be your last stop when trying to deal with a problem in all but very rare cases of gross disruption. See my thoughts on ANI which can be found on my user page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:24, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, the diffs of the copy vios I have had to paraphrase (I did not revert them) have been provided right at the top of this section. It has happened at the Rape in Islamic law, Rape in Saudi Arabia, Ormuri, Cultural Muslims, Tuareg people and Stoning in Islam articles. You have already blocked the IP from the Faisal Islam article. The diff of my warning can be seen here.-1Firang (talk) 03:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, the diffs provided at the top of this section are for the Rape in Islamic law and Rape in Saudi Arabia articles only.-1Firang (talk) 03:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@1Firang Warnings need to posted on the talk page of the user/IP, not the article talk page. I suggest you enable WP:TWINKLE. It has a full suite of warning templates that you can use with just a few clicks. Unfortunately the IPs have not been properly warned, and their edits are not of a nature that they would allow for a no warning block. See WP:ZT. Also you are required to notify all involved parties when opening an ANI discussion. This does not appear to have happened. In the case of IPs, even if they are using a dynamic address, a notice needs to be posted, usually on the most recent IP talk page that has been involved. As of right now this report is not actionable. I am not going to close it. But you need to post proper warnings and notifications before this can go any further. And you will need to show disruptive editing that postdates the warnings. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:26, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: Here is a diff of my warning on the Talk page of the IP. I will return here if there is any copy vio again after this warning.-1Firang (talk) 03:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

It's technically impossible to block the entire range starting with 2A02 ... the software only accepts CIDRs 32 or higher. Daniel Case (talk) 03:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@Daniel Case:, I request you to do what you can as I am tired of paraphtasing what he adds.-1Firang (talk) 03:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I am glad to read that you have been paraphrasing their copying, and I understand that it is getting tiresome, but as Ad Orientem notes, in a case like this a user needs to be warned that what they are doing is wrong—about four times, usually—before we can justify a block. {{uw-copyright}} is ideal for this purpose (it has no levels, unfortunately). When the editor uses dynamic IPv6 addresses (i.e. most of them), the warning only needs to go on the talk page for the address they made the edit from, as most of those are allocated such that a single user has an entire /64 range all to themselves, and will get the notification eventually. Daniel Case (talk) 03:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: I have posted warnings here, here, here and here, so if a copy vio recurs by this IP, will you block a small range of these IP addresses?-1Firang (talk) 05:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

The thing about warning them "four times" means four repetitions of warning...they do it again...warning...they do it again...etc. It does not mean posting the same warning at the same time in four places. That only counts as one warning. We are trying to get them to notice the warning, and stop their misbehavior, not trying to find excuses to block them. So they need to be given a chance to notice the warning and stop. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@Courcelles, Lourdes, Cullen328, NJA, Ohnoitsjamie, Daniel Case, Ad Orientem, and Abecedare: Now the IP is removing sourced content and I have warned her/him on her/his talk page here but I feel this needs some sanctioning if you people really want to stop this misbehaviour.-1Firang (talk) 01:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@1Firang Diffs? 94.5.50.5 doesn't appear to have edited in the last 24 hrs. Also I'm still not seeing any notification of this ANI discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: I had mentioned the diff above and I am typing it here again: Diff, I have also posted an ANI notice there (on the Talk page of the IP) now (see the diff).-1Firang (talk) 02:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Based on the addresses you warned (the IPv6 ones, at least) I have derived the range 2a02:c7c:e83a::8000:0:0:0/66 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

As you will see if you click on contribs, there is already a partial block on that range, one which I've added to in the recent past. It will last almost a year; the software can only accommodate 10 pages, so at a certain point at which we will have to go to either a namespace block or a full range. I think for now we could add more articles, but given this range's determination that may not hold them for long (i.e., they'll go find other articles to disrupt). Do the other admins here have any opinions on this? Daniel Case (talk) 03:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Based on what looks like some heavy duty disruption over time, I have semi-protected Rape in Saudi Arabia for six months and am looking at some of the other page histories. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I have also protected Rape in Islamic law for six months. I am unsure if any of the other pages have a level of DE that would justify PP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:34, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks!-1Firang (talk) 05:33, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

May something please be done to stop this user disruptively editing Sikh pages

I posted about this issue here on this noticeboard but nobody responded to my post: [36]

This user (User:Harmanjit Singh Khalsa123s) continues to disruptively edit Sikh pages, see: [37] , [38]

Long story short (see the original post to read the long story): User has been asked for months to stop their POV edits removing content and pushing their opinion but they do not respond to talk page posts and continue their disruptive edits unabated. May this user be topic-banned at the very least? ThethPunjabi (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Looks like long-term WP:DISRUPT. It believe it might be better if an admin indef blocked the account as it has been going on for months and the user has not engaged on the talk-page and ignored previous warnings. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Having seen this edit [39], this is vandalism. This is a case of WP:NOTHERE. I would support indef block. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Harmanjit Singh Khalsa123s (talk · contribs) from editing articles and left them a message asking for a response. Johnuniq (talk) 05:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I’ve taken a leaf out of CapnJackSp’s book in the ‘NoFoolie’ thread, and stuck a 7 day ‘noarchive’ to this thread, so Harmanjit has plenty of time to start talking. Call it my inner cynicist speaking, but I doubt we’re getting any response. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 17:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

User repeatedly adding unsourced content to articles for years

• Wmdarrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Werner Hegemann (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have filed a complaint on the Conflict of Interest noticeboard on 8 July [40] but no other user has helped with the issue, I have also left warning templates on the user's talk page but they have continued adding original research. I have also posted on the talk-page of the article but the user has not replied.

Wmdarrow has been editing Werner Hegemann for the last 8 years slowly adding unsourced material like this [41]. Wmdarrow has claimed that Werner Hegemann is his grandfather [42]. Unfortunately this user has been adding unsourced original research to the article for years, he has reverted me many times but does not leave an edit summary. I have explained to him about WP:OR but he does not listen. Only in the last two days has he added two sources but I have checked one of them out and it is not accurate. This user's preferred version of the article was this many times [43] but all the content he was adding is unsourced. Before they started editing the article, everything on it was sourced [44]. The current version still contains some of their unsourced material which he restored. He is also adding large chunks of text that do not support the source and is adding duplicated material [45].

There is no cooperation from this user, no apology for repeatedly adding unsourced content. When the unsourced and unreliable content is removed it goes back onto the article. The user is using his grandfather's Wikipedia article to add his own personal historical research. On his talk page he has accused me of "gas-lighting" and "stalking" him and elsewhere has claimed I am trying to expunge his "research" which is not in good faith [46], [47]. There are too many things wrong here. I believe this user should be blocked from editing the article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Going through Wmdarrow's problematic editing. Almost every edit he has made to Wikipedia is unsourced. Just one of hundreds of examples at Fort Vengeance Monument Site [48], Anatolia College in Merzifon [49], George M. Darrow [50], Karl Eugen Guthe [51], Ernst Illing [52]. Another at James M. Hinds [53] who he also claims was a distant relative "James Hinds has been of interest since I discovered that he was the brother of my great-great-grandmother." [54]. There seems to be a long-term violation here of WP:OR. I seek admin advice about how this can be handled. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Psychologist Guy, based on the evidence that you have provided, I have indefinitely blocked Wmdarrow from article space. If they have some suggestions for improvement of any article, the editor can post well-referenced, neutral edit requests on the associated article talk pages. Cullen328 (talk) 02:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your help this was a bad case of long-term abuse in regard to adding unsourced original research to articles. Hopefully the issue is now resolved. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Cullen328, Would it be appropriate to allow my input before blocking me? For Werner Hegemann I bought his two books I described to ensure precision (the Napoleon and Fredericus), quoting from the books. I also read his English biography by Crasemann Collins and cite it. For the Fort Vengeance Monument page, I referenced the published scholarly paper describing Fort Vengeance (from which I obtained my contribution), "Indian and Tory Raids on the Otter Valley, 1777-1782," by Wynn Underwood, Vermont Quarterly, Vol XV, No. 4, October, 1947 (accessible on the internet at https://vermonthistory.org/journal/misc/Indian&ToryRaids.pdf.). For the Anatolia_College_in_Merzifon page, I purchased, read, and cited in the references two books on the subject, along with the 1917 New York Times article summarizing what happened. The Karl Eugen Guthe material is in his cited obituaries published after his 1915 death. Similarly as to James M. Hinds, after several years research I published a scholarly paper on the subject in the Arkansas Historical Quarterly. My contribution is a summary, citing that paper (which includes many, many footnotes and citations) As to Edgar Smith (murderer) I read two books about him (both cited) and reviewed the trial transcript (also cited). How can my work be characterized as a "bad case of long term abuse"? I have a background in law (36 years a practicing lawyer) and carefully research subjects before summarizing them and citing source material upon which I relied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmdarrow (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately, Wmdarrow doesn't give the full story about his edits. In most cases he doesn't source content that he has added to Wikipedia. On occasion it is true, he has added a book or paper but he puts it directly in the references section without any linkage to the text he has added and doesn't add specific page numbers. I have listed examples above where he added entirely unsourced content, many others could be cited. The outcome is unsourced content being added by Wmdarrow to Wikipedia on many articles, so it is long-term abuse as he is damaging articles by adding original research. These are not isolated examples, it has been going on for years so it cannot be dismissed as a one off mistake. More examples at Constitution of Arkansas [55], Frederic C. Howe [56], Peter T. Washburn [57], Elisha Baxter [58] and Guy W. Calissi [59]. Wmdarrow will sometimes add between 5 and 8 lines of text entirely unsourced or sometimes just one line (the latter examples). Unfortunately his unsourced content has remained on many of these articles. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Another issue with Wmdarrow's editing has been his addition of unsourced material about James M. Hinds to 6 articles, examples of that here [60], [61]. This isn't just original research there seems to be a conflict of interest here, as he claims Hinds is a distant relative of his. As for his edits on the James M. Hinds article almost every edit he has made to that article since 2013 has been unsourced material like this [62], [63]. Which ever way you look at it, this is not good editing. He says above that he "published a scholarly paper on the subject in the Arkansas Historical Quarterly", by this he is referring to his 2015 paper, which he has added to the article but much of the content he added to the article is still unsourced and there is an obvious conflict of interest here citing his own paper. Wmdarrow has a history of telling other users he has 30 years experience as a lawyer [64]. I do not think that is relevant. I see two serious issues here WP:COI and WP:OR. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

The ban on Wmdarrow should be lifted so as to avoid establishing a precedent of banning a user for adding "unsourced information" only. Psychologist Guy didn't show that information added was completely false or unreliable. Additionally Wmdarrow should be allowed to speak in his defence before being banned. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 07:16, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I have listed many diffs showing that he has added entirely unsourced content to Wikipedia for years, actually 10 years, it doesn't matter if the content is not unreliable, look at the diffs I provided, there are no sources being added, this is against Wikipedia policy. He's been doing this for 10 years, and it is a problem because many articles need now to be checked. If you look at Cullen328's talk-page - Wmdarrow has already defended himself by claiming oddly that he has never added unsourced content to Wikipedia [65]. You can easily disprove this by looking at the diffs I provided or going through his editing history and looking at all the unsourced content he has added. This isn't just about adding original research, he's also been adding his own papers to articles, so that is a conflict of interest as well. Psychologist Guy (talk) 09:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Going through the history of the James M. Hinds article, Wmdarrow was using an IP address in 2015 where he added 15 lines of unsourced material [66]. That IP is definitely this user because he has made the same edits on Hinds, Karl Eugen Guthe and Brooks–Baxter War directly before and after Wmdarrow was editing. Psychologist Guy (talk) 09:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@Psychologist Guy: I've analyzed some of the edits made by Wmdarrow. Compared to you he made much less edits than you did. Compare: see Wmdarrow EDITS vs Psychologist Guy. All his major edits were limited to the following list of articles. We have yet to see how harmful they were. Wikipedia has tonnes of unsourced texts and this may not serve as a sole reason for blocking user. Especially indefenitely.
If the alleged "harm" done by Wmdarrow (IPs he used) is evident, it's only limited to the following list. I'm sure it's reversible.

AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I am not saying it is not reversible, I am saying it is against policy to add unsourced original research to articles for years like he has been doing. It should not be up to other editors to clean up after another user over a period of time this long. You have cited his main edits, but he has also added unsourced material to other articles some of which I listed. Brooks–Baxter War, Frederic C. Howe, Peter T. Washburn, Elisha Baxter, Guy W. Calissi etc. It doesn't matter if he is adding one line of unsourced text to these articles, that is still one line too many because there is no reference. Much of the content he adds actually sounds historically accurate but that is not the issue, it is still unsourced. If he sourced information properly there would be no problem but this is an issue that has been going on for 10 years.

There is also the conflict of interest regarding James M. Hinds (see the diffs I already cited), he seems to be using Wikipedia to insert that person on other articles, another example here [67], he will insert a line about Hinds onto another article but the content is unsourced. He inserted that line about Hinds onto the Ulysses S. Grant article on 8 November 2021. As of 16 July 2023 (today), the information unsourced is still on the article. I have already listed about 6 articles where this has happened. Are you personally going to check all of these articles and remove the original research? Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for citing Beacon Falls, Connecticut, I had not seen his editing on there before. On 16 January 2017, Wmdarrow added around 20 lines of unsourced text to the article [68], he added more the next day [69]. He's made many other unsourced edits on there. Today in July 2023 his unsourced content is still on the article. I believe this issue is severe. I do not want to spend any more of my time looking into this. I would like to see what other admins and editors think. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

The block from article space looks valid to me. When Wmdarrow takes this tone, he is asserting himself a reliable source for whatever he wants to write—absolutely a violation of WP:No original research. Outside of Wikipedia, original research is suitable and even encouraged, but since Wikipedia is supposed to be a summary of published thought, this behavior by Wmdarrow is inappropriate. He cannot use Wikipedia as his publishing platform. Binksternet (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

In fact, Wmdarrow added some sources, though without due formatting e.g. [70] [71]. To me in some articles the problem doesn't seem to be as intractable as it's presented. Many of his major edits might be easily tagged for citation and then reverted. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you AXONOV for taking a fresh look at this. I am confused about how best to respond to the attacks by psychologist guy, which now appear in different wiki locations (the conflicts page, the administrators page, my talk page) and evolve day to day. As best I understand that user's protest, his claim of unsourced material is for the most part a claim that my sourcing is often in a page's references section, instead of footnotes to text. Thus, in the Fort Vengeance contribution, I summarized info in a published scholarly paper and cited that paper in the reference section: "Indian and Tory Raids on the Otter Valley, 1777-1782," by Wynn Underwood, Vermont Quarterly, Vol XV, No. 4, October, 1947 (accessible on the internet at https://vermonthistory.org/journal/misc/Indian&ToryRaids.pdf.). Similarly, in the Anatolia College in Merzifon contribution, I purchased and read several books about the subject, then supplemented the page and cited the books: "Marsovan 1915: The Diaries of Bertha Morley," and "Adventuring With Anatolia College," George E. White, Herald-Register Publishing Company, 1940. The Werner Hegemann page (which is where this imbroglio began), also contained a paragraph summarizing Hegemann's 1912 lecture tour in the United States, which is described in in Ch. 3 of the Crasemann Collins biography of Hegemann at pp. 85-115. That book is listed in the references and the sources section of the page. After psychology guy protested my incorrect sourcing, I added a footnote to those pages. Psychology guy still deleted the paragraph. Similarly, Karl Eugen Guthe's biography is described in his obituaries, several cited on his page. For example, "DR. KARL E. GUTHE DEAD; Dean of University of Michigan Was Noted as a Scientist," Sept. 12, 1915 New York Times. The eulogies, particularly by Univ of Mich, are robust, and I can footnote to them if that is required. For the Edgar Smith (Murderer) page, I purchased and read two books about the case, one of which included the trial transcript (which I read). I also located and read court decisions, such as the New Jersey Supreme Court's affirmation of the conviction. I cited those sources in summarizing the case. As to James Hinds, the first U.S. Congressman assassinated in office, the scholarly paper describing his fate was written by me after several years of research. William B. Darrow, “The Killing of Congressman James Hinds.” Arkansas Historical Quarterly 74 (Spring 2015): 18–55. It is true that the Hinds wiki page evolved from a few (incorrect) sentences to its current state largely due to my contributions. The foregoing paper is cited as a source. It received substantial editorial and peer review by the Arkansas Historical Quarterly prior to publication. It contains about 150 footnotes. No errors in my work have been identified. If citing to specified references is insufficient, and the problem is that footnotes are required, that's an easy fix.

The remaining attack by psychologist guy is that I have a fatal conflict of interest as to Hinds and Hegemann. This is baffling to me. He contends that since I am the author of a scholarly publication on James Hinds, I should not be permitted to contribute to the Hinds wiki page. Why should my expertise on that subject bar my input? It would seem to be an asset, not a deficit, in summarizing Hinds. Psychologist guy also protests that I am conflicted as to Hinds due to a distant family relationship. Again, why? If I have done detailed historical research on Hinds for several years, and am the author of the above-cited publication, why should wiki and its readers not have the benefit of that? Psychologist guy also protests that Werner Hegemann is my grandfather, and that poses a fatal defect that should bar my wiki contribution. Again, why is that? I asked him for an explanation and received none. It is probably true that, absent my relation, I would have less information about and interest in Hegemann. Thus, I would not be familiar with the "Family Saga" written by Hegemann's wife and relied upon by Crasemann Collins in her biography, "Werner Hegemann and the Search for Universal Urbanism," W.W. Norton & Co, NY 2005, p. 11. But why is my familiarity with that writing, and with the Crasemann Collins book not a benefit? I was careful to buy, review, and cite (and quote from) several Hegemann books prior to my contributions to his wiki page. Again, no error has been identified in my work. Psychology man's deletions significantly subtract from an understanding of Hegemann. The two historical books I discuss, Napoleon and Fredericus, debunked German heros and thus informed the Nazi book burnings, in which Hegemann was denounced in the "fire oath," "Against the falsification of our history and disparagement of its great figures." Psychology man inexplicably deleted my summary of those two books, despite my quotations from and reference to them. How was reference to those books the fruit of an improper conflict? I am at a loss to explain psychology man's antagonism toward my well-intended and accurate work. He goes so far as to protest my statement that I am a retired lawyer of 35 years. Yet that was only proffered to assure wiki that I am a serious person, who has long labored with words and research, within a structure of well-established rules. (I know that may not mean much to folks who don't care for lawyers!) Again, thank you for your independent review of this mess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmdarrow (talk • contribs)

"The two historical books I discuss, Napoleon and Fredericus, debunked German heros and thus informed the Nazi book burnings, in which Hegemann was denounced in the "fire oath," "Against the falsification of our history and disparagement of its great figures." Psychology man inexplicably deleted my summary of those two books, despite my quotations from and reference to them." I have addressed this quite a few times. See the talk-page of the Werner Hegemann article. You are adding unsourced material. Your edit did not contain a reliable secondary source [72], it contained no source at all. You turn up on Wikipedia and add unsourced content onto articles, then you get angry if an editor reverts you. This is the opposite to myself, as everything I add on this website is sourced.

In a previous comment above, I provided evidence you have put over 20 lines of unsourced text onto the Beacon Falls, Connecticut article. There is a pattern here and it has been going on for years. I did not protest your statement that you were a lawyer for 35 years, I just do not see how it is relevant to Wikipedia. I believe the block is appropriate as you should not be able to insert anymore of your original research into articles. You have done a lot of damage to articles and it means someone is going to have to spend time cleaning up your unsourced content. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:58, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@Wmdarrow: Again, why is that? I asked him for an explanation and received none.

1. If you somehow related to the subject to the article, you are in WP:CONFLICT and therefore should at best abstain from editing
2. Regardless of the article you write, whether it's on Wikipedia or somewhere else: you have to provide sources: this is rule of wikipedia - WP:BURDEN/WP:PRIMARY
3. If someone requests you to provide source - you are at best should provide it; this is rule of wikipedia - WP:BURDEN/WP:PRIMARY

AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Re the Hegemann material, you contend that my contribution "did not contain a reliable secondary source - it contained no source at all." That is incorrect - it did contain a source: the books at issue (Hegemann's own words). The material summarized two significant books Hegemann wrote in the 1920s that had been omitted from the Hegemann page. My summary simply cited and quoted the books. Why are Hegemann's own words summarizing his views inadequate to express his views? If a secondary source is required (to explain what he meant?), then that source the same one relied upon for the 1912 lecture tour: Crasemann Collins, who describes the books at issue in Ch. 5 on pp. 291-300. In fact, choice of the verb "debunk" was from Crasemann Collins, p. 315 -- she also states that his agenda "was the unmasking of German heroes by exposing repressed historical truth." Id. p. 294 (also referencing his "campaign against the perpetrators of the hero cult"). She also quotes the same language as did I as to Frederick the Great: "one of the most obnoxious figures." Id. at 296. This is perfectly consistent with my edit. I don't understand why citing Hegemann's words is improper, but if a secondary source is needed it is a simple add (and Craseman Collins' biography of Hegemann is already noted in the article). Nor do I consider it improper "original research" - the Hegemann page needed some mention of his historical books, and no synthetic research was required -- I simply mentioned them and quoted his words denouncing Napoleon and Frederick the Great (with page references). That seems more like presenting readily accessible and undisputed facts. As to the Nazi book burnings and associated Nazi "fire oaths" (called out for each author as their books were thrown into the flames), that is a well-known event treated in a multitude of places such as https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/fire-oaths. If a secondary source is necessary, again, Craseman Collins describes the burning and fire oath on pp. 315-316. As to Beacon Falls, my additions were based in large part on the 2012 Beacon Falls Historical Society publication, "Beacon Falls (Images of America)" 2012, by Mark Heiss. I thought I had listed that book in the references section but did not. I also read the court decision treating the bankruptcy and demise of the American Home Woolen Company, which led to the Beacon Falls Rubber Shoe Company's purchase of the factory buildings. There is a plethora of internet info, like https://connecticuthistory.org/beacon-falls-rubber-shoe-company-puts-best-foot-forward/, and https://www.olmstedlegacytrail.com/beacon-falls. I did not consider my edits very significant or novel. But should have listed some sources. The claim that I have "done alot of damage to articles" is baseless - the accuracy of my contributions is uncontested and strengthen the articles. If I have failed to cite sources (or secondary sources) properly, that is easily corrected. My edits are accurate and were made carefully and in good faith.

AXONOV thank you for citing me to conflict authority. I had not understood that any relation bars any contribution. Hegemann died nearly 20 years before I was born, and my interest in him followed by several more decades. Certainly a family relationship raises a risk of bias and improper editing. Thus, Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia:

"Conflict-of-interest (COI) editing on Wikipedia occurs when editors use Wikipedia to advance the interests of their external roles or relationships." That is not happening here. My edits are concise, well-supported and accurate. Hegemann has been dead for nearly 90 years and no "interests" are being advanced (other than understanding Hegemann). No "promotion" is at risk. But I appreciate that "Editors with a COI are sometimes unaware of whether or how much it has influenced their editing. If COI editing causes disruption, an administrator may opt to place blocks on the involved accounts." Conceivably I am overlooking how a COI has impaired my Hegemann edits. Nor do I see any "disruption" warranting a block. But I am game to step back from the Hegemann page if deemed necessary. I fear it will weaken the page (omitting reference, for example, to his 1912 lecture tour and his historical books) for no gain. As to honoring a request to provide a source, I did not understand psychology man to be doing that - he simply made block deletions, and ignored my attempts to explain (I have explained the Hegemann edits over and over). If he had led with "you should provide in text footnote sources for these two paragraphs in the Hegemann page," and explained why my sourcing was improper (rather than peremptorily deleting my work), this would have gone a different way. I was not "angry," as he characterizes me - I was baffled that good, accurate work was being deleted. Under the circumstances, if more particular sources are necessary (such as adding sources in an article's references section to footnotes in the text), that is an easy fix. I would be happy to go through the set of articles that you noted above and do that. Wmdarrow (talk) 23:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

My summary simply cited and quoted the books. Why are Hegemann's own words summarizing his views inadequate to express his views?

Because you failed to actually cite the books. You appended the names/titles in the References and expected that was enough. I strongly suggest familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia's rules before making further edits. Primarily, read through WP:VERIFY and WP:CITE. And yes, secondary sources are preferred in most circumstances. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Argumentative user in Talk page of Metabasis paradox

• Metabasis paradox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Esedowns (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user Esedowns is perhaps within guidelines, but I find his comments to be generally too intense, and at times unkind. To say that the title of my article is "grotesque" shows insensitivity toward others.Cdg1072 (talk) 01:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Cdg1072, this is not an appropriate matter for discussion at this noticeboard, which is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. I suggest that you discuss the matter directly with the other editor. Cullen328 (talk) 01:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

When I deleted it from this page, that could have been taken as a sign I am no longer interested in correcting the behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdg1072 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

You never deleted it or struck it from this page. Meters (talk) 03:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I apologise, but really, how is that name going to inform anybody what the article is about? Please read "obscure" instead. Esedowns (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Cdg1072: on your user page you say you have a conflict of interest "regarding the Wikipedia article The contradiction of Poetics chapters 13 and 14." which I believe is the subject of and draft name for Metabasis paradox. The procedure for editing an article with which you have a conflict of interest per WP:COI is not to edit it directly but to request edits be made by others on the article talk page. In what way do you have a COI with the article? DeCausa (talk) 18:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, if you can clarify.

In the talk page of that article, I have mentioned that something could be added to the article, a solution I created. Another author wrote a paper (2012) on the same solution five years earlier than I did. I never said I would add the solution, because of the COI and also that I didn't publish on it. The other writer, Bertolaso, thought of this new theory first. I have suggested someone might place it in a new section with her name. But first, they'd have to read her paper--also unpublished but available--which might never happen.

As you may know, I created this whole article, presenting each theory objectively. If you suggest that I stop editing it completely, I will stop. Supporting one solution creates a bias against the others. Fortunately, I have made all the edits that seemed necessary, which went on till recently. To basically polish the entire article took me months and hundreds of edits.

Meanwhile, user Esedowns suggests adding another old solution by Emil Neidhardt. He appears to know this one better than I do, so I wouldn't be the ideal person to add it regardless of my COI status. But since Esedowns agrees with Neidhardt, perhaps he must ask someone else to add it. Also, I think Esedowns should stop debating about Bertolaso or my view in the talk page. That makes it into a forum. He seems a very friendly individual but a bit argumentative. Cdg1072 (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow what you are saying. If you are saying that you had a theory relating to the article subject matter which you didn't publish but someone else has, I don't think that's COI. It might put you at risk of introducing WP:OR or editing in a way contrary to WP:NPOV but provided you don't do either of those things, it's not an issue as far as I can see. It's not what's usually seen as COI. DeCausa (talk) 19:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Cdg1072 (talk) 20:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Autospark acting in a "bossy" way

Autospark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reversed a valid edit on Civic Platform page with exalting manners (citing: "rv, none of that malarkey, son.") to another user and after being warned by me not to act like that (because this user is not an admin to behave in such way), he didn't change intentions and removed my request as "flame-bait troll". PikselowyPrezes (talk) 11:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I see a personal attack by PikselowyPrezes against Autospark in saying "You seem to have no clue about Polish politics". Also, PikselowyPrezes' editing is quite similar to editing by Oskarmiloszewski, and PikselowyPrezes acting as Oskarmiloszewski's advocate here on ANI and on Autospark's talk page also raises questions. --Mvqr (talk) 11:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

And you seem to be act in a similar way to Autospark. This raises questions that you stand on the side of the person that started the attack. It's not me who reverted an edit that doesn't suit my pointview.

You don't have the right to accuse anybody of being an "advocate" as you behave in the same way. Oskarmiloszewski is an user that made a valid edit and not got his edit reverted, but also got attacked for no reason.

I see too suspcious behavior of Mvqr in this topic. Too strange. PikselowyPrezes (talk) 12:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I suggest that you stop casting aspersions and return to discussing on the talk page. - jc37 13:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Mvqr - I agree that it looks curious, but I'm not seeing enough evidence for that merely from a cursory look at edit histories. Someone with more tools than I, might be able to determine more on that. - jc37 13:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that this all looks fairly suspect. Oskarmiloszewski (talk · contribs) is operating out of the same /64 range as Rakso35000000 (talk · contribs). I'm not immediately blocking, since there is no overlap between the editing dates, but they may wish to address that. PikselowyPrezes is operating on a different IP, but their geolocation is very similar Oskarmiloszewski/Rakso35000000, and they obviously share similar interests, but I haven't dug any deeper into their contribs at this stage. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

This by Oskarmiloszewski overlaps with this by Rakso35000000 a week apart. Same article, and same infobox ideology change. Mvqr (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

The revision history of Civic Platform is one red flag after another. Straight to indef WP:ECP as WP:ARBEE. El_C 08:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• Autospark wasn't actually notified of this discussion, so I dropped them a note. --Mvqr (talk) 10:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Sonia Sotomayor

Can a disinterested party please review the last three edits (and the edit summaries) of the Sotomayor article, essentially undoing all of the previous text regarding SCOTUS Justice Sotomayor's refusal to recuse herself from cases involving book publishers from whom she has made millions of dollars. See colloquy at the Sotomayor talk page ("Controversy ...") Are all SCOTUS justices treated equally by Wikipedia?

Thanks. 166.199.114.53 (talk) 23:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Admins do not settle content disputes. Please use the talk page to discuss your concerns, and if that fails, use dispute resolution. 331dot (talk) 23:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

A couple of observations: Assuming bad faith of editors trying to craft language that complies with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is not the best way to improve an article. Also, the court cases in question never made it to the U.S. Supreme Court. Cullen328 (talk) 00:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

On that note, I don't think it's a good idea to come to ANI on a WP:BLP and WP:AP2 issue and tell us you're terrible at summarising what a source says. (Since from what I can tell "refusal to recuse" if not what even your own sources say.) Nil Einne (talk) 10:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Help with potential sock of sockmaster who won't leave me alone

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

---

I think the sock account of Miggy72 posted on my Commons talk page after I reported recently two sock accounts in the past week and a half and now this new account has posted about the sock master posting his social media links, which may violate our policy on identifying a user in real life. I've reverted the three edits. And the edits should be not be accessible publicly. And his first edit on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Iranian-Saudi support map.png the current commons deletion creation of his which violates policy on sock creations] is in my mind further proof of this user's constant inability to understand Wikipedia and Wikimedia policy. Now this person is undoing my edits on my talk page on Commons. I'm asking admins to investigate this bizarre behavior which I'm getting fed up with when this user socks with disruption on here, but now has gone to Wikipedia sister sites to probably stalk me. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Another reversal of my reversal. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

By and large, no one on en.wiki can do anything about anything on commons. I think you need to ask for help from Commons admins there. Or on Meta if you think a global lock would be useful. If I'm misunderstanding and you're asking for action on en.wiki, you should state a little more clearly what you want people to do. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

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

User:Thar Aung Sacc violating WP:BLP policy after being notified.

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

---

Thar Aung Sacc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Paing Takhon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Earlier today, User:Khiikiat started a thread at WP:BLPN regarding disputed content [73] in the biography of Paing Takhon, a Burmese performer. Given that the material clearly violated WP:BLP policy, as highly negative and citing utterly inadequate sources (a Facebook page, and a website for some sort of political app - the latter citation being to a page which seems not to even mention the individual concerned) I removed the material, and again informed User:Thar Aung Sacc of the relevant policy, which they had already had their attention drawn to three weeks ago. [74] User:Thar Aung Sacc's only response has been to restore the material, with the edit summary "Strong source". [75] Given the refusal to engage in any sort of dialog after being informed of the requirement for much better sourcing, I'd have to suggest that the only appropriate response would be a block of this single-purpose account until such time as policy compliance can be assured. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:44, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

An SPA to push an agenda to make a BLP look bad with poor sourcing needs to be shown the door. I’ve done so. Courcelles (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks by User:Kingsif

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.

In sort of the opposite of how these things usually go at AN/I, an initial poor showing by Willbb has been followed by relatively conciliatory comments showing an understanding of what they did wrong here. Just as I think Kingsif is entitled to some leniency given Will's behavior, Will is likewise entitled to some leniency given the incivility Kingsif directed at them. So I will forego the block I suggested earlier, and instead:

• Willbb234, you are strongly warned for (non-1RR) edit-warring and for omitting crucial facts in this AN/I report. Given the recency of your community unblock, this is, probably, your last chance, especially with respect to edit-warring. I would strongly encourage you to hold yourself to a 0RR.
• I will hold off on issuing any warning to Kingsif until he's had a chance to respond, but intend to do so after that unless a very good reason not to is provided. Kingsif, feel free to comment below the closed thread; I'm just closing this now because it seems about 95% settled.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

And now, acknowledging Kingsif's likewise reasonably conciliatory response below, he is formally warned for incivility, and warned that a pattern of not-blockable incivil remarks may add up to something blockable after enough time. Profanity and strong language can have their places (as this discussion went on, I kept thinking back to a time I told several students to "stop fucking kicking" the head of a classmate they had jumped, which succeeded in getting their attention and making them stop), but there is a line, and that line was crossed here. Likewise, frustration at disruptive behavior can be mitigatory to a degree, but, as Snow Rise notes below, it does not exempt anyone from CIV. So I would encourage you, Kingsif, to take this as a wake-up call to dial back the sort of language you use when frustrated with other editors, regardless of how reasonable that frustration may be. A subequent instance of incivility may well result in a block. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

---

Kingsif went to my talkpage and asked "What the fuck is wrong with you" ([76]). They also suggested I had "reading difficulties", was a vandal, or had a "massive arrogant ego" and told me to "stay away" ([77]). They then said that my action was "malicious" or "dangerously incompetent" in an attempt to convince an admin to block me, and they also proceeded to remove their previous comments as the likely realised how others would perceive them ([78]). Blatant and repeated violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Willbb234 16:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• Wasn't Willbb234 literally just unblocked and we're back here for conduct issues? Star Mississippi 16:26, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand how this is relevant. I don't claim to be on the right side of this dispute but I did remain civil throughout. Willbb234 16:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Just a note of background, the incident that spawned this also led to this GAN thread where folks unanimously informed Willbb234 that his understanding of the GAN/GAR process is wrong and his actions were disruptive. Throughout that thread, Willbb234 keeps a real WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT vibe. Could Kingsif have communicated the issues with Willbb234's edits without the angry theatrics? Yes definitely. Should Kingsif be sanctioned for saying something mean this once? I would think not. Unless Kingsif has a history of condescending or rude communications, I think we can slap him with a very small trout and move on. Ajpolino (talk) 16:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that editors could chat shit about other editors and they're fine as long as they're on the right side of the dispute.

And, seeing as you're requesting a history of this behaviour, I invite you to read the first two sections of Kingsif's first talk page archive

Also here and here. Willbb234 16:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think @Kingsif should have said what he said before changing it but I also don't think what @Star Mississippi brought up should be dismissed out of hand. @Ritchie333 went out on a limb for you in presenting the review at AN and you went and violated the restriction placed on you a month after being unblocked because you didn't like the outcome of a GA review on an article that failed your review previously? I have to agree with Kingsif in asking why you feel you have the authority to arbitrarily decide when the restriction placed on you is valid or not? --ARoseWolf 17:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think I violated the restriction. Willbb234 17:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

"making any more than one revert to any page, except Willbb234's own user space, in any 24-hour period" I believe Tamzin's updated description below is a very accurate assessment. Again, I don't agree with how Kingsif approached the situation butand even if I assume good faith that you honestly didn't believe you were violating your restriction I can't reconcile why you think it's okay to unilaterally delist a community elevated GA that went through review just because you don't think it should be a GA. --ARoseWolf 17:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

The reverts were performed 3 days apart. Willbb234 17:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

And the second part? Are we just going to ignore or refuse to answer that? --ARoseWolf 17:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I've amended my comment below to reflect that these were instances of edit-warring, but not of 1RR violations. However, having two separate instances, across 3 pages, where you have to rely on "not technically a 1RR violation", so soon after that restriction was imposed, does not bode well, and edit-warring remains a blockable offense regardless of 3RR/1RR. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the adjustment and I still agree with your updated assessment. --ARoseWolf 17:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I've explained my reasoning here Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Willbb234. Editors disagree with me, but I was acting in good faith throughout. Willbb234 17:39, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@Willbb234 Do you remain of the opinion that you can unilaterally delist GAs under these circumstances? If so, do you intend to do so in the future? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I understand that I am not allowed to delist GAs and I will endeavour to go through the appropriate channels in the future (i.e. GA reassessment). I still believe that I was acting in the spirit of the GA review process and that the article being renominated without prior consultation was a poor decision by Kingsif and sets a bad precedent. Willbb234 19:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Looks like Willbb234 reviewed a good article nomination a couple years ago. It did not pass. In the meantime, it underwent another review and passed. Now, Willbb234 has removed the GA symbol and changed the assessment on the talk page. When appropriately reverted, Willbb234 started to edit war. It was at that point that Kingsif left an indeed quite nasty message. Looks like Kingsif tried to temper that message a few minutes later, and Willbb234 did not allow it, restoring the nasty one because it "shows [Kingsif's] true colors" and not really replying to the substance of Kingsif's complaint. At first I thought Willbb234 simply missed the second review, and that this was just a failure on all sides to AGF, but upon looking at this thread at WT:GAN, apparently he felt that the second review wasn't valid, and instead of starting the review process just decided to consider the second review invalid. Writing "what the fuck is wrong with you" in response to someone edit warring to impose their own rules on an article you've worked on, especially when thinking better of it moments later and rewording, doesn't strike me as something that's going to receive sanctions here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

No, I think that's a fair assessment: it won't. It should, however, at least get a stiff warning from someone capable of wielding the block hammer, however: no matter the circumstances, that is not tolerable conduct, and it's rarely the case that someone who indulges in expressing their frustrations in this way is only doing so/could only do because of those particular circumstances. Additionally, the suggestion that Kingsif attempted to pull back the comment almost immediately is not a super accurate way of describing their supposed cooldown: it was two days before they replaced the aggressively uncivil language, and even then their tone can hardly be called conciliatory on the whole. I do think we have an affirmative responsibility to make it clear to Kingsif that they are expected to maintain a baseline respect for behavioural policy and basic decorum even when dealing with someone abusing process. But I agree, all factors considered, I don't see how there is any likelihood of a sanction.

As to Willbb234, they need at least a warning. The conduct here seems to be either a bad faith effort to circumvent process with regard to the result of the second GAN, or else a profound misunderstanding about how consensus works on this project, either of which requires a response. We're not talking about a super new user here and they should be well aware at this point that they cannot just veto outcomes they disagree with retrospectively: even if it turned out that they were correct (that there was some major procedural flaw with the previous discussion), which I don't see evidence of here, there are tools to review such decisions that they could have availed themselves of. What they chose to do instead is highly disruptive, and if it doesn't get a block in response, this behaviour also deserves a serious warning at a minimum. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 17:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

This is a logical and very evenhanded response. I do not condone, in any way, Kingif's responses. They were highly uncivil and should receive a very strong warning, especially in light of previous issues with civility. However Will's disruptive editing and, heretofore, persistence in the belief they should have the authority to circumvent a community consensus and edit war despite a very stern warning to be very careful when reverting, even if it is not a direct violation of their restriction, is the very definition of intractable behavior. --ARoseWolf 18:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there was a community consensus which I "circumvented". If there was one, then I was unaware and I understand that going against consensus is always the wrong thing to do. Willbb234 19:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

The GAN and GAR process which was instituted through community discussion and consensus which you decided to amend on your own and for which you were, again, reminded through community consensus that you were wrong at this thread at WT:GAN which you linked to. You were, yet again, reminded here that you were wrong here to which you finally agreed to above (thank you), even if with a caveat. Our community policies and processes are current consensus. --ARoseWolf 19:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• So we have, on Will's part: Two arguable violations of Slow edit-warring around the community 1RR at the GA and its talk (removing something added 2 years ago usually doesn't count as the first revert, but here Will knew he was reverting a specific edit); another arguable violation 2 reverts on their own user talk that were 1RR-exempt but still edit-warring (noting that Willbb was at AN cautioned to be very careful should they make reverts relying on those exceptions) (generally exempt under WP:3RRNO, but only if in line with WP:UP, which I'm not convinced this was); a bizarre insistence on a unilateral authority to delist a GA; bringing this AN/I thread without disclosing Kingsif's attempt to take back some of his comment and Will's own actions to revert that, nor the fact that an admin was already pinged to this and did not act; and, just skimming Will's contribs for greater context, this comment to someone with whom he was in a content dispute, which is barely any better than what he's mad at Kingsif for. I'm strongly inclined to block Will here, and hesitate only as to whether I should do so temporarily or indefinitely. (For Kingsif, an informal warning should suffice.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:15, 18 July 2023 (UTC) Edited 17:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC) to address technicalities.

  Temporary or indef? What is the chance Willbb234 will improve? How have they been (other than this incident) since they were last sanctioned?

  I’m usually in favor of a temporary block unless the community decides it’s just not worth putting up with someone any more. Has Willbb234 gotten to that point?

  —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I must ask why you have looked quite deeply into my actions, but not Kingsif's? I understand that my actions can come under scrutiny in this process, but this seems a little biased, don't you think? Willbb234 17:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Kingsif engaged in moderate incivility and should be warned for it; if I'm the admin to take action here, that's what I'll do. None of what you've alleged, nor that I've seen from reading y'all's argument, makes me think anything more than a warning is warranted. One of the reasons people prefer admins to have some content experience is so we know what it's like to feel a strong attachment to something you've created, and how it feels when someone (rightly or wrongly) comes after that. People tend to get a bit heated, especially if the coming-after is done indelicately. In this case where your action was not just indelicate but entirely out of process, I can only fault Kingsif so much. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:41, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I completely understand what you are saying (particularly as I have written some GAs myself), but to say that Kingsif "engaged in moderate incivility" is just wrong. There was more than one personal attack and a very rude and aggressive undertone to the whole interaction. I have also provided evidence of a history of poor behaviour. Willbb234 17:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, in part. This was not "moderate" incivility. And I'll go further to say that I disagree with the premise of Tamzin's comments about whether the circumstances justified it: they simply don't. We have policies and a community culture here that make it clear that one does not WP:OWN the content they produce (no matter how much hard work they have put into it in good faith), and that losing your cool and being aggressively hostile are not acceptable--even in cases of direct "provocation".

Now, as a realistic/descriptive matter, people may routinely tailor their feedback in behavioural discussions according to the "veteran editor being pushed by frustrating circumstances" principle. But I do not agree that actually giving voice to this notion as a firm defense for breaking WP:PA/WP:CIV (even as just a "mitigating" factor) is appropriate or advisable: it only enables further such behaviour (in the individual in question and in others). Kingsif therefore should (and I think will, including if Tamzin addresses the matter) get a strong warning for how they approached this situation.

That said, there's observations here from multiple editors that you need to take on board about the relative levels of disruption between your conduct and Kingsif's, and in particular that your own issues seem to be following a pattern. You need to be slower to try to enforce your preferred approach to content and especially need to avoid taking unilateral actions against consensus. Or put more succinctly: less reverts, more discussion. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 18:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I take your point about the extent of the incivility. Anytime I see incivility, I try to put myself in the shoes of the person saying it, and in this case that left me (and still leaves me) somewhat sympathetic to Kingsif. However, particularly in light of ScottishFinnishRadish's previous warning, which I'd overlooked, I do now agree that a mere "friendly warning" wouldn't cut it here, since this isn't just a one-off case of someone being surprised by an erratic action and lashing out. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, and I don't meant to overstate my point either: context is very much king here (pun incidental). I just think that when we do modulate our response on that ground, we need to be clear that it doesn't actually make the uncivil conduct itself in any way acceptable in the circumstances. There's a very fine line between "We're going with a warning here, because we acknowledge these are atypical circumstances and we can give the benefit of the doubt about how likely this behaviour is to repeat" and "We are going to just give a warning because the behaviour was understandable in the context."

And worse, for an editor with a pattern of losing their cool, they will often reinterpret the meaning even further to "We're going to let this one slide, because, come on--that guy had it coming and what else were you gonna do?" That's why I feel like, even when everyone in the discussion seems to want to give the "these circumstances deserve leniency" discount to a brightline policy violation, I think it's best not to actually say that part (or at least to heavily embed it in caveats), so the wrong message is not sent. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 18:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Will, I think it’s pretty natural - you’ve got Kingsif, an editor with over 50,000 good edits, no blocks and little presence at WP:ANI in an edit dispute with an editor who’s been sanctioned multiple times. I think folks are going to naturally tend to look at you first.

Will you’ve got yourself a WP:BOOMERANG situation here. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:43, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I regret my past decisions and understand that my history certainly doesn't help my case, but I believe that even I deserve some protection from personal attacks. Willbb234 17:48, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

They tried to edit the message to tone it down and you reverted them claiming it "showed their true colours", [79]. Claiming the message "shows their true colours" is itself a personal attack - you're implying that they're a person of poor character based on a message they obviously regret.

You seem to have no qualms about telling other editors to "piss off" [80]. Do you think mockingly calling someone a "big boy" while implying they misused their admin toolkit is civil [81]? Do you think this was a civil message [82] or this [83] or this [84]? Do you think this message was written with a civil tone [85]? Or how about this one [86]? There's someone here with a long history of disruption, incivility and personal attacks... 192.76.8.82 (talk) 18:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

These comments were made prior to me being unblocked, a process which required community discussion and consensus. As I've already said, I believe that even I deserve some protection from personal attacks. Willbb234 19:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• @Tamzin: Thanks for giving me the chance to respond, I see this played out very quickly when I was not online. I agree that I was impolite. I only quibble with Will's characterisation of anything as "personal attacks": I am not one to believe that profanity and angry tones are attacks, and I don't think WP does, either. I was seeking an explanation or a walkback, not to demean Will, and his responses made it seemingly clear that he knew that. This isn't to excuse my comments: I did regret them, as the same (explanation or walkback) can be achieved (and probably more successfully) with a better attitude, but I feel the characterisation as "personal attacks" is something that is inaccurate and has only now appeared. On this point, it's inconsequential but I want to express my surprise at this ANI having been raised at all, as Will also mocked me and typically when impoliteness has gone both ways, users agree it was the situation and cool off in response. Back on topic, I have already taken the initiative to go over WP:CIVIL, and won't argue with a warning.
  Looking through this thread, I see users have dug up pretty much the whole picture. To complete it, though this is also inconsequential, I assumed bad faith of Will because AGF has its limits; Will has been involved with the GAN process (though not constantly) for years, so I assumed that he understood its processes and, therefore, that the edits were malicious rather than due to not knowing. I realised the attitude was wrong anyway (catch more flies with honey), felt fairly ashamed and was in my head about whether to change my expression or stick my head in the sand for a bit, and you can see the rest. As I say, no excuse. Kingsif (talk) 22:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

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

@Tamzin: May I add one more thing, having only seen this now? I just want to put on record my displeasure that talk page "slow downs" from six years ago, me referring to WP:JERK/WP:DICK taken poorly, and a user reporting me for telling them to discuss at article talk instead of my user talkpage, have been both brought up and framed as relevant history. Rookie mistakes, misunderstandings, and content disputes that have been incorrectly brought here serve no purpose, so I think bringing them up is nothing but an attempt to make others negatively prejudiced towards me. Kingsif (talk) 01:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Agilulf2007 at Battle of Adwa

Resolved

 – User blocked 48 hours for edit warring and made aware that they are editing in a contentious topic area Daniel Case (talk) 02:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Agilulf2007 has been persistently been adding/reverting content to the infobox for Battle of Adwa without consensus.

• [87]
• [88]
• [89]
• [90]
• [91]
• [92]
• [93]

See discussion at Talk:Battle of Adwa#Russian involvment relating to the disputed content and what appears to be a rough consensus against these edits. See particularly:

• [94]
• [95]
• [96]

Cinderella157 (talk) 12:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Notified here. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Dimaseateffects

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

---

I'm not sure what their agenda is, but a new user, Dimaseateffects, is creating, blanking, requesting speedies, etc. on various articles, and generally causing havoc, despite warnings. If indef isn't warranted, perhaps at least a short block could help get their attention? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

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

IP talk page violations

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

---

Someone might wanna take a look at Special:Contributions/2A00:23C4:AA1D:4A01:0:0:0:0/64's WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NPA violations (e.g. [97] and [98]). 93.72.49.123 (talk) 09:46, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Might warrant sanctions, Ill leave that to others, but does seems like an WP:RGW and WP:NOTHERE issue. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

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

Sassette Smuftling (Urgent)

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

---

Spamming talkpages about smurfs w/o corresponding articles, templates and now categories. Mostly gibberish. Serious WP:CIR issues. Cleanup needed. Please block ASAP. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 08:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Given speed and (extremly poor/raw html) formatting, likely some kind of bot. Kleuske (talk) 08:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

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

AFD and judges appointed by Joe Biden

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

---

I'm noticing an interesting trend here at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. There are a lot of bio AFDs cropping up from ediror Let'srun, who has been editing since July 2022. Haven't checked them all, but they seem to be bios of people (mostly judges) appointed by Joe Biden. The only one I replied to was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rochelle Mercedes Garza. This user's first edit was to request deletion of Judge William Pocan. There does seem to be an agenda here on their editing history. — Maile (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I am just following WP:USCJN for the judge articles I am proposing for deletion, which notes that "Nominees whose nomination has not yet come to a vote are not inherently notable." In addition, nominees which failed to receive a vote are also not notable on its own per WP:USCJN. If you looked more closely, you will see I am simply trying to assist in the AfD of biographies for judicial which were often created WP:TOOSOON or politicians which failed WP:POLITICIAN. I have no agenda besides wanting to improve the standards of wikipedia, particularly for judges and politicians. Let'srun (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Your track record with the community is not good. AFAICT, not one of your AfDs resulted in deletion (I'm going by the fact that you have no deleted edits, which you would had any article been deleted).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

But... none of them have been closed, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Oops, thanks, I didn't realize all of them were started in the last few days.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

This user made 11 sporadic edits in 2022, then stopped editing. Then they reappeared yesterday, making 132 edits since then, mostly relating to PRODs and AFDs. In other words, this seems to be a new user who's jumping straight into article deletion. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Just as a note on the original concern about possible POV pushing: the fact the AfD'd judgeship nominees are all Biden nominees is probably just coincident to the fact probably all current nominees are Biden nominees. Valereee (talk) 10:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The issue I'm seeing is Let'srun seems to assume that NPOL about nominees is the only notability standard utilized, despite the individuals having notable careers as judges (and other activities) prior to their nomination for federal positions. There seems to be no attempt to determine GNG or notability about the individuals in themselves and several of them are very, very apparently notable under other grounds. Silverseren^C 22:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I am aware of WP:GNG, and it fails in the articles I have proposed to delete. Many of them have little in the way of secondary sources as well. Let'srun (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Are you aware of the difference between an unendorsed wikiproject standard like WP:USCJN and a notability guideline like Wikipedia:Notability (people)? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I've pointed out that many of the articles fail notability and have been created WP:TOOSOON, before the subject has been notable or because the subject was anticipated to become notable based on WP:CRYSTAL. Let'srun (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

And can you tell me what WP:TOOSOON is? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Creating articles before subjects are actually notable. This is not a crystal ball, and the assumption that stuff will eventually happen doesn't mean it will. Let'srun (talk) 22:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Haven't looked to see if there's POV afoot, but just some advice that applies in any case: Let'srun, in case you haven't noticed, mass-nominating for deletion, mass-creation, mass-anything attracts a lot of scrutiny around here. :) Especially if it's not an area you have a lot of experience in, it's usually a good idea to do a couple and see how it goes before doing more. Not a hard rule -- just best practice. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I hear you! Let'srun (talk) 22:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

That, and the fact that most (but not all) of what you have put up for deletion contains this wording, "President Joe Biden announced his intent to nominate ... " — Maile (talk) 23:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I have no political agenda, if that is what you are trying to say. I've nominated Trump and Obama nominees for deletion due to failing in the same areas. Let'srun (talk) 23:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• There has been a lot of disruption around judges. The history/Talk of Tiffany Cartwright and related deletion discussions are one that was on my watchlist. Judges are partisan appointments and people passionate about judges are well, passionate, which sometimes leads to issues following N:POL,USCJN, etc. If someone who isn't elected isn't necessary notable,the parallel that a judge whose appointment wasn't confirmed wasn't either. Like everything else the last decade or so, it's an ideological war, not a policy one. I don't know what the answer is, but a mass nom isn't it, unfortunately, but nor is copy pasting the same IAR rationale without explaining why it's a valid IAR at AfD and every judge related discussion. Get the policy changed if you find it wrong. That's not happening on one specific article/AfD, but folks don't want to go that path either. Star Mississippi 23:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  I agree 100%. That is why I only nominated those I felt were WP:TOOSOON based on the Tiffany Cartwright precedent. Let'srun (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  I do regret not making it more clear the individual cases but in many of them they are pretty much the same with few to no secondary sources and little to meet WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 23:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  Your first edits were related to article deletions. This is unusual. Did you previously edit as an IP or did you have a previous account you’ve discarded? 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:597:65ED:46F6:5C4A (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  I have made edits before with a couple of IPs. Let'srun (talk) 02:21, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  The Tiffany Cartwright fiasco was due to the activism of one editor, namely yourself, over the opposition of virtually everyone who has ever edited a law-related article. It shouldn't be used as precedent for anything. Iowalaw2 (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The problem with using the Tiffany Cartwright precedent is that doesn't support the deletion or moving to draft. Tiffany Cartwright's page has been put back into main space & guess what... She has NOT been confirmed yet. The WP:USCJN section on U.S. District Court judge's directive states a nomination doesn't mean they are inherently notable but that does not mean the nominees aren't notable. There simply is no way a person will be nominated to an equal branch of government for a lifetime appointment by the leader of the executive branch without having a notable lengthy career & background. All of the nominees have references to their careers in the press. The president's own announcement details each of their bios. MIAJudges (talk) 00:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Cloture (yes, not a RS but no one is debating this fact) has been invoked. Moving it back to draft, which you know I have supported in the past, is process wonkery when it will toll literally this week and she would be moved. That's why I didn't move it back or start another AfD. By the time either was resolved, she'd be confirmed. Hell she probably would have been confirmed if not for the mess around Dianne Feinstein and judiciary, I think we all know that. Cartwright is an example of current handling of nominees despite several editors thinking that isn't the case, or that it's political. You were offered the path to having that reviewed and you opted not to pursue it. I think unfortunately that means this is going to be a game of whack a mole for judges in limbo. Star Mississippi 00:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• Looking over some of those AfDs (and self-disclosing as an unrepentant liberal), I'm more concerned about those waves of bullshit cut-and-paste Keep votes, often on shaky or no legitimate grounds, than I am about the noms. Let's take MIAJudges's favorite: "Nominees for lifetime appointments to the federal bench & announced on the White House official home page are notable for that reason alone." Perhaps I am having a senior moment, and have missed the guideline which explicitly states so; MIAJudges, if you would be kind enough to post a link to it, please? Then we have User:Snickers2686 repeatedly using "Keep per WP:Some stuff exists for a reason" (an essay, to save people from clicking) as the sum total of repeated cut-and-paste responses.

  There are people tossing in IAR, and people claiming that membership on a federal commission constitutes prima facie notability, and people saying that the nomination process is a formality and the judges will soon be appointed (this with something like 1500 confirmation-required posts being held up) ... and what's glaringly missing from the cavalcade in the bulk of these AfDs are Keep votes citing actual notability guidelines. Since several people here have quizzed Let'srun on their command of pertinent procedural and notability rules, perhaps we can turn our attention to quizzing the Keep proponents as to theirs. Honestly, if vague essays are going to be legitimate grounds to advocate Keep or Delete, I might as well write WP:BECAUSEIFEELLIKEIT and use it for every one of my AfD votes going forward, and saving me the trouble of actually researching an AfD on its merits. It'll be just as thoughtful and legitimate. Ravenswing 01:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  So let me get this straight, the nominator can use the same criteria for multiple/mass nominations and that's okay, but I can't use the same response for 'Keep'? How does that make sense? Snickers2686 (talk) 03:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  When your !vote has no basis in policy, no you can't - to argue WP:IAR as you are functionally doing you need to provide a justification for why the rules don't and can't apply here, and a copy-paste vote of "Keep per WP:Some stuff exists for a reason" does not meet that standard. I would even consider such copy-paste votes to be disruptive. BilledMammal (talk) 03:42, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  So let me get this straight, Snickers2686, because demonstrably you exercised as little thought in this response as in your cut-and-paste flurry: did you notice that in the sixteen AfDs in question, Let'srun had identical wording in exactly two of them? No. I don't suppose you did notice. Beyond that, in each and every one of those sixteen, they expounded a policy-based rationale for the nomination. Each and every time you responded to one of them, you didn't. You are showing us as much contempt with responses like those as you did in the AfDs. Ravenswing 05:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  Based on your talk page, it looks like quite a few have contempt for you as it is so... Snickers2686 (talk) 05:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  Replies like these are neither acceptable nor productive; please strike it. BilledMammal (talk) 12:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Star Mississippi

  At no point in the Tiffany Cartwright deletion discussion last year was cloture being invoked ever used as a metric to make her notable. As a matter of fact, the fact that she has had her page moved back before she is confirmed only further shows my initial point last year when I said she was notable. It seems we are moving the goal post (Not you per say, just in general) to justify the present-day actions. When the initial deletion request occurred, we tried to explain she had a lengthy career even before the president nominated her. Her page has numerous references from the media & we were told that wasn't enough. I personally added three more & was told the three wasn't specifically about her so that didn't count. Then I was told only her confirmation will make her notable. The senate is out on recess next week & there are three other nominees that have cloture invoked before her, so she won't be confirmed until near the end of the week after next but somehow now a cloture vote makes her more notable than the president of the United States nominating her in the first place.

  As for I was "offered the path to having that reviewed and you opted not to pursue it", that simply is not true. I tried to prevent her page from being moved & after it was, I put in another request to have the decision reversed. It was unsuccessful because once again I was told she had to be confirmed. It seems as though that was not the case now. I was told she could withdraw, the president can rescind his nomination, or she could die before being confirmed so we must wait. Can those things still not happen between today & two weeks from now when she is ultimately confirmed?

  Let's be honest, her page should have never been allowed to be moved in the first place. Wikipedia needs to have some clearer guidance so users like @Let'srun can't come along & use Wikipedia lingo to pull pages down that thousands of people come to Wikipedia for. The idea that a lawyer who has had a career's worth of media articles written about them, then nominated by the president & then have a senate judiciary committee hearing not being notable is almost as unbelievable as Tiffany Cartwright is somehow notable today but wasn't last week when the only thing that has change is a cloture motion has been sent to the senate floor desk. And that is on top of out of over 100 Biden nominees at that time last year, she was the ONLY one who somehow wasn't notable. Once again, I know you were on my side of thinking last year so not frustrated at you. I'm frustrated we have to spend time yet again defending something that should be obvious because one user wants to make a point.

  MIAJudges (talk) 03:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  @MIAJudges: While I can't speak for Star Mississippi, it seems fairly obvious to me someone who is not an American so frankly doesn't know that much about how the process works, that what they are saying is that the article was only moved back to main space about two days ago without any form of discussion and based on a statement that goes directly against the guidelines and AFD [99] by User:Frenzie23. However despite this, because the judge has reached a stage of the process where their nomination is going to be confirmed very very soon, there is no point fighting this. Any attempt to reverse it other than simply moving it back without discussion is likely to take longer to resolve than the for this nomination to be confirmed. Again I don't know that much about US federal judgeship nominations and politics but from what I do know this seems an entirely reasonable assessment of the situation. It reflects the fact that Star Mississippi, unlike the editor who moved the article back to main space, understands that Wikipedia operates by consensus and discussion and so an editor cannot simply force their way through unilaterally. As for Frenzie23, while their actions are not good, as a single instance no one is going to support sanction against them based on this single misstep so we are where we are. It's better to discuss the general problem rather than concentrate on one specific action by one editor. Nil Einne (talk) 05:20, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  Oh no problem. We welcome users from all across the globe… Lol

  So to shed more light, a cloture motion being sent to the senate desk means these are the next items the senate will work on. There were three other nominees schemed before her & A vote hasn’t even been scheduled for Tiffany Cartwright, plus that’s on top of the senate being on vacation for two weeks. It took less than two weeks to get her page taken down in the first place. So the idea that somebody doesn’t have enough time to take her page down now isn’t really a sufficient argument if you’re of the mindset that she isn’t notable until she’s confirmed. And that’s on top of even when she finally gets a cloture vote, she will need another confirmation vote to actually be confirmed & theres no guarantee either will happen.

  Don’t get me wrong, I am in any way arguing that her page should be taken down again. I am just pointing out the inconsistencies with her page being taken down to show how unjust these results are now.

  Myself as well as many other users are VERY passionate about the judiciary here. We don’t want to see some user come along & use a loophole to start getting pages taken down, especially when the reasoning is neither in line with Wikipedia precedent or the general consensus.

  MIAJudges (talk) 05:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  @MIAJudges: if you think Star Mississippi is wrong and it's likely to take more than 2 weeks for the confirmation to happen then you're welcome to start the process to reverse the move. And there is no loophole. These articles should not exist unless there is evidence they meet GNG or some other guideline. If you don't accept that then you need to refrain from creating them, or participating in any AFD etc. If you don't accept than then we will topic ban you and any more productive contributions you can make to improve our coverage of the judiciary in areas where notability is clear will be lost. It's your choice Nil Einne (talk) 06:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  Wait a minute. You’re threatening to ban me? On what basis? I am a prolific Wikipedia user that is participating in the conversation. Each time I participate I am including precedent & factual information to back up what I am saying. I have not used any foul language, I have assumed good faith in all users even when they have a difference of opinion & I have listened to every view point. And the result is that is a threat to ban me???

  MIAJudges (talk) 06:28, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  @MIAJudges, you seem to be arguing policy you don't fully understand, and you seem to believe your understanding of it is the correct understanding, and you keep insisting so. At some point that becomes disruptive all by itself.

  Here for instance you argued there is "no precedent" for deletion. What policy do you believe you are referring to?

  When multiple other editors who are much more experienced than you are telling you you are misunderstanding policy, which is what's happening here, you should go investigate further. You say you are listening, but you aren't. The fact you're being civil isn't enough. Valereee (talk) 10:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  It is not that I am not understanding what is being said, it is that I don’t agree with what some are saying. I don’t agree because of both precedent & inconsistencies in the arguments being made. I didn’t know simply articulating a different view point is being “ disruptive all by itself”. As for other users being “ much more experienced than” me, does that mean I am not entitled to an opinion? I thought that’s what the AFD was for. I appreciate the advice that I “should go investigate further”. I have, which is why I am even more confused as to how there seems to be a change in policy & approach to this subject. As for me or listening, that is exactly what I have done. The fact that I still do not agree with a persons opinion because of both inconsistencies in the argument & precedent shouldn’t mean you state I am not listening. If I were to agree with you does that now mean I am all of a sudden listening now?

  But this AFD is not about me so I don’t want to take up all of the oxygen in the conversation. I just want those users who apparently are much more experienced than me to know I appreciate all views even if some do not reciprocate.

  Thank you all MIAJudges (talk) 12:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  It's fine to disagree. But arguing your opinion over and over again when it's clear your opinion is not the consensus opinion can be considered disruptive. Valereee (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, @Nil Einne that's 90% of my motivation. The other 10% is this article/Talk page/deletion discussions have been exhausting. Folks want to create pages on judges in contravention of current practice/guidelines, but when the article is deleted and that deletion is endorsed, it's either sexism or politics. @Frenzie23 moved it over protection and consensus, but I felt it was no longer worth the argument since, apparently, I misunderstood what cloture would mean for her nomination. It's moot as @Curbon7 has already done so, but I'm not sure I'd have moved it back this morning if they hadn't as it's exhausting. @MIAJudges I stand by what I have said throughout out conversations on Cartwright, she is not currently notable. If those of you working on judge's articles want to change the guidelines, start the process. Don't assume bad faith on those of us applying consensus. Star Mississippi 12:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for the start the process suggestion. I will look into that. For the record, I have never accused any users of sexism or politics. Other users have & I do not believe any have been threatened to be locked out if the AFD like apparently I have been by another user, but that’s ok. I don’t believe in making accusations unless it is warranted. I assume good faith “I literally wrote that in one of my replies above”.

  Thanks again & have a great day

  MIAJudges (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  oops missed this on first load. @MIAJudges we've had nothing but respectful conversations, for which I thank you, and I expect we will even though I think you have a flawed understanding of process. I'm frustrated we have to spend time yet again defending something that should be obvious because one user wants to make a point. No one is making a point. Cartwright was decided by consensus not to be notable, and you & @Snickers2686 opted not to follow the route to get the guidelines considered for revision. That's well within you're right as we're all volunteers. I closed the decision that reflected consensus which is why I was "allowed" to move it. You seemed to be OK with that because you didn't report me here or elsewhere for doing something I wasn't "allowed" to. Multiple folks have weighed in at the AfD/DRV and on the Talk. I don't know them all but it's fair to say we're all looking at it from the guidelines, not because we have a personal opinion on Cartwright's merits. Speaking of last fall when we were discussing, not this current batch of noms, if others should also have been draftified, AfD was there for you or anyone else as a tool. It's the one @Let'srun pursued now.

  These nominees could exist in draft space and be moved on confirmation. While draft space isn't mandatory for anyone but those with fewer than ten edits, it's a worthwhile tool to work on an article for whom notability isn't established but you expect will be in a near future. Star Mississippi 12:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Ravenswing

  @Let'srun is simply copy & pasting the same rationale for is multiple mass deletion request. I am responding in kind. As for your quiz, I will be happy to answer that. No, vague essays would not be acceptable for notability. But a career lawyer who has been nominated by the leader of the executive branch for a lifetime appointment to a co-equal branch is not a vague essay. Each nominee is covered in multiple media publications across the country the same day they are nominated so they become notable even if they weren't previously.

  MIAJudges (talk) 03:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  Alright, let me be less oblique about it. To wit: being a career lawyer meets no notability criteria on Wikipedia, and being nominated by the President to a government post meets no notability criteria on Wikipedia, and being nominated for a judgeship meets no notability criteria on Wikipedia ... and either you know that already and are being disingenuous in your votes, or you didn't know that, in which case you really don't have any business participating in AfDs at all. Deletion discussions revolve around whether a subject does, or does not, meet the extant notability criteria, not the ones that individual editors make up in their own heads. Ravenswing 05:47, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  You’re wrong using any Wikipedia precedent. Each & every single nominee to be a federal judge has never had their Wikipedia page taken down or moved except one. And that one is Tiffany Cartwright who has not been confirmed yet but even her page has been reinstated. There is literally no history, no precedent or no consensus to back up what you are advocating. And I believe I have every right to be participating in AfDs. I do not agree with what you are advocating but would never question your ability to participate in the discussion.

  MIAJudges (talk) 06:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  "Precedent" changes all the time on Wikipedia; you don't see WP:PORNBIO still up, after all, or participation standards for sports figures, or an automatic presumption that high schools are notable. This is why we deliberately do not cite "precedent" as a valid ground to keep. Beyond that, I'm curious: you have been on Wikipedia for a little over a year, and as far as I can see you have participated in precisely two AfDs before yesterday: one last month, and the original Cartwright AfD last year. What is your basis for your assertion that no nominee for a judgeship has ever had an article deleted? I've been on Wikipedia for nineteen years and have participated in many hundreds of AfDs, and I wouldn't dare to make such a claim one way or another. Ravenswing 07:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for your 19 years of service. This is not my only Wikipedia account. I use this one specifically for the judiciary. I’ve been on Wikipedia many more years prior but I would never throw my Wikipedia seniority around from my other account to try & justify that makes my point any more or less valid than other users. We have a difference of opinion, it happens. The only difference is I have never threatened to ban, block or discredit another users opinion like some on this thread apparently does. I have cited my reasoning for my opinion. It must have some validity to it because I see the Tiffany Cartwright page has been pulled down again which indicates me using that as justification to not pulling the other pages down struck a cord.

  Look, as I wrote above this thread is not about me. I certainly didn’t want it to turn into people going to my page to see how long I’ve been on Wikipedia or how many ADF’s I have participated in (Especially when the investigation leads to incorrect data & you could have just asked me in the first place). I respect everybody’s opinion. I gave me reasoning (Once) here as to why I think the pages should remain up. I was name checked in replies so I replied with my opinion. I was threatened I would be banned. I was accused of not thinking other users were giving their opinions in good faith when I literally wrote a few hours earlier I believe all users, even those I don’t agree with are working in good faith. I was accused of saying other users were engaging in sexism, racism & political bias for their opinions but when you simply scroll up, you can see I never said that, it was other users (None of which were threatened with a ban by the way). Now I have other users throwing their Wikipedia seniority around at me without even having accurate data on myself.

  I have given my opinion. I didn’t plan on having a back & fourth with anyone until my name was specifically mentioned by other users. Again I will repeat THIS IS NOT ABOUT ME. I look forward to reading others opinion on the matter now.

  Thank you & have a nice day all

  MIAJudges (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  That's quite a few words not to answer my question: what is your basis for your assertion that no nominee for a judgeship has ever had an article deleted? If you cannot support it, then it ought to be considered retracted. Ravenswing 18:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

You...you what? You've edited here under multiple accounts? Are you familiar with our sockpuppetry policy? Are you also aware of or willing to comply with our guideline for declaring legitimate socks? at WP:ALTACCN? Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 21:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, this is the last time I am going to repeat this. THIS IS NOT ABOUT ME. To answer your question before we end the conversation about me & go back to the issue at hand, I did not say I am editing under multiple accounts. @Ravenswing stated he went into my profile to look at how long I have been on Wikipedia (I still don't know why he did or why that would be relevant to this conversations). I explained to him I had another account. HAD, past tense. I do not use that account anymore, I use MIAJudges now which is why if he wanted to know anything about me he simply could have just asked. I have been on Wikipedia longer than this profile shows because I had another account I no longer use. Ok, once again enough about me. I look forward to the rest of the conversation regarding the issue at hand.

MIAJudges (talk) 02:43, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I can't help but notice that you chose to respond to this good-faith question regarding sockpuppetry (which is a serious issue in my eyes, but that's neither here nor there. I see guidelines here to identifying past accounts unless the new account is for a WP:CLEANSTART) as opposed to Ravenswing's many questions regarding policy-based rationales against deletion both here in this ANI thread and in AfDs like these: 1 2 3 4. Will you respond to those? I have made my position here at the bottom of the thread and in many AfDs. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 04:12, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, this is the last time I am going to repeat this. THIS IS NOT ABOUT ME

As a point of order, anyone involved in this incident is subject to scrutiny. That includes you. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

As for my rational, I have written it numerous times, here, on the individual nominees deletion request pages (To be honest there are so many that I’ve lost count) & I wrote at length on the Tiffany Cartwright deletion request page last year. I do not want to repeat my argument once again so I will stand by what I have written already.

As for “ anyone involved in this incident is subject to scrutiny”, anything I have written you are more than welcome to discuss & ask about. Any past account that I had years ago is frankly nobody’s business on this thread. There are numerous reasons somebody ends a Wikipedia account (Stalking, problem with a spouse or partner that has access to their account, ect.) that can lead to that person ending the account they have. I am not in trial here. I am a Wikipedia volunteer user. I will be more than happy to discuss the issue at hand but I will NOT continue discussing myself as I am not the subject of this conversation.

Thank you all

MIAJudges (talk) 23:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

MIAJudges: if there is 'simply no way' then NPOL really should be changed. The whole point of NPOL is it's supposed to list cases when we can be sure by the circumstances that the person is notable. Nil Einne (talk) 02:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Should clarify if it's not NPOL being changed then at least some other guideline or project page like WP:USCJN should reflect this special circumstance for US federal judge nominees which would potentially be linked to from NPOL. Nil Einne (talk) 05:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

(EC with BD2412) More generally, I'm in agreement with Ravenswing that several editors seem to be making claims about notability that are not written in any policy or guideline and which I doubt will achieve consensus. It's even more concerning that I think there is a good chance editors are creating articles based on this non existent notability guideline.

Note that it may be the case that a large percentage of such nominees are inherently notable and so it's reasonable to create articles for most of them and any AfD nominator needs to great care about GNG and before. But this also means that anyone creating articles needs to make sure that the person meets GNG before creating the article rather than just saying they are inherently notable due to their nomination and we must have an article. And anyone defending such an article needs to be able to find the sources which demonstrate GNG rather than just using the nomination.

Also I'd be reluctant to assume any sort of political bias by the nominator just because these nominees are Biden one. To state the obvious, Biden is the current president. Any nominees from Trump or Obama have either been appointed to the court or have lapsed. If they've been appointed then they pass NPOL. If they've lapsed, there's much of a chance that they've been dealt with especially since I find it doubtful people care as much as they seem to care about these nominees no matter the claim that such nominees are notable. Of course even without being appointed to the federal court, it's possible they've moved on with their careers in other ways making them more clearly notable.

I do have a question. Do we really have articles on every single one of Obama and Trump's nominees? According to the claim they're inherently notable then we could have, and given the interest in these we should have. If there are some we don't have articles on, did we never have articles or were they deleted?

Nil Einne (talk) 02:52, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Folks don't seem to realize that we don't need an article started as soon as a nomination is announced. Because they were "in the news" for being nominated doesn't mean "there must be an article today". If they weren't of note to be worth writing about the day before, being nominated doesn't make it urgent.

Courtesy @Snickers2686 since I'm citing their comment, but they're not the only one to make the case. Star Mississippi 03:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, but if you're autopatrolled, then it's okay, right? Snickers2686 (talk) 03:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry not sure what you mean by that. Articles that don't meet current criteria are an issue regardless of whether an editor is autopatrolled. Star Mississippi 03:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Meaning that if you're autopatrolled then they don't get screened and that editor gets a pass. But if you're not, then you're put under more scrutiny. Snickers2686 (talk) 03:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't get the relevance of this to the the existing discussion. This thread started off about articles which were nominated by Let'srun. I see no evidence they've only targeted articles from editors who are not autopatrolled. The thread has moved on somewhat to several editors expressing concern about comments by others who seem to be claiming something which isn't supported by the notability guidelines and using this to support the creation or keeping articles. I'm not even convinced many editors in this discussion even knows who started these articles (I haven't looked myself), or definitely that they care. However now that you bring it up, from my PoV, an editor who is autopatrolled and starting these articles under the rationale that any nomination for federal judgeship is enough to confer notability is far more concerning to me than an editor who is not autopatrolled precisely because we're assume editors who are autopatrolled understand such basics when they apparently don't. Can you list and notify any editor who is autopatrolled and is so poorly informed on our notability guidelines about federal judgeship nominations so that we can get an idea of the problem? I feel we need to seriously consider taking the autopatrolled flag away from any such editors. If the editor believes that but has not started any articles it's still somewhat concerning however since there is no effective misuse of the autopatrolled flag, it's probably something we can let slide with a reminder to the editor that they need to brush up on our notability guidelines. Nil Einne (talk) 05:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Should mention I partially confused Ravenswing and Star Mississippi, however I'm in agreement with both. Nil Einne (talk) 05:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure there are ravens in Misssissippi so it works ;-) @Nil Einne @Ravenswing Star Mississippi 14:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

(cackles) I expect so! Ravenswing 17:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, articles exist on all (or nearly all) nominees. If Wikipedia goes ahead with this change, it will almost certainly be picked up by the legal industry press. Judicial nominations are probably the most single important topic in judicial politics. New nomination articles are usually instantly the #1 headlines on legal news websites like Law360. That's why these threads have a ton of lawyers baffled at Wikipedia bureaucrats questioning whether nominations are notable. Iowalaw2 (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@Iowalaw2, Wikipedia doesn't actually care very much about being picked up by the legal industry press. We hope people will be interested in figuring out why we do what we do, but we're much more interested in getting things right in the long run. Valereee (talk) 20:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Of course, as we all know, providing useful articles on subjects of broad public interest pales in comparison with insider trench warfare. Iowalaw2 (talk) 04:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I have no opinion about the broader issue here, but if we're going to assign one of "what appears on Wikipedia" and "what appears on Law360" to the category "broad public interest" and the other to the category "insider [anything]", I think it's pretty clear you've got it backwards. --JBL (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, @Iowalaw2, I'm not sure what you're getting at? Could you please clarify? Valereee (talk) 19:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: As a primary contributor to WP:USCJN, I see no actionable issue with these nominations. AfD nominations of pending judges will always, of course, be restricted to the president currently in office, since any judicial nominations by past presidents would have expired upon that president leaving office. This is really not a tremendous number of nominations, and can be disposed of through regular AfD processes. I would tend to agree that a deep dive will find evidence of notability for anyone who ends up getting nominated for a federal judgeship, but that does not translate to automatically keeping articles in mainspace where that deep dive has not been made. BD2412 T 02:44, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
• Comment (potentially involved?): I see that I voted to draftify on the Tiffany Cartwright AfD last year, and it's an unpleasant surprise to see that popping up on this board. I will say essentially what I said then, though; the guideline for articles here has almost always been WP:GNG. WP:USCJN provides an exception to that when judicial nominees are confirmed, but not before. If, though, a nominee is notable or has garnered significant coverage in reliable secondary sources (e.g. Dale Ho before confirmation and really before his nomination too), that plainly qualifies the subject for an article. I see a lot of WP:BLUDGEONing here, for which I see that MIAJudges has been advised to avoid. The main thrust of the arguments against draftification then in the AfD and DRV and now are inconsistencies with other extant nominees' pages; here, these inconsistencies seem to be remedied through discussion. Even that runs counter to site deletion policy wherein extant consensus and guidelines, not inconsistencies in application thereof, hold sway. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 06:39, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
• I've got a considerably more disturbing bit to report. We've already seen that @MIAJudges is deeply resistant to answering questions about what actual notability criteria are represented in their keep advocacy, and deeply resistant to providing evidence of their assertion that no article on a judicial nominee has ever been deleted, and is now digging in heels over their revelation that they are operating under an alternate account. With that. See, a SPA has arrived to toss in Keeps on some of the AfDs in question, and while looking those over, the SPA had tagged one of the nominee AfDs I hadn't looked at before. So before chiming in on the discussion, I looked over the sources to see if they met the GNG (without exception, they hadn't.)

  The final source was added by MIAJudges, a New York Times article with the headline "Garnett was instrumental in exonerating five people". Okay, thought I, that sounds like it's going to be significant coverage. Not only was it nothing of the sort ("But the findings by Mr. O’Malley, who worked closely with a senior prosecutor, Margaret M. Garnett, would seem to raise serious questions about the convictions in Ms. Raymond’s killing because the Bronx prosecutor’s office relied on the same key witnesses and said the two murders were related." is the sum total of what pertained to the subject), but the headline MIAJudges attributed to the article was spurious. Here's the diff in question: [100]. Now MIAJudges has been very steadfast in not answering direct questions, but I think we can neither any longer tolerate that, nor assume MIAJudges' good faith. MIAJudges has some serious explaining to do, and to do at once. Ravenswing 06:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  Ok, I am not sure what your issue is. I have done nothing but answer your questions on MULTIPLE different deletion requests. I literally just answered you on the “Deepak Gupta (Attorney)” deletion request & you responded. I have my suspicions about you & your motivations but I have kept them to myself. You have on multiple occasions tried to convince administrators & other users to ban, ignore & bypass users opinions who are different from yours. You even used vulgarities on the Jennifer L. Hall deletion request. I wasn’t planning on replying any longer so that other users can give their opinions but for some reason you continue to name drop me. I am going to ask you again, please keep the conversation about the issue at hand. That is, should nominees for federal judges be considered notable.

  We have a difference of opinion in which the administrator will decide. I have given my opinion on this page & about a handful others on this subject over the last few days. Frankly I’ve spent too much time on this subject & certainly too much time replying to you. I am looking forward to the opinions of other users & decision by the administrator but please cease including me in your replies. Honestly I think your opinion like mine is well known at this point so I for one am not interested in continuing any further back & fourth with you.

  MIAJudges (talk) 06:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  You have repeatedly refused to answer the question as to what actual notability criteria you are referring to in your Keep advocacy. You have repeatedly refused to answer the question as to what evidence you have for your assertion that no judicial nominee's article has ever been deleted on Wikipedia. You've refused to answer questions about operating from an alternate account. And you are now ducking the question about you having added a spurious headline to a news source to make it appear as if the subject was notable. You damn well know what my issue is, at this stage ... but I quite understand, at this point, why you are not interested in further responses. Ravenswing 06:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  I haven't filed on that new account as I can't find the master, but I've seen the these pages are regularly created on the announcement text verbatim somewhere. Who knew judges were such a passionate topic.

  @MIAJudges all editors' conduct is looked at in a discussion. You're not immune simply because the original discussion wasn't opened about you. While I found you to be editing in good faith in our prior interactions, this isn't a good look Star Mississippi 11:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  I am a volunteer editor here on Wikipedia. I, like everybody else do not get paid for the time & work put into it. My editing is in good faith. I see a subject (Almost exclusively editing on judicial related items), update & reference accordingly. We are assumably all adults here. When I see another user make a mistake I usually correct it myself quietly. That’s how I view Wikipedia, an outlet for the world to read an online encyclopedia about various subjects.

  As I’ve said I have no problem at all with anybody responding to any opinion I have on this or any subject. This has seem to turn into something I have no interest in being included in. Treats to ban, vulgarities being used, people accusing others of political motives & racism & the intentions of others being questioned is nothing I’ve rarely if ever have seen on Wikipedia. I only intended on writing once or twice about this subject giving my opinion on the matter & waiting for others to give their opinion so the administrator can make a decision. Somehow every time I log on to Wikipedia now, I see my name being tagged either on this or another deletion request. I have made my opinion known. I’ve asked repeatedly for all users to give their opinion without including my name in it unless it’s to reply about an opinion I’ve given.

  I am a busy man who has a life outside of Wikipedia. I’ve spent entirely too much time replying to other users about this subject. I am hoping this will be the last time I log in & see my name referenced or tagged on this manner. Once again I have no interest in adding further to this subject. I have written my opinion on it as far back as the Tiffany Cartwright deletion request last year. I am hoping this will be the last time I need to reply to any user.

  Thank you

  MIAJudges (talk) 12:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• "but they seem to be bios of people (mostly judges) appointed by Joe Biden" So, newish BLP articles, about people who were not particularly notable prior to the 2020 elections. These type of articles are not inherently notable, nor is there a guarantee that reliable sources will pay attention to these appointments. Let "Let'srun" deal will all this political Fancruft to his/her heart's content. No big loss to get these articles scrutinized. Dimadick (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  I don't know. I think that there might be a pretty serious behavioral issue brewing here, especially given a dayslong avoidance of policy-based justifications for keeps coupled with stuff like this misrepresentation of a title of a source to help bolster the keep case at the article's AfD. I haven't seen a satisfying explanation for that, if there is an explanation at all. @MIAJudges: might you pop in? Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 06:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  Once again I am going to assume good faith & you missed my reply yesterday, the day before that & the day before that. So I will repeat myself. I have given my opinion on the notability of the nominees in question on this AFD as well as the deletion request for about a half dozen others. My opinion has not changed therefore I have no additional comments. As I have said repeatedly, other users surely have opinions so I will not continue commenting over & over saying the same thing. Everyone is welcome to give their opinions & the administrator can make a determination.

  I had no intentions on commenting further but I open my email & see my name tagged yet again so I am only replying because of that. Me not logging into Wikipedia for a day is not a behavioral issue. I have a life outside of Wikipedia. Had I not gotten an email saying somebody tagged my name it probably would have been a days or maybe week long absence because as I have repeatedly said I have given my opinion & I stand by it. I will await other users opinions & final decision by the administrator.

  Thank you

  MIAJudges (talk) 06:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  @MIAJudges: that's funny; I went through your recent contributions again and still can't find an explanation for the misrepresentation of the article or a justification for keeps rooted in policy. Would you mind linking to diffs? Otherwise, @Ravenswing:, yeah, I've half a mind to propose a TBAN. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 14:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  Be my guest. I'd certainly support it. Ravenswing 14:05, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Iseult, they've requested not to be pinged here multiple times now. Valereee (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Whoop, I must have missed that. MIAJudges, my apologies. @Ravenswing: if you start it up (I have a job etc. to take care of), I'd be interested in seeing your proposed resolution. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 15:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

• It's spitting into the wind at this point; MIAJudges very resolutely refuses to answer the questions about his several misrepresentations and his outright falsification of a source. Especially given his staunch refusal to explain himself, I'd think the latter worthy of a topic ban, myself. Ravenswing 10:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  WOW, four straight days of requesting you to keep my name out of your mouth yet I wake up & the first thing I see is an email from Wikipedia with you tagging me yet AGAIN. If I were a lesser man I would say this was borderline harassment but I’ve dealt with much worse so I won’t even bother.

  AGAIN, this is an AFD about should judicial nominees be considered notable. I have an opinion on that subject & have given it repeatedly. If you have an opinion on that feel free to comment. At this point there seems to be 2 or 3 users taking over this AFD engaging in everything from accusing people of making accusations they did not make, throwing their Wikipedia seniority around trying to belittle other users who may have less time contributing, using vulgarities, trying to get people banned to now outright harassment.

  I hope the administrator who will determine the subject at hand completely blocks all of the nonsense out. I know it’s hard but once again this is about the notability of judicial nominees & them being allowed to have a page created or not, no matter if a few users try to turn this into anything but that. I hope the administrator takes a good look at who has tried to stick to the subject & respect others views even in disagreement & who has turned this discussion into a mud slinging affair.

  I have for four days straight asked for the discussion to stick to the topic at hand & let other users comments since mine as well as a few others views are well known by this time. I hope the administrator sees I have been repeatedly tagged in replies from a few users after four straight days of asking them to stop. The funniest thing about the few users who continue to try & ban users from this discussion is if they would just stop tagging them repeatedly in their comments, they would de facto get their wish because I for one have said I have given my opinion & will now await the opinions of others & then the decision by the administrator.

  MIAJudges (talk) 14:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  Were you going to let any of us at this discussion know you had posted this [[101]]? Let'srun (talk) 13:42, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  Why? Do you object to an editor in good standing making a proposal at the Village Pump for something they think would improve Wikipedia? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Beyond My Ken, I have no objection to MIAJudges making the proposal, but it would be nice if they had pinged more than just the people he or she thought would support it. Let'srun (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  Eh, there's nothing wrong with such a proposal; I've suggested a couple times myself that the avenue towards getting their POV across was to make one. Discounting anon IPs who just happened to discover it (hrm), it's going down to near-unanimous opposition in any event. Ravenswing 23:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion for judge nominee articles

Personally I think these articles are harmless and focusing on deleting them isn't necessary. Most of the nominees will be confirmed, and we can eventually consider deleting the articles on the ones who aren't; and there is value to the nominee articles in the meantime for readers who might be interested in the backgrounds of the nominees. Person-by-person notability debates, about articles most of which will inevitably be created and kept in any event on the upcoming weeks or months, are not necessarily the best use of contributors' and community's time.

However, as a compromise, how about an umbrella "Joe Biden judicial nominees" article (or perhaps a series of articles by circuit or state)? This could include a short bio of each nominee, if he or she is not otherwise deemed notable, which could then be spun out and expanded into a full article upon a nominee's being confirmed and taking office. Not to strain for an analogy, but this is how we handle, for example, baseball prospects projected to reach the majors but currently in the minor leagues. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I kind of feel like this is a good choice. These nominees are basically all going to become notable, either because they are confirmed, which makes them notable, or because they aren't confirmed, which makes them notable. Maybe we could simply create drafts instead of articles, and once there's some conclusion, move to article space? Valereee (talk) 04:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

A significant proportion of the AfDs in question have draftification under discussion. I don't think there's any policy argument that judge nominee articles belong in mainspace. There's certainly no one doing that in this section. I've said above that drafts are the way to go, either by starting them out as drafts or by draftification pending confirmation. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 05:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I certainly have no objection to any (or all) of these articles being moved to draft space. There's just far less certitude that these nominations are going to be confirmed than any of you might think. My apologies for diving into the snakepit that's US politics, but the unfortunate fact is that with the Democrats holding just a razor thin Senate majority, confirmation of hundreds of Senate-required positions have been held up, and two and a half years into Biden's term, there are still many hundreds of posts that are being filled by acting officials or caretakers. WP:CRYSTAL really does apply here: some of these nominations are likely to fail confirmation. Ravenswing 13:41, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but if they aren't confirmed, that is quite likely to make them notable, too. Valereee (talk) 15:12, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Moving the articles to draft space means that if a reader wants to know something about a pending, and potentially controversial, nominee, he or she will not be able to find that information on Wikipedia. For that reason the idea of merging background information on the nominees to an article on that subject strikes me as a clearly better alternative.

This noticeboard may not be the best place to advance my proposal, though, as it doesn't relate to a conduct issue. Is there one central or primary pending AfD where I should mention it? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

If the nominee passes WP:GNG, I agree that they should have an article. It is why I didn't submit an Afd for Charnelle Bjelkengren or several other more currently controversial nominees, as they do pass GNG by having WP:SIGCOV written about them. Let'srun (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Problem is that you're starting to fall into the trap of some of the fuzzy keep proponents at the AfDs. We do not have articles about "potentially" controversial subjects; as a lot of people are fond of saying, Wikipedia is not for breaking news. Our notability guidelines accord notability to subjects that have gained media attention. An omnibus article doesn't pass CRYSTAL either if there aren't reliable sources giving that subject coverage in "sufficient detail." 0+0+0+0+0=0. Draft space is the perfect place for articles on subjects that do not yet have the significant coverage we require in biographical articles -- let alone BLPs -- but where there's a reasonable chance that there might be down the road. Ravenswing 21:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it's probably a reasonable point that moving to draft space means readers can't find the information. But merging into Nominees for US judgeships means creating an article that would need to be updated constantly forever, wouldn't it? Valereee (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Some nominees will simply not even receive a vote, and not be renominated. Let'srun (talk) 17:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Again, we are falling into the trap of WP:CRYSTAL. We can't assume that someone will be notable before they are, and certain editors are creating mainspace articles WP:TOOSOON. Let'srun (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Failed judicial nominations are so rare that they are in and of themselves notable. Respectfully, the idea that a significant number of judicial nominees are not confirmed demonstrates a lack of familiarity with the subject under discussion. Whatever the probability is for confirmations in the executive branch, the overwhelming majority of judicial nominees are confirmed. Iowalaw2 (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@Iowalaw2, if you look at WP:USCJN, you'll see that WP knows that many failed nominations are likely to result in notability even if the person wasn't notable before. The problems is that it hasn't happened. There's a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Presidential_judicial_nominees_automatically_notable on whether that fact means we should just go ahead and create the articles. Valereee (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah it makes complete sense to upend Wikipedia's universal practice of covering judicial nominees even when (1) there is a strong case to be made that the nomination itself is notable, (2) many or most nominees are notable regardless of the nomination, and (3) everyone agrees that virtually all will be notable in a few months. What is the actual policy benefit of this, in English? Beyond a couple of editors getting angry at MIAJudges and trying to antagonize him by deleting his articles, in the process spiting the rest of legal Wikipedia? Iowalaw2 (talk) 04:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't actually even have a strong opinion on the policy itself. The concern for me is more that we've got one, and without a good reason not to, we follow it or we get consensus to change it. But we don't just say, "I disagree with that policy so I'm going to work outside it." Valereee (talk) 12:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Not saying you are at fault, but certain editors have the tendency to create articles for judicial nominees WP:TOOSOON. I would be fine with the compromise of having the articles in draftspace if that would end the discussion (unless they pass WP:GNG otherwise), but many of these nominees (and former nominees, for that matter) aren't notable people. Let'srun (talk) 18:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad Person-by-person notability debates, about articles most of which will inevitably be created and kept in any event on the upcoming weeks or months, are not necessarily the best use of contributors' and community's time. that's part of why I advocated for @MIAJudges et al on the Cartwright Talk to try and get the guideline re-explored rather than continuing to litigate there (no pun intended). It's current consensus, but doesn't necessarily mean it's future consensus. Hell there's an article I started whose subject I'm pretty sure fails N:POL as written, but I felt confident in a GNG case should someone bring it to AfD that I decided to work on her article.

@Iseult I think Draft space is perfect for these. Interested editors can begin to work on them there so that if/when they are confirmed, there's probably at least a start quality article which is more useful to the reader than rushing to create stubs. Star Mississippi 21:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@BD2412: I think you are the most active editor in this area, so I'd welcome your thoughts on my suggestion, and your view on where would be the best place to discuss it. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• @Newyorkbrad: List of federal judges appointed by Joe Biden exists, and lists nominees not yet confirmed. We could in theory have a separate List of pending federal judicial nominations by Joe Biden, which could house biographical paragraphs on the nominees, but I am somewhat dubious about creating an article that by definition would need to cease to exist at the end of the Biden presidency. I think it is common sense to at least maintain drafts on any nominees who are not otherwise notable. BD2412 T 03:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

There are 435 voting members of the U.S. House of Representatives, all of whom are deemed notable. But a candidate endorsed by a major political party is not deemed notable, even though an opponent who is an incumbent member will have an article. There are a greater number of federal trial judges, and what is proposed now that a nominee for a judgeship will be entitled to a wikipedia article. So apparently judges who apply the law are more notable than representatives who actually make the law. And the argument that Wikipedia articles are important to vet judicial candidates (even though it is doubtful that such an article would be important to the President), would apply with greater weight to voters who actually choose the lawmakers. Let's be consistent here. Kablammo (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

How do you figure that? The legislators who MAKE the law ARE notable, don't know where you read that they weren't. In any case the two examples (candidate versus presidential nominee) are not in any way equivalent, it's a false analogy, and not helpful in any way. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:59, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

A nominee for federal judicial office is no more inherently notable than than a nominated candidate for congress. The mere nomination does not by itself confer notability. Kablammo (talk) 01:40, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I get that you believe that, but, in fact, they are totally different things and cannot be compared with any justification. The person nominating the judges is the President of the United States of American, properly elected by the people of the United States. The persons nominating a candidate for the House are local politicians of one political party who represent only that party and nobody else. Their gravitas is negligible. No comparison. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I get you believe that, but -- in fact -- your POV is nowhere reflected in any notability criteria on Wikipedia. For the purposes of WP:JUDGE, the nominator is irrelevant. (It's also irrelevant to ANI, this being a dispute that belongs on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people).) Ravenswing 19:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

A judicial nomination is not even plausibly analogous to a party nomination for elected office. And anyway the idea that Wikipedia should refuse to provide articles for major-party nominees is very questionable (see all of the coverage of the war over the Theresa Greenfield article). Iowalaw2 (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• There is already a solution for articles that might be notable, either draft or user space and making the articles that do become notable live once notability has been confirmed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: temporary TBAN

I'm proposing a TBAN for MIAJudges revolving around deletion discussions for one month, broadly construed. This is mainly due to the fact that they misrepresented a source title in Margaret Garnett [here and have not provided an explanation for that since Ravenswing challenged them about it on July 5 (three days ago) here and two subsections above. MIA has been defending extant articles on U.S. federal judicial nominees for a bit more than a week now, and this is one of the articles under discussion. Given that, it's hard to assume good faith; if this were a misunderstanding or accident, judging by MIA's activity since, they have had many opportunities to clear this up.

They have also commented often in AfDs seen here using non-policy-based rationales. Ordinarily, I would not consider this significant, but they have repeatedly been challenged to provide policy-based rationales, and they have repeatedly failed to do so. This, coupled with the misrepresentation above, serve to convince me that either they don't possess the requisite familiarity with our notability guidelines despite participating in many discussions (thus tying up volunteer time and energy) or that they are not operating in good faith due to passion for the subject. In either case, I hope that a TBAN will allow MIAJudges the opportunity to step back for a bit, review our notability guidelines, and avoid misleading editors at AfD through sourcing issues. I ask for a short time frame because I do believe that they are a productive editor otherwise and, by then, the AfDs in question should have concluded. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 02:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support: I concur in every particular with Iseult's position. With the somewhat grave exception of MIAJudges' falsification of a headline in the Garnett article (apparently to make it seem as if the subject was considerably more prominent in the news article than was genuinely the case), MIAJudges' actions -- as well as the bludgeoning for which they've already been cautioned -- might not be taken collectively as sanction-worthy. Toss in that falsification, and double that with MIAJudges' consistent refusal to proffer ANY explanation: not for their misrepresentations, not for their falsification, not for operating an alternate account with the professed purpose of promoting judges? Instead, as is manifest in the thread above and in the respective AfDs in question, their modus operandi is to write long walls of text that don't actually address the questions.

  The reason for talk pages, for reply buttons, for responses on threads like these is to communicate. We are none of us immune to being questioned, and it is neither good nor collaborative practice to treat questions as an insulting imposition only worth ignoring. Perhaps a time-limited TBAN would bring MIAJudges around to sticking to the facts and to a less adversarial way of behavior. Ravenswing 14:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - This appears to me to be motivated by politics, and not policy-based. Nominations by the President of the United State for high office are (or should be) automatically Wikinotable, regardless of whether they have been confirmed or not, especially when the president involved is dealing with a Senate controlled by the opposite party, which is apparently deliberately holding up confirmations for poltical reasons having nothing to do with the quality of the nominees, similar to what happened to Merrick Garland's Supreme Court nomination near the end of the Obama administration. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tool of any political party, and we should avoid becoming a de facto tool in this case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• I'd also like consideration to be given to the rather abysmal behavior in this thread of the proposer and the support voter just above to the nominee. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  I presume by the proposer you mean me? I welcome and appreciate your feedback and scrutiny. I do have a few questions, though; I went through my comments in this thread and, asides from this proposal and my initial note, which was a reiteration of my position on these articles, is unadulterated shock at a naked confession of sockpuppetry. The comments following are requests for clarification regarding that and also asks for policy-based keep rationales so that I might change my position if warranted, as any editor should do (w.r.t. the latter). When I pinged MIA one too many times (I confess here that I did not and do not see any requests from them not to ping), I immediately apologized without reservation or qualification. What should I have done instead? What makes this abysmal?

  As for politics, I resent any implication of political malfeasance. Asides from a general assumption of less-than-good faith, I think that my actions in the relevant AfDs vindicate me. I have taken each article on its own merits and have concurred or broken with (to !vote keep) Letsrun whenever appropriate based on my own judgement.

  Lastly, I'm sorry to hear of your family situation. I've seen you around the project for many years now and have garnered great respect for you and your work. I hope it is resolved well and soon. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 06:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah this looks like a vendetta to me. (Full disclosure that I'm also generally more sympathetic to @MIAJudges than @Ravenswing or @Iseult on the merits, and I do not think either @MIAJudges or @Ravenswing have conducted themselves very well.) Iowalaw2 (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Editors are expected to make policy-based arguments at AfD. Repeated making ones that are not based on policy and failing to justify them when questioned is disruptive, as it can result in issues with local consensuses. BilledMammal (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
• Leaning oppose. I see nothing here rising to the level of a month-long punishment, where a warning would suffice. BD2412 T 02:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  Support: I actually was feeling along the same lines as you here as well (although I might have supported a shorter punishment just for the Garnett title), but I recently found that @MIAJudges (or at least I presume this is them, if not I apologize) was canvassing on (Redacted). I'm willing to believe that MIAJudges was unaware that this is frowned upon, but regardless I think a suspension from the topic is in order for them to take the time and learn about the various policies. Let'srun (talk) 13:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  I cannot believe a full TWO WEEKS after I asked for @Let'srun & another user to stop communicating with me after their 8 days straight of doing so, I wake up & see an email from Wikipedia with him still doing so.

  First you accused me of currently having multiple Wikipedia accounts. This is after I repeatedly told you I only have one, & had one many years ago that I no longer use & couldn’t even remember how to log into even if I wanted to. A simple IP address check could confirm that.

  Last week you started some bogus Sock Poppet investigation on me after I stopped replying to you, knowing I would have to respond to you because of it. After that went no where, I didn’t reply to you, mention your name or bash you. I just want to be done with you. I just want my name to stop coming out of your mouth.

  Then, you put in deletion request for non judicial nominees articles I started. That’s well within your right but that also went nowhere & the articles were KEEP. Once again in each case I stayed my opinion (Which were agreed to) & didn’t communicate with you further.

  Somebody put in a T-ban for YOU. I didn’t bother giving my opinion on supporting it or not, not because I didn’t have one, but because it would require me to communicate with you which I don’t want to.

  Now, two weeks after my initial comments on the manner & after asking you no longer communicate with me, you are looking outside of Wikipedia trying to link me to this & that. What’s next, linking me to the Kennedy assassination???

  At first I thought you were just passionate about a certain subject. Then I thought to myself (Never wrote it on here) perhaps it was politically motivated. Then I thought perhaps you were just principled. Now I think you’re simply obsessed & unhinged. The fact that your still talking about me two weeks later is concerning.

  For the last time, the “Garnett title” that you keep bringing up is a ridiculous accusation. I did not put the initial comment about Garnett exonerating the 5 individuals. Somebody else put that on her page & put a reference with it. I added a reference. The NY Times article I referenced came from the initial reference that was put in the first place. I simply added the reference that was already in the initial reference. I didn’t go looking for the reference on line, it was already in the article that was initially referenced. I just added it.

  Look, I want to make this perfectly clear. I haven’t seen you mention my name, attack me or make outlandish accusations about me for about a week now. It felt great opening my email & not seeing you & the other user not mentioning my name so I can go on with my life. I have NEVER put in a request to ban anybody on Wikipedia or even write in support of one. I am really really trying hard not to break that streak but you are pushing it. I do not want to communicate with you & I would appreciate if you kept my name out of my mouth. I have asked you this for two weeks & I hope this is the last time I ever have to communicate with you.

  MIAJudges (talk) 14:12, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  To be fair, it is off wiki canvassing from someone who claims to be you. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  Huh. Well, first off, on the Garnett issue, your excuse is hollow. The diff you entered is plain: {{Cite web |date=August 3, 2012 |title=Garnett was instrumental in exonerating five people |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/03/nyregion/5-convicted-in-bronx-cabbys-1995-murder-are-innocent-us-says.html |language=en-US}}. Those were your words; no one else's. They are not found in the article. They are not found anywhere else. That is your edit, and any editor on Wikipedia can see that. You ask us to take it on faith -- against the direct proof -- that you weren't responsible for that, the same way you ask us to take it on faith that you're not doing any chicanery with this alternate account of yours, the same way you asked us to take it on faith that no judicial nominee's article was ever deleted or draftified, the same way you're asking us to take it on faith that the person offwiki canvassing for your Village Pump proposal isn't really you.

  Let's make one thing quite clear: your conduct is under review here. You do not get to order us not to do so. Nor is your lashing out with anger because editors dare question you a good look. At this point, I'm less inclined to think a temporary tban is the answer and more inclined to think an indef block is, and if you don't like that, then you only have your repeated stonewalling and deflections to blame for it. Ravenswing 06:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  I think there may be some misunderstanding of that source being added. MIA added a source that they may have believe supported a statement already in the article, and when they did so, they replaced the source title with that statement, possibly because they may have mistakenly thought that was a helpful way to indicate which statement the source supported.

  @MIAJudges, if that's what happened, there are two things wrong there: First, we don't change the title of sources without a very good reason. You could instead have put that info (that you were adding a ref to support a poorly-sourced statement) into your edit summary. Second, the source you added doesn't support that statement; Garnett is barely mentioned in that source, and the source says nothing about her being instrumental. Which combined with the first problem is what makes it look like you're intentionally misrepresenting the source. I'm bending over backwards here to interpret this generously, really.

  That said, I'm willing to give you some slack if you'll tell me you understand and won't do it again. Sorry for the ping, but I actually do need an answer on this. Valereee (talk) 11:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  I'll add that the canvassing, which does appear to be by someone claiming to be you, is not acceptable. And more than that, it doesn't work. So you end up looking bad for no good reason. Valereee (talk) 11:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Valereee

  I have no problem with you or any other users pinging me if you have a question with the exception of the two mentioned above. I’ve never ever asked somebody not to ping me on Wikipedia before. Unfortunately the two I mentioned have simply repeatedly pinged me, not acted in good faith towards me, have made accusations against me & attacked me.

  I, like everybody else on here am a volunteer. I do not log into Wikipedia for the treatment mentioned above.

  As for the Garnett article, yes I added a reference from The NY Times. But the reference was simply the same reference that was in the initial article in the first place. Anybody is more than welcome to open the article & see for themselves. I added the same reference from the article separately. What made me upset is one of the two users in question I mentioned above (I am really not trying to say their names because once again I don’t want to have a conversation with them) reverted it & wrote in the revert something to the affect that I added the reference trying to mislead users. This is all while not mentioning he took issue with the initial person who put the statement she exonerated 5 people nor mentioning the initial reference that was put their in the first place. When it comes to that particular user it’s always about attacking me regardless of where the facts led. As you can see from the tone of their message this morning, it doesn’t seem as though anything has changed.

  I am not going to link his talk page but a check of it will show himself & the user that instituted this proposed ban of myself plotting on how to ban me. It’s at the bottom of his talk page as we speak. He even said he doesn’t want to be the one to initiate it but will follow up if the other user does which they did. I didn’t bother commenting on the thread because he is certainly welcome to talk to whomever he wants to but just showing you an example of this user constantly attacking me.

  I volunteer my time in Wikipedia to improve articles. If I see a mistake I usually correct it & keep going. The two users I mentioned are not interested in that when it comes to me. For that reason, I simply want nothing to do with either of them to be honest.

  MIAJudges (talk) 12:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  @MIAJudges, that wall of text is nonresponsive. Please tell me briefly whether:

  1. You understand that the |title= should be filled out only with the source's actual title.
  2. You understand that the source you cited did not support the statement you were apparently using it to support.
  3. You agree that these were mistakes and you will avoid making the same mistakes in future.
  4. You understand that canvassing is not allowed.
  5. You agree not to canvass in future.

  Valereee (talk) 13:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yes I see after the fact the the article in question did not support what the initial user stated. I have always tried to make sure references back up statements. But I just want to make clear I did not intentionally mislead anybody like the user I mentioned above claimed in the revert. Had he just said what you said, the reference didn’t back up the statement, I would have happily removed it myself. When I put a title for a reference, I usually copy/paste the articles title. So I certainly try to avoid this & all mistakes in the past & will continue to do so in the future.

  As for canvassing, I talk about the judiciary outside of Wikipedia. I give my opinions & listen to others about the judiciary. But canvassing isn’t something I would be interested in because I only come to Wikipedia for the most part to review & update judiciary related items. I don’t believe in Wikipedia censoring what I say outside of Wikipedia. I am a firm believer in my first amendment rights. But as far as Wikipedia is concerned, these deletion request were the only time I cared to even involve myself in ADF’s (Going back to Tiffany Cartwright). Now that there seems to be consensus on how to handle this area in the future, I doubt I will ever engage in many if any ADF’s ever again so canvassing as far as Wikipedia is concerned isn’t something I have any interest in.

  MIAJudges (talk) 13:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  Please see WP:CANVASSING, which is what telling people to go vote is. Quoting that policy: Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior.

  It's not a vote, btw; we don't count them up and decide the winner. Please see WP:NOTAVOTE. Valereee (talk) 13:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  This echoes the language by Dequan quite closely, especially the idea that the first amendment allows them to say stuff off wiki without consequence. Combined with their admission to being a part of off wiki judicial discussions, it basically confirms they are the same person. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  Just a reminder that while MIAJudges does not get to demand that editors to not look into their behaviour, they are fully entitled to ask someone stops pinging them. Such a request should be honoured. User:Let'srun really needs to stop pinging MIAJudges. As Iseult said below, they can use no ping template if a user page link is really needed. But frankly the best solution is simply to mention MIAJudges without linking. I don't see any reason why a link was needed above, MIAJudges has been linked so many times, if someone for some reason needs to find their user page, talk page of contributions page they can just visit one of the large number of earlier links. This is not the first time MIAJudges effectively asked Let'srun not ping them and it's been discussed before above. Frankly were it not for the fact that in the previous cases, it's not entirely clear to me that Let'srun read the warnings, I'd be support either a one way iban or a topic ban on Let'srun pinging MIAJudges. However if it happens again, I'd definitely support sanction against Let'srun. Please remember since MIAJudges is already aware of this thread, and no notification is required but in any case notification for ANI must be on an editor's talk page not via pings. For better or worse, editors are expected to pay attention to threads discussing their behaviour and while it's problematic when threads last as long and end up as sprawling as long as this, continually notifying an editor every time something new is discussed is unlikely to be the solution either and especially not when the editor has asked not to be notified. If there is a major new development and editors want MIAJudges feedback before they contemplate a response, it might be reasonable for some editor to approach MIAJudges likely on their talk page if they haven't said anything in a day or two but this really should come from an uninvolved editor or at least not one who's been repeatedly asked not to ping Let'srun. Ultimately though, if MIAJudges choose to ignore this thread, and asks not to be pinged then they do take responsibility if they can't offer feedback to anything said. Nil Einne (talk) 11:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  As I wrote below, I apologize for that, I was actually trying to use the method Iseult made note of below. I do think though that MIAJudges may have accidentally confused me for Ravenswing however, since I never pinged them for so many days in a row like they claimed to have by myself. Let'srun (talk) 11:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  The claim that Dequan is not you is damaged by the fact that at the same time as you posted the response here Dequan posted the following comment:

  Y’all not gonna believe this. The Let’s Run idiot that is trying to pull all of judicial nominees pages down on Wikipedia is now spying on us here on this blog. Look at the link at the bottom. He’s taking screenshots of our conversations & posting them on Wikipedia to try & get sympathy. Excuse my French but what a miserable low life piece of shit.

  Let’s Run, if you’re reading this why don’t you comment? Why don’t you talk here instead of spying. Of course we wouldn’t be bound by Wikipedia’s rules here so we could tell you to make the world a better place & jump out of the window of a very tall building, without having to worry about being banned here… Lol

  Look, our comments on this blog are constitutionally protected by the first amendment. Perhaps if you spent less time trying to get judges pages taken down & more time reading about the judiciary, you might know that. Try getting out of your mothers basement for once & going out of the real world. You can’t ban us on her, only Harsh can do that. So either comment on here so we can talk man to man (Of course you would have to find a man to talk for you) or stop spying on us. But certainly feel free to take my advice about the jump out of a tall buildings window any day you feel like it.

  The writing style also seems similar to me. Further, I note that you are not protected from action here by limiting your personal attacks against an editor, as well as your encouragements for that editor to kill themself, to a different forum. BilledMammal (talk) 11:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  @BilledMammal could you link to the comment? And archive it if possible. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  Here. And archived to Wayback Machine. BilledMammal (talk) 12:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  Comment does seem to be a couple minutes after their comments here. It would take quite an effort to go through and find what the user "Dequan" from that forum has posted and to correlate it here, since the forum doesnt seem to have been built that well. I cant find a page for user information there, and manually doing so will be quite time consuming.
  Prima facie it does seem to correlate roughly with the editor's area of interest and on wiki timelines. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  Found more responses regarding Dequan and wiki -

  [102]
  this one is a bit more detailed
  [103]
  [104]
  someone else admitting to voting in a discussion after being advised to do so by "Dequan"
  another one admitting
  [105]
  [106]
  [107]
  [108]
  Another person admitting
  Celebrating the TBAN proposal of Let's run by "Dequan"
  [109]

  (Archive incase deleted)
  These are from the last week, roughly in chronological order. Could an admin or someone experienced go through these and see if they match up with any editors here? Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  This search seems to turn up quite a bit. I think this comment proves they are the same person; in that comment, made at the end of December 2022, they said Haaaaa… I actually clear my schedule for the SJC hearings so I can post the nominees pictures on Wikipedia. Monica Ramirez will definitely be amongst the firats when she has her hearing… Lol. Two months later, MIAJudges added a picture to Monica Ramirez's article.

  If I am right then I now see the canvassing as a minor issue. The greater issue is the personal attacks which I believe amount to harassment; I don't care where an editor is doing it, editors should never tell another editor to kill themself. BilledMammal (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  There's enough to block, but I'm far too involved. I will start the proposal though. Star Mississippi 12:47, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  Another one saying they added the pic for the tiffany cartwright page, taken from your search [110] and MIAJudges did also add the picture there [111].

  IMO enough to establish that its the same person, and in that case I would suggest an indef site ban for MIAjudges. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  For further evidence that they are the same person, Dequan left the following comment at 4:20 AM on the 15th of September, 2022.

  I will be very interested to see who the nominees are for next week’s SJC hearing. For circuit court, it will be interesting to see if they go in order. If so, Julie Rikelman should be one of the two nominees.

  If @Shawn is right & senator Manchin won’t vote for an outright pro-choice nominee, she is the creme de la creme. I was just updating some of her notable cases on her Wikipedia page & WOW, I had to stop after some because I didn’t want her page to be too long… Lol

  If she stands no chance of being confirmed with this congress, I hope Durbin switches her out with either DeAndrea G. Benjamin or Jabari Wamble & save her for the next hearing since whoever is in that hearing won’t stand any chance of being confirmed before the midterms anyway.

  At 4:09 AM on the same day, MIAJudges made this edit to Julie Rikelman. BilledMammal (talk) 12:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@BD2412: I do not mean this as a punishment; I mean this as a preventative measure. I am happy to reduce the proposed TBAN length or to modify the remedy, but the net effect of this must be to allow MIAJudges to properly review our notability guidelines and so properly apply them without disrupting extant AfD processes. I was happy with the seeming natural diffusion of this conflict with this proposal heading to no consensus (even with inconsistencies with previous accounts statements; I have noted to Ravenswing that I find the given explanation fine on their talk), but the core of this is a previous lack of communication primarily regarding a misstatement of a source title of an article under contentious AfD. The explanation given above for that is an expansion on a one-liner I've seen on some other AfD. I'm struggling to make sense of that, especially given the diff I linked in my proposal. Then there's the troubling canvassing link.

As an aside, @Let'srun:, perhaps a noping template might be better if a link to a userpage is needed at all. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 17:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Will do that next time. Let'srun (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Counter-proposal: TBAN for Let'srun

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

---

• For nominating a large number of Biden-nominated judge articles for deletion, based, apparently, on their personal political PoV, Let'srun is topic banned from nominating such articles, and any other articles about Biden's nominees, for six months.

• Support - as proposer. Nominations by the President of the United State for high office are (or should be) automatically Wikinotable, regardless of whether they have been confirmed or not, especially when the president involved is dealing with a Senate controlled by the opposite party, which is apparently deliberately holding up confirmations for poltical reasons having nothing to do with the quality of the nominees, similar to what happened to Merrick Garland's Supreme Court nomination near the end of the Obama administration. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tool of any political party, and we should avoid becoming a de facto tool in this case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  Let's recognize that basically all current nominations are by the current administration. That's just the process: whoever is in the white house is making the nominations. I do believe most high-level judgeship nominations are likely to be or become notable, even if not confirmed, but that doesn't make these AfDs political. Valereee (talk) 21:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  Unfortunately it does, considering the tenor of the nominations, which (if you haven't already), you should read. Obviously notable people are presented as not passing GNG, for instance. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  That's your opinion, anyway. Of the AfDs in question, four have closed as Delete, one as moving to draft space, and two have closed as Keep. It would seem that in the majority of these cases so far, the other editors disagree with your contention that this is "obvious." (With that, you were challenged on more than one of those AfDs to back up your assertion that the articles did indeed pass GNG with the sources you felt qualified. In every such instance, you remained silent.) Ravenswing 01:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  I "remained silent" because of a medical crisis in my family IRL, which left me with very little time for Wikipedia (check my logs, you'll see my time here has been well below the average since a week ago Friday, except for today (Sunday) and a little yesterday). All is not as it seems, sometimes - but the politics being played here is very much for real, and Wikipedia is being sullied by it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Beyond My Ken First off let me say I hope the medical situation with you & your family has been resolved. I wish whoever it was good health & God speed.

  As for the ban, I will stay out of it because I have made my opinions about him & @Ravenswing crystal clear. I honestly have no intentions of communicating with either of those users ever again. I just wanted to let you know I made a proposal for Wikipedia to consider so feel free to take a look & comment on the link below titled Presidential judicial nominees automatically notable.

  But once again the health of you & your family is most important so please take care of that before dedicating any more time to Wikipedia. Have a good day & take care.

  MIAJudges (talk) 20:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) MIAJudges (talk) 20:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  BMK, I've read the bottom six (userfy, keep, delete, delete, delete, not closed yet) and I don't see what you mean by "the tenor of the nominations"? In each case the nom rationale is "does not meet notability under WP:NPOL and is WP:TOOSOON since nominee has not been confirmed as a [whatever] judge" Can you clarify what you mean by the tenor being political? Valereee (talk) 09:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose: The nom seems to be playing the same game as MIAJudges is: claiming a standard which is not actually reflected in any notability guideline, and making a blanket statement without presenting one single shred of evidence to back it up. If Beyond My Ken wants WP:JUDGE to read differently, then they're free to make a proposal on the Notability talk page. In the meantime, we gauge notability on the standards that are already in place, not the standards we wish were in place if we were the ones writing the rules, and WP:JUDGE doesn't have any carve-out clauses reading "... except in cases where we really really think the opposition party is being naughty." This is a spurious counter-proposal reeking of bad faith, and it's saddening that Beyond My Ken can only conceive of political bias as a rationale for nominating such articles for deletion. Ravenswing 02:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  I am not "playing a game", I am attempting to see that Wikipedia isn't used for political purposes, and that its content is the best in can be. If you insist on a policy-based justification for that, I suggest you re-read WP:IAR. That we would allow outside political manipulations to affect our content is totally abhorrent to me - and I would absolutely say that if the parties were reversed. As for the results at AfD, I note that your votes and those of Iseult helped bring about those conclusions, so your citing of them leaves me cold. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  Since you don't like the results, I suppose they do leave you cold. They remain facts, all the same. "I would absolutely say that if the parties were reversed." Perhaps you would forgive this lifelong Democrat, and one-time elected Democratic officeholder, for believing that this vindictive, plainly partisan proposal of yours indicates quite the opposite. Ravenswing 15:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, and it strikes me as unfair to Letsrun that this was even proposed. The only thing they've (arguably) done wrong in this area is bundle some AFD nominations which didn't belong together, which only hurt their own aims, and there hasn't been any evidence presented that the nominations were done for political reasons (unless I missed something important upthread). If there's a problem here, it's inexperience, and Letsrun has been willing to acknowledge that in this discussion; this sanction wouldn't help them improve! Hatman31 (talk) 04:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
• Strong oppose, as others have said, there's no evidence Let'srun has done anything substantially wrong. This was the case even at the beginning of this thread and has become clearer as their AfDs have been closed. They might have made some BEFORE mistakes or otherwise failed to properly consider certain issues but their track record isn't that bad. In particular, there's no evidence of any inappropriate political motivation other than this happening at a time when Biden happens to be president. In fact the only concern about inappropriate political motivations seems to relate to the proposer Beyond My Ken's actions who by their own admission is making this proposal for political reasons. Per WP:RGW, Beyond My Ken is welcome to vote in the US (as many commentators have demonstrated, this often includes more local positions who can affect such things in various indirect fashions), lobby their senator or other senators or whatever else they want in the real world to fix whatever wrongs they see; what they shouldn't be doing is trying to topic ban people because our current guidelines and policies create outcomes they don't like because of what is going on in the real world. They are of course entitled to try to get these guidelines changed but an experienced editor would know that would involved making a proposal somewhere suitable (which is unlikely to be at ANI, although I don't mind User:Newyorkbrad etc starting discussion here) for the adoptions of these new guidelines or rarely simply by taking part in the AFDs and successfully making the argument (i.e. convincing others) that while yes current guidelines suggest a deletion, it would be better to instead to keep for reasons of X, Y and Z. Changing the guidelines definitely does not start with topic banning someone just because they are helping to enforce our current guidelines. Nil Einne (talk) 09:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  Further to my comment on changing how we handle articles on such appointments, since that seems to be a key part of Beyond My Ken's argument even if as I said, irrelevant until they've actually changed the guidelines. As someone who is probably significant more left-wing than the average American or Biden in many areas but is not American, I'd note that I was leaning oppose towards any such proposal for a change in guidelines at the start of this thread. Comments by Newyorkbrad and some others have given me pause for thought, but comments from most of those arguing for these changes often have done the opposite and this is especially the case for the way Beyond My Ken has approached this. Indeed one of the arguments for keeping these has been that most of them are likely to be notable sometime 'soon' because their appointments will be confirmed, or if they are rejected this would be significant enough to warrant an article. Yet ironically Beyond My Ken has came here to effectively even if I guess unintentionally argue the opposite. Because the mess in US politics many of these may simply never come up for vote, meaning that while there may be an article on that mess, there may be no articles on most of the individual minor level judge appointments affected by the mess who aren't notable individually for it. While the mess in US politics concerns me since it does have significant real world negative ramifications even for me in NZ, I'm not going to support us ignoring our normally notability standards just because this mess has created an unhappy situation. Wikipedia shouldn't be used for political purposes even when we agree with the politics. Again for Americans there are multiple avenues they can try to improve the situation. For non Americans there may be far less. But either way it doesn't mean we should do dumb stuff which will harm Wikipedia out of some misguided purpose. Nil Einne (talk) 09:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - it is not an offense to AfD Biden-nominated judge articles, or any particular president’s. starship.paint (exalt) 11:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per all of the above. BilledMammal (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. A topic ban for nominating articles for deletion under existing notability guidelines is one of the most absurd proposals I've seen here, and the continued accusations by the proposer of political bias with no meaningful evidence border on a personal attack at this point. --Sable232 (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

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

Site ban for MIA Judges

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

---

Starting above from @BilledMammal: at 11:57, 17 July 2023, you can see extensive evidence of off site escalation of the behavior in this thread. I'm not taking action as I'm definitely Involved given the long history at Cartwright, and actually had decent interaction with them until it all escalated here. Their behavior here was borderline blockable-not about the merits of the judges, but their interaction with Ravenswing et al. and this just endorses it. No ping given their repeated anger at being pinged. I think it's safe to assume they're watching. Star Mississippi 12:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I've added a notice to their user talk, as I actually am not sure they're actively watching and this thread is pretty difficult to navigate. Valereee (talk) 13:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support as nom. Star Mississippi 12:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support. There are no circumstances where an editor should tell another editor to kill themself; where the editor does that is irrelevant. BilledMammal (talk) 12:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support - Too much evidence says they are the same person. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  Also, could an admin go through these links and see if they can be tied to the votes on the proposal by MIAJudges at Village pump? If so, clear case for a ban for those IPs/ Accounts as well. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  Wow. Just saw this and I am honestly a bit shaken to see some of the comments posted towards myself. Looks like the second link at #7 was from the IP at 15:47, 10 July 2023 as "Dequan" posts [[112]] shortly after, and that was the only support comment I replied to there. Let'srun (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, sorry about that, compadre. MIA's certainly spewed some bile in my direction, but he hasn't told me to kill myself. (Yet, anyway.) Don't blame you for being shaken. Ravenswing 13:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support cban: From falsifying sources, to off-wiki canvassing, to meritless claims, to their hostility over their conduct being in question, and now egging an editor on to kill himself? No. We do not need this person on the encyclopedia, and we'd indef a first-week newbie for a fraction of this much. Ravenswing 13:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support per Ravenswing. Watching this develop, there have been several moments where I've thought they've gone too far—but they're still here the next day! So, no, enough, end of. SN54129 13:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support per Ravenswing and Jack Sparrow. DoubleCross (‡) 13:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support Even if we can't conclusively show MIA is also Dequan, their behavior in this matter has been extremely confrontational and unwilling to listen to others, while demanding to be left alone. They clearly cannot behave cooperatively with other Wikipedians, and if they are Dequan, their behavior is beyond the pale. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
• I have closed the related VPP discussion (permalink) with consensus against considering federal judiciary nominees as automatically notable. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
• I'm going to Oppose a community-imposed ban for policy reasons: the information got here from something that feels uncomfortably close to outing., which shouldn't have happened. Unfortunately it did happen, and by the time it happened, so many people had moved on from this long thread that it wasn't noticed before this final discussion had already started. The stuff that was said was bad, but this person shouldn't have been outed. If they hadn't been outed, if instead someone had reported it to oversight, the oversighter might have gone ahead and blocked for what was said, but it wouldn't have been a community-imposed block and could be appealed through a normal block appeal. I'm sorry I didn't just block them earlier, frankly. Valereee (talk) 10:26, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think this does violate WP:OUTING; my reading of the policy suggests it does not include revealing pseudonyms that editors use on different sites. I'll add that it is relatively common for such revelations to occur; for example, we often see reports about editors canvassing on Reddit. BilledMammal (talk) 10:40, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  I've edited. It's a grey area, for sure, but it just makes me uncomfortable to impose a cban for this series of events. Valereee (talk) 10:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  For us to bring forth any type of sanctions, their actions need to be tied to the account here.
  And I doubt MIAJudges can be protected under that grey area when they were using that platform to taunt and attack other wikipedians. The initial report was that of someone canvassing; MIAJudges brought the rest of the investigation upon themselves through the unacceptable messages relating to Wikipedia they posted on that platform knowing it was being watched. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  It's a fair point that they outed themselves by responding directly there to edits here. Valereee (talk) 14:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  I think their recent comments on their Talk confirm that they a) don't see a problem with their behavior b) don't appear to have an issue being connected with the external site. They've used prior accounts (per their own admission) that didn't appear to be a sock issue per the letter of LEGITSOCK, so I imagine we'll see them again even if this account is blocked. If they continue to contribute as they initially did, that could be fine. I'm not sure what went off the rails here. Star Mississippi 14:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  What went off the rails, I think, was that MIA's antics were brought to wide scrutiny. MIA falsified that source in the Garnett article two days before this whole ANI complaint started. I get the impression that the Cartwright article was something of a battle as well, and I wonder how many other of MIA's edits would prove questionable if examined. We also know that MIA was well aware of the provisions of NJUDGE before all those questionable rationales at AfD, because they were trying to get the guidelines changed back in September. [113][114] Ultimately, I think that MIA was never as clean as all of that. Ravenswing 18:15, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  Correct on all counts, and the disengenous "Well why didn't you tell me that" about changing the guidelines.
  I initially took MIA's edits to be slightly pushy, but in good faith. They believed our guidelines were wrong but were editing collaboratively. When it came to endless badgering and edit warring (where they were not alone), it got exhausting. I believe the canvassing existed for months otherwise new accounts wouldn't know of the Cartwight article to come kick up a fuss. I don't know whether MIA was canvassed to it, or was the canvasser but I will say that at that article they refrained from the worst of the mudslinging as to motive. Star Mississippi 18:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  Beyond that, there's another concept at play: if we're not allowed to ban someone because we're "outing" a pseudonym (which frankly shares not one fraction of similarity with genuine outing; even if the policy included them, which it does not, what harm could it possibly do me for you people to know that the handle I use on Reddit is 'Ravenswing77'?), then off-wiki canvassing should be permissible as well, because enforcing rules against that involves "outing" to the same degree. Ravenswing 17:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  It could harm you if you'd provided any identifying info on Reddit. Not saying you would, I don't think you're naive. But people can put things together. In various fora you've made remarks that, if combined, could probably identify you, someone could cobble them together and possibly figure out where you live, work, etc. Valereee (talk) 17:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  But a lot of people can be identified in the same way, with enough digging and work. I used to edit Wikipedia under my real name (and still blog under it), and only flipped when I realized just how much my name was all over the Web. As may be. The fact remains that if we can't touch off-wiki activity because of the worry people might find out another pseudonym, then off-wiki canvassing is likewise untouchable, and off-wiki harassment is untouchable, and off-wiki evidence of socking is untouchable. I doubt that's a mindshift that would serve much of anyone except bad actors like MIA. Ravenswing 18:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, and unfortunately there are plenty of people willing to do the digging and work. I'm not arguing with you, just agreeing that it's an issue for those of us who came into the web before we all realized this. My kids came in late enough that they've been able to adjust for it. At least so far, who knows what's coming next. Valereee (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Ravenswing you're dropping too many hints, better redact and get it revdel'ed incase someone comes sniffing long after :D Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 21:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  Can you clarify, @CapnJackSp? Valereee (talk) 23:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  Things like their reddit username and previous editing on wiki being personal details. A couple absent minded posts later on could tie them to IRL stuff quite easily. Just advising out of an abundance of caution. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 03:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support - their actions and unbridled advocacy are not compatible with Wikipedia. starship.paint (exalt) 14:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
• Comment - Time to close this, probably? I doubt there is going to be any serious opposition to this. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

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

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

User:Gbe Dutu Ongoing vandalism (since June)

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

---

I tried to report an user, but I god redirected here by Bbb23. I will repeat what I wrote on the Ongoing vandalism board. It's been a while since I have been on wikipedia, so excuse me if my report isn't done 100% correctly. Basically, it seems this user has been vandalising a lot of pages (A LOT!) since the end of spring and the start of summer. Just look at what he wrote at Stadionul Steaua (2021): Its confirmed FCSB will play in Steaua Arena This is not true. Use google translate and read this: https://www.gsp.ro/fotbal/liga-1/fcsb-dinamo-tot-mai-departe-de-ghencea-ce-spune-mm-stoica-704395.html The title says: FCSB - Dinamo, further away from Ghencea. FURTHER! I wasn't even the user who undid his initial vandalism from 5-8 July. And this is just one example. He erased information at Template:CSA Steaua București managers without any explanation. He has all sorts of edits like this. Please ban him, it's so frustrating to stay now and correct all his vandalism. Dante4786 (talk) 19:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Looking at some of the edits, I think the header of FCSB seems enlightening:

• "This article is about the club officially named FCSB. For the other team claiming to be the legal successor of the original Steaua București and affiliated with the multi-sport club and the army, see CSA Steaua București (football)."

This seems to be POV pushing of a difference of opinion on what the links should point to.

Simple answer: User:Gbe Dutu, Stop edit-warring, and - Take it to the talk page!

If this continues, any uninvolved admin may apply sanctions, including blocking. - jc37 14:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@jc37 He did it again. Erased information on 3 templates. Without justification. Please ban him, I can't keep babysitting him and undo his vandalism. I followed the rules, I notified him on his talk page. He didn't answer, here or there. He is just a troll. Dante4786 (talk) 23:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

It's not vandalism, it's a difference of opinion between you both. That said, this is disruptive, and he (and you) should be taking this to the talk page. And so with that in mind, I've placed a final warning on their talk page: [115]. At this point, any uninvolved admin may apply further sanctions as approriate. - jc37 23:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@jc37 But he erased information without explaining why. Those 3 weren't even my templates. He falsely claimed on Stadionul Steaua (2021) that it's confirmed, FCSB will play there. At the current moment (July 19th), FCSB is still in the negociating phase. At what point his acts are recognised as vandalism? When is enough enough? I don't want to bother you again but if he continues like this, I will have to report him again. I don't want to argue with him when he clearly doesn't have any constructive intentions on pages related to Steaua. Dante4786 (talk) 00:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I have blocked them for disruptive editing, but only until they start communicating, given that since 2021, they have never responded to any request or collaborated on any page. Thank you, Lourdes 03:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

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

WP:COMPETENCE of Nostalgia Zone (talk · contribs)

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

---

Nostalgia Zone (talk · contribs) seems to be a problematic editor to say the least. For example:

• Adding links to dab pages (December 2021)
• Not adding sources (July 2022)
• Restoring unsourced content (September 2022)
• Edit warring (November 2022)
• More edit-warring (December 2022)
• Unconstructive editing (also December 2022)

A perusal of their talk page shows the problems have persisted: constantly failing to check their links and linking to disambiguation pages; edit-warring; repeated addition of unsourced content. Recently they keep re-adding a "list of anchor stores" on Northland Center against consensus, refusing to discuss the addition or removal. All of their recent edits are adding "list of anchor stores" to shopping malls in Michigan (example), in violation of WP:NOR, WP:IINFO, and WP:NOTDIR.

I warned the user back in February and they promised to stop, at which point @Magnolia677: stepped in to warn them again and they again promised to stop. However, they clearly have not at all.

In short, there is a clear pattern of disruptive and unconstructive behavior, even after multiple warnings and promises to stop. The user clearly has no intention of changing their ways, leading me to believe major WP:COMPETENCE issues are at play here. Virtually none of their edits have been beneficial, leading me to believe that the only viable solution at this point is a block. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:39, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked till they understand the issue and commit to not disrupt. Thanks, Lourdes 05:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

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

Reporting User:Anubhavklal again, seems like they wouldn't stop

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

---

Reporting User:Anubhavklal again, previously reported at "Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1133#Reporting_User:Anubhavklal", since I don't see any change to their disruptive behavior with article moves, disregard to WP:COMMONNAME and general apathy towards Wikipedia rules and guidelines. A clear violation of WP:ARBIP and a serious case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. While it started of as disregard of article moves against WP:COMMONNAME - [116] [117] [118] [119], disregar of WP:COMMONNAME in edits – [120] [121] [122] and being disruptive [123][124] [125] [126] [127], followed by a plethora of move requests, some of which are obvious POV, like this one, which they did after being reverted here.

Now today they resorted to 'closing' RM discussions [128] [129] [130] themselves, which should be the job of uninvolved users per WP:RM, not proposers like them or involved editors. One such move discussion doesn't even have any response [[131]] from other users. Then they proceeded to move the articles [132] [133] [134]. This is a highly disruptive behaviour by someone trying to game the system / disregard it at every turn as part of their POV. I'd request strict action against this user. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Anubhavklal was told that an independent person adjudicates move discussions on 23 June 2023. So he/she cannot say that he/she did not know. -- Toddy1 (talk) 15:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

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

Reverting a close

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

---

• Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
• Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Minor_alteration_to_WP:NOTDIRECTORY

I closed this discussion which was listed at WP:CR, and now two of those who opposed in the discussion are reverting the implementation of the close, which is clearly disruptive. I've responded at both of their talk pages. And both seem to think that implmenting a close is a WP:BOLD edit, which is of course, not the case.

As I am WP:UNINVOLVED, I'm really disinclined deal with them relitigating the discussion and and trying whatever they can to try to get me to revert the closure. To my eye, this is beyond merely asking me to clarify the close - which I have.

At this point, I'm going to re-implment the close again.

I am a firm believer in "many eyes", so I welcome that.

And finally, if any other WP:UNINVOLVED admin would like to take over the close at their discretion, they are welcome to do so. - jc37 15:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

There is no plausible reading under which your changes to the policy, which were virtually undiscussed in the discussion you closed, can be interpreted as an implementation of that discussion. Per WP:CONLEVEL, significant consensus among a large number of editors is required to change a policy page; simply closing a discussion where the proposal you implemented received minimal attention is insufficient, which means that the wording of your closure cannot support the changes you wanted to make. And in any case, the thing to do when an edit you made on a policy page is reverted (whether you believe it to be in implementation of an existing consensus or not) is to take it to talk and reassess, not to editwar it in. As I'm sure you're aware, believing that consensus backs your edits is not a justification for edit warring - certainly not on a major policy page, where changes are to be made slowly and conservatively. Your closure can reasonably be taken as an admonition for further discussion; it cannot and does not support immediately removing the sentence in question. --Aquillion (talk) 15:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

As an editor who did not participate in the discussion in question and has no involvement in the underlying issue, I would note that (i) this appears to be an RfC close where the closer has made a decision that is outside the scope of what the RfC asked, which (while not strictly forbidden) is likely to be contentious, and (ii) the closer appears willing to edit-war the language of their close on a policy page, away from the status quo and against the objections of multiple editors. As far as I understand our community norms, this is not really aligned with the conduct expected of an administrator.

Also, opening discussion on ANI as a behavioural issue (presumably, about other editors' behaviour) rather than opening a review of their own close strikes me as a rather bold move, and possibly tone deaf at the very least. Newimpartial (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Reverting a close is a behavioural issue. That said, either venue is fine with me. - jc37 16:03, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I think there might be some merit to what @Newimpartial has said about the close, but it really is irrelevant because of how it was handled by the reverting editors. They responded in the wrong way, and handled the close by reverting when they should not have. At that point it then becomes an issue of responding to their disruption so taking care of whatever issues there might have been with the close are now back seat to mitigating disruption. They forced admin action from jc37 in this case essentially forfeiting the immediate due process they would have otherwise been entitled to from jc37 by their own disruption. Huggums537 (talk) 19:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC) Actually, after reading more carefully, I disagree with what was said. I think it was within scope, only "contentious" because disruptive opposers wanted to revert, and what is being called "edit warring to reinstate a closure" could (and should) also just as easily be interpreted as controlling disruption. Updated on 19:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• Agree with Aquillion. Closer's are limited to assessing consensus of the matter under discussion; when they go beyond that, as they clearly did here, it becomes no different to any other WP:BOLD edit.

To explain further, as part of that RfC a workshopping section was opened to discuss alternative options. In that, an editor proposed closing this proposal and opening a new one, when they said We should scrap this proposal and start over with a proposal to remove the line about disambiguation pages from WP:NOT altogether.

It was reasonable for most editors in opposition to such a proposal to not interpret it as being under consideration in the current RfC, and thus not respond to it. This is actually behavior that I generally encourage; it is rarely useful for editors who outright oppose a proposal to contribute to workshops on the proposal, and I generally consider expressing such opposition to be disruptive to the workshopping process. One of the reasons I so oppose this close is that it would require such behavior going forward.

Considering all of this, I asked Jc37 to instead relist the discussion, and make it clear that this alternative proposal was in fact one being considered in this RfC. Given the lack of clarity, this seemed the most reasonable path forward. However, they declined to do that, saying As I noted in the close, there was no consensus as to what (if anything) should replace the text. So feel free to start a new RfC concerning that if you wish. But your decision to join in a discussion (or not) was your choice, the same as everyone else.

I also note that they are currently at four reverts; they have declined to bring themselves into compliance with 3RR. BilledMammal (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

If you have a problem with a close, challenge it. Don't just edit war. That's the behavioral issue. Aquillion or BilledMammal should've opened a thread at AN instead of edit warring their preferred version contrary to the [current, at least] outcome of the discussion. Simple as that. Maybe it'll be overturned. It's not like the close was to say "you don't have to follow BLP anymore" or something with big consequences -- it's removing a line from a policy that's covered in an existing guideline. I'm not saying it should be removed, but it's hardly the sort of dire thing that demands an aggressive WP:IAR response. Just go to AN and challenge the close. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Is "implementing one's closure of an RfC concerning a policy page" covered by one of the exceptions listed at WP:3RRNO? Because if it is, I seem to have missed it. Newimpartial (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

No, but what does that have to do with what I said? I mean, jc37 technically didn't breach 3RR (first edit wasn't a revert), but yeah, they shouldn't have kept going either, of course. Someone else should've stepped in, page-blocked everyone edit warring on a policy page and/or reinstated Jc37's edit with protection pending an actual close challenge. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I may have misunderstood, but when you said That's the behavioral issue, you seemed to have been talking about the reverts to the close, and not about the edit-warring to restore the close once reverted. Also, q.v. WP:WRONGVERSION - I am not aware of any policy mandating that the new version (reflecting the close) should be in place while the edit-warring is resolved and the close challenge takes place. If anything, it seems to me that whether or not the first edit is counted as a revert (and it seems technically to have been one), revert-warring to defend one's own implementation of a closure isn't really called for during any kind of dispute over P&Gs. Newimpartial (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Admins have authority to intervene and protect consensus from disruption per WP:CONADMIN. This doesn't apply to fixing preferred personal versions in edit wars, but it certainly applies to this case so "version status" is essentially irrelevant since the crux of the matter was protecting the consensus from disruption as opposed to being about who gets the last say so about particular versions. Admins are usually indemnified from being accused of edit warring in the normal course of this type of duty. Huggums537 (talk) 21:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

This is a case where the admin was edit warring to preserve their own edit; he/she was therefore involved. See WP:INVOLVED.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

For the admin to have been involved in a dispute, there would have had to have been a dispute to begin with. This was active prevention of disruption to the established consensus process as laid out by policy. Any so called dispute by the active parties causing the disruption was invalidated and/or replaced by the emerging new urgent fact that they were now the cause of immediate disruption to the consensus process that required admin intervention. I agree they should have waited for another admin to do it, and I have no doubt whatsoever that another one would have done so. I was going to restore the consensus myself with the exact same edit summary, but jc37 beat me to it, so I think they just acted hastily out of knowing for sure this was way out of line, and not thinking about how it might look later on. Huggums537 (talk) 21:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

In other words, you can't justify the fact that just because disruptive editors opposed the change somehow constitutes a "dispute" between jc37 and them. Otherwise, anybody who opposed a change would automatically be allowed to edit war or disruptively remove closures without being required to formally dispute on the basis that they have already "disputed" since it would be obvious by their oppose votes. If we allow this, and forgo the dispute process, then that would be really bad news... Huggums537 (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. I fully protected the page when I saw a string of reverts on my watchlist and left a note on the talk page. I see now that I did that after the discussion here was opened (although I've only just seen this). Any admin should feel free to remove the full protection, but if/when you do please reinstate the indefinite semi-protection. Thryduulf (talk) 17:03, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  Also worth noting here that Newimpartial has started WP:AN#Closure review - WP:NOT where the merits or otherwise of the close can be discussed. Discussion of behaviour should remain here. Thryduulf (talk) 20:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• I'm pretty much in agreement with Rhododendrites. I have a very dim view of people who attempt to thwart the implementation of consensus reached through our formal dispute resolution processes. Reverting a closer's implementation of an RfC is not some acceptable alternative to challenging the close itself. The closer being overly assertive in forcing through their close is not a valid EW exception. But I have a lot more sympathy for the closers than the challengers in this situation and the tag team elements don't help that in the least. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
• Agree with @Barkeep49 and Rhododendrites:. Reverting a close [consensus] just because you disagree seems "way out of process". (Little nod to Barkeep there, lol.) Huggums537 (talk) 19:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC) Updated on 23:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
• Comment - yeah, in general you shouldn't revert a close, but equally the closer should have engaged with the concerns of Aquillon and BM, per ADMINACCT - "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions". JC37's comments at the User_talk:Aquillion#Closure_implementation thread are entirely focused on the edit warring, sidestepping the query about the close itself.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  Jc37 engaged more thoroughly on the merits of the close at User talk:BilledMammal, however * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Some small trouts and a strong recommendation to close this discussion

Forgive the presumption of making a subsection so early in the thread for my one comment, but I feel very strongly that the solution here is very clear under existing policy and procedure. For my part, having taken about forty minutes to do a somewhat detailed (but by no means exhaustive) review of that rather voluminous thread, I'm not sure that I can see the consensus that Jc37 found in it. It's rather a complex discussion of course, so reasonable minds may vary, but even giving the benefit of the doubt on some closer calls, I'm just not sure there's enough there to close for consensus on that outcome.

That said: there's an established tool for addressing these situations--a closure review at AN. That is definitely the process that Aquillion and BilledMammal should have availed themselves of as soon as they had qualms about the close. Edit warring a policy page is never the right solution in such a scenario. Of course, they may have been unaware of the option: even a fairly established editor might be unaware that AN is the right forum for these situations, since only one closed discussion in several hundred gets a review. But at this juncture, there is no question what the next step should be. Of course, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and Jc37 probably should have attempted to deescalate the situation once it got this point by opening the closure review themselves, rather than bringing the matter here (which does sort of imply disruption or other behavioural issues, even when care is taken to present the dispute neutrally).

Everyone's operating in good faith here though, so I do not slap you with the trouts directly, but rather gently waft their aroma towards you all and point one floor up (or is it down?) to AN. But there's no real purpose in keeping this discussion open--unless we just want to break with normal process and open a subsection specifically for reviewing the close here and now. Not sure if that is proper under an IAR basis or not, though. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I think you are showing a very generous amount of good faith to those who caused the disruption considering the fact they were told multiple times they should take the review process to AN so saying they might have been unaware is more than generous, it is actually technically inaccurate, but I agree with the idea of mild trouts all around since the admin should have also been aware they had other options as well. Huggums537 (talk) 02:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, I must have missed where they didn't drop the stick after being told about AN. But if that's the case, no one can be claim to be unaware of the proper approach next time. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

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

Just a quick note: I'm a big proponent of AGF. However, in this case, in hindsight, I think both editors should be thankful that I merely reverted, and asked them to self-revert, and talked with them, instead of just posting here for others' to address their disruption. Regardless, hopefully they now understand that what they did was disruptive, and others may not be as kind as I am.

As for the close, I have self-reverted part of it to allow for further discussion.

I wish to say "Thank You" to everyone who has commented. Happy editing... - jc37 23:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Reporting User talk:2601:647:5F00:6BA0:49E9:1C54:D079:7580 for WP:TPA

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

---

Repeated abuse of their own talk page, see 1, 2, 3 and adding false WP:SOCK tags to themselves, see 4, 5. ARandomName123 (talk) 16:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Considering said user put Itcho in one of their edits, likely is a WP:SOCK. 123Writer ^talk 16:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

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

Uncivil IP

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

---

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

IP user 121.98.204.148 has been editing from that address for at least a year and a half. They were blocked for two weeks in January for "Personal attacks or harassment" which they blew off. Since that block, the IP has continued their inappropriate behavior. Some are edit summaries with name calling like "you fool" and "idiot". There is substantial amount of inappropriate criticism directed towards individuals and Wikipedia editors generally: "WP is still full of s***t editing" and "Got to get rid of some of the usel;ess ediotprs somehow". This month, in reply to requests to be civil, they gave this reply: You fugging\g fool! I was being WP:BOLD because there is no consensus needed for a glaringly obvious edits. FFS! THis why I don't bother logging on. Too many fugwit editors. After further warnings–including one from me earlier today (UTC) specifically regarding their shouting–the IP wrote an edit summary of IT IS A SHORT ARTICLE> U CANT SAY MUCH ABOUT IT FFS. I don't think this editor has any interest in conforming their behavior to community expectations. I request a lengthy block. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and there's probably a WP:LOUTSOCK aspect of this per this comment: Kind regards from a disillusioned editor with high edit count. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for two months. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

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

Offense

Well, this Random Ip offended me because of a edit that i have undone on SummerSlam (2023) about a match that is Not confirmed yet, Special:Contributions/2A06:C701:4147:DD00:3416:7F6E:F26A:AFB6 here's the edit with the offense https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1166033933, i really don't like to bring It here, but since he think that is better to offend other people,If is possible, can someone please block him?thank you StrangerMan123 (talk) 01:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

The IP editor that left an eff off type of edit summary has been warned (for triggering the edit filter) by an uninvolved user (Taking Out The Trash). Dawnseeker2000 01:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

And StrangerMan123 left a needless rant on the IP's Talk page. And I've semi-protected the article for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it was a needles rant, he offended me, and i just come there to say that he can't do it, if i offended he too yes i think it was needless and i would be just doing the same thing, but i Just Said for he to stop offend because it's rude and disrespectiful, he can't say that for people, here we have to treat everyone with respect, and he disrespect me, i just think he should hear, or in this case, read that. Anyway, for me that's gone, i don't want to make this thing a big deal, and also, thank you for semi-protect that page, he was not the only one to vandalize there, so really thank you, Good Night StrangerMan123 (talk) 03:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@StrangerMan123, please do not gender other users unless they have stated which pronoun they wish to use. Canterbury Tail talk 13:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for that, won't happen again StrangerMan123 (talk) 17:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

IMO StrangerMan123 should be trouted for the rant on the talk page. All it's going to do is make the IP respond with more personal attacks, not diffuse the situation. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I asked for help after being offended, and now it seems that I was the one who made the mistake, I am really sad about all this, i'm sorry about it, if anybody want I will remove that message, for me this matter is already over. StrangerMan123 (talk) 15:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I read what is trouted, and i saw that it seemed to be a joke haha ​​i hope i understood that right, i really did something silly, so yes, i deserve to be trouted, i ended up getting too mad with the offense and didn't think straight, i shouldn't have gone on the talk page from the ip, if somebody want to trout me, yeah its ok, i kinda deserve it, If something like that happens again, I leave it aside StrangerMan123 (talk) 17:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Just hope that he stops to vandalize and offend, thank you. StrangerMan123 (talk) 03:39, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Request to restore talk page access

Can an admin please restore talk page access to my colleague User:Dancey2 so that they can appeal a block?

My request for this was declined on the talk page in the section User_talk:Dancey2#Confirmed_identity for being out of process, when the request needs to be here at ANI. The user's own request for unblock was declined at UTRS based on need to confirm identity, which I vouch for as I know them personally. Thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 11:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn’t WP:CLEANSTART or WP:SO have been better for an account that got the chop 6 years ago? That Talk Page history’s gonna go against them somewhere down the line. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 12:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Users who may not have a clean start: Any user who has currently active bans, blocks or other sanctions imposed. No, CLEANSTART would not be better for an indeffed editor. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:10, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I vouch for as I know them personally users vouching for others to "confirm identities" is not accepted on wikipedia especially for those vouching the identity of blocked editors. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:17, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

This editor appears to be unable to appeal their ban via the ticket system as they cannot prove they are the original account owner, and they cannot appeal their ban here because their block prevents them. They don't appear to have any option whatsoever. Surely we don't have a system that actually forces banned editors to do exactly what we don't want them to do: open a block-evading sock-puppet in order to appeal a ban, where, if they're honest, they will be instantly re-blocked (and the unban-request summarily dismissed) for being a sock-puppet of a banned account? That would be silly at a truly Yes Minister level. Is there a constructive way out of the dilemma? Elemimele (talk) 12:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Adding some context that Dancey2, in their UTRS appeal, claimed to have been evading the block since February 2022, from an account that has continued to make edits after the appeal was declined. So if Bluerasberry is vouching that Dancey2 is telling the truth when they say that they've been socking for the past year and a half, then I would suggest that the ball is in Dancey2's court in terms of demonstrating a good-faith commitment to following all policies, including WP:SOCK. Dancey2 has not been banned from UTRS, and is able to open a second UTRS appeal (hopefully a more substantive one) when they're ready. DanCherek (talk) 13:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm unsure if it would be accepted or not but emailing the VRT at info-enwikimedia.org explaining , could be a method for confirming identity.

If not then, another account could work, we've allowed socks who no longer have access to their original account to appeal from their newest account before. Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry about all this. I do not think this situation has to be complicated. Anyone please make any specific demand and we will comply. The user got blocked for copyright violation, which is serious but it is also teachable and more easily corrected than a conduct problem. The user wishes to appeal.

As Elemimele says, they have no appeal option right now. They do not have talk page access so they cannot give a public explanation as they prefer. UTRS - the private backstage option - is blocked because of someone requiring them to do WP:Identity verification. Also UTRS has a rate limit for appeals and they are in time out right now, and cannot submit.

Lavalizard101 If my word of personally knowing this user is insufficient to restore their right to appeal on their talk page, then please suggest any method of identity verification and I can have this person do it. The problem is that UTRS is demanding identity verification, but WP:Identity verification is not a standard process.

DanCherek This user is not requesting privacy. Their current account, old account, and public identity can be connected. After being blocked for 7 years they made a new account. I do not think anyone would call that "socking" or "evasion", but yes, the point of this appeal is to connect the accounts and identity. The process that the Wikipedia platform offers for such users is to make a new account, and other options are non-intuitive. Nevertheless, I will support them in expressing understanding of WP:SOCK in their appeal. Since the problem in UTRS was identity, not copyvio, and not socking, I thought to come to the wiki since no one here is asking for the privacy inherent in UTRS.

Matticusmadness I do not see any shame in past violations. If someone was blocked years ago and they do confession and contrition then I see no reason for them to carry guilt or for the wiki community to shame them. Whenever possible, I encourage appealing blocks through the standard process.

Again, suggest any process, and I will support my colleague in applying. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

emailing the VRT at info-enwikimedia.org explaining [the situation], could be a method for confirming identity. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I emailed VRT! See the message at ticket:2023071210009396. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• This is clearly wrong. A sysop should restore this user's access to their own talk page for the duration of their block appeal.—S Marshall T/C 08:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Matticusmadness, Lavalizard101, Elemimele, DanCherek, and Writ Keeper: Can I please ask for reconsideration of my original request to unblock this person's user talk page so that they can engage in on-wiki appeal?

At VRT in the ticket linked above the agent found the request to be out of scope, and I think it is. The cause of the problem as I understand it is that UTRS perceived phishing strangeness in an unblock request for a 17-year old account, blocked for 7 years for copyvio. We could do another UTRS request, but I think the privacy of UTRS has scared some reviewers in the appeal process so being public on-wiki is preferable.

The harm to mitigate here is the danger of a user posting on their talk page while multiple people observe them. I see this as low risk. If no one expresses a concern, can someone either unblock for the appeal or make a specific request for what we can do to merit the unblock? Bluerasberry (talk) 14:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Considering that, according to the username they gave in the (underwhelming) UTRS appeal, they were still evading their block as of two weeks ago, I'm not particularly compelled. To be clear--the identity question about UTRS is because it looks like a joe job to get the account named as the sockpuppet blocked. If your friend is really interested in playing by the rules, rather than using Wikipedia as their own personal playground, then they'd need to first do something like making a single edit to the sock account's user page to confirm that they have control over that account. Then, the sock can be blocked, and we can go from there; I personally would be all right with restoring talk page access after that. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:10, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

This one’s tricky because CU’s got no Tech data to go off of (7 years, it’ll all be loooong  Stale) and behavioural can’t be used because they can’t edit in the here and now. I for one, am making a judgement call here, on quotes from requester, and from someone I think is on the UTRS List (that means you, Writ)

UTRS perceived phishing strangeness in an unblock request for a 17-year old account

And as per Writ:

they were still evading their block as of two weeks ago,

it looks like a joe job to get the account named as the sockpuppet blocked.

So that’s a Oh HAIL no! from me, chief! I like Writ’s idea, though.

Also, trout me if y’all must, for ‘dim idea of the day that we all already thought of’, but has anyone checked that Blue isn’t compromised? Trying to vouch for a 7 year blocked account, isn’t… normal, I think?

On a last note, that ‘Identity Verification’ page’s piece about Twitter’s Blue checkmark meaning ‘Verified’ is just asking for trouble. ‘Block the Blue’ ring a bell to anyone? MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 11:39, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

They were socking as recently as June 30 as HappyBear5000. Courcelles (talk) 01:12, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

That's enough for me to say this discussion can end now. RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:16, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, so here is where we are: @Writ Keeper: says "they'd need to first do something like making a single edit to the sock account's user page to confirm that they have control over that account". I interpret this to mean that they need to login to the sock user:HappyBear5000 and make an edit saying "I am happybear5000 and dancey2. I wish to only use the dancey2 account. Please direct me in making an appeal for unblock. Thanks." The reaction will then be that dancey2 gets the talk page unblocked, and they log out of the sock happybear5000 and log into dancey2 to make an appeal on the dancey2 user talk page. Doing all this solves the original problem of dancey2 not having the edit option to make an appeal on their user talk page. I presume everyone is cool with this process - speak up if anyone has additional requests here. Bluerasberry (talk) 23:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I came here to say my normal piece about what I think of as "adverse possession unblocks"—cases where someone has socked, but proven themself non-disruptive, and thus should be let to continue editing. In verifying the "non-disruptive" part, however, I came upon this addition of analysis by one Evan Lang Pandya to The Mystery of Marie Rogêt, duly reverted by VioletSeraphim, who describes Pandya as a cited critic who does not exist and whose cited work does not exist. Indeed, I cannot find any evidence on Google or in The Wikipedia Library that the cited Phenomenology in Nineteenth-Century American Letters exists. Three other Wikipedia articles cite Pandya:

• "Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening"—added in December, also by HappyBear, citing The Editorial Dance: Poetry and the Birth of the Definitive Edition, of which I can likewise find no record
• "The Birth-Mark"—added in 2018 by 76.123.2.205, a residential IP in Charlottesville, Virginia (where Dancey/HappyBear works, according to Bluerasberry), citing a seemingly fictious Hawthorne in Context edited by a seemingly fictitious Jeffrey Williams Lloyd
• Capitalist Realism—added in December by 2601:243:280:a7d2::/64, a residential IP in Illinois with no other edits, citing a source that does not mention Pandya

All 8 Google hits for Pandya trace back to Wikipedia. Midnightdreary also commented on HappyBear's talk in December about Pandya failing verification.

It seems to me now that the question at hand—the right path forward for someone looking to appeal an old block—is a far more mundane one than what we actually have, which is long-term hoaxing across multiple IPs and accounts. (There's any number of explanations for why the one edit would geolocate to Illinois, from IP re-allocation to vacation to meatpuppetry.) @Bluerasberry: You know I greatly appreciate the work you do for the movement, so please take this in friendship when I say that you may want to consider the possibility that you're being played here. This would not be the first time that someone made the acquaintance of an established Wikipedian and tried to manipulate them in order to escape accountability for their own misconduct. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I see VioletSeraphim removed a bunch of these at the same time as the Marie Rogêt one. The Last of the Mohicans (fake journal article); The Mill on the Floss (fake journal article); Laetitia Pilkington (book title is generic but seems not to exist; chapter title gets no GHits). There's also an instance at The Unparalleled Adventure of One Hans Pfaall (fake book and editor—a hoax about hoaxing!) by IngmarDerpman (talk · contribs), who hasn't edited in over a year but, given how long this sockmater's been at it, I have blocked. (Note that their other edits are consistent with HappyBear's—interest in college basketball and football, see also EIA.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

? All kinds of people go crazy and maybe that includes this person, but yes, I know them in person at my university. I will meet them soon and ask where they got the seeming hoax citations, what other accounts they have if any, and the rest.

I am never surprised about people's double lives because I have seen a lot of them, but in this case, I have no knowledge of any of this.

Tamzin thanks for the attention you put into the review. I appreciate being called out and - as it should be - I do not take it personally and enjoy the whole wiki process. Thanks for asking all this. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:48, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

There's a strange world at the intersection of trust and block evasion. There's one banned user whom I trust a fair bit, because I've always known them to be completely candid about what policies they have and haven't violated; they're honest about what they're dishonest about. But on the other hand, we see this gambit pretty often, someone owning up to past mistakes to a sympathetic AGFing community member, while failing to disclose more serious and/or recent issues. (Icewhiz comes to mind, as do a few well-spoken "oh no my article was deleted! won't somebody help?" types.) As always on apparent hoaxing/deception, I'd love to be proven wrong here, but I'm pessimistic. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Matticusmadness, RickinBaltimore, Tamzin, Courcelles, Writ Keeper, Lavalizard101, Elemimele, and DanCherek: The user posted an appeal at User talk:HappyBear5000. Thanks for your attention to this point. If anyone has requests for info or demands for correction for this user, then now would be a good time to post those to their user page during their appeal. Bluerasberry (talk) 19:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

74.101.173.194

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

---

74.101.173.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This editor has been editing for almost 3 months, mostly making small grammatical, wording and punctuation changes. While some of their edits have been good, the majority are problematic. This includes

• WP:ENGVAR issues: editing articles about British or other non-US topics to change the language and spelling to US English (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,7).
• WP:OVERLINK issues: adding wikilinks to well-known country names (1, 2, 3, 4).
• Changing section headings to title case contrary to MOS:SECTIONHEAD (1, 2, 3, 4, 5).
• Other miscellaneous issues like changing the spelling of a person's name incorrectly (here), removing necessary footnote letters (here) and breaking formatting (here).

They have been warned about these edits on their talk page by several editors, but have been completely unresponsive, and have continued the behavior that they were warned about. I specifically asked them to respond to verify that they are aware of these warnings but they have not done so. Perhaps a block is needed to get their attention? CodeTalker (talk) 03:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• One month. Bkfip types. Lourdes 04:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for the quick response! CodeTalker (talk) 04:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

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

Himalaya Jet

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

---

• KG IT 7143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• HJ-977-0044 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Himalaya Jet is being made into the company's about page. I have reverted multiple times, and warned the users. I came back today to see the content reinstated again. Since they don't edit any other topic, and make no effort to modify the unacceptable content before reinstating, I believe enough time and effort has been spent on them. Please block the KG IT account for UPE and/or NOTHERE. If they are to learn a lesson, they can do so from behind the block wall, since they don't stop to learn before reinstating utterly unacceptable content. HJ is also the same user but may not edit again. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I have deleted the article and blocked the accounts. Let us know if it is recreated or further spamming comes up. Thanks, Lourdes 06:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

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

RodRabelo7 misconduct

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

---

Hello. 17 July I wrote a message for RodRabelo7 regarding his thanks spam, which they have sent me ten within a minute. They also edited my userpage few days ago. Vanthorn also has attempted to make contact with them, but we were reverted with the provocative summary "cleaning up bs". Today, I've made another attempt to dialogue with them, but I was reverted again. Looking over their contribs, I've noticed that they created a lot of implausible redirects, which clearly meet WP:R3. I've requested the deletion of a few, but they undid my request, clearly disrespecting the advice on the notice: "do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself" Ertrinken 22:18, 19 July 2023 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet) RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:30, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: Before I even try to defend myself, it should be highlighted that the account “Ertrinken” was banned on Portuguese-language Wikipedia due to being a sockpuppet of long-term abuser and troll Pórokhov (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email).

Pórokhov is considered a long-term abuser for more than a decade now, and is globally locked. RodRabelo7 (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@RodRabelo7: What are you talking about? I'm not this person at all. You've been blocked there too. We are both blocked on Portuguese Wikipedia, this fact doesn't allow you to send me this blatant spam of 10 thanks within a minute. Ertrinken 22:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet) RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:30, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

How about instead of mudslinging, you address the OP? This is not the Portuguese Wikipedia, and it is certainly not the venue to litigate misbehavior there. Ravenswing 23:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I followed the case of the sockpuppet accusation involving Ertrinken on ptwiki, and I expressed my opinion against the accusation since no concrete evidence was presented, only suspicion. The checkusers only pointed to a probable relationship between the Porokhov and Ertrinken accounts, not a confirmation. However, the ptwiki administrators decided to accept the block on "suspicion" that the account belongs to Porokhov. Additionally, the tag they put on the Ertrinken ptwiki page states that it was blocked due to "suspicion." I understand that one should not indefinitely block someone based on suspicion, at the risk of punishing bona fide editors. But it is up to the enwiki administrators to verify whether or not it is fair to adopt such a measure too. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

RodRabelo7 Ertrinken My recommendation to the two editors is that they stop writing on each other's pages. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 00:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@A.WagnerC: Thank you for coming to defend me here as well, but you didn't understand the issue. No one is interested in the Portuguese Wikipedia's paranoia; both RodRabelo7 and I were indefinitely blocked there. What I would like is for this user to stop bothering me, this is a matter regarding specifically English Wikipedia. Ertrinken 01:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet) RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:30, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I think both of you have done something wrong. Thanking someone 10 times in a minute is certainly strange conduct, and proceeding to revert any discussion about it was the incorrect thing to do. Proper discussion would likely have prevented this AN/I thread. On the other hand, Ertrinken did not assume good faith when leaving a talk page message. Calling the thanks harassment is going way too far, and is certainly not in good faith. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
• RodRabelo7, if you repeat this thanks-spam behaviour once again, and if we receive another complaint of you going wild with the thanks button, you will be blocked.
• Ertrinken, you can take up their redirects discussions to RfD. In case you believe there is a case for creating disruptive redirects, unarchive this discussion and show example diffs. Alternately, I am closing this discussion with these remarks. Thank you, Lourdes 08:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet) RodRabelo7 (talk) 01:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

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

WP:CANVASSING and aspersions by Stephan rostie

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

---

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

After Stephan rostie was partially blocked from editing the Arabs article (the contentious topics procedure applies to it), they started a non-neutral RfC on the article's talk page, bludgeoned it to death and canvassed two editors with messages that speak for themselves (see Diff and Diff). Your assistance on this matter will be greatly appreciated. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 00:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

First of all, I didn’t know what canvassing is or that it was a thing. I just received that i was under some sort of “investigation” and now i am here.

secondly, user @Largoplazo came to the talk before i even invited him, the invitation in the diff M.Bitton attached was after he already came and commented in the talk, you can check edit histories and dates for that. I sent him the invitation to encourage him to stay and contribute in the talks rather than flying away. For user @Iskandar323 i did invite him to join the talk, i don’t know him nor had any previous talk with him and he seemed to have edits and knowledge about the region so i invited him, so I still don’t get where the problem is. In both cases i sent invitations to attract more users because the article Arabs edits history is almost hijacked by only these three users M.Bitton, skitash, and sara schneiderCH alone (check it’s history). So i wanted to attract third parties unrelated who could give an objective view and judgement about the topic, is that wrong ?

i also want to note that user M.Bitton removed significant amount of sourced content after being WP:EDITCONSENSUS which was even unrelated to the topic of debate.

lastly: After Stephan rostie was partially blocked from editing the Arabs article (the contentious topics procedure applies to it). The contentious topic he is talking about doesn’t allow him to make more than one revert per 24 hours, whereas he did it three times (check the edits history). Not to mention his sarcastic comments in the RfC rather than seriously discussing the topic. Regarding the “contentious topics” I personally thought it was a bug in the website or something tbh because the warning said that the topic was “related to the israeli-arab conflict” while the article was just purely about arabs and nothing about israel or jews, adding to this that it was openly available for everyone to edit and even many anonymous IPs were freely making minor edits. Stephan rostie (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The main thing you are doing wrong here is A) this talk of personalization, and B) casting aspersions on other editors (and thereby, ironically, personalizing it yourself). You are never going to build a consensus with other editors by treating them like the other and engaging in low level personal attacks. This will just get you blocked, per WP:NPA. You need to learn to take a step back if thinks get heated. You can learn by yourself, or learn the hard way, via blocks. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The claim that you canvassed Iskandar323 by pure coincidence doesn't hold much water given that you've shown a great interest in editing the articles that are related to the Arab–Israeli conflict conflict and as such, you are fully aware of their views. M.Bitton (talk) 08:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

They started a less than optimal RFC and pinged a few users. Lots of new editors, and even experienced editors, aren't fantastic at creating their first RFCs. As for the pinging, it was fairly limited and open, but obviously not neutral, so yes, not ideal. However, we must AGF that they were unaware of WP:CANVASS. We know they are aware now. (For me, it was in any case redundant, since I already watch the page.) Overall, as a general principle, I think WP:DBTN broadly applies. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

As someone who has been canvassed, you are free to assume whatever you want. As far as I'm concerned, WP:DBTN doesn't apply to highly disruptive editors who go around biting other editors, edit warring and casting aspersions. I will take this this opportunity to ping Skitash since their name has been mentioned by the reported editor. M.Bitton (talk) 08:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

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

Ignorance of the rules is not a justification for breaking them. Even if they had not read the policy itself, trying to gather editors to support their POV and then bludgeoning in that discussion is obvious misconduct. They have been around for a few months, and have edited exclusively in controversial areas. If they are still not aware of the guidelines, the need to take a break from editing.
Also noting they are currently blocked for edit warring, perhaps that block needs to be extended.

Note - This was open when I wrote the reply, and didnt show an edit conflict. Anyway, reasonable block. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

User:DaleEarnhardt292001

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

---

• DaleEarnhardt292001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor has had several advisements of not updating athlete articles before transactions are officially announced. I warned the editor a final time on the 18th after doing it again, to which the editor replied "Whatever give a warning because I'm not gonna stop". It's kind of strange because the edits do appear in good faith, the editor just is openly refusing to the follow the rules in regards to sports transactions.--Rockchalk717 16:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

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

User:Ivyredpixie repeatedly removing content from Ahmed Khan (choreographer) article

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

---

User:Ivyredpixie has repeatedly been removing content from the Ahmed Khan (choreographer) article since July 15, 2023, as seen in the recent history [135]. I have left them a warning, which has gone unheeded, and no response was provided. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Why do you want to reinstate challenged material about the brother of Ahmed Khan and the brother's estranged wife in an article about the choreographer? You might be antagonising either of the individuals by including material that is irrelevant to a BLP, even if it were true. I would suggest you revert your reinstating this material and let's move on from here. If you don't remove the material yourself, I will. Please action this. Thanks, Lourdes 06:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

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

Unreferenced articles by User:Abdel hamid67

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

---

Hello all. This is my first time at ANI, so apologies if I do anything wrong. Abdel hamid67 has been repeatedly creating unreferenced articles (examples are Algeria at the 1987 World Championships in Athletics, Algeria at the 2001 World Championships in Athletics, Algeria at the 1995 World Championships in Athletics, Algeria at the 1987 World Championships in Athletics and more). Concerns over these pages have been repeatedly expressed on their talk page by Sportsfan 1234, Hey man im josh, SunDawn and myself. Tonight, I draftified more of these unreferenced articles and left a final warning on their talk page, following on from the disruptive editing warnings of others in the same scenario (Special:diff/1166192024). Abdel hamid67 then proceeded to move all of these articles back to mainspace, even after the express last warning (see move log). This shows a blatant disregard for our verifiability policy, as well as a failure to listen to the concerns of others. Thanks, Schminnte (talk • contribs) 00:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I looked through Abdel hamid67's contributions and it looks like they have never made a Talk page or User talk page comment. In cases like this, I question their ability to communicate in English or perhaps they only use the mobile interface where it is more difficult to be aware of User talk page messages. I have posted a comment on their User talk page asking them to participate here but I doubt they will come over to ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The articles I have dealt with from Abdel hamid67 do have references, but are not sufficient for main space. Which is why I drafted them. Without any improvement, Abdel Hamid67 moved them back! Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I've noticed this issue through the new pages feed, and I strongly doubt any of these articles are notable. I'll make a mass nomination at AfD. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

They've continued to edit without responding here, so I've blocked them from mainspace for a day. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 01:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• Is the information in the articles incorrect, or just unreferenced. There's nothing wrong with adding information to an article, and leaving it for others to add references. See the WP:IMPERFECT policy, which only notes the requirement for references for verafibility for BLPs. Nfitz (talk) 03:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  From what I have seen, the information doesn't appear to be incorrect. However, the references cited do not mention anything in the article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  That hardly seems sanctionable. Nfitz (talk) 04:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  Nfitz There's nothing wrong with adding information to an article, and leaving it for others to add references WP:BURDEN tends to disagree, because adding unreferenced content is in essence asking other people to redo the research oneself (hopefully) has done. I personally think that paragrah of WP:IMPERFECT is more aimed at the 451,384 existing unverifyable as-is because un(der)referenced articles. Victor Schmidt (talk) 05:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  BURDEN doesn't opine at all, other than for BLP or organizations. BURDEN is aimed at editing disagreements - not as a standard for inclusion of material. If there's no further evidence, then the user should be unblocked with an apology. Nfitz (talk) 06:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  BURDEN does apply to all unreferenced material that has been challenged, which is certainly true in this case. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 07:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  • That was true for their initial edits; as you said, BURDEN is for after material is challenged, and WP:V likewise says that all quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[b] the material. However, when they moved a draftified article back to mainspace without discussion, they were ignoring those requirements - at that point they weren't just adding unsourced but uncontroversial material, they were ignoring (and trying to override) a challenge to that material. That isn't allowed. That said, since the main issue seems to be communication, I would suggest waiting and seeing if the short block got their attention. --Aquillion (talk) 11:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  So you think adding references that do not cite the information in the article is okay? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

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

Block evasion

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

---

GakugeiU was blocked for WP:ORGNAME. They have an open unblock request and were getting assistance from other editors. Nonetheless, the account TGUwiki was registered a few hours ago, and their userspace page User:TGUwiki/testsandbox is a copy of User:GakugeiU. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:SPI might be good to confirm if they are the same person. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 04:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

No need to go into that.... These are just students trying to test out Wikipedia and they don't seem to be disruptive. I have left a request on their talk page. Thanks, Lourdes 04:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Really? Are they making disruptive edits? No, then leave them the hell alone, man. Jesus H Christ GeneralHamster (talk) 12:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I guess not everyone has problems with a promotional username account making promotional edits. @Lourdes: has taken the high ground and has warned about the promotional user name instead of blocking. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I guess block evasion is OK too. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Point noted my friend. I have soft blocked them. You or any other administrator may hard block them in case you may so deem fit. Thanks, Lourdes 03:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

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

SPAs and IPs used for political purposes

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

---

• Dirceu Mag (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)
• D Pinto M (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)
• 92.40.205.16 (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)
• 92.40.204.204 (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)
• 92.40.205.221 (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)
• 92.40.204.103 (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)
• 92.40.204.172 (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) – Account clearly created for private use, used to modify information about the 2023 Ecuadorian general election. Since the main account was blocked, the user created a new SPA to continue the sabotage, in addition to the use of various IPs [136][137][138][139]. Absurdly, an administrator advocated for the unlocking, and it was granted, to continue his sabotage of said page, even asking other users for help to carry out his task, trying to justify his actions. [140][141][142][143]. The problem has been dragged to the Spanish Wikipedia, where, luckily, the administrators have been less permissive. Truly an absurd case of permissiveness, which should have been resolved, instead of delaying it further, allowing impunity for this user. -- David C. S. (talk) 20:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

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

Persistent WP:NPOV and violations: specifically, bias in sources

I am requesting admin action against Alltan (talk · contribs) for persistent violations against WP:NPOV for over a year on contentious pages under Balkan/Eastern European discretionary sanctions. The violations specifically relate to removing and keeping sources on pages based on their own arbitrary rules that push a particular POV narrative. In addition to removing sourced text on contentious pages without engaging in a talk page discussion:

March/April 2022:

• Alltan removed significant amounts of text on Attacks on Serbs during the Serbian–Ottoman War (1876–1878) as their opinion was that they had to remove sourced work as their belief of the sources was that The Saint Sava society was a NGO responsible for disseminating Serbian propaganda in "Old Serbia". (as per their article in English).[144]
• Alltan removed significant amounts of text on 1901 massacres of Serbs as their personal opinion was that they had to remove sourced work as the sources were Milosevic era, when many Serbian academics produced works with nationalist and exaggerated claims of victimization that suited the government's nationalistic narrative.[145]. Alltan was subsequently warned by an administrator on their talk page that The idea that Serbian sources are "nationalist" and "exaggerated" just because they are Serbian, while non-Serbian sources are good, is very dangerous. Please, do not make such radical edits without prior discussion.[146]

June 2022

• Alltan was made aware of the Balkan/Eastern European discretionary sanctions on their talk page.[147]

March 2023

• After a revert of their initial removal by another user, Alltan returned to the page Attacks on Serbs during the Serbian–Ottoman War (1876–1878) and once again removed the aforementioned sourced content as their opinion was that rv, I have stated my reasons already The Saint Sava society was a NGO responsible for disseminating Serbian propaganda in "Old Serbia".[148]

July 2023

• Alltan removed sourced text from the Northern Epirus page without even a summary.[149]
• I removed content on the page Massacres of Albanians in the Balkan Wars as the sources did not meet WP:RS, specifically the sources were internet blog page citations, in addition one source stemmed from a thesis, violating WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Alltan reverted my removal as they were of the belief that the internet blog page I removed was Albanianhistory.net is RS[150]. Alltan followed up with another rv stating that Albanianhistory is RS, start a RSN.[151] What is interesting is that Alltan has previously removed a Greek internet blog citation on the page Varympompi without a RSN[152], removed a thesis on the page

Euboea under WP:SCHOLARSHIP[153] and removed a citation based on WP:TERTIARY on the Northern Epirus page.[154]

Summary: Alltan is applying a double standard personal rulebook to Balkan/Eastern European pages. They remove citations on Greek and Serbian affiliated pages under the banner WP:RS, while stepping in to stop the same actions being done on Albanian affiliated pages. For all of the aforementioned edits, Alltan has not engaged with anybody on a talk page and despite administrator warnings, their behaviour has not changed. Based on this evidence, I believe their is a violation of WP:NPOV and assistance is needed to curtail this. Thank you for your consideration. ElderZamzam (talk) 02:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah, the Balkans. These look like content disputes, have you gone to the talkpages of any of these articles? If so, link to the discussions. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• Several more examples (playing fast and loose with source, edit-warring without discussion):
• 1. At Aegina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Alltan reverts claiming "I don't see that in the source", but it is in the source, and the IP editor proves it. Either they did not read the source they were using, or are not telling the truth in the edit summary. No attempts to discuss on the talkpage.

• 2. At Psara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), they repeatedly remove the word "small" [155] [156], even though it is sourced to a top notch source, the quote is provided, and no source contradicts this. The source is in Greek, but this is easily translated with Google Translate, and Alltan has shown no problem using Greek sources in the past [157]. No attempts to discuss at the talkpage.

• 3. At Northern Epirus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), they remove 17 kb of text and source [158] [159] claiming the removed sources "do not mention Northern Epirus", which is easily disproven [160]. When I painstakingly re-add the material using different sources, they claim WP:TERTIARY to remove it [161], even it's a perfectly good source. They also remove more text claiming "dead source" [162], even though it is easily fixed [163]. Alltan's contribs history at that article speaks for itself [164].

• 4. At Pashalik of Yanina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), casual, drive-by reverting of well-sourced information, with quote provided [165] [166]. Talkpage participation is minimal, and appears tokenistic in nature [167].

• 5. Revert-warring without talkpage discussion at Georgios Kountouriotis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [168].

• 6. Ditto at Odysseas Androutsos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [169] [170] [171] [172].

• 7. Ditto at Laskarina Bouboulina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [173] [174].

• 8. Ditto at Dimitrios Botsaris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [175] [176] [177].

• Looking at Alltan (talk · contribs)'s overall recent contribs, we see a lot of reverts and removals, and very little talkpage participation. Khirurg (talk) 03:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  I looked at 2 since it seemed simple as you said there was a quote. But FWICT, although it is true Alltan remove the word "small" this doesn't seem to be the locus of the dispute. Instead the locus of the dispute seems to be whether to simply describe them as "Arvanites" or say they are "Albanians" who established an "Arvanite" community. The removal of the word small seems more incidental than anything. Perhaps most importantly though, the quote you refer to is in Greek. Does Alltan, understand Greek? If they don't, then it seems to me they could have easily missed this quote. The quote which has been translated doesn't say anything about small. Nil Einne (talk) 03:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  As for the talk page thing, well perhaps the overall pattern is problematic, but for this particular edit Talk:Psara only has a bot message from 5 years ago so it's a pot kettle black situation however you look at it. Nil Einne (talk) 03:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry I misread the dispute and will re-write my comment. Nil Einne (talk) 03:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  I looked at 2 since it seemed simple as you said there was a quote. But it seems to be more than a dispute over the word small although that seems to be one specific focus of the dispute. More importantly though when I first looked I didn't see this quote. The only quote I saw didn't say anything about small. Looking more carefully, I did find there is a quote in Greek and a machine translation does suggest this says "small". Does Alltan understand Greek? Because if not, it seems to me they could have easily missed this quote like me. Sure it would have helped if they had asked on the talk page, but likewise someone else could have posted on the talk page which hasn't been touched since a bot over 5 years ago. Or at least, translate the quote so it's harder to miss in the article. I.E. Any talk page complaints in this situation are basically a pot, kettle, black situation. I'd note that in your edit summary [178] you said "sources". Which one of the other three sources also says small? It isn't in the other quote which has been translated, although it's possible it's somewhere else in the source. There's no way for anyone looking at this dispute from afar to know, since again there was no further explanation on the talk page. Sure someone could look into each source, two of which aren't in English, and find out. But since you already know, you could have explained on the talk page so it's clearer to anyone who comes into this dispute that you are indeed in the right rather than just doing the same thing you're correctly faulting Alltan for namely trying to explain your edits in a dispute in a CTOP area solely via edit summaries. It may be there's a wider pattern of lack of use of talk pages by Alltan not shared by you, and that would be a concern. However when you come to ANI it's really unhelpful to show cases when all we can see is no one seems to know how to use talk pages. Nil Einne (talk) 04:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  Hi Nil, unlike you, Alltan is heavily involved in the topic area and has been for a long time, and besides he has no problem using Greek sources in the past ([179]). The behavior at Psara fits in with a broader pattern of playing fast and loose with the source, as at Aegina (and that source is in English). In the last month I have ~80 talkpage contribs, Alltan has 36 (and most of them extremely brief). Khirurg (talk) 04:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  I should note that my reply was largely based on this version [180] as I didn't notice the changes, which was also why I initially missed that Alltan has specifically removed the word small (which was significant, since it was unclear to me if Alltan was specifically disputing the word small or simply trying to change something else and inadvertently removed the word small). If Alltan has used Greek sources before, then I do hope they understand Greek since using a machine translation to add content is generally not acceptable, and this does make them missing the quotation because of not understanding it not an issue. I'd note though the fact that it can be simply checked by machine translation is not that important, since while true and something I did, it's also easy to miss if you don't speak Greek. So it's far better if when there is a dispute rather than expecting other people to work out what source supports the claim being made, someone explains on the talk page this source say this which supports the statement so please don't remove it. And of course if someone continues to revert without joining the discussion then it's easier to see yeah that editor does seem to be disruptive. In other words IMO this a a lot less of a clear example of Alltan being in the wrong than it should be because it's still a case where both sides refused to discuss their preferred version. It does seem on the whole Alltan uses the talk page a lot less than you (considering they also seems to have more edits than you in the past month) which is a concern and they need to do better, but so do you even if you might be closer to what we need. Nil Einne (talk) 13:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  • Hi The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk · contribs). In response:

• Massacres of Albanians in the Balkan Wars: I raised a discussion, no response.[181]
• Attacks on Serbs during the Serbian–Ottoman War (1876–1878): Statement made by Alltan on the talk page, mirrored the edit summary.[182]
• 1901 massacres of Serbs: No disussions.[183]

Our only interaction

• Botushë[184]: On this page, Alltan removed cited content as Kalezic is an archpriest-staurophore of the Serbian Orthodox Church, not RS, Novak was a an Pan-Yugoslav nationalist writer, wording[185] On the talk page, I asked Alltan for a link to a ruling on this, in response I was directed by Alltan to WP:RS and no link to a ruling.[186] ElderZamzam (talk) 03:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

So it sounds like what you're saying is sometimes one of you goes to the talk page and the other one refuses to, sometimes neither of you go to the talk page and when we're lucky sometimes both of you do actually engage on the talk page? Nil Einne (talk) 04:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

In the example on Attacks on Serbs during the Serbian–Ottoman War (1876–1878), the only instance where Alltan initiated a talkpage discussion (and even then just a paste of his edit-summary), ElderZamZam was not involved at all. I have also updated my evidence with several examples of Alltan edit-warring without discussing. Khirurg (talk) 04:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Nil Einne there are only three pages where we have crossed over in terms of disputed edits. I do my upmost to add requests to go to the TP in my edit summaries, opened up a discussion on a talk page and have interacted with Alltan on the talk page. These attempts have not led to any consensus building and a look at Alltan's history and current behavior shows that they have had warnings and ample opportunity to change their behavior, but have not. Alltan is in most cases making the dramatic changes to the pages so the onus is on them to open up a talk page to explain their sudden and significant changes. ElderZamzam (talk) 07:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Alltan: I want to be clear that although I've criticised the lack of talk page usage by those complaining about you, it's clear that you too are failing to use the talk page. You need to do better. The key point IMO as in a lot of these ANIs is that no side should be waiting for the other party to initiate discussion on the talk page. Once you get into an edit war, it's incumbent on all parties involved to start discussion. In other words, someone needs to just do it rather than expecting the other party to start it. Nil Einne (talk) 13:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, @Nil Einne:. Thanks for checking all aspects of the issues under discussion. There's no doubt that in the examples which have been brought forth, I have not engaged in the talkpage as much as I should. I have had discussions about such topics with EZ and Kh. many times in the last two years. It wouldn't be an exaggeration if I said that I have had a monthly discussions like the ones mentioned with either Kh. or EZ.

Many of the edits which I removed involve baseline interpretation of WP:RS and I didn't believe that I have to explain again to experienced editors why some sources are not reliable. This is the case regarding Attacks on Serbs during the Serbian–Ottoman War (1876–1878), where in fact I'm the only one who used the talkpage [187] to explain to experienced users like EZ that the 1928 publication of an interwar nationalist organization is not RS. I've had a similar experience with EZ many times where I have to explain basic requirements of reliable sources and sometimes because I've posted the same explanation over and over again, I just don't engage in the talkpage as much as I should.

In Psara, I placed the first edit and then my edit was followed by intervention by IPs and other users including Kh.. The first edit which I added was based on this quote Albanians also settled on the islands of Psara, Kynthos, Kea, Samos, Aegina and Skopelos, but were soon assimilated by the local Greeks. by an expert historian from Greece on the subject. Later edits added the word "small" based on another source and excluded the source which I had added from the formulation of the sentence. I didn't start another debate in the talkpage but I reverted and just wrote NPOV in the summary as the exact phrasing used should reflect multiple sources, not just one. Kh. reverted and his summary is rv POV-pushing, the sources say "small", but only the source used by Khirurg claims so and not the one which I added. In fact, Kh. ignored the source which I added and claims something which is factually wrong in his summary as only the source he supports uses the word "small". Fundamentally, this is an issue of how to reflect what multiple sources write about a subject without doing so by way of WP:SYNTH and I've explained many times to Khirurg that no reliable source should be excluded in favor of another source which may be more preferable to some users.

If you need me to I can explain in detail how the other diffs which were brought forth are linked to past discussions where I have been involved. In the diffs brought forth, I recognize that I should use the talkpage more often and I will do so in the future even in cases where I've discussed the same issue in other talkpage. As a "closing statement" to a comment which was intended to be much shorter, I feel the need to mention that when someone is confronted with the same situation over and over again by some users it can be quite exhausting and even overwhelming and this leads to not following required procedures properly.Alltan (talk) 21:43, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

It's not quite as simple as "I'm sorry, I'll do better in future". In addition to the lack of discussion, there is misuse of sources (the Aegina example) and the casual edit-warring across multiple articles. At a minimum a formal logged warning is due. Khirurg (talk) 00:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me like any admin is interested in looking into this further. If I'm right, I would suggest next time it's taken to WP:ARE. I assume everyone here is already aware of WP:CTOP for Eastern Europe and the Balkans. If not, I suggest someone give the appropriate alert. I would emphasise again that I expect a requests at ARE is likely to be far more successful if what admins can see if that everyone besides whoever you're complaining about always tries to the discuss but the editor your complaining about often does not. And if the discussion reaches an impasse, you look at ways i.e. WP:Dispute resolution to resolve this and come to a consensus. If all admins see is both sides often fail to discuss or at least there is no consensus which demonstrates one editor is clearly in the wrong, then you might get no result, or perhaps just both sides will be sanctioned which I assume isn't the intention. Nil Einne (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Editor behavior at Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

As many know, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is a vaccine skeptic and pusher of medical misinformation. This is sourced in RS. Over the past few days, discussion in Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr.#Incredibly biased article has gone off the rails. I have given final warnings to three individual editors in the hopes of avoiding an ANI thread, in which I've told them to AGF and focus on content, not contributors. One of the three has ceased, but the other two persist.

NewEditor101101001 joined the discussion by saying, in part "It's sad that the Admins here seem to prefer biased hit pieces", and further talk posts such as "you're clearly risking the credibility of wikipedia as a whole", "Wikipedia isn't a dictatorship of @Ser!. It's supposed a collaboration", "there seems to be a filibuster going on by people who were able to make biased changes early and then locked down the page in what seems to be a desperate attempt to help Biden", and after my final warning to focus on content, "It is interesting that some of the people arguing most adamantly against any change like @Ser!, @Hob Gadling, @M.boli, and @Valjean are the same ones who have been actively editing the article to be more negative over the last 45 days regardless of consensus views" and "there is stonewalling. How do you address that by ignoring stonewalling/stonewallers?"

Opok2021 said "The problem in this case is not the sources, it is the editors", "I cannot assume good faith for some of this article as it is clearly bias as stated above". After my warning, this user seemed to straighten out a bit, but then said that they still see "deliberate editor bias (unconfirmed)".

I tried to avoid bringing this here. At a minimum, I'd like someone uninvolved to close down this thread, which is going nowhere and mooted by the ongoing RfC anyway. As for NewEditor101101001 and Opok2021, they need to learn to assume good faith on the part other contributors and drop their sticks. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I hatted that hot mess of accusations against good editors. Wikipedia's credibility is indeed on the line, but not as those editors think.

Research shows that Wikipedia's credibility immediately increases when those types of editors leave the project, so don't hesitate to block and ban them now rather than later. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:16, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

That talk page has been a dumpster fire for a while, though thankfully now only due to a few editors thanks to TP semi-protection. Support warnings/temp blocks. It's in four CTOPs and, at least before semi-protection, saw frequent canvassing, so I really hope a few admins will add it to their watchlists and keep things cool. DFlhb (talk) 00:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Having been pinged here, I'd just like to reply to back up Muboshgu's report about these users engaging entirely in bad faith, particularly NewEditor101101001. As you'll see in the above post, NewEditor101101001 accused me of "actively editing the article to be more negative", which when you look at my actual edits to the page is demonstrably a lie as my edits consist only of copyedits. The user has also been soapboxing on the talk page, describing reliable sources as being "far-left" and accusing editors of having an "irrational dislike" for the subject and pushing "political propaganda" for just two examples. Between these posts in demonstrably bad faith and the litany of examples Muboshgu has provided above, it's increasingly clear that this user is WP:NOTHERE. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 00:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I’ve introduced NewEditor101101001 to the door, citing NOTHERE. I’ll add the article to my watchlist. Courcelles (talk) 00:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

• Some editors or readers may be upset, and why not? The article's short first paragraph, which is seen on Google and other search engines, mentions or hints at being anti-vaccine three times with very little else in sight (and if seen on Wikipedia by readers they also read the short summary "American attorney and anti-vaccine activist (born 1954)" - so make it four times). Kennedy has defended himself against these charges many times. The fact that he is running for president of the United States? Way down in the lead, many paragraphs away, as the last line. Wikipedia has often been accused of bias and slanting, but this is almost a textbook example that those accusers can point to as a direct form of this bias. Not a good look and it's hard, objectively, to argue with them. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  Kennedy's primary notability for decades has been for his anti-vaccine and general anti-science stances. That is what he has consistently been reported on in reliable sources. Running for a political position doesn't change that. In fact, almost all reliable sources reporting on him and his campaign will still mention his anti-science background, because that is where his notability lies. As I noted on the talk page there, would we be expected to sterilize Alex Jones lede if he ran for President as well just because the factual notable background is negative for the subject? Silverseren^C 01:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia can say it once, maybe twice, in the short lead paragraph which is seen and read on search engines, and maybe an argument for non-bias editing can be made. But four times? Randy Kryn (talk) 01:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't, actually. You're conflating different things. There is a single sentence in the first paragraph that mentions his long-standing anti-vaccine stances, his more recent focus on specifically Covid vaccine fearmongering, and his more general conspiracy stances on public health topics. It only discusses vaccines once, with a single additional specific mention of Covid vaccines. Conspiracy theories on public health may include vaccines, but that part in this case is referring to his broader anti-science claims on other issues, including his AIDS denialism. Silverseren^C 01:52, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Here is the short descriptor and lead paragraph: Short descriptor: "American attorney and anti-vaccine activist (born 1954)", then "...is an American environmental lawyer and author who is known for promoting anti-vaccine propaganda, debunked claims about COVID-19 vaccines, and public health–related conspiracy theories." Editors can judge that for themselves, and the constant commotion on the talk page shows that readers already are. I'll leave it at that. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

They can judge that those descriptors are entirely accurate? He is a lawyer and anti-vaccine propagandist. That is what his notability has been for decades. Without it, we likely wouldn't have an article on him even with his campaign happening. Silverseren^C 02:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

He is also an author, which could probably be mentioned there. Let'srun (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree with the above. He satisfied WP:AUTHOR and the lead should mention that. Of course, writing is not what is he most known for. CT55555(talk) 23:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

That seems like an accurate summary to me. Cullen328 (talk) 02:15, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, he's not known only for anti-vaccine propaganda, debunked claims about vaccines, and public health related conspiracy theories. He's also been in the news recently [188] for the racist direction his public health related conspiracy theories have taken. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Plus, of course, the polemic farting. EEng 07:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Ugh. I feel the need to point out the large amount of seemingly single-purpose accounts on that talk page. Perhaps a temporary blue lock is in order for the talk page. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I think that would be a logical step. It's also amusing how this dispute has blossomed on the same day that Kennedy suggests that COVID-19 may have been engineered to spare Jewish people from getting sick with it. BD2412 T 03:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what to say concerning that information. "Ah, tabarnak" comes to mind. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

A blue lock sounds like an excellent idea. Bon courage (talk) 08:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. Too much time being wasted. DFlhb (talk) 13:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

As the protecting admin, will do. Daniel Case (talk) 03:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf has also been a disruptive presence in these discussions, which includes making vague insinuations that his opponents are paid editors [189] something that I think can charitably be described as preposterous. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Because Jtbobways is an experienced editor, their behavior is much more egregious, so take the sanctions meted out to the others and apply it double for Jtbobways. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Considering the sanctions I've seen so far are NOTHERE blocks... you can't double block someone, right? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Liliana, a topic ban would protect Wikipedia from their tendentious editing and discussing. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Sure, but it's not really something that is double the sanctions handed out to others. Nil Einne (talk) 09:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

True, but that was a bit of hyperbole. My point was that experience carries more culpability. We expect experienced editors to know better and to avoid these types of basic CIR issues. Jtbobwaysf is not a newbie, so their behavior is not good. They should know that bias from sources is allowed in articles, and that the "neutral" in NPOV does not mean "neutral" in the normal sense. It applies more to editorial neutrality than content neutrality. Editors should neutrally and faithfully document biased content from sources without interfering by censoring or neutralizing the wordings from RS. Editors should not use loaded terms of their own, but should not hesitate to accurately use the loaded terms used by RS, and then, if it's a quote or likely to be questioned, attribute it. We often have two choices: leave it out or attribute it. The first is censorship, so we should lean toward inclusion and just attribute it. I am not referring to borderline cases here, but cases where good RS are making clear statements and allegations. They should be allowed to speak without editors muzzling them. RS bias always trumps editorial bias. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

The RfC that Muboshgu mentioned is nearing a reasonable time for closure, having been open since 17 June. XOR'easter (talk) 01:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I've filed a request for closure. XOR'easter (talk) 20:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Editors whose behaviors are under scrutiny here require to be notified as per the notice at the top of this page. SmolBrane (talk) 16:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Thickrod6869

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

---

[190]. Should be self-explanatory why I'm reporting this (also rev-del). --Tryptofish (talk) 23:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

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

Edit warring on over 80 golf articles

List of the 87 pages affected

• 1999 Masters Tournament (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 1999 Open Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 1999 PGA Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 1999 U.S. Open (golf) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2000 Masters Tournament (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2000 Open Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2000 PGA Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2000 U.S. Open (golf) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2001 Masters Tournament (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2001 Open Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2001 PGA Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2001 U.S. Open (golf) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2002 Masters Tournament (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2002 Open Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2002 PGA Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2002 U.S. Open (golf) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2003 Masters Tournament (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2003 Open Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2003 PGA Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2003 U.S. Open (golf) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2004 Masters Tournament (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2004 Open Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2004 PGA Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2004 U.S. Open (golf) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2005 Masters Tournament (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2005 Open Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2005 PGA Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2005 U.S. Open (golf) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2006 Masters Tournament (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2006 Open Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2006 PGA Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2006 U.S. Open (golf) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2007 Masters Tournament (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2007 Open Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2007 PGA Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2007 U.S. Open (golf) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2008 Masters Tournament (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2008 Open Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2008 PGA Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2008 U.S. Open (golf) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2009 Masters Tournament (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2009 Open Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2009 PGA Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2009 U.S. Open (golf) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2010 Masters Tournament (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2010 Open Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2010 PGA Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2010 U.S. Open (golf) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2011 Masters Tournament (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2011 Open Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2011 PGA Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2011 U.S. Open (golf) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2012 Masters Tournament (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2012 Open Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2012 PGA Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2012 U.S. Open (golf) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2013 Masters Tournament (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2013 Open Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2013 PGA Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2013 U.S. Open (golf) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2014 Masters Tournament (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2014 Open Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2014 PGA Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2014 U.S. Open (golf) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2015 Masters Tournament (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2015 Open Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2015 PGA Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2015 U.S. Open (golf) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2016 Masters Tournament (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2016 Open Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2016 PGA Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2016 U.S. Open (golf) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2017 Masters Tournament (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2017 Open Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2017 PGA Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2017 U.S. Open (golf) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2018 Masters Tournament (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2018 Open Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2018 PGA Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2018 U.S. Open (golf) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2019 Masters Tournament (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2019 Open Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2019 PGA Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2019 U.S. Open (golf) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2020 Masters Tournament (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2020 PGA Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2020 U.S. Open (golf) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Some time ago Wikiproject Golf reached a consensus that "Past champions in the field" and "Nationalities in the field" sections should be removed from tournament articles (see discussion here, here, here, and here). That consensus was reached 3–4 years ago, but it wasn't until earlier this year that someone put in the work to actually remove all of them. Today User:Jamahiriya has been re-adding them, saying that no consensus was reached.

I posted a message on Jamahiriya's talk page letting them know of the Wikiproject consensus. They replied that the consensus was invalid since it didn't occur on article talk pages. It is true that it didn't, partially because of the number of pages involved, but almost all of the most active golf editors were involved in the discussion.

I opened a new discussion at WT:GOLF regarding whether consensus needed to be re-established, tagging the above user. User:Wjemather replied that it did not, and began to revert Jamahiriya's changes. This led to an edit war between the two, with edits on over 80 pages being undone and redone and both users reaching the maximum of three reverts on some of those pages. Early on, Wjemather posted a warning on Jamahiriya's talk page, and eventually Jamahiriya posted a warning on Wjemather's talk page as well; both have been removed. Both have accused the other of disruption, with Jamahiriya also accusing Wjemather of tendentious editing and violating 3RR in addition to accusations of canvassing, forum-shopping, and meatpuppetry apparently directed at me for re-opening discussion on the Wikiproject talk page. (Wjemather has also mentioned that Jamahiriya's reverts have re-introduced errors and removed citations.)

Several hours ago Wjemather gave up trying to revert Jamahiriya's edits. So far only three users have really been involved in the dispute, and I've just made talk-page comments and no article edits. I'm unsure what the best way forward is, but I've laid out the details to the best of my knowledge. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 18:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Jamahiriya is unquestionably edit warring and I've p-blocked them from mainspace for 48 hours. They're welcome to continue discussing here or at the Project. I leave further action to someone else. Star Mississippi 19:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I suggest no further action be taken until we get a response from Jamahiriya, or they return to disruptive editing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Should there be further discussion rather than immediate reversion of their edits? pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 20:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Probably. Consensus can change, so it would be good to be sure it hasn't before reverting wholesale. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

FYI in case anybody’s curious. I’ve opened an SPI into them: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/IceFrappe#Suspected_sockpuppets Thepharoah17 (talk) 13:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Not surprised at all. Besides the familiarity with policy you mentioned, it would be strange for anyone to be upset about a consensus change that happened before they started editing Wikipedia. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 19:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Erfan2017 engaging in intentional misrepresentation of a source on a supposed 'cancer cure' through cherry-picking

Erfan2017 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Essiac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A few days ago, Erfan2017 made an edit to Essiac, an article on a herbal tea promoted as a supposed 'alternative treatment for cancer'. [191] It took only the briefest inspection of the source cited to determine that the source had been cherry-picked in an entirely inappropriate manner, in order to misrepresent what the source the NIH had to say on the subject. Accordingly, I reverted the edit, advising the contributor to read WP:MEDRS, along with WP:COPYPASTE, since the text in question was almost word-for-word from the source cited. Erfan2017 responded to this by starting a conversation with me on my talk page (User Talk:AndyTheGrump#Essiac) where I attempted to explain the issues with the edit, to again advise reading WP:MEDRS, and to make it entirely clear that it was in no manner remotely acceptable to pick an isolated phrase from a source - "Laboratory and animal experiments have shown that some of the chemicals in the herbs used to make Essiac and Flor Essence have antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, estrogenic, or anticancer activity." - to imply that the NIH might support the use of the substance, when the same paragraph ends with a statement - "Whether equivalent concentrations of relevant molecules can be achieved in the bloodstream of individuals who consume Essiac or Flor Essence in the amounts recommended by their manufacturers has not been determined. An uncharacterized Flor Essence commercial product was dosed at amounts lower than those recommended by the manufacturers for humans, and there was an increase in tumor incidence in this model") - that makes it abundantly clear that the opposite is true. After some too-and-fro discussion I though I had succeeded in making Wikipedia policy clear, and advised Erfan2017 that if any WP:MEDRS-compliant sources could be found which supported amending the article, they should start a discussion on the article talk page, providing full citations and a proposed text.

Sadly though, rather that do as I suggested, Erfan2017 instead elected to post a statement on my talk page basically saying they were going to ignore my advice, and shortly after, before I had a chance to respond, restored the disputed material to the article. [192] Given this knowing, intentional, and deliberate misrepresentation of the source concerned it seems entirely clear that Erfan2017 needs to be sanctioned - at minimum to be blocked from editing the article, though there may well be grounds for suggesting that more is needed. In my opinion (and that of a great many other contributors, I suspect) there are few things more harmful to the project than such wilful misuse of sources, as a breach of trust entirely incompatible with Wikipedia ethos. Even more so when involving purported 'cancer cures' with documented harmful effects. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, User AndyTheGrump removed a scientifically well-referenced fact from the article. The added text consisted of 29 words, taken directly from a highly reliable and relevant source. Although there was a concern about copy and paste, the issue was resolved by rephrasing the content.

Secondly, User AndyTheGrump appears to be avoiding constructive discussion and imposing their own views. Despite being reminded twice about the importance of maintaining a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV), they continue to assert their ideas and direct the discussion to the talk page of the article.

Thirdly, upon rephrasing the content and including it in the article, the user escalated the matter to the notice board, seeking sanctions against me. I find it perplexing that we hold different views on the article's neutrality, where I believe it lacks balance in presenting information about the herbal substance, while the user disagrees. Therefore, I also request for the sanction of the User AndyTheGrump who insists on unbalanced article.

The current article fails to cover all aspects of Essiac, as evidenced by various studies, including those supporting the positive effects of Essiac tea (e.g., https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16274521/ and https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11365626/). There are numerous other references I can provide if needed.

It is disheartening to observe an experienced Wikipedia editor who seems unwilling to engage in constructive discussions and appears to restrict others' editing abilities. Open dialogue and collaboration are essential for creating a balanced and informative article. Erfan2017 (talk) 01:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Erfan, I think Andy could have been a little bit more constructive and collaborative in the tone of his responses to you, but in the essential, brass tacks details of how to apply the relevant policies, I must tell you that he is essentially completely correct and you are quite mistaken about those policies, insofar as how they read and how community consensus tells us to apply them.

First off, Andy was completely entitled to revert you, RS or no RS, if he felt in good faith that your edit added factual inaccuracies (see WP:BRD). Once reverted, the WP:ONUS fell upon you to get WP:CONSENSUS that the claim was WP:verifiable and appropriate for inclusion. You should have taken the matter to the article talk page and tried to work past the editorial impasse, and then (after a reasonable effort to persuade Andy and any others there, or work out a compromise version), if you failed to gain support, you could have availed yourself of a community process (such as WP:RfC) to get further eyes on the issue. Instead, it seems you are WP:edit warring over the matter, which in the long run will not get the content into the article, I assure you.

Getting to the substantive content issues, I also agree with Andy that you have an inaccurate understanding of what "neutral point of view" means on this project. It does not mean that we try to give every argument it's fair shake and be minimally welcoming to every assertion or every subject--herbal supplements most assuredly included. Rather it means we shape our content based on the WP:WEIGHT ascribed to them in the corpus of overall sources for a subject. (See also WP:FALSEBALANCE). Some claims with very weak support may not be discussed at all, WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims require an exceptional threshold of support in sources, and there are special considerations when it comes biomedical and scientific topics and to areas which are prone to promotional spin and misinformation (see WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE).

I note that almost all of the above policy considerations were supplied to you by Andy (if somewhat...well, grumpily) and you don't seem to have engaged with those points really at all, which is beginning to look like WP:IDHT. I suggest your best course of action here is to go back to the article talk page and discuss this matter in more detail. I will tell you frankly that I don't think you are going to prevail on the merits of your argument here, but you will at least come out the other side with a better understanding of our editorial guidelines, which (assuming you are WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia and not to promote a particular product) will be a useful experience anyway. Or you can just drop the matter: your call. What you can't do is try to edit war your preferred version into the article.

And no, I think I can say with some certainty that Andy is not going to get sanctioned here. His response to you was a little on the acerbic-toned side, but also well, well below anything disruptive or otherwise sanctionable. In fact, I will go farther and say I am glad he had his eyes on this situation. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not sure we're at sanction territory yet, but I've followed up on the involved discussions and can confirm that ATG's summary of events is essentially accurate: Erfan does seem to have a confused understanding of what NPOV involves (i.e. the seem to think we should present all competing positive and negative narratives, rather than presenting perspectives consistent with their relative WP:WEIGHT in RS), and could benefit from looking at WP:FALSEBALANCE in particular (which Andy has already directed them to. Their somewhat single-minded drive and idiosyncratic perspectives on what should be presented in such cases suggests to me that they are either be a big proponent of herbal supplements as alternative medicine, or quite possibly someone who has a more direct COI with this product. Regardless, they don't seem to be hearing what Andy is laying down.

To be fair, some of that might be due to Andy's delivery, honestly: this user did approach Andy with a highly polite attitude and saying that they are looking to contribute within Wikipedia's guidelines, and Andy's responses have been a little on the curt side from the beginning--and shortly into the back and forth Andy was making outright claims of operating in bad faith. I do understand Andy's frustration with Erfan's slowly building IDHT, as well as Andy's concerns about the particular area of misinformation. But I would remind Andy that it is a lot easier for community members in this space to endorse a stronger sanction earlier when a new user is given a more constructive / "let's work through this shall we?" response, rather than meeting a very surly wall as soon as they attempt to navigate our (afterall, somewhat complicated and sometimes even obtuse) sourcing guidelines.

That said, it's also possible Andy is accurately calling a spade for a spade. I don't think a block (even a page block) can be justified on the conduct displayed by Erfan so far. But I'd be lying if I said I didn't have my suspicion's that this could end up in a WP:NOTHERE indef eventually, based on what seem to the Erfan's priorities. But we just can't sanction on suspicions alone. I recommend reverting the edit based on the NIH source in the meantime (per WP:BRD), taking the matter to the article talk page, and leaving a notice at WP:FTN. If Erfan continues to edit war to get this content in without establishing such a consensus, then I think a block would be fully justified. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I sincerely appreciate your time and considerate response, "Snow Rise." I have learned how to argue and where to look to become a better editor. Moving forward, I will take any further discussions to the talk page if I have any. Regarding the Essiac article, I must clarify that I'm not sure how I ended up on it initially, but upon a quick glance, I noticed that the article seems to portray Essiac in a completely negative light. However, I have come across scientific articles supporting Essiac's positive impact and even case studies in medical journals reporting remission, such as "Spontaneous regression in advanced non-small cell lung cancer" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3029413/).

I felt it was unfair for Wikipedia to present only one side of the story, so I added just two lines (29 words) to the article, which currently has about 600 words. My intention was to provide a more balanced perspective. Nevertheless, if the Wikipedia community of experts believes that the current version is accurate and comprehensive enough, I won't pursue the matter any further. Erfan2017 (talk) 03:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

When accused of cherry-picking sources, it is generally unwise to provide further evidence of the same. The article you cite allegedly 'supporting Essiac's positive impact' does nothing of the sort, and to the contrary states that multiple scientific investigations have yet to yield any evidence for the supposed effects being claimed.AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I want to express my gratitude to you, Andy, for your time, and I apologize for any misunderstandings that may have occurred during our discussion. Speaking generally about the issue of cherry-picking, as you pointed out, when condensing a substantial amount of information into a single Wikipedia article, the selection of the most relevant facts is crucial to provide readers with a comprehensive understanding of the person, event, medication, or any other subject.

However, it's essential to recognize that the concept of "cherry-picking" is subjective since what one person considers important may differ from another's perspective. As editors, we may gather and select certain facts that we believe are the most relevant, but someone else may choose different ones, resulting in different interpretations of the subject matter. This subjectivity can lead to accusations of cherry-picking between editors who have different viewpoints on what information should be included in an article. This becomes a matter of expertise in the subject matter and the level of scientific knowledge and writing skills, which can determine which approach provides a more comprehensive article and covers all aspects thoroughly. Erfan2017 (talk) 17:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to debate with you here. If you really can't understand why you cannot selectively quote from a source in order to imply that it supports the use of a supposed 'anti-cancer' product it expressly states has been shown to increase tumor incidence in a test, you shouldn't be editing article on such topics at all. This doesn't require scientific expertise, it requires nothing beyond basic comprehension skills, and the ability to honestly reflect what sources actually say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm willing to gather and share well-supported published articles from medical journals about Essiac or its individual components if you genuinely want a comprehensive understanding. However, I won't engage in a debate here either. I assure you that I fully comprehend my previous statements, but it seems I might not have expressed them in a way that resonates with your understanding of the current article version. Nonetheless, I'd like to point out that Wikipedia isn't a medical journal, and I won't be considering any further corrections to the article. Erfan2017 (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Erfan--you're most welcome: it's good to hear that your motive for editing the article is good faith and incidental. Unfortunately, medical topics and alternative medicine just happens to be an area that combines a lot of somewhat complicated and nuanced policy provisions with regard to sourcing, so you just kind of stepped in to a difficult area to cut your teeth on. If you think it's better to leave that particular issue/article be for the time being, that's probably not the worst idea in the world (at least until you're a little more well versed in those policies).

That said, if you happen to have questions as you are digesting these policies, you'll find that people are generally very indulgent of questions on the relevant talk pages for the article you are working on (although some have much slower activity than others), or the talk page for the policy you are trying to understand. There's also the WP:Teahouse and WP:HelpDesk, which field questions, and the WP:Reference Desk for help in finding new sources. And since I do a fair bit of editing in the MEDRS space (or at least have, historically), I'll extend to you a personal invitation to drop by my talk page if you are trying to parse a sourcing issue on medical/scientific topics in the future. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind offer. I would be delighted to engage in further discussions with you. Erfan2017 (talk) 17:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Any time--you know where to find me! SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

This seems to be clearly a fringe or pseudoscience issue so covered by WP:CTOP so I've given Erfan2017 an appropriate first alert. I'm not sure any admin action is forthcoming so IMO if it reoccurs taking it to WP:ARE instead is worth considering. Nil Einne (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

At Talk:Zionism, race and genetics, editor jps has opened an RM to move the article to draftspace following a reverted (by myself) move attempt. This followed an AfD opened by the editor (and a second one closed procedurally immediately afterwards) just closed as no consensus and a consensus on the page to allow for the article to be completed before engaging in further processes.

This appears as disruptive, talk page exhortations are failing to get the point across. Selfstudier (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I disagree that requesting a move of this article to draftspace is disruptive. @Liz: told me on my talkpage that I should not have been WP:BOLD in moving the article to draftspace myself. I'll ask here, I suppose, what I asked there. Is there a set of rules someone can point to for what to do after an AfD is closed as "no consensus"? jps (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

The RM has now been closed so nfa required, thanks for assistance. Selfstudier (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

You were told not to go against the consensus of the AfD, which was no consensus, i.e. not to draftify, or to delete (and potentially restore and draftify). The community already spoke and the consensus was not to draftify. You then went and tried to WP:FORUMSHOP and/or be WP:POINTy by trying to use an RM as some sort of novel means of returning a page to draft. That isn't the purpose of an RM, which is simple a discussion about moving a page within mainspace, which is obvious, and, for new and unacquainted users, WP:RMNOT also outlines that it is not a process for moving non-mainspace article to mainspace. Now you might argue that it doesn't explicitly say that it is not for the reverse, but I think that is probably just because WP:COMMONSENSE applies, and the expectation is that people will not go about attempting to use the process to that end in the first place. In any case, you now have your answer, as it has been closed as out of process. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Leaving aside the merits of this case, I think that jps raises a legitimate policy question: Is there a set of rules someone can point to for what to do after an AfD is closed as "no consensus"? My understanding is that "no consensus" basically means "retain status quo (unless and until a consensus is achieved)". But I don't know if this is codified anywhere. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

No consensus in any discussion means no consensus, which means, as the material and point of discussion stand, there is no agreement. That means further discussions, such as a repeat AfD, can be brought, but the minimum expectation for this is that something has changed, either in the circumstances of the page, or a novel argument has been brought that builds or changes the situation substantially from the prior discussion. This was outlined by @Rosguill in the close of the 2nd AfD that was disruptively opened within 24 hours of the first being closed. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Unless I misunderstand you, your answer is basically the same as mine. (Except that I didn't make explicit that attempts at achieving a consensus will usually require something to have changed.) But is there any guideline that actually says so? -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I imagine the answer lies somewhere in the imaginary ether between WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:NOTBURO. It is somewhat obvious that you shouldn't reopen and relitigate the same issue in the same type of discussion unless something has materially changed since that prior discussion, otherwise what is there to discuss? Discussions are meant to be substantive, not just a re-roll of the dice in the hope of a different outcome, i.e. low-level WP:GAMING. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

After some searching I found WP:NOCONSENSUS. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for that. To my reading, I don't think my actions were in abrogation of any rules. If others disagree with my interpretation, I am happy to learn how and why. jps (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I've tried explaining that at my talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I didn't know that you were basing your explanation on WP:NOCONSENSUS. That makes me more confused by our conversation, but it appears you may be exhausted talking to me in any case. jps (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

No, I wasn't basing it on that. What I meant was that I was trying to explain why others disagree with your interpretation. And they do disagree. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that is codified anywhere; there may be various remarks in essays hiding in different corners, but I doubt there is anything definitive. XOR'easter (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

This is a dispute where everyone needs to calm the F down. Jps, it's kind of obvious that draftifying the page was going to be a bad idea. On the other hand, editors on the other "side" are also acting in a way that tends to escalate things. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

The editor is still pushing the idea that the article topic is fringe at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Zionism,_race_and_genetics. I merely wonder how long it will be before we need to visit AE. Selfstudier (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

On the same thread that was started as the one and only edit by a random IP, in a contentious topic areas protected by ECP restrictions on internal project discussions, making the thread itself an WP:ARBPIA breach. Basically, this whole prolonged collective community time waste is all just dancing to the tune of an IP (/sock?). Iskandar323 (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Pretty much. Although I am pretty sure it would have happened at some point anyway. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:25, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I think that if this discussion becomes a general discussion about everything that is going wrong about Zionism, race and genetics, it will become a free-for-all, and editors on both "sides" will have their conduct come under scrutiny, none of which is what ANI is really good at handling. Focusing on the original complaint, an admin has closed the RM. I'd like to see jps agree not to try any more attempts at deletion or draftifying. If we get that, it might be best to end this ANI thread. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Reporting user Pisarz12345

• Pisarz12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello to Admin. Please note that both users User:Александр Васильев and myself, User:ΙΣΧΣΝΙΚΑ-888, are hereby requesting your assistance or intervention, in regards to a series of apparently bad faith edits by a certain user, User:Pisarz12345, on various articles from the Eastern Orthodox liturgical calendar (= calendar day articles). The edits of a certain user, User:Pisarz12345 are in bad faith, in our view, and are contravening Wikipedia's three-revert rule (edit warring).

In summary, user Pisarz12345 is adding persons to the lists of articles of Eastern Orthodox Saints, who are NOT officially venerated by ANY of the Orthodox Churches. An example of this is the article July 3 (Eastern Orthodox liturgics), where Pisarz12345 has blatantly transgressed this three-revert rule; another example like this is article April 19 (Eastern Orthodox liturgics). Both User:Александр Васильев and and myself User:ΙΣΧΣΝΙΚΑ-888, have repeatedly asked User:Pisarz12345 to not add un-venerated persons to the calendar articles that list venerated Eastern Orthodox Saints. Rather, inclusion of a person on these calendar day articles, means that such a person is VENERATED by one of the Autocephalous Orthodox Churches in the world,according to their own listings; and so, in the absence of a valid footnote or reference, from a valid Orthodox Church source, then any person may NOT be included in these articles; however, User:Pisarz12345 is blatantly doing so, and participating in edit wars on this point.

Now, some of the references/footnotes that User:Pisarz12345 had provided, are from a Russian Orthodox encylopedia, called DREVO, which is indeed an acceptable, and a pre-moderated, good encylopaedic source - HOWEVER, only in the instance of venerated (or canonized) Saints or Martyrs; obviously this DREVO encyclopaedic source, being an encylopaedia, will also include several other articles on various historical personages who are NOT officially venerated by any Orthodox Church; and so, such persons, cannot therefore be automatically included in the list of Saints for the Eastern Orthodox liturgical calendar; yet Pisarz12345 is engaging in continuous edit wars and adding such unvenerated persons. The titles of ALL of these 366 Wikipedia calendar-day articles, includes the term "Eastern Orthodox", and so this principle of canonization or official veneration in a valid Eastern Orthodox Church, is paramount here.
Please note also, that User:Pisarz12345 has already been BLOCKED INDEFINITELY on the POLISH WIKIPEDIA (see here).
Your assistance in this matter would be appreciated. Sincerely, ΙΣΧΣΝΙΚΑ-888 (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Other commemorations paragraph is for not canonized but venerated persons, like: Hieromonk Arsenius of Valaam Monastery (1853), Schemamonk Theodore of Svir (1822) or orthers. Secondly Potitus of Gargara you are insinuating is not venerated is in the official menologium of ROC, like Patricius of Vladimir but you are too lazy to check the sources I linked. Pisarz12345 (talk) 18:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Having looked into this, I'm going to note for the record that there has been no effort to discuss these issues on the talk page for either article, and that the edit warring is definitely two-way here: [193], [194]. Furthermore, the edit summaries for Александр Васильев are in Russian, which is clearly an issue that needs addressing. Actually, I get the feeling that all three at least two of the editors involved here have somewhat borderline competency for contributing in English and all three a limited understanding of local policy and procedure. There's also some pretty direct labeling of Pisarz's edits as "bad faith" in ΙΣΧΣΝΙΚΑ's edit summaries, which obviously is a WP:AGF concern, insofar as these edits are not vandalism but merely constitute constitute content that ΙΣΧΣΝΙΚΑ doesn't agree with. (Incidentally, the two editors with cyrillic script names may want to read WP:LATINPLEASE).

The edit warring should of course stop immediately and the issues taken to the article talk pages. But even then, I'm doubtful that there is going to be a meeting of the minds here, based on the previous edit warring, the distance between these editors in perspective, the religious element of the dispute, and the fact that the discussion would need to take place in English. Even mediating the matter would take a lot of hand-holding over some relatively minor changes to the articles (mileage may vary on that last part of the analysis about the importance of the edits, of course).

Honestly I'm not sure what would be the recommended course of action here. Can anyone think of a WikiProject where editors with the requisite interest might be willing to weigh in and help break the deadlock here? I can't imagine these issues are of sufficient interest to the average editor to attract much outside attention, and I don't think these three are going to be able to make proper use of RfC. WP:DRN maybe? Robert McClenon, would this be a good candidate for your assistance, or do you think the obstacles here would be a problem for your process? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:15, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I haven't looked into this dispute, but DRN has never worked well for editors whose English is marginal. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought that might be a concern. To be perfectly fair to these parties, I am basing my interpretation of their English skills on limited information, but given the wording of the post above for one of the two users, and the fact that the third is providing edit summaries in another language, I think it's fair to say there is room for miscommunication if the issue was being mediated in English and considering the parties are already strongly rhetorically opposed. I honestly don't know that there is a a feasible middle ground to explore between the two sides here. I guess the best option is to find the closest (probably religion-based) WikiProject to direct them to make an inquiry at. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I suggest Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy. Narky Blert (talk) 07:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, thematically it would certainly seem to be the right place, but it doesn't look like it sees much activity of late. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

User:ActualUkrainianCossack

Newly created sock of User:ActualCossack that has decided to return and restore all their POV edits from the old account that were reverted with the same edit summaries like "Learn to read"[195][196]. Now they are edit warring over their changes[197]. Mellk (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Indeffed. Star Mississippi 20:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Mellk (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

You're more familiar - I assume there's a reason ActualCossack isn't blocked as well? Star Mississippi 20:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I am not aware of any other previous accounts but probably that account has not been blocked yet because I did not post a complaint on ANI. They made a series of edits and then disappeared (until now). Mellk (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

If the original account was never blocked, this may not be a case of socking but rather an SPA misplacing the password to their original account. That said, given the comments and the at least open question of abuse of multiple accounts, I think we can call the indef warranted anyway (NOTHERE, DISRUPTIVE, CIV, EW--take your pick). SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Blocked now. Courcelles (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Courcelles! I was offline and missed your comment @Snow Rise. If anyone thinks I should revise the block for accuracy, let me know (or any admin can feel free as I'll be offline bulk of tomorrow too). It was the immediate stop the disruption Star Mississippi 01:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

User:S201050066 number 72.2

User:3201050066 number 72.2 is a sockpuppet of User:S201050066, who has been globally banned for sockpuppeting. He posted an abusive message on my talk page making baseless claims against me. This user has been classified as a long-term abuser. Please block this account. Andykatib 03:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Euryalus:. Andykatib (talk) 03:47, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done - Euryalus (talk) 03:44, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Genre warring User:SpaceHelmetX1

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

---

• SpaceHelmetX1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Block at AN3 for genre warring on July 6

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/SpaceHelmetX1

genre warring in dozens of articles. basically every edit is genre-change related. already blocked twice. will regularly go into articles, blank out genres that have been there for years and then demand sources when someone reverts --FMSky (talk) 06:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

And am I wrong for that? Am I wrong for removing an unsourced information? Am I wrong when I say that genres should be sourced? Am I wrong when I restore a sourced genre removed without any reason? Am I wrong to ask for sources? Do I change articles to the way I want? I respect the genres. I don't need to try change an article even when I know I'm not wrong. If, in order not to lose my account or be temporarily blocked, I need to abandon some articles, I can do that. Am I to blame for feeling uncomfortable when I see something clearly wrong going on? If the answer is yes, I apologize and promise to stop. There is a user bullying me on this website for months, it was this user who reported me here. And I'm being accused of "edit warring" when I'm just trying to do the right thing. I am an ordinary user. I do not add unsourced genres or unsourced content as a whole. I just want to collaborate, do the right thing, but I thought this site here wasn't a dictatorship. Finally, of the three times I appeared here, it was the same user who reported me. If I'm this monster, why is only one user chasing me? SpaceHelmetX1 (talk) 07:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

have you noticed that every single entry on your talk page is a complaint about your editing? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SpaceHelmetX1&action=history not only by me but also by other users --FMSky (talk) 07:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

You are the main reason I'm here. You put me here! SpaceHelmetX1 (talk) 07:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Can you please stop with the wailing and moaning and please read the explanatory essay regarding consensus at Wikipedia:Silence and consensus? Cheers. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 09:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

• SpaceHelmetX1, will you voluntarily agree to not revert/delete any existing genres on any article unless there is consensus on the talk page of the article? Lourdes 11:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I have to admit I don't think SpaceHelmetX1 is entirely unjustified in their edits. Challenging unsourced material and removing it is a fair contribution (although edit warring of course should be stopped quickly - especially when they've been blocked for it before). I've not studied the edit histories of each article, but I don't see any reasons given for reverting SpaceHelmetX1 (other than mentioning genre warring). In other words, what's the reason for undoing their edits? I suppose there's a debate to be had that when no sources exist it's fair for an album to reflect the band's genres, but that's all I can see. — Czello ^(music) 11:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Applying genre to something, can indeed be a subjective assessment. And without references can be WP:OR.

But I think the concern here is "how" this is going about. I would suggest going forward that if they remove (or modify) a genre of an article that they copy it to the article talk page and start a discussion thread. If there are references for its applicability from verifiable, reliable sources, I think that's something that can be found out fairly quickly. But edit-warring obviously needs to stop. (Or in other words, per Lourdes.)- jc37 13:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

so is anything gonna happen now? --FMSky (talk) 22:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Not much. If they continue reverting without responding to this ANI discussion, it might lead to a block (might, depending on the circumstances). We'll wait for them to respond. Thank you, Lourdes 03:26, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree to search for consensus on the article's talk page. SpaceHelmetX1 (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

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

User:Elinruby and making everything about me

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

---

I constantly attacking me, and making the talk page over at Collaboration with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy about me and my edits (and this seems to be a grudge they have held for a while). Personalizing every dispute.

[[198]]

Even when I have not commented in a thread yet

[[199]]

This has been going on a for a few days

[[200]]

[[201]]

[[202]]

PA's (I am unsure when I supposedly made ABF).

[[203]]

They are also (though to be fair I am kind of guilty of it as well, though with a lot less text) of trying to bludgeon the discussion.

I have asked them to stop making it about me, their response was [[204]] (PA's again, and I have no idea what " defamatory remarks" they are talking about. and a threat to start striking my comments, [[205]], no idea what "false statements" they are talking about. Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

And here

[[206]]

[[207]]

Which was closed due to it being cocked up. Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Slatersteven keeps injecting himself. He shuts down discussions and and makes nonsensical statements. I don't have time to go through his diffs right now, but I think that a reading of his posts at my talk page and talk page history, and the recent talk page threads at Collaboration with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy would speak for itself. He was mentioned in a thread he hadn't commented on yet since it was clearly a response to his accusation that I engage in original research. For the record, the article was almost completely uncited when I came to it post-Grabowski, which was apparently fine with Slatersteven, since he'd been reverting people there for years.

So. As the person who added the majority of the sources now in the article, I object to being insulted by Slatersteven, and I also object to his most recent contention that we need to remove the sources (!) that Arbcom (!) objected to (!) as a profound misunderstanding of what Arbcom did, what Arbcom *is* and what that editor was proposing. I said he was beside the point and out of line and I stand by that statement. If he thinks that is an attack I don't know what to tell him. I asked him to strike his assertion about original research, and I don't think that"s an attack either.

For the record, I do not have a grudge against Slatersteven. I do not even consider him an opponent. I see him as an obstacle. A rock in the road. An unresponsive entity that I am required to reason with despite the difficulties involved. If he doesn't want me to mention his name ever, he can stop trying to police content work that he doesn't understand. Shrug. I certainly never think of him when he isn't derailing talk page discussions.

I have previously announced a short wikibreak until the temperature returns to something reasonable, since I intend to spend the next couple of days in a tub of cold water. Given this post I will periodically check for pings, however, in case anyone has any questions. Elinruby (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• Peacemaker67, Scope creep, Piotrus, Mathglot, there's something off but I won't write it here off-the-cuff. Given their tenure here, I want to request your comments to clarify this first... Thanks, Lourdes 21:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  Sigh... unfortunate situation between two highly competent and productive editors. I'll go back into it and study it a bit to see if there's anything productive I can add here, but in the meantime, is there any way we can short-circuit what could end up being a long thread which will distract both editors from productively contributing elsewhere and maybe cause some hurt feelings, with no real resolution at the end? I mean, I have good relations with both of you, and I'd hate to see you two bloody each other here, what a waste. Is there any way you can both just lick your wounds respectively on each side, mutter something under your breath, you take your ball, and you take your bat, and go home?

I will go look into it, but best outcome in my view, is that by the time I get back, you've both somehow managed to end this. Slatersteven, as the originator, I don't want in any way to shut down what you feel strongly enough is a grievance to bring here; what would be necessary and sufficient for you to hear to end this? Elinruby, as the subject of this, can you self-monitor for the words you or Slatersteven in Talk page comments, and if you seem them rendering on the page in preview mode, change them to something else? I *really* don't want to see this escalate. C'mon guys, can we just do this, and leave the nice folks at ANI to remain busy with editors that are hurting the encyclopedia, instead of having to come here and deal with you two, who are doing so much to improve it, and have been for so long? Make my day: end this. Mathglot (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I took *mine* to dispute resolution as I dunno, it really feels like he thinks he is doing the right thing and I was hoping someone would explain things to him if the problem was a misunderstanding of policy. I did in fact self-monitor, but maybe not well-enough for the word "you". It is very difficult to tell what he is even saying, but he just tried again and so did I, shrug, but in the meantime yet another discussion stalled and became explaining Arbcom to Slatersteven, who as far as I can tell still thinks he is enforcing an Abcom decision (!) that deprecated sources (!) that we failed in some way to comply with (!), and is being that confused in a thread about something else. If anyone can figure out what he is actually on about, like I said the other day to another confused editor, if the sources are good, we'll probably adopt it. If as I suspect he objects to my announced plan to delete the badly-cited Channel Islands section, he could cite it? Otherwise, I dunno. This seems like a time sink to me, and I have no idea what Slatersteven thinks he is doing. Elinruby (talk) 22:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• To be honest, half the time I don't even know what Slatersteven is talking about and I have the discussion on my watchlist and check it regularly. For weeks we've been mulling the definition of collaboration and recently found an article that I was planning to write, which pushed us forward a bit. That is what we have been looking at for weeks, but he seems to be talking policy, arbcom and so on and not really following the gist of the dicussion or trying to contribute. I certainly agree with Mathglot, it would be the ideal. scope_creep^Talk 22:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
• I agree with Mathglot. They are both productive editors and need to find a way to work together. However, if Elinruby's recent snark to me is to be considered an indication of their behaviour towards editors that don't immediately adopt their views, I think they need to take a break from this topic. After not commenting much at all for some time due to the TLDR posts and personalisation of commentary, I made a neutral comment pointing to sources on the definition of collaboration, and Elinruby's response started with "Cough, I will say again", and followed that with an invitation to "actually work on the page". I have a very thick skin after a decade dealing with POV pushers and abuse on WWII Yugoslavia articles, so I could care less about snark, but this is hardly an approach likely to make anyone feel welcome to contribute. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I apologize if I made you feel unwelcome. If I am the impediment to you working on the article, I am happy to put it in your hands, but you have until now shown no desire to do so. I did not however see your remarks as neutral, but as an uncritical acceptance of the idea that the article needs sources, which is nonsense.

What is *there* is well-sourced. The problem with the article as I see now it is that it was written piecemeal one country at a time, and some are vastly better covered than others. Yugoslavia in particular needs help, and you appear to have expertise in this area, as I have mentioned to you before. I have zero emotional involvement with the article, except that I would like it to not be the embarrassment to wikipedia that it was in February. For those who don't realize this, this is one of the articles mocked by Grabowski. It's improved considerably since then, but what I see here is four editors getting stuff done, plus a newbie who might contribute, being lectured about sources for some reason by someone who is completely unaware of the article's current condition, and then a well-meaning suggestion from someone who has the talk page watchlisted. I don't need a break, I need Slatersteven to either work on the article or stop interrupting the people who are working on it. Speaking of people who actually work on the article, we might as well hear from Shakescene, who has done a lot of the architectural work in the article reorganization, and Transylvania1916, the newbie Slatersteven was biting the other day. Elinruby (talk) 01:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Since I was pinged, I could offer to mediate a bit, if both parties ping me where there is disagreement? I think in the past I worked positively with both editors (more recently, I recall doing so with Elinruby, whom I found civil enough in interactions with me). I'd certainly stress to both parties to mind CIV and AGF, and I find Elinruby's apology above a very good indicator that things can be resolved peacefully, without the need for community sanctions beyond reminders to everyone about CIV/AGF and like. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I don't actually know. My complaint is that he keeps interrupting talk page discussions about reorganizing the Collaboration in x articles by saying that collaboration is whatever the sources say it is. I have already talked too much here so I'll just say that as well you know this is not helpful. Which sources? Apparently not IPN sources, right? Anyway. since he started this right after I said I was going to delete the badly-sourced Channel Islands section, and said something in one of his pronouncements about not deleting entire sections, I have speculated that the real problem was my proposal to delete some original research there. That *is* speculation though. He didn't grace me with an explanation, just told me he was going to report me for not following the sourcing policy. Since I have put hundreds of hours into soucing that article, I found that ridiculous and much as I am trying to make allowances for Slatersteven, I hear enough of that from the Signpost thank you very much. Figuring out what he is actually upset about would be a start. If it is the Channel Islands, Shakescene has helpfully located some sources, which only need to be added. DUE is another question, but they are in fact a special case that deserves at least a mention, even though there are already two articles that cover this. HTH, good luck, and thanks. Elinruby (talk) 06:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

First of all, what I said was we go by what RS say (others have as well, pointing out that user defines inclusion criteria do not trump policies such as OR and V) when deciding content inclusion. Secondly, I has no idea when I objected to the removal of the channel islands, and this may be part of the problem, Elinruby seems to be holding some grudge and will not let go. Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think she is holding a grudge against you. I've worked with Elinruby for a couple of years now and I've never had any problem about collaborating on any article. Everybody here seems to be an experienced editor and understands what WP:RS is and what the policy is around using good academic sources. Everybody strives for that. You seem to be repeating the same kind of mesage and its inhibiting the conversation without actually helping or moving the discussion forward. scope_creep^Talk 11:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

This does not explain them accusing me of not allowing any change to the article (which is demonstrably not true, as it has been changed since the last time I edited it). That is what I am objecting to. Nor the fact that others felt the need to also point out that a talk page consensus does not override policy. Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

sigh. In the most recent exchange I said you derail discussions. You do. Since apparently you insist on pursuing this well diffs it is:

• SL article contributions consist almost entirely reverts

recent newbie biting:12>

From May 2020 to February 2023 SL did not edit the talk page then surfaced to lecture me about RS. More cognitive dissonance here: Request to provide page numbers called uncivil

As for the sources: yes Grabowski was correct, the article was awful. At the time if I had edited the article at all it would have been solely to the France section. Peacemaker67 also parachuted in the explain what is RS, perhaps believing that the editors there at the time were those responsible. However PM was talking to Smallchief, another longstanding editor who has definitely heard of RS: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?[diff=1140320315&oldid=1140319064&title=Talk:Collaboration_with_Nazi_Germany_and_Fascist_Italy They noted that the article was mostly uncited.] SL doubled down talking about COI also for some reason

Since February Slatersteven has

• objected to tagging in the Channel Islands section
• objected to including British United Fascists. Rationale:we can't include everything
• Insisted on not called them the British Channel Islands now that sources exist for collaboration

• shut down another user on the subject of defining collaboration
• weighed in against improving the article
• shut down RS question he apparently misunderstood

Fwiw I don't hold grudges. I am not asking for CiR or even a trouting. I just want him to try to understand discussions before he tells editors they should't be discussing. I still don't understand why he thought Scope creep was talking about Arbcom. Scope creep didn't mention Arbcom, and Arbcom didn't mention the article lede. Arbcom accepted my rewrite of the lede into evidence without comment and specifically without reproof, warning or sanction. That said, the two sources I left in from the old lede are in fact old, although I am under the impression that they are not just RS, but reputed thinkers. The source with a quote, which I added because it seemed like a good summary, may or not be widely-cited. I support Scope creep rewiting the definition and updating the sourcing. What we were discussing when interrupted was whether there was consensus to expand on the definition(s) in what should probably be a parent article, even though it is currently much smaller.

But here we are. Elinruby (talk) 23:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

• My thoughts after skimming the articles talk page: Of the last 500 edits on that talk page, 223 of them (~44%) were by Elinruby. That's a lot! For comparison, Slatersteven has 39 of those 500 edits. Additionally, Elinruby's comments tended to be proposing fairly significant changes to the article, while Slatersteven's tended to be brief objections along the lines of "we need to follow [policy X]", usually related to reflecting what the sources say; and his objections are at least at a glance not groundless. I can understand how that can be frustrating, but overall this gives me the impression that Elinruby may have WP:OWN and possibly WP:BLUDGEON issues with the page. There's nothing wrong with being very active about proposing stuff, but once you've put an idea about how to improve stuff on the table it's sometimes best to let other people discuss it a bit and, if there's a clear locus of disagreement or discussion seems to be dying down without an obvious consensus, to post a note on an appropriate messageboard or start an RFC or some other dispute-resolution mechanism to call in additional voices so it isn't just one or two people talking. I do want to also point out the somewhat amusing statement Elinruby made above that Slatersteven keeps injecting himself - for someone who has dominated conversations on that talk page so much to say that an editor who has made just 39 of the past 500 edits "keeps injecting himself" strikes me as somewhat WP:OWNy thinking. When you post a lot of suggestions on a talk page, people are supposed to post any objections they have, that's how a talk page works - the solution is to focus on building a consensus, not to focus on Slatersteven. --Aquillion (talk) 12:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

  there is a difference. I have reiterated proposals multiple times, often originally made by others, which seem to have consensus scattered across the sections, in hopes of getting a critical mass of editors to agree in a given section that can be pointed to. The many talk page posts actually stem from a concern for consensus.

  What *I* am complaining of is for example: in a.discusdion of adopting Wartime collaboration as a parent article -- which will require significant reorganization of material but seems like the thing to do and apparently does have consensus -- Slatersteven interjects that we have to get rid of the sources Arbcom said not to use. Superficially, yes, this is based on policy, Then he complains when I say I don't know what he is talking about and want to delete unsourced material he has previously defended but never cited. I'll add a couple of convenience links later. Meanwhile, if people think I have wanted to OWN the article vs. other editors not wanting to work on it lest they too get drawn into the Arbcom case, I am happy to let the article talk page proceed on its own without me for a while. An editor we hadn't heard from in a while just came. back and has made some good suggestions, and Slatersteven is speaking in complete sentences on topic today.

  I am not sure what the other editors who were working on this article with me think of all this, but I am working on other articles with each of the three of them, and guess will go build out Gallo-Roman ruins and the civil law legal system for a while, shrug, if people here think I am a problem there. I doubt it, but the article is going to take a long time and a lot of work to fix no matter what, and I do have other stuff to do. Elinruby (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

  That not what happened another use suggested deletion whole section on the grounds that some of it fell foul of an arb com ruling, I said "no if that is the issue only remove the stuff that falls foul. Slatersteven (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Really? On the article talk page somebody said this? Diffs or it didn't happen. Possibly just maybe are you tall ng about this???: What does this mean? You're the one making the complaint here. I shouldn't have to guess what it is. Also, are you aware that due to Section 230 Arbcom religiously avoids pronouncing on the reliability of sources????

If that's not what we are talking about, then I am back to not understanding what the problem is that you are trying to solve. Please make your point about Arbcom. Elinruby (talk) 21:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

[[208]] "but I suggest we just delete that section, which repeats some of the PoV pushing the Arbcom case was about, ie "there wasn't much collaboration in Poland"." my response [[209]], you responded [[210]]. Slatersteven (talk) 21:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

(trying again) have you processed yet that we were talking about making Wartime collaboration the parent article for Collaboration with Nazi Germany? and Fascist Italy]]? The Poland section of the former has a lot of the problems that the Poland section of the latter used to have. This *will* need to be TNTed whether Slatersteven approves or not, but my point *was* that while you really need to talk about the Holocaust in Poland when discussing World War II, this isn't necessarily the case for wartime collaboration in general. We need examples but there is no reason that one of them needs to be Poland or even in World War Ii at all since there will be such an extensive subarticle. Maybe next time you could do a reality check and ask a question before randomly scolding people about policies that they know quite well? Not to mention complaining about alleged incivility when someone fails to acknowledge the awesomeness of your admonitions? Scope creep didn't deserve that and neither for that matter did I. Painful as it is to rxplain everything to you three times, I would prefer to do so on the article talk page. Elinruby (talk) 02:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

You did not seem to know it violated policy until I suggested we only remove the stuff that violated it (by the way, not a policy, an arbcom ruling). If "Arbcom per se didn't object to ANYTHING" it can't be invoked to remove any content (surely?). Also, we can't discuss content in another article, that should be for that article's talk page (I should not have to tell you this either). Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I will tell you what I will do to defuse this, I will stop going out on the talk page about how a certain suggestion violates policy (in my opinion), instead (and per BRD) I will revert any such edit to the article. Slatersteven (talk) 11:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that is ideal as it will stall the development. I would suggest that you put your objections in a seperate section on the talk, particularly your objections to the Wartime collaboration section(s), so we can examine them in detail, and try and understand them, because at the moment I'm still unsure. scope_creep^Talk 15:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

How many ways can I say "this violates policy" without being accused of staling discussion? Look at the recent Romania thread, and how I have already had to break my above statement to tell someone we do not engage in OR? If something is a breach of policy (be it wp:or and wp:fringe or a breach of wp:rs) what do I say other than "this breaches policy"? Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Your incessant focus on policy at every turn, is killing the creative process on the talk page and is not allowing the discussion to develop. I suspect folk will leave and move on to something else. Two days has passed and you have offered no solution on how to fix it. I suggest you withdraw, until the article is completed and then you can check it. If there is any problems with policy, they will be fixed at peer review or WP:GA. I doubt there will be any, as every editor working there, is highly experienced and understand policy. FWIW, I've worked with Elinruby for about 16 months on several complex articles and I've never see her get into a dispute about anything. scope_creep^Talk 18:33, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Of course, because our fiove pillars are policy-based. In essence this seems to be an admission that , yes this is about ignoring policy. OK, if the admins are OK with that so am I, are they? Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I am seeing a glimmer here. @Slatersteven:, it's not so much how *often* you say it, it's *how*. Tell people *how* something violates policy if you think it does. For example, you keep saying that the changes that I made to the definition in the lede were OR, yet it replaced an uncited statement about occupying forces, for which I could not find a reference, with a quote that does not mention occupying forces but *is* cited and a good summary. Months later I am still baffled as to how this isn't just that you don't LIKE it. How is that OR or a violation of the RS policy? Scope creep has a good idea about separate sections, and indeed more of that from all of us, including me, would reduce some of the confusion. See, this is a specific actionable critique that does not call long-time editors ignorant of policy. Look at the diffs I posted above. Those editors didn't come back. Maybe they wouldn't have anyway, but we don't know that, and they made an effort to contribute but got shut down. The Romanian newbie did indeed seem... young, and had some unusual ideas, but those ideas were somewhat valid for someone focused on Transnitria, and the editor cited the edit they made. A discussion of DUEness for the lede would have been much more appropriate than reverting and mocking him. I think you bring an anti-vandalism mentality to discussions that are not vandalism. So while I appreciate that you are trying to address this now (after dragging me to ANI) but no, unexplained reverts would not be an improvement over unexplained confusing pronouncements. HtH.

Elinruby (talk) 19:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

When? I am unsure I have reverted in 6 months. And people wonder why I say they are holding a grudge. Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

• Elinruby, you have self-notified that you are aware that this is a contentious topic. In continuation of your two earlier formal, logged CT-related warnings here and here, and as a CT notification, I am formally advising you to stop addressing Slatersteven tendentiously, as is evident at the diffs posted right at the start of this thread by Slatersteven. Putting myself into your shoes, I can imagine the frustration in attempting to hear out opposing parties, who are as experienced as you are. However, you are not allowed to accuse other editors of "ABF", schooling them to "read before they police", accusing them of giving "thought-terminating cliches", accusing them of "repeatedly disrupting discussions", and of "repeatedly violating policy". and place on DR that you believe (sarcastically, of course), that Slatersteven is "defending Wikipedia". While this is not your tone over the lifetime of your contributions to the page, you have regularly been uncivil to Slatersteven with these statements. A simple poll or RfC can perhaps achieve more for assessing consensus than picking on one editor, whatever be his pet peeve of one-liners. I am unsure of whether you have considered attempting these -- there may be reasons that editors on the talk page might not prefer these simple yet effective modes of assessing consensus. I leave editorial judgements and choice of processes to you and other editors. However, in conclusion, and as a part of a formal contentious topic notification before I take (or don't take) any action, please confirm you will not continue the tone of addressing Slatersteven. Thank you, Lourdes 05:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Lourdes, I was not being sarcastic. I actually believe that he thinks he is defending Wikipedia. That is why I went to DR not ANI with my own complaint, and have accepted the other two offers of mediation. He has not accepted those however, or expressed a desire for Dispute Resolution, which is one of the reasons that case closed. The is no issue with consensus or hearing people out. I have no issue hearing *Slatersteven* out and have frequently asked him to explain. Consensus has not been with Slatersteven, is all, in part because he does *not* explain. His unexplained accusations of policy violations make it difficult to retain editors and to document consensus since we have to repeatedly stop and ask ourselves what he is talking about. I think my diffs speak for themselves and have nothing more to say. Given than the issue of OWN has been raised, I have already moved off for a while, and have been and will continue doing other things for a time, if people believe I am somehow preventing Slatersteven from improving the article. Let him do that then; I have plenty else to do. Elinruby (talk) 08:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I suggested an RFC here [[211]] I did in fact post in the (badly formatted) DR (which was closed as you had in fact not listed any involved parties [[212]]). I did not request dispute resolution as it was badly formed. If you want to launch DR again (as you were told you could) do so, but stop blaming me. Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

• Elinruby, in the light of absence of confirmation from you that you will stop your tendentious discussions, you are being partially blocked from the page in question as a contentious topics' restriction. You may appeal the same as per the directions given on your talk page. Thank you, Lourdes 11:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

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

Uncivil comments on user talk pages by 193.207.150.154

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

---

IP user 193.207.150.154 has been repeatedly making uncivil comments on numerous user talk pages, notably death wishes. Redtree21 (talk) 13:36, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

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

Uncivil behavior, bad faith edits, and false accusations and warnings from DarmaniLink

As you may recall, in May this year someone started an ANI regarding a mass language change I made, on the grounds they alone opposed it. As soon as I was made aware at the ANI by a third-party that there had been a previous RFC on the matter with a consensus against the change I was making, I stopped the behaviour. The ANI was closed with "no admin action required and the editing in question has stopped". See here. Two days ago, I was pinged to the talk page of an article I made a reversion to prior to the ANI. DarmaniLink stated his opposition to my old change, which was fine in itself, though I feel his choice of language was unnecessarily condescending [213]. It is important to note he later openly stated he was not "calm" when he started that discussion, though this was not an apology, rather, he was just voicing his opinion that he was retroactively justified in assuming bad faith against me, saying he made his comments by going on a 'gut feeling', rather than evidence [214]. Anyway, I told DarmaniLink I wasn't interested in contesting his reversion, though he continued the discussion and concluded his commentary with an uncivil and unnecessary insult [215].

I would have been more than happy to let this go, incivility is unfortunately not uncommon and this is hardly the worst example of it, however, at this point rather than dropping the stick, DarmaniLink went on to make a false accusation and leave a completely unjustified warning at my talk page [216]. Using a provocative and inaccurate header, Darmanlink stated that I had a "perennial issue" with this matter, when in reality I stopped immediately after being informed of the RfC. His message confusingly consisted of a warning for me to stop my behaviour. Here's the deal, I had already stopped months prior, and had clearly stated my intention not to start the contested editing again. While this information was openly available from links at my talk page, I responded to the warning by pointing out I had long agreed to stop the behavior in question. DarmaniLink then decided to double down [217], explicitly using the ANI as justification for continuing to warn me to stop behaviour, which the ANI noted I had already stopped.

You can't make this up. Just to clarify, they used a resolved ANI as justification for leaving a warning on my talk page to stop behaviour I had already stopped months earlier and had made no intention to start again. I can only consider this to be a case of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing.

Again, I was willing to let this go and not escalate the matter, however, DarmaniLink has now also accused me of edit-warring at this new Village Pump post [218]. While he does not refer to me by name, he explicitly links to the original article I made the change to and cites it as an example of "enforc[ing] a de facto ban on the phrase through edit warring." I have not previously been accused of edit warring in relation to this, even at the ANI. I have already explicitly explained my justification for my edits to DarmaniLink [219], prior to his accusation of edit-warring.

Here are the facts. I changed the language at the article in question on May 17 [220]. My edit was reverted with the edit summary "I don't understand this campaign against the word suicide." [221]. Since the person said they didn't understand my edits, and since I wasn't campaigning against the word suicide, I counter reverted giving them a very detailed explanation [222]. At no other point did I contest the reversion of one of my changes by re-reverting it. In all other cases, if someone reverted my change for any reason, I left the reversion intact (Example here: [223]). I only did so in this one instance as the person reverted my edit on the grounds I opposed the word suicide, which was not the case, so I used the edit summary to explain it to them. If they had of further clarified they opposed the change for another reason, I would have accepted that, consistent with my other editing I was doing at the time related to this issue.

I have now had to deal with one case of incivility, two cases of inaccurate accusations, and a case of a completely unjustified warning regarding behaviour I had already stopped. Can I get an admin to make a comment regarding whether these three separate actions from DarmaniLink were acceptable, and if an actual warning against them is warranted? It's also interesting to note DarmaniLink modified the guideline related to this issue in question, without consensus, while an active discussion regarding it was open [224]. As per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, "Editing a policy to support your own argument in an active discussion may be seen as gaming the system". I already decided to leave the underlying issue related to this alone some time ago. Considering DarmaniLink feels so strongly about this issue that in their own words they cannot stay calm about it, perhaps they should do the same. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Here's my suggestion. Please provide us with:

• Your one sentence summary of what the issue is;
• Your one sentence summary of what you think the best outcome would be.

Perhaps then we could move this toward a resolution. --Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 03:01, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

So Damien, I've looked over all the supplied links, read the two discussion (at the article TP and your own), looked at the article revision history, and observed but did not participate in the previous ANI where your prior conduct was discussed. My impression is that Darmani's commentary in the original discussion was a little needlessly aggressive, and even more so once they brought matters to your talk page. On the other hand, can you explain why you chose to escalate this matter to ANI after you told Darmani you would do so only if they persisted further (and it seems they haven't)? Also, are you aware that you have it in your discretion to ban people from commenting on your talk page?

I do agree there are tonal issues in how Darmani decided to approach you, but you fired back some as well--you didn't exactly exit the debate with a firm "not interested" like your summary above suggests: you lingered for quite a bit of back and forth argument. Also, you did to some small degree open the door to conflict with your re-revert back in May, which was still a live edit until just precedent to this dispute. I get what you are trying to say in that the person who first reverted you did so with an edit summary that you felt mischaracterized your rationale, but that's fairly inconsequential; whatever your motive and reasoning, that party clearly thought the edit was not in the best interest of the article. And the policy is WP:BRD not "WP:BRRD": once you were reverted, the WP:ONUS was on you to seek consensus for the change on the talk page, not edit war it back in--please keep that in mind for the future. Now, did that justify Darmani in pinging you back to the discussion months later to re-litigate the matter? Well, they might have thought after the edit warring that they had to in order to prevent the cycle from continuing.

That said, Darmani's tone definitely needlessly escalated the tension in the discussion, I think I can grant you that. And coming to your talk page to argue further was unnecessary and unhelpful, especially in light of the fact that they either 1) failed to realize the ANI was before the edit in question or 2) tactically ignored that fact, possibly to impugn your conduct as a means of strengthening their perceived position in the rhetorical discussion about whether this or that alternate phrase is acceptable. But you can just tell them to leave, and provided you are true to your word about not wanting to discuss the matter further, nor try to force the edit in question through, that would pretty much end the matter--other than your having some hard feelings about being treated a little roughly. Is it really worth the community's effort to take action here on a matter you have the ability to end immediately on your own?

I'm not saying Darmani's approach was perfectly 100% civil--and if their manner of speaking here is typical of how they approach editorial disputes, they might well run into a sanction eventually. But it seems to me you have every tool necessary to shut the lid on this little episode right now. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Let me state my side.

Most of my contributions have been on current event disasters/assassinations in japan. I havent been on wp in months, I look at my watchlist, I see that page has a change. I check it out, its poor wording. I look at the log, I see it was reverted once before with a reason that insists on changing the language. Following the BRD system, I'm not going to re-revert something, and you have no indication that if it were to just be flat out reverted you would not unrevert it in the edit summary. As the new language used made the article significantly worse by using a 1st grade vocabulary, followed by an implicit demand that any other phrase would be acceptable. Seeing how other users had no problem with the word choice used and the proposed alternatives were significantly worse, I wanted to see if you would revert this. You did become defensive of the position, attempting to justify it. Which by all means, is completely your right to do. But its also my right to disagree, and believe it is agenda pushing when you're attempting to "destigmatize" something. You claimed it was discouraged per the guideline [225], when it is not. I'll admit "calm" was a poor word choice, I meant something more like "extremely tactful". I didn't look at your profile until after the discussion, where based on the language used in the discussion made me assume you were very much still actively engaged in it, as you were arguing in favor of keeping it in, claiming other options are inferior, however, misusing a MOS guide to do so.

I'm fully willing to stop engaging with you,and have not talked to you directly since. But you have introduced me to this topic and now I'm attempting to improve the MOS page through the RFC. Reverting and claiming that "there's better ways to do it, see the MOS", when that is NOT what the RFC or the MOS explicitly says told me that "this needs to change"

This was the only instance i heard of you. So this is all I know about you.

I changed the wording in the village pump to try to implyyou are no longer engaged in it, but undoing a revert without discussing is edit warring.

On the MOS page, I made a bold edit because it was very poorly written and implied things that the RFC had a consensus explicitly against. It was undone, and I took it *to* an RFC at the village pump. I didn't know the whole process.. DarmaniLink (talk) 03:34, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Darmani, I think with this context in mind and both of you committed to letting the discussion go, that's the best course forward. Any lingering issues regarding the non-local consensus/MOS guidance can be resolved through your new RfC at the pump. However, if you will consider some unsolicited feedback from an uninvolved party, I do think the wording you chose to employ at the beginning of the first discussion needlessly exacerbated the dispute from the outset and somewhat set the tone going forward. Damien also leaned into the acid tone a little, but I do think you put them on the backfoot from the start, and there were little moments in there where your responses almost seemed to be implying "Watch yourself--I'm on the case now and don't intend to let you get away with this" which, if not exactly WP:OWN in nature, felt at least a little OWN-adjacent. Further showing up at Damien's talk page after they had indicated they were not looking to debate the issue on the Yamaguchi article, armed with evidence of their "pattern", suggests that you thought it was your role to police them, even after there was no ongoing editorial dispute between the two of you--and it's hard to imagine how that discussion could ever end productively.

More broadly, and in my opinion, the content in dispute is an issue that should definitely be filed under "reasonable minds may vary". Now personally, I lean a little bit more towards your interpretation: that is to say, that "commit suicide", aside from being the common terminology, is highly idiomatic in how English speakers process it (that is, they don't attach a cultural value judgment to the "commit" part, by and large, or even consciously recognize the possible criminal/cultural violation meaning of the word in this particular phrase). I believe it is considered offensive by some at least partly because of folk etymology, and a fixation on a semantic interpretation of the phrase that is by no means universal (or even necessarily very common). But style guidance sometimes evolves on the back of such misconceptions, and we have to be able to have discussions about such semi-subjective style matters without entering the discussion heated from word go, no matter how silly we might personally think a given piece of linguistic prescriptivism is. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll admit I should have been more tactful off the bat. I could go on about what exactly set me off, but I don't want to reignite any arguments. I understand what you mean by own-adjacent and I can see exactly where you got that from, but it was more to do with the argumentation "style" of the opposing party. Avoidable situation, admittedly. I should have done better, I'll remove what I wrote on his talk page. DarmaniLink (talk) 04:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you: I appreciate the feedback being received in the spirit it was intended. Best of luck with the RfC and hopefully finding a wording that most can get behind. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:49, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I consider this issue resolved, especially now that the comments on my talk page have been voluntarily removed. I don't want to escalate things further and would prefer to have this discussion closed immediately. Thank you for your third opinion Snow Rise, which I very much appreciate and respect. You're right, I did lean into the acid tone; I've always followed the Golden Rule on Wikipedia. I treat people the way they treat me. I'm not saying that's any justification, it's just how I always do things. In regards to your question regarding why I chose to escalate this matter to ANI: as per my initial post, I had every intention to let the talk page issue go, until I saw the post at the Village Pump. I don't want to restart a debate (following your explanation I now understand why my edits were considered edit warring), but to answer your question, the way I saw it at the time was that ceasing what I believed to be unfair accusations on my talk page, only to continue doing so elsewhere, was a sign that they did want to continue the debate, just elsewhere. I was also not aware I had the discretion to ban someone from my talk page; I've never wanted to before. Anyway, thanks again for your helpful input. Damien Linnane (talk) 09:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

You're very welcome Damien: I appreciate both of you being willing to take a step back and realize that the initial rapid back and forth had pressed each of you into being a little sharper tongued than I think either of you is want to be under other circumstances, from all evidence that I can see here. We've had a happy streak of pairs of editors here over the last couple of weeks being willing to make those concessions once heard out, and it's a nice change of pace for this space. Best wishes and happy editing to the both of you! SnowRise ^{let's rap} 14:23, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Power trip ban

In response to being informed their range block was too broad, Graham87 banned the account and left this message "Please change your username to something less inflammatory that doesn't contain a grammatical error"

What an absolute champion. Dummyaccount2354547665 (talk) 03:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

This happened in more than a month ago, why raise it now? You must notify a user when you start a discussion about them here. RudolfRed (talk) 04:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

This person is probably a sock of YouBlockedEntireISP and wants to complain... that's my guess. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 08:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how this would count as socking when even the block message says in bold Please take a moment to either create a new account... Ljleppan (talk) 08:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Not only would this not be socking, I am also at a loss as to the reasoning for the account being blocked.TBH if their entire ISP has indeed been blocked I dont think making a one time account to get it changed is all that unreasonable, especially if they dont want to edit as an account.
Quite snarky, must say, but not block worthy IMO. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Notified the person. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:36, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. If consensus is that the account YouBlockedEntireISP should be unblocked, then so be it (i.e. I'm OK with it being unblocked without my say-so), but I don't think there'd be much benefit in that. I did indeed block quite wide IP ranges to protect Wikipedia from an insidious pro-Trump vandal from the Australian state of Victoria, probably its capital Melbourne (see this old help desk thread). They've also been active cross-wiki, especially on Wikiquote (see this thread participated in by Antandrus. There are two IP ranges at issue: the first, Special:Contributions/2001:8003:4000::/35, the subject of this thread, is not significatnly active cross-wiki so I'll unblock it, citing this diff; the second, Special:Contributions/2001:8003:C000::/35, very much is, so I'll leave my block of it alone. Graham87 09:55, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Repinging Antandrus, just in case. Graham87 10:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I think that an account with a username that specifically made up to criticise someone's actions is a UPOL violation, and a softblock at least was inevitable. It would probably have been a good idea to send it to UAA for another admin to consider, rather than the target of the criticism being the one to block, but the result would have been the same and we don't need to waste too many words on this. The person who made the account would only have had to spend a few seconds creating a new account had they wanted to. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:05, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Fair point re taking it to UAA. Graham87 10:22, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Too much bureaucracy for me. I've blocked the user as NOTHERE.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that, good block. The "Dummyaccount..." too. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Persistent disruption at multiple wrestling WP:BLPs by South Korean IPs

Mostly unsourced changes to weight and height data, standard low-visibility vandalism. I don't know whether it's more practical to lock a bunch of articles or do some range blocks.

• 223.39.25.93 (talk · contribs)
• 121.132.255.74 (talk · contribs)
• 124.5.48.149 (talk · contribs)
• 121.132.255.89 (talk · contribs)
• 220.127.212.216 (talk · contribs)
• 175.211.225.232 (talk · contribs)
• 125.142.204.155 (talk · contribs)

This is long term stuff and the (presumably one) user has probably done this with far more accounts than I've listed here. Perhaps there's an existing SPI related to this. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

• Euryalus blocked 125.142.197.49 (talk · contribs) for three years--they'd been at this since 2016. It's likely that the above accounts, and many others, are evading that block. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  Hi Bob - good to see you around. This is a bit of a tricky case - with a couple of exceptions, those IPs are in completely different ranges, and with a couple of exceptions it looks like they use one for a few hours or minutes and then move on. Semi-protection would work if it was an identifiable set of articles - when you were looking into it, did you get a sense of whether it was a particular set of articles that were being affected, or are they random? Girth Summit _(blether) 16:34, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  This has apparently been going on for years. I raised the issue back in January 2023. There were a few comments bemoaning the generally poor status of wrestling articles, but no action was taken. My January report included a list of 22 affected articles and 8 IPs, all different from the IPs in this report. The IPs in this report have hit some of the 22 articles in my January report, along with an additional few: Mark Jindrak, Trish Stratus, Lio Rush, JD McDonagh, Bronson Reed, and others. Given the large list of affected articles, I don't know if it's feasible to semi-protect them all, or whether doing so would just cause the vandals to move to different wrestler articles. CodeTalker (talk) 17:40, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Girth Summit and CodeTalker. You've put your finger(s) on the problems--multiple articles and multiple IP ranges, though the edits suggest a single user. Per my observation above, this disruption goes back years. The comments at your January report, CodeTalker, seemed to diverge from the specific issue to a discussion on wrestling articles in general. Once that happens, it's a sign that nothing can/will be done. And perhaps there's no solution besides a years' long continuation of whack-a-mole, flyswatting, or whatever metaphor one prefers. I'd wonder if either semi-protection to multiple articles, or subject-related partial blocks to multiple IP ranges are possible. They may well then attack other articles, at which time sanctions can be modified. For the moment, their preferred targets are clear enough. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Allegations of racism

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

---

Sir Calculus (talk · contribs) has had some difficulties understanding how Wikipedia deals with caste/tribal/clan articles, notably in connection with WP:RS, WP:V, WP:BLP and WP:CONSENSUS. I have tried to be patient with them, as have other editors, but I am now at the end of my tether because of their accusations of racism today, which are clearly aimed at me. this is it, followed by this. As I remarked between those two comments, "Effectively accusing people of racism isn't going to 'foster a more inclusive and respectful environment'.", the quote being theirs.

I'm not racist (I doubt I would have survivee well over a decade of editing the topic area if I was) and have previously explained all sorts of things to them, including acknowledgement of WP:SYSTEMIC, yet they persist in IDHT and attacks.- Sitush (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

That last diff looks like a pretty clear breach of WP:NPA. I'm willing to give Sir Calculus the opportunity to respond, but calling someone a racist in all but the rarest cases is unacceptable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sitush I understand all that you have linked. But answer me have you not opposed even the sources that respect WP:RS? Have not continuously mass deleted content on articles related to Sindh? It is interesting that today I mentioned Kalhora (my tribe) and now content from that article also got mass deleted by you. You removed native scripts from all articles related to Sindh without a consensus but you have not done so on other articles. You have previously disrespected my culture at Yamaguchi's talkpage. I have repeatedly explained that tribe names in Sindh & Punjab are used at the end. It's not the same as other places in the world. I even asked you to define Daudpota twice. Which you failed to answer. Systemic bias is a thing. We need to accept it happens. I was personally very hurt after what happened at Yamaguchi's talkpage. I even posted evidence of Sutyarashi that day. Another admin responded on that, saying they were "busy". I repeatedly mentioned about bullying. Even today a user who left a comment on my talkpage was topic BANNED.. Today.. They are Sindhi. And they contributed significantly to Sindhis article. You have called me "stupid" before and have also disrespected my culture. Which is still present on my talkpage & Yamaguchi's. So it's also WP:NPA. @Ad Orientem bullying is serious brother. I urge you to investigate Sutyarashi & Sitush. You will see in their edits, they both mass delete Sindh related things. It's so sad how WP:SYSTEMIC is so common here. If you want to ask that I remain silent about it or I will get banned like other Sindhis.. Then fine I will remain silent. I wouldn't call out any bias against minorities. Since this has gone to ANI now. And you are a neutral admin (not related to me or sitush), tell me to stop & I'll respectfully go silent about this, I take neutral admins seriously & respect wikipedia. Sir Calculus (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sir Calculus This is a content dispute. Systemic bias unquestionably exists. But even if that is a supportable concern here, which I am neither endorsing nor dismissing, there is a very large gap between that and overt racism. You openly called another editor a racist. That is a direct personal attack impugning not just their judgement, but their motives and character. Nothing you have written above supports that charge. I advise you to strike that comment and apologize. The other issues raised can be addressed by following the steps laid out in WP:DR. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:31, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem I take this very seriously but he is being very very specific about what he is mass deleting, another editor also mentioned it, and they got topic-banned. Also he couldn't think of a better word here? I still forgave him for that. I don't like conflicts. I will take your advice of WP:DR.

@Sitush In the heat of the moment, I allowed frustration to cloud my judgment, and I directed my words thoughtlessly towards you. Such behavior is entirely contrary to the principles of respect and collaboration that we, as Wikipedia editors, should uphold. I deeply regret my actions in making inappropriate remarks and calling into question your credibility as an editor. Allow me to unequivocally state that my remark was both unwarranted and unjustified. It was an unfortunate lapse in judgment, and I understand the gravity of my mistake. I acknowledge that such comments have no place on Wikipedia and I take full responsibility for my actions. I am committed to learning from this experience and cultivating a more positive and respectful environment on Wikipedia. Your contributions to the platform are invaluable, I deeply regret my words. Please find it in your heart to forgive me. I truly hope we can set aside this unfortunate incident and continue contributing to make Wikipedia a better place. Once again, I apologize for my hurtful words @Sitush, and I humbly seek your understanding and forgiveness. I'm sorry. Sir Calculus (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sir Calculus Thank you. As noted above, the other issues pertaining to the ongoing content dispute(s) can be handled per the procedures in WP:DR. And on that note, I am going to close this discussion as I believe the matter at hand to be resolved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

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

Reporting user TheMNLRockstar

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

---

I'd like to report user TheMNLRockstar which is/are indeed user Raymarcbadz. They have created a new count (TheMNLRockstar) just 2 days after having erasing the section in talk in their talk page on Raymarcbadz. They are doing exactly the same kind of edits that user Raymarcbadz did. I recall you that user Raymarcbadz is banned from doing any edits on Olympics subjects and they are doing a lot of edits since 4 July on Olympics Subjects. I think that the administrators must show to TheMNLRockstar or Raymarcbadz that when the user is banned from editing on certain subjects, they are banned ! 82.120.136.18 (talk) 13:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

User TheMNLRockstar is deleting all my remarks without explaining them. I think the masks have fallen. 82.120.136.18 (talk) 13:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I think an investigation would be welcome regarding the strong similarities between users Raymarcbadz and TheMNLRockstar. 82.120.136.18 (talk) 13:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Who are you and how sure are you? And why did you file any charges against me? Could you please stop accusing me as someone who banned from Wikipedia? TheMNLRockstar (talk) 13:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

You have created your new account 2 days after last edit from Raymarcbadz. I read your talk page before you have erased it and you said that you can't live without making edits on Olympics subjects because you editted in during 17 years. I found it really strange that the exact same edits that Raymarcbadz did you too also did exact the same kind of edits. You have the exact same kind of vocabulary and you do the exact same edits on the same subjects. 82.120.136.18 (talk) 13:54, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

They have been checkuser blocked by User:Girth Summit. Canterbury Tail talk 13:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you ! It is important to stay vigilant with these users using Sockpuppetry ! 82.120.136.18 (talk) 13:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

And apparently you come from the same geographical area. That's too big to be "just a coincidence". User Raymarcbadz is banned from editting Olympic Subjects, you should too considering that you are the same person. 82.120.136.18 (talk) 13:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Raymarcbadz is not banned from just Olympic topics, they are outright banned from Wikipedia. Any sock is block and revert on sight. Canterbury Tail talk 13:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's undeniably the same person. We don't have a category stronger than  Confirmed, but this if we did this would be {{super-duper-confirmed}}. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Girth Summit for your quick response. I will stay vigilant because I am 80% sure they will create another one... 82.120.136.18 (talk) 14:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I see. I saw that they were deleting edits made by other editors on Olympics subjects exactly like was doing Raymarcbadz. I hope they will be reasonable in the future and stop their destructive behaviour. 82.120.136.18 (talk) 14:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Girth Summit: I found this (Redacted). We were right: it is completely the same person ! 82.120.136.18 (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

IP editor - I wasn't in any doubt. Please don't post things like that here - it's WP:OUTING. The user may be blocked, but we need to respect their privacy. I've asked the oversight team to suppress your edit. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

OK right, but in this comment they say that they will do the same thing again and again, I think it's worth noticing it... 82.120.136.18 (talk) 14:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Noticing, perhaps, but not posting here. Evidence like that can be submitted through other channels, such as IRC or email, but not posted onwiki. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the redacted information is still posted on WT:OLYMPICS. Kingsif (talk) 22:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

It's gone now. This can probably be closed. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

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

User:MrHerii

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

---

Have come across this user on Elon Musk related topics on Wikipedia, looks to be engaging in serial removal of reliably-sourced content they don't like that's negative of Musk, inserting their own fan-created material, and engaging in what can only be interpreted as bizarre roleplay about a future Musk government-type entity that also involves Nazi-style imagery. Examples of behaviour include:
Repeated insertion of what appears to be their own fan-created logo for X Corp, despite warnings [226][227][228][229]
Repeated removal of reliably sourced content that highlighted issues with Twitter under Elon Musk's ownership under what appears to be false claims of "neutrality" [230][231][232] [233]
Apparent abusing of neutrality templates [234]
The page Musk Family that when examining it closer today was nearly entirely their editing and outside of what were essentially disambiguation links was rather questionably sourced (which for transparency I have nominated for deletion) [235]
Their sandbox page, which is a series of fictional entries about an Elon Musk-run government bodies[236] that has also recently included obvious allusions to Nazi iconography.[237]
(For added context, this isn't the first time it appears this has happened, see their user profile page from last year[238])

Believe this needs rather urgent intervention Apache287 (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I’m highly inclined to NOTHERE. The sandbox is an obvious U5, but I’m leaving it alone for now so non-admins can consider this. Courcelles (talk) 16:30, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I first came across this user a couple of years ago when they were edit warring at House of Hohenzollern for which they were blocked. They had a single-minded Russian-related POV and was pretty uncommunicative. I think there was similar behaviour at other Russian -related articles. Their user pages have been on my watchlist ever since and I've noticed its bizarre use as a place to keep fictitious Elon Musk and colonisation of Mars pseudo-articles - including the one with the Nazi symbolism which I and another user reverted. That part of their editing is definitely NOTHERE. I'm not sure whether their more conventional editing (which seems exclusively Musk and Russia related) is worth keeping them for. DeCausa (talk) 17:21, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

From what I've seen of 2023 edits I'd say it's very much not worth it. They are actively just inserting fan creations into mainspace, claiming it's fine because "it's derived from" a completely different item, and their approach to sourcing is basically "reliable = my view, unreliable = anything not my view" given they've used tweets as sources in one instance and then removed statements backed up by multiple reputable outlets in others. Apache287 (talk) 17:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Weird fan fiction sandboxes which probably violate the BLP policy aren't cool. NOTHERE. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Blocked. Courcelles (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

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

Dynamic ip address with a battleground mentality mainly at WP:BLPN#Jorit and Jorit

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

---

• 72.86.132.193 (talk · contribs)
• 72.86.133.127 (talk · contribs)
• 72.86.132.107 (talk · contribs)
• 72.86.133.238 (talk · contribs)
• 72.86.135.37 (talk · contribs)

I'm sure I missed a couple of ip addresses, but this dynamic ip user is WP:NOTHERE to contribute and just engages in WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour in casting aspersions towards several editors.[239][240][241][242][243] The Jorit article was semi-protected because of their edit warring to WP:RGW with a dynamic ip address.[244][245] Their contributions to BLPN and the article talk page have not been constructive and they should not be participating in wikipedia space for a while. The Pam Bondi diff suggest this person has been bearing a grudge for multiple years and may have had a previous account. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:42, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

do you mean 72.86.0.0 range that originate from Pennsylvania? ToadetteEdit ^(chat)/_(logs) 08:53, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes. That is a large range. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

72.86.132.0/22 would seem to cover it, though? I can see hardly anything recent from this range that isn't Jorit-related. Black Kite (talk) 09:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. I have blocked the /22 range for a month. Black Kite (talk) 09:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

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

Yubaraj Khatri

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

---

• YubarajKhatri1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Everything has been tried with this self-promoting SPA, over many many years. Please block them for NOTHERE. There is no point trying to do something about content while they're able to undo all attempts to make it better. Aside from being wildly promotional, the article has one possibly reliable source and zero reputable sources. Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool You are required to notify all involved parties of ANI discussions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I did not notify them because I am not seeking a discussion. I and they are not two parties of a dispute. I am notifying admins of a user who I think should obviously be blocked, without discussion, without necessitating "hearing their side of the story". I do not think the red notice applies in such a case (but I am assuming; I do not know the history of the red notice). Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool, FYI, notification is mandatory if you report somebody here - regardless of whether you want a discussion or not. This is true even if the case against them is open and shut.

I have gone ahead and notified them myself.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 07:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

So, there are two kinds of reasons for blocking. First is wp:uaa, second is wp:UPE. Normally, if the article has enough notability, their username need to be confirmed by VRT, if not, they are just spamming and need a block. -Lemonaka‎ 07:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• This is too bad. I have speedied the promotional autobiography and indeffed the user. Thank you, Usedtobecool. Bishonen | tålk 08:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC).

  @Bishonen You may forget to block YubarajKhatri (talk · contribs), the reason are the same and this is a ducking sock. -Lemonaka‎ 08:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know about that. Actually it's the older account. There doesn't seem to have been any intention to sock maliciously,[246] but of course it needs blocked. Done. Thanks, Lemonaka. Bishonen | tålk 08:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC).

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

User:Seattle mansonics

Seattle mansonics (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor does edit very infrequently. However, in between a handful of legitimate edits, this editor has a history of vandalism, including 3 straight edits that were vandalism. Some of the vandalism edits appear to be deliberate factual errors. In addition to some history of vandalism, this editor has a history premature edits for sports transactions, even after receiving warnings about not doing this. They did it again today. Potentially a weak WP:NOTHERE case but there's enough legitimate edits in the past that this might just be a simple vandalism/unsourced/poorly sourced edits case. With how infrequently this editor edits, they may not even realize they are banned if they receive a short ban, but I'll support whatever, if any, action taken by admins.--Rockchalk717 01:04, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

• Diffs please. Thanks. Lourdes 03:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Repeated submission of Draft:Chang, Ching-Yu by User:Yen930407

User:Yen930407 has submitted this draft for AfC review a total of 7 times, each time ignoring the feedback previously received and doing nothing to remedy the issues that reviewers have highlighted. They also added Chinese categories after being told that this is inappropriate. They were directly asked to stop resubmitting the draft without addressing its major issues four times (1, 2, 3, 4), with multiple editors making clear that this behaviour could be considered disruptive. They have now submitted the draft for a seventh time. They have commented on this matter here and at the AfC help desk, where @DoubleGrazing: reaffirmed the decisions of previous reviewers. They have then gone on to resubmit the draft. This is unambiguously disruptive behaviour and this editor has refused to WP:LISTEN to others on many, many occasions. Pinging @Theroadislong:, as they have also reviewed the draft twice and tried to engage with this editor. Actualcpscm (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Note: This draft has now been rejected by another editor. I came to ANI specifically to avoid rejecting this draft, because I think there's a good chance it's an appropriate and notable topic. Of course, this stops the repeated submissions, but I don't think it's good to use rejection to stop repeated submissions when the article subject is potentially notable and appropriate. Actualcpscm (talk) 19:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@Actualcpscm: Update to this: Draft:Chang, Ching-Yu was rejected by Mcmatter, and so Yen930407 simply created another draft (Draft:Chang Ching-Yu) with the same problems. 〜 Festucalex • talk 10:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Which was pretty much to be expected. I just realised it has not been mentioned here yet; this is also a single-purpose account. Actualcpscm (talk) 10:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I have little doubt the topic is probably notable however the rejection button is a tool reviewers can use in situations like this to stop the submitter and have them actually engage in the correction process, or stop wasting other peoples' time reviewing something that is clearly not ready and repeating the exact same message again. If they actually made an effort to correct the issues I would have no issue with the rejection being vacated by my self or someone else. The goal here was to take away the submit button and have them engage the community. They did not and now it's probably time for all version to go to WP:MFD and the author being blocked. Someone else may pick up the mantle if they can find the required sources to support the content. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 19:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Just to add that there are half a dozen copies of this, in the draft and user spaces. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:13, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing: Can you link them here? 〜 Festucalex • talk 10:21, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

You can find them in the editor's contribs.

I've added to each a pointer to the rejected draft, in case more of these are submitted for review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

For simplicity, here are the relevant user logs: Special:Log/Yen930407 Actualcpscm (talk) 10:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

• (non-admin comment, uninvolved editor) Block indef its obvious the editor is not listening and is only going to continue. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
• Well, if someone can get a hand on "Who's who in modern China"[247], it contains a full biography of this remarkable person. One could also get a plethora of books from the Chang Ching Yu Memorial Library. There are some 9 walls littered with books on this person. But that's the editorial front. Recreation of drafts repeatedly is disruption. Lourdes 06:49, 24 July 2023 (UTC)