Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Rafaelosornio reverting permanently my secular editing of the article on Padre Pio

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

---

I report the user Rafaelosornio. He reverts my contributions in the article Padre Pio. Although these have a clear source, he deletes content. He is acting from a Catholic fundamentalist understanding of the article on Padre Pio. The user has already been warned several times for his disruptive editing behavior. In particular, he alters religious and psychological topics according to his extreme Catholic POV. Mr. bobby (talk) 13:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute, not a conduct dispute. However, @Mr. bobby:, please do not refer to good-aith edits as vandalism, as you did here and here, even if you personally think that they did not improve the page. Doing so is uncivil and promotes a hostile editing environment. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Of course, this is both content and conduct dispute. I post facts here, give cleanly the source and the reported reverts that. The intention of this is clearly recognizable and consists in taking away the criticism of a canonized, extremely controversial person. On the talk page of the reported one can document his behavior and corresponding complaints exactly. His comments on his changes are not understandable. Simply any out of the air statements and assertions. Please take a closer look. The reported one uses permanently hagiographic sources, sources directly from the fundamentalist Catholic environment, worship websites etc...Mr. bobby (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

It’s worth noting that Mr. Bobby has brought this to ANI twice before in the past 3 months, with neither report resulting in admin action.

I see a reasonable amount of back and forth at the article talk page, which is the appropriate place to resolve a content dispute. I do think Mr. Bobby should be advised to assume good faith and avoid personal attacks; aside from the accusations of vandalism presented by Red-tailed Hawk. Mr. Bobby has twice called Rafaelosornio a fundamentalist. He has also shown some battleground behavior by referring to the version he published as “the correct version”. None of this behavior seems to merit admin action, IMHO, but a firm warning to focus on the content, not the contributor, may be in order. Retracted per this post.

It looks like SanctumRosarium attempted dispute resolution at the end of October 2022, but it was closed as being premature. Perhaps it would be worth trying now? Or if the reliability of the sources involved are in question, WP:RSN seems like a better fit. Either way, this has not been shown by other resolution attempts to be either urgent or intractable. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC) Edited 23:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

This appears to be a rehash of the same issue Mr. Bobby reported back on December 30th. It's not even been a month, and you're dragging this back here again, because you didn't get the result you wanted?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1116#Behavior_of_an_editor_in_a_catholic-fundamentalist_article_Miracle_of_Lanciano

Of note, Mr. Bobby has been blocked from this article previously for edit warring over it, so I think we may be nearing a topic ban. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I was told to bring this in to avoid an edit war. Now I'm being negatively interpreted as wanting to create publicity for simply reverting changes with clean citation of sources. Is anyone here also concerned with the disruptive changes to the one I reported? With its use of purely religious sources to seemingly prove alleged facts?Mr. bobby (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

And I add the following:

1. I am not against moderation of change to this article.

2. sanctumrosarium is practically a one-purpose-account. He too has responded disruptively to my secular edits.

3. Much of the article on Padre Pio was developed by me and is based on clear sources. This article is about extreme issues, including that the saint is said to have flown. I ask all reasonable contributors to pay attention to reliable sources here after all. Therefore I cannot even begin to understand the idea of a topic ban: What are the edits to the article that are to be objected to here? From the reported, on the other hand, it was insinuated several times in the editing comments that I would not reproduce the sources correctly: A very serious accusation that is not substantiated anywhere.

4. And finally: what would be the correct side/place to which I can turn with this problem and this conflict? Mr. bobby (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Mr. Bobby You cannot modify to your liking what the sources say. The German source in question clearly says: "Veratrine was once used as a paralyzing muscle insecticide, primarily against lice, but was also described by pharmacists as an "external stimulant" that renders you insensitive to pain."

And your modified version says:

Taking the alkaloid mixture resulted in insensitivity to wound pain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafaelosornio (talk • contribs) 02:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Wow, this is exactly typical of Rafaelosornio's work. He himself distorts content and at the same time insinuates distortions to me. In this case (there are numerous others) the quote is: German:

„Veratrin hingegen fand einst als muskellähmendes Insektengift, vorzugsweise gegen Läuse, Verwendung, wird von der Pharmazie aber auch als „äußerlich wirkendes Reizmittel“, das gegen Schmerz unempfindlich macht, beschrieben.“

English translation: „Veratrine, on the other hand, was once used as a muscle paralyzing insecticide, preferably against lice, but is also described by pharmacists as an "externally acting irritant" that desensitizes to pain.“

Source:

The central part is Schürmer's reference to the pain effect. Pio ordered huge quantities of the preparation secretly and without prescription. I found this source and used it in the article.

In Revision as of 13:35, 21 January 2023 he simply deleted this important information:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Padre_Pio&diff=prev&oldid=1134918987

saying: „Luzzatto is not a chemist, this is not a chemical article, that goes on the corresponding page. And the other cannot be verified. Failed verification.“

Mr. bobby (talk) 09:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand why you want to put what veratrine is, that's what the link to the corresponding article is for, let the links do their job, one clicks on veratrine and it takes you to the article and tells you what it is.

And about the source in German, you had not placed the link to where the information was, so there was no way to corroborate what was said. Once you put the link I was able to corroborate that in the Wikipedia article you had put something different.Rafaelosornio (talk) 12:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should be written in a Neutral POV WP:NPOV WP:RNPOV

"Wikipedia content should not only encompass what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices but also account for how such beliefs and practices developed. Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from religion's sacred texts and modern archaeological, historical, and scientific sources".

It may not be reliable to take Luzzato's Padre Pio book as a reliable reference to explain scientific explanations about events associated with Padre Pio since Luzzato is a Historian, not a scientist. Also, there is no need to describe what Veratridine is while a link can explain what it is. Exanx777 (talk) 14:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

An extremely secular perspective? Secular is defined as the state of being unrelated or neutral in regards to religion, so that is exactly what we should strive at. But it is true that this is not a question for admins. Rather, it belongs on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. The article needs to be neutral, that is, secular. Extremely secular, if possible. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The substance is said to be veratrine, not veratridine (which is obtained from veratrine). There isn't much about veratrine per se in the veratridine article; the information about how veratrine was ... described by pharmacists as an "external stimulant" that renders you insensitive to pain is not contained therein. I was notified by Mr. bobby of this discussion and I have a slight WP:INAPPNOTE concern. I feel that I am detached enough from these issues to be able to see things neutrally. —Alalch E. 16:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Almost everything from the above contribution of Exanz 777 is to be judged critically:

1. of course everything in Wikipedia must be described from a neutral point of view. Religious belief cannot be presented as if physical facts were presented here. (Pio, according to his fans, flew for real and fought off bomber pilots...).

2. Luzzatto is a serious historian. He does not have to be a pharmacologist to be able to tell us seriously what Veratrine was used for in Pio's (!) time. (And as already said Veratrine is not the same as Veratridin).

3. An article has to explain certain facts to the reader, so that he understands the context. Blue links are not always enough. In the present case, everything is very meticulously documented with appropriate sources.

4. with the whole cast of catholic believers of these hand wounds, which are held for divine stigmata, the effect of a secretly ordered medicine is of course extremely important and of encyclopedic relevance.Mr. bobby (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Of note, NPOV does not mean we must throw out all the religious beliefs in an article. We do not treat them as factual happenings, but it also does not mean we must go to undue length to debunk them. That's not Wikipedia's purpose.

No, we do not need to go into excessive detail about a blue-linked topic. There's good faith arguments to be had about just how much detail needs to be given, but it is not necessary to go in-depth.

Frankly, it does sound like you're here to debunk religious beliefs, rather than simply documenting the facts surrounding them. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Everything you say here consists of insinuations. As has been said twice now, Veratrine is not Veratridin. So it must be explained what it is about. Nowhere is it about debunking of religious beliefs. Please prove that to me. All it is about is distinguishing (!) a religious belief system and its assumptions from the accounts of secular scholars and historians. That is exactly what is being obstructed here. My work can be seen well in the article Miracle of Lanciano. There, a fantasy system had been compiled from the most obscure and largely falsified sources. Several contributors have worked with me to make the article now meet encyclopedic standards. Mr. bobby (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

It comes across that way to me as well, and very emotional at that. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

"The Hand That Feeds You" has managed to push the entire discussion here in one direction with his one-sided, distorted and unsubstantiated expression of opinion. Rafaelosornio has in both articles Padre Pio and Miracle of Lanciano my changes constantly reverted. In both articles he leaves in fake, invented, unreliable sources, the main thing is that the claimed miracles are proven by this extremely religious „sources“. In "Miracle of Lanciano" several editors have meticulously proved for years that most of the sources were falsified (see talk page). Nevertheless, for years a fringe theory could hold on in the article. And nevertheless absurdly "The hand" demands a topic ban for me. It would make sense to give him a topic ban for this discussion. Rafelosornio's posts aim to undermine, delay and keep extreme POV sources in the article. Just take a look at his posts for once.Mr. bobby (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I retract my earlier statement that Mr. Bobby only needs a warning; I am now agnostic to that point. After being warned by multiple editors, they have attempted to canvas many different editors, characterizing this thread as a “slanted discussion”, and characatrizing Rafaelsosornio as “a religious user” who is distorting content based on a religious POV. This is after being cautioned to comment on content, not editors. He has referred to User:HandThatFeeds’s post above by claiming “everything you say here consists of insinuations”, particularly odd as HandThatFeeds has insinuated nothing, and outright stated how Mr. Bobby’s actions appear.

I wonder if there’s a language barrier at play. He has said that Rafaelsosornio’s comments are “not understandable”, but I find them easy enough to comprehend. In the disputed edit regarding veratrine above, Mr. Bobby’s preferred language “Taking the alkaloid mixture resulted…” makes it sound as if he’s saying in wikivoice that Padre Pio took the mixture, for which I do not see a reliable source. I could see him intending this to mean, “In that period, the alkaloid mixture could be used to…”, which would be accurately summarizing the source.

This could easily have been resolved on the article talk page, but Mr. Bobby’s conduct comes off as moderate battleground behavior, as seen in this thread, as well as what seems to be some ownership, as shown by statements like “Much of the article on Padre Pio was developed by me…”.

I remain agnostic on the content dispute; religion isn’t my field, and I don’t consider myself qualified to discuss the reliability of sources or what constitutes a neutral point of view on this matter. I will say that, from what I read of Rafaelsornio’s posts, he appears to be making a civil and good faith effort, and doesn’t seem to me to be engaging in battleground behavior. Which is another reason why Mr. Bobby might wish to, as suggested above by Hob Galding, go to the relevant noticeboard for discussing NPOV issues. Repeated restating of the content dispute at this venue reinforces my impression that Mr Bobby is here to win an argument, not to better the encyclopedia. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, I don't know if it's appropriate to go to user's pages to enlist help in support of opposing "religious" users, as if their religion is in itself reason enough to oppose them: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hob_Gadling&oldid=1135215187#Padre_Pio YouCanDoBetter (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Topic ban proposal

Given the above insistence that other editors are using fake, invented, unreliable sources, and constant aspersions against anyone who disagrees with his stance, I believe Mr. bobby is here to right great wrongs rather than productively edit the encyclopedia. As this is not restricted to a single article, I'm proposing a topic ban on religious articles, broadly construed, in the hopes that he can edit productively in other areas.

• Support as nominator. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. I have known Mr. bobby for a long time and he is a very reasonable editor. The key problem here is that the underlying editing pattern seems like a content dispute which it actually is not: Mr. bobby's edits are compliant with WP:RS and WP:V – they are being reverted because of that. Wikipedia is not a place for propagating conspiracy theories (e.g., that Padre Pio was able to fly or bilocate, or that he had other supernatural powers). Forcing a topic ban on an editor who removes nonsense from Wikipedia articles and edits according to Wikipedia's core content policies is unreasonable. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 21:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support. For a variety of reasons, including the extreme emotionality which he apparently approaches the subject, and the circular reasoning he uses. I'm afraid this won't result in a ban, but I definitely support. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support Per the below comment. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Here I quote voices of editors on the talk page of "Miracle of Lanciano." No statement here is from me. But it clearly shows that even invented sources were used in the article.

1: „It says that there are 2 stories about the weight: Fella and Valsecca but that they don't contradict (even though they do). It mentions Linoli (and the blood claims) and a mysterious rapport from the WHO from 1976 (that no one has ever been able to show). ( )This source should be removed.“

2. „The extract of the scientific research of WHO’s medical commission was published in New York and Geneva in 1976, confirming science’s inability to explain the phenomenon." I have never seen a source for this, no scientific publications for this miracle that would be the proof that Catholicism is true. I don't think the Higher Council even exists. This source should be removed.“

3. „It is in Italian. I don't know whether it was peer reviewed and I don't know whether it is a prestigous journal. I don't care, it has never been cited in 50 years. (and would only proof Transsubstantiation to be real) It goes against MEDRS. This source should be removed.“

4. „Miracles of the Church (PDF). Bharath Institute of Higher Education and Learning. 2012. p. 20.: is a dead link for me. Google (and google scholar) an Bing gives nothing.“

5. „I have found a copy of "source" 7 on the wayback machine: Miracles of the Church (PDF). Bharath Institute of Higher Education and Learning. 2012. p. 20. This is clearly an unreliable source. No author information. Not printed in a peer reviewed journal.“

Another user:

6. „I removed the paragraphs talking about the WHO study since it's been proven to be, in part, a fraud.“

Mr. bobby (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

• Weak support. While Mr. Bobby does seem to be on the right side of things in terms of content, the battleground behavior does not seem to have responded to warnings in this thread. Despite claims in this thread, I don’t see the other editors claiming Padre Pio could fly or bilocate; that seems to be an exaggeration. What I do see is escalating battleground behavior, WP:IDHT, WP:CANVAS, and incivility which Mr. Bobby has not acknowledged much less pledged to curtail. If I did see such an acknowledgment and understanding of what behaviors could be improved and how, I would change my !vote to oppose. In the absence of any such indicator, I would be very hesitant to edit anywhere I saw him active for fear of "crossing swords"; this behavior drives away editors. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Padre_Pio&diff=prev&oldid=875252163

In the version from this time you can read:

„People who had started rebuilding their lives after World War I, began to see in Padre Pio a symbol of hope.[14] Those close to him attest that he began to manifest several spiritual gifts, including the gifts of healing, bilocation, levitation, prophecy, miracles, extraordinary abstinence from both sleep and nourishment (one account states that Padre Agostino recorded one instance in which Padre Pio was able to subsist for at least 20 days at Verafeno on only the Eucharist without any other nourishment), the ability to read hearts, the gift of tongues, the gift of conversions, and pleasant-smelling wounds.[15]“

You find bilokation and levitation. (Some say he flew throught the air against pilots, but I did not find that in the English Wikipedia.)Mr. bobby (talk) 22:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

1) That diff doesn’t show what you claim it does. 2) It does not assert, in wikivoice, that Padre Pio did any of that. It asserts, in wikivoice, that his close acquaintances attested that, which is factually accurate; the acquaintances did, indeed, so attest, according to the sources. In an article about a canonized saint, I think presenting the factors that lead the church to its decision (especially identifying them as hearsay, i.e. as being by close acquaintances) is very relevant. 3) Even if it did assert supernatural powers in wikivoice, it was not by Rafaelosornio, and so is not relevant to this content dispute. 4) Even if it were to have been by Rafaelosornio, that content is still in the article now, so the argument that this dispute is because you’re trying to keep it out of the article has no weight.

Mr. Bobby, I really wish you would stop doubling down on the narrative that you were right. Even if you were right about the content dispute, this thread is about your behavior. It’s clear that you can be a very productive editor with a dedication to venerability. If we knew that you understood that your behavior was wrong, why it was wrong, and wouldn’t be repeated, I don’t think a topic ban would be necessary. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support. I don't think the user is able to detach himself from his dislike of the article's subject sufficiently enough to write neutrally about it. He is consistently having the same circular edit wars with other users over and over again - for years now, and to a point where it gets really tedious.--Medusahead (talk) 10:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose.I regret that I got involved in arguments and can only assure that I will avoid that in the future. At the same time, I believe that I have improved the article through my contributions. Of course, I do not claim ownership of this article.Mr. bobby (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support. I have already blocked them once for edit warring, have them advice on how to proceed, and warned them against making personal attacks. It doesn't seem to have made much of a dent in their behavior. At this point we're left with vanishingly few options. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, you're right to talk about "them" here. This is really about two Wikipedia editors. The discussion here is exclusively about my behavior. On your advice I have posted the recurring problems from my point of view here with the consequence that only I am criticized here. You had blocked both of us.Mr. bobby (talk) 09:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

That's because by starting this section in the way that you did you have managed to stick a nice boomerang-shaped plank in your eye, while the speck in your brother's eye that is already a known quantity, doesn't seem like "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems" business in comparison. May this canvassed intercession induce in you a transverberation, such that you may repent of self-righteous vainglory and wrath, and Divine Mercy might wash over you. —Alalch E. 02:31, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support per [1], in which OP complains that another version of the subject's photo should be used, in which he looks "demonic". Also see [2], my suggestion the last time OP was here: basically that this could be handled a lot less emotionally. As someone said above, it is one thing not to want hagiography, (which is admirable, even) but quite another to actively seek to disprove other people's religious beliefs as nonsense and to portray their saints as "demonic" and supporters of Mussolini. DUE. The miracles need to be discussed in the context of his canonization, and this can be done without all this dismissiveness. Elinruby (talk) 12:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I feel there's some language barrier issue there. He probably meant to say how the undoctored image didn't look saintly enough, so it was heavily retouched. On the actual merits, the proposal is pretty reasonable: He isn't really proposing to change the image to some negative image of the subject, it's only about changing from a doctored version to an undoctored photograph (which can be retouched reasonably in a way that does not create a religious icon -- example). —Alalch E. 18:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right about a language gap. That's the same image he said was demonic though, and also the same as the one we are using now. The latter has been colorized, is all, and this one has had exposure or maybe shadows adjusted. But hey, I admire your skill at AGF. The image rant seemed fairly unreasonable to me, but it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong. He does seem to want to debunk the miracles, which do need to be discussed --neutrally-- because Padre Pio is apparently notable for being canonized, for which miracles are a prerequisite. ::See Bijli Pasi for an example of legend/myth neutrally handled imho. I don't personally care about the padre either way, mind you. I just thought the thread was iconic of an attitude. Elinruby (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is iconic. But his objections are often reasonable; doesn't mean everyone is obligated to agree, however. If he would show that he understands what battleground behavior is and if he can see the irony in fixing alleged (and real) fringe religious POV while acting like an inquisitor, he should get one last chance to work in this topic area. —Alalch E. 23:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I would not be comfortable editing those articles, but OTOH I have no real interest in doing so. Those diffs are obnoxious, however. When it comes to religious beliefs we don't share, shouldn't we make certain that these are neutrally presented *as beliefs*, without insisting on trying to prove that they are unscientific or even fringe, forsooth? I hope you are right in this case. That is all, except that I realized after my earlier post that quite a lot of admin enforcement had gone into my example of neutral presentation. Hmmm. Elinruby (talk) 05:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Scabab and box office figures

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

---

Scabab (talk · contribs · count) has been citing this single link in four different articles to support information regarding box office: Dragon Ball Z: Battle of Gods, Dragon Ball Z: Resurrection 'F', Dragon Ball Super: Broly and Dragon Ball Super: Super Hero. The problem is that the information cannot be verified by the reader with that simple link. I already brought up the issue with this site here and here. However, I also noticed that it is not the first time that editors have issues with the edits of Scabab regarding box office stuff and sourcing; there are at least two previous discussions: [3] [4] Xexerss (talk) 06:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

This just seems like a troll. Has not responded kindly to this criticisms in the past (as both these diffs show). This seems less like a dispute resolution issue and more a combo of failing to cite these apparent sources they speak of and inability to learn from mistakes.

One good thing is because of his specific focus, any socks this guy uses are gonna be easy to spot. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 16:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I think so. It's clear that the user doesn't care about policies and guidelines and just makes edits the way they deem correct. I would revert their edits myself in these articles, but they would probably do the same and I don't want to be engaged in an edit war. Xexerss (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I took the time to add (verifiable) sources to these four articles. I request some input on it if the user re-incurs in adding original research content to the articles. Xexerss (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

They are verifiable as well as hugely outdated and incorrect. I'll only ever put the correct number. Scabab (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@Scabab: Ok, so it seems that you still don't get it. The objective of Wikipedia is to have reliable and verifiable sources that can confirm the info to which they are attached when someone accesses to them, not to keep updated figures just for the sake of keeping them updated and use any source available out there that you think that can work and you consider enough. What you deem "outdated and incorrect" and "correct" is totally irrelevant; you've insisted on adding ambiguous, self-published and generally poorly sourced links to articles, ignoring any guideline, policy and warning that have been told to you, keeping on making edits however you want. Xexerss (talk) 19:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I added the source. It's not my fault other people don't subscribe to see the information that's there on the site. Adding a source that can be confirmed means nothing when it's factually incorrect like the ones you're adding.Scabab (talk) 00:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I mean, you could add a different source that has the same information (if such source exists) and can be accessed for free. If it's reliable infomation, this source should exist. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 00:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@Scabab: If it's so important to you to keep the figures updated and use any unreliable source that you think is fine anyway, like Sportskeeda or Anime Hunch, then you could edit the Wikia of these films. It has been explained several times to you about Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth with no understanding on your part. Xexerss (talk) 11:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Now this user insists on citing unreliable self-published websites and blogs like Anime Hunch; Erzat and Sportskeeda. The later is already listed as unreliable on two WikiProjects: Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources#Unreliable sources and Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Unreliable sources. Xexerss (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

He also removed warnings from his talk page. Timur9008 (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

This just needs to stop. Putting forward a TBAN on movies for Scabab. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 21:31, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

This user's attitude clearly falls under WP:NOTHERE. They don't recognize their fault and don't even (at the very least) cite their sources in the right way, adding bare links with errors to articles. On top of that, they have the nerve to demand that other editors change their unreliable sources for better ones to support the content that they deem correct. As I pointed out above, Scabab has a long-term history of disruptive behavior, so I'm still wondering why they haven't received any sanction yet. Xexerss (talk) 01:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

At this point, they've hit their final warning on their talk page. Any further attempts to insert invalid sources, and I'd say WP:AIV is the right venue to have them blocked. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:26, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

He has stopped edited since January 29, so let's hope that continues. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 19:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

They haven't stopped and they're still making (with little discretion) the same edits with IPs like this 89.242.61.79 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) or this 2.98.150.102 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Xexerss (talk) 04:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

If no admin acts on the sock-puppetry accusation here, you could also try WP:SPI. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I've asked User:ferret to have a look at this. Timur9008 (talk) 13:50, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I do not have time to evaluate this case right now. -- ferret (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Please, it's been over a week and the user keeps on making the same edits without any intention of changing their behavior. Xexerss (talk) 01:51, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Concerted sockpuppeting/canvassing at the Vector 2022 RfC

Someone (or several someones) is trying to flood the RfC with oppose !votes from IPs and SPAs with extremely similar form and content, such as this trio: [5] [6] [7], and the successive entries from this editor, identifying himself as "James M", and this editor, identifying themselves as "JD M". I may be an admin myself, but I don't have any experience dealing with this, so I urgently ask you:

• What do we do to get this to stop? Should we semi-protect the page?
• If I had to guess, I'd blame this ip, who showed up to a discussion about this attack enraged about people !voting support and saying the whole RfC is a joke. Whether that guy or someone else is behind this, how do we get him to stop instead of carrying on with his grudge indefinitely?
• Should this issue be taken up elsewhere, too? Is opening a sockpuppet investigation called for? Reporting as ongoing vandalism?
• Should suspect !votes be deleted? Tagged? Moved to the talk page? Otherwise handled in a way that doesn't result in being deservedly flamed to a crisp for messing with other peoples' comments?
• My #¤%& computer's crashing like every 20 minutes, real sorry to pass the buck, but could someone whose isn't please step in on this? --Kizor 21:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Cf. also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rollback of Vector 2022#Strange pattern in recent opposes. Notice also that one of the newly created accounts attempted to delete tags appended by Avilich to said accounts' and IPs' comments to warn that they are suspicious. Æo (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

There are a lot of IP editors and new accounts showing up on both sides for this RfC. This is the problem with having anything on Wikipedia come down to a straw poll, especially something that's this widely publicized. That being said, it does look as though sockpuppetry might be going on, though semiprotecting the page or ECing it will damp participation even further. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 22:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think tagging is a productive use of time in this situation. Anyone who is going to be closing that RFC will be more than aware the situation. Additionally, most IPs are dynamic so it stands to reason that they would have made few edits outside of that discussion. Lastly, getting into the tagging game is going to lead to even more conflict, considering there are plenty of IPs and new users on both sides. We'd have to tag all or none. If we're going to try to tag only suspicious responses, just leave that to the closer to judge. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

And more not-too-coherent ranting from an IP about how this is all the support side's fault. --Kizor 11:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything really to do here. The RfC has been publicized in a couple places outside wikipedia, a sizeable percentage of the comments on that RfC are saying it doesn't matter when any of us editors think, it should be what unregistered editors think, and then when unregistered editors show up we, what, ask for semiprotection or EC-confirmed? That seems silly. Closer will just have to evaluate. --(loopback) ping/whereis 14:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

• Kizor, I disagree with your selective removal of SPA tags. Please either remove them all, or self revert and leave them all. You shouldn't be unilaterally making a decision between good and bad SPAs: either we tag all the SPAs, or we don't tag any of them. Levivich (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
• The topic of the RFC primarily concerns the appearance for IPs and non-regular users (because the logged-in regulars have a preference setting they can use). As such, it would make the RFC even less representative of the people it affects if we tried to prevent IPs and non-regular users from participating. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
• I believe this RFC needs a little supervision by Checkusers, there are a lot of accounts that appear to be Single purpose account or sockpuppetry. Yep, we all and always saying that RFC is not a vote, but... Lemonaka (talk) 10:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  Just saw this. Lemonaka, this change particularly impacts unregistered readers/editors, because they can't change their settings and can only toggle a few things in the particular screen they're looking at. Some of the single-issue accounts are openly explaining that they registered for that reason. Both they and those who participate as IPs should be allowed to have their say; it affects them more than us. In any case, whoever closes it should be trusted to appropriately weigh the arguments made. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Yngvadottir Yes, I've already found that. I have made a comment about such a situation, but if WMF treat it like a vote, some supervision will have to be done to prevent RFC from hijacking. Moreover, I believe there might be someone giving more than one !vote on that topic. I don't have access to the CU tools, but as topic getting heater and heater, you know, always... Lemonaka (talk) 06:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Disclosure of WMF employee email outreach

Note that the WMF has disclosed that one of them (against company instructions) has canvassed people to vote in the RfC[8]. While the email makes a perfunctory bow to no canvassing, vote however you like, everything else in it screams please support our Vector22 and vote oppose! Fram (talk) 12:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@Fram Oh, fucking shit, please archive it.... It may disappear soon and you may get banned if .... Lemonaka (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Relax, it was (like I said) disclosed by the WMF, not found by me. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rollback of Vector 2022#Disclosure of email outreach. Fram (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

The guidelines and some of the wording in the letter from the Wikimedia Foundation left me with a chilling feeling. FWIW, calling RFC a vote and something like that. At one time I dealt with the WMF and it saddens me to think that they may be not only incompetent, but intentional.
I think the arbitration committee needs to take action in this case. Lemonaka (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I concur. WMF has its place, but putting its thumb on the scales is absurd. Buffs (talk) 06:01, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

@Buffs@Fram I believe WMF Office has immunity to Checkuser tools or something like that, who dare to check a WMF staff. So, if there are enough logout socks, they can hijack any consensus as a vote. What a joke that WMF itself is socking? Lemonaka (talk) 10:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

@Lemonaka, where did any of that come from? This isn't about the WMF socking, this is about an employee canvassing (I'm an Arbcom member, we know the whole background). WMF accounts do not have "immunity" to checkuser, and there's no reason to check them anyways. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 14:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

@Moneytrees Sorry, my mistakes. I used to believe that an account from WMF cannot be checked. I will calm down for a while, sorry for assuming bad faith against WMF staffs. Lemonaka (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Maybe the WMF should get its people to learn enwiki policy, if they're going to have any direct or indirect interaction with enwiki in their role as WMF employees. Here we see canvassing and ignorance of WP:NOT at minimum. CharredShorthand.talk; 04:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I think I speak for many users when I say "What the hell?..." Buffs (talk)

Disruptive editing by Hawkers994

• Hawkers994 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user edit only biased claims without providing sources in the articles about Horn of Africa. As can be seen from this user's contriburions, they is a user whose sole purpose is to make edits in favor of Somaliland, not to add information, but to delete information they does not like, and to participate only in rewriting Somalia as Somaliland.

Hawkers994's editing keeps the sources he likes (reliefweb.int/report/somalia/catching-human-rights-needs-sool-and-sanaag-after-four-years) and deletes the ones he doesn't like(reliefweb.int/report/somalia/detailed-site-assessment-dsa-sool-region-somalia-march-2022). (Both of these sources are what I sought out.) These are information from the reliefweb.int and should have the same reliability. I have explained this to Hawkers994 in Talk:Sool but they is not convinced.

In Talk:Sool, Hawkers994 claims that Sool is Somaliland because it is effectively controlled by Somaliland; but about Badhan, Sanaag, they claims that since Badhan is not in the Sool, that principle does not apply. In short, in Hawkers994's mind, the conclusion that "xxx is Somaliland's territory" comes first, and they edits the article with his assertions and brings up rules that suit them. I explained this to them in Talk:Sool as well.

Editing without sources for a particular point of view is a serious violation of Wikipedia's rules. Note that knowledge of Somaliland and Somalia is not required to consider this issue. The only issue is whether their are consistent with WP:VERIFY and WP:POV. Freetrashbox (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

With previous consensus[9] already taken place, this user has ignored all previous data and has chosen to make his own opinions, Without any external opinions. Ignoring updated sources [10] infoboxes should relate to current updated sources. WP:POV states opinions are not facts. Hawkers994 (talk)

That is not the answer. There is no consensus on the page you indicated. (If you say it has been obtained, provide a timestamp.) And the source you have shown do not answer the above question. Freetrashbox (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

You have ignored all the sources in the articles and talk pages [11] [12] and have chosen to add your own opinion to these articles which goes against WP:POV As mentioned there has been previous discussions on this subject which you have chosen to ignore and dismiss sources which you claim are in favour of article subject.Hawkers994 (talk)

As you can see from the Yagori revision history, most of the descriptions of the relationship between Yagori and Somaliland were written by me. The sources are also what I found. You are the one editing without indicating the source. Most of the time for writing an article is spent researching sources. Those who edit with a source cannot compete with those who edit without a source in terms of editing speed. Do not describe without sources. Freetrashbox (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I am neither pro-Somalia nor anti-Somaliland. Tuulo Samakaab is a Sool's town near the Yagori, but the first edition was submitted by me and is presented as a town in Somaliland. I have also contributed Japanese articles on Edna Adan Ismail and Laas Geel to the Japanese Wikipedia as things in Somaliland. I am not in violation of the POV.

The problems of this user are not only those listed above. At Sool, this user writes "Disruptive editing, use article talk page for disagreement", so when I pointed out this user's problem on the talk page, this user unilaterally ended the discussion and is still a problem they continues to edit.

This user continues to make edits that do not indicate the source of the information. For example, as can be seen in the article in Buraan, the sources listed in this article are all about Somalia or Puntland. However, the user has deleted Puntland from Country because of "Corrected info." This user has no understanding of the basic principle that Correct is "information based on reliable sources" for Wikipedia.

Even in the dialogue above, this user has not written an answer to indicate the date and time the consensus was made, or to explain why he changed the treatment of the two reliefweb.info sources. The user does not respond to any specifics. Is it possible to have a dialogue with such a user? Freetrashbox (talk) 11:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

This user Freetrashbox ignored all sources in the mentioned article pages and only went by your own [13] and even deleting and changing the wording of sources that i have added [14] somalia government has no presence and authority in these regions yet your disruptive editing overlooks this and reverts all sources and edits to your version.Hawkers994 (talk) 22:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@Hawkers994: Please answer the above question.

The point made by Hawkers994 relates to an addition by Hawkers994 on January 12, 2023:

On the beginning of January 2023, the Minister of Interior for Somaliland Mohamed Kahin sat with the traditional elders and intellectuals of Las Anod today and discussed the present situation of the city where there have been protests against the frequent assassinations in Las Anod. [15]

As we can see by comparing it with the source, this is almost a copy-paste of the source and is likely a copyright infringement. So I rewrote this as follows:

Somaliland's Minister of Interior Mohamed Kahin Ahmed sat down with traditional elders and intellectuals from Las Anod to discuss the current situation in the city, where protests against the frequent assassinations in Las Anod are taking place.

I don't think my explanation changes Hawkers994's editorial intent, but what is the opinion of anyone other than Hawkers994? Does Hawkers994's addition not constitute copyright infringement on the English Wikipedia? Freetrashbox (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

:No source or dialogue seems to make this use Freetrashbox seem to understand that WP:POV is based of facts and not how he wants articles to be perceived from his opinions. He had been told numerous times there is already a dispute article for this region [16] with sources that articles are directed to and talk pages that somalia has no presence in this region.Hawkers994 (talk) 10:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@Hawkers994: Are you satisfied as to why I rewrote your description about the topic in January 2023? Or do you still think my rewrite is unfair?Freetrashbox (talk) 11:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Since the explanation has become lengthy and there are items added along the way, I will summarize them once and for all.

• This user deleted the same reliefweb.info information, leaving only what he liked.[17] - WP:POV violation.
• This user had a different editorial attitude between Sool, and Badhan, Sanaag & Buraan. - WP:POV violation.
• This user says "use article talk page for disagreement" in Sool, but when the argument goes against him, he unilaterally ignores the argument and continues to edit. [18] - WP:NEGOTIATE violation.
• Almost copy-paste post from a news site. [19] - WP:COPYVIO.

--Freetrashbox (talk) 03:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned before user Freetrashbox ignores the sources in the mentioned article pages [20] and even deleting wording of sources that i have added in these articles [21] numerous times the sources make it clear that somalia government has no presence and authority in these regions yet his disruptive editing ignores this and reverts all sources and edits to his opinion.Hawkers994 (talk) 10:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Even if you feel that there was a problem with my edit, it is no reason for you to violate Wikipedia's rules. Freetrashbox (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Category spamming

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

---

112.204.162.11 (talk · contribs) is spamming Category:Philippines across every locally hosted file that relates to the Philippines, even though the majority are already in specific categories (WP:CATSPECIFIC), among other category-related disruption such as treating categories as articles and adding the Featured picture category to various files. This has persisted through a number of warnings from myself and another user ([22][23][24][25][26]). Disruption is currently ongoing. CMD (talk) 03:07, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked them for 31 hours, though it looks like it's a reasonably static IP. Canterbury Tail talk 03:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

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

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

---

Round 2

@Canterbury Tail: Does seem static, with the activity immediately reoccurring could a longer block be placed? CMD (talk) 01:35, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

IP has been blocked for two weeks, no further action is needed from this report. CMD (talk) 07:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

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

User:MrsSnoozyTurtle

Hi. I want to discuss MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) editing history as they are clearly violating multiple Wikipedia guidelines and policies for a long time and despite many warnings they continue to do this (as they keep no talk page archive to avoid scruitny).

• They have been draftifying reviewed articles (older than 90 days and sometimes six months old articles) despite numerous warnings. It seems like they are using it as a backdoor route to deletion which is not allowed per WP:DRAFTIFY. Per WP:ATD-I, older articles should not be draftified without an AfD consensus, with 90 days a rule of thumb. but MrsSnoozyTurtle has done it dozens of time per their filter log and is continously violating it.
  • Warned by @Timtrent: on 31 May 2022 for draftifying a notable TV channel article, Draft:Colors TV ([27]).
  • Violations of WP:DRAFTIFY, warned by @David Eppstein:, [28].
  • kind reminder that they are violating WP:DRAFTIFY by @UnitedStatesian:.
  • Six months old article draftified and were warned by @Espresso Addict: [29] and they even didn't reply despite clearly violating.
• Their grasp of WP:GNG is so weak that recently they tried to PROD Tufts University and a defunct (but very notable) jewelry company, Michael C. Fina.
• Usually assumes bad faith and accusses users of stalking who disagree with them, e.g. User_talk:Jfire#WP:STALKING?, [30] and canvassing ([[31]]).
  • Deletes/removes sourced content without use of talkpage, for example, Sozo Water Park and Discover Pakistan TV were improved during AfDs, yet they still try to destroy the work done by good-faith editors.
• Previous warnings
  • September 2021: Edit warring warning by @Cullen328: [32].
  • November 2021: ARS comments and warning [33] and they replied take it to ANI.
  • December 2021: Warned for moving a six months old article were rightly warned by User:Espresso Addict [34].
  • January 2022: kind reminder that they are violating WP:DRAFTIFY by User:UnitedStatesian [35].
  • February 2022: violations of WP:DRAFTIFY, warned by sysop, David Eppstein, [36].
  • May 2022: Warned by User:Timtrent for draftifying a notable Draft:Colors TV ([37]).
  • July 2022: Warned by @GreenC: for disprutive behavior. [38]
  • August 2022: Warned by @Dolphin51: for deleting content without explanation. ([39])
    • August 2022: Warned about vandalising Manisha Ganguly by @Janedoe31:. [40]
  • ANI issue ([41]) with @Maddy from Celeste:.
  • November 2022: Accussing @CT55555: of canvassing without any evidence, again assuming bad faith. [42]
  • December 2022: Vanadalism-related warning, Sozo Water Park, [43] by @Lightburst:. Another related issue [44] with @Tryptofish:, @Dream Focus:.
    • Edit warring issue again! [45], this time with User:7&6=thirteen.
  • January 2023: Warning on disruptive editing and edit war [46], Tufts University by @ElKevbo:.
  • Trolling behavior here [47].
• Above warnings are already too much and still they haven't improved their behavior. They are doing more harm than good so, I propose some sort of topic ban to stop this, especially related to draftification issue. They have avoided scrutiny because there is as such no record of all these warnings (complained by User:David Eppstein and others). During the ban, they can learn about the guidelines, and possibly work on creating actual content that improves Wikipedia, rather just destroying/deleting notable content from Wikipedia.

82.45.23.31 (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment: I find it absurd that my quiet note and conversation pointing out an error can be characterised in any way as a warning. This is the conversation. MST accepts a genuine error. Every editor makes errors. By no means all admit them.

Having explained that conversation, I am not sure that I need to take any further part in this discussion, but will respond if asked. I can say that I encounter MST rarely and have always found them to be collegial and a decent editor. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

This has made me look again at Colors TV. Interested parties may see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colors TV. I should probably have followed through with that at the time. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

• IP, am I missing an explanation of who you are somewhere? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
• ... tried to PROD the Tufts University article? What the pluperfect hell? That has to be either one of the most dramatic WP:POINT violations in Wikipedia history, or else the editor is profoundly clueless. That being said, I'd have to say that over eleven years after registration and 31,000 edits, MrsSnoozyTurtle has learned all the guidelines she cares to do, and can be trusted to follow them about as far as is practical to do. Which does not seem too bloody far. Ravenswing 17:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  (As a postscript, I just looked over both MST's talk page and the Tufts talk page, to see if there was some attempt at apology -- "oops, I hit a PROD button by mistake." Nope. What I did see was her slapping a maintenance tag on the article, it being removed with an exhortation to discuss her problems on the talk page, and her repeatedly restoring the tags while declining to respond to that and further requests. Doesn't look very collegial to me.) Ravenswing 17:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  How does one accidentally suggest TNTing an article on the basis that the article is Promotional and poorly referenced to the extent that WP:TNT is the best option for the encyclopedia? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, the PROD rationale was basically WP:TNT. I don't think it's a particularly good rationale for an article on such an institution (surely converting the article into a stub or simply removing some promotional sections would be incredibly less disruptive than deleting the whole article), but that's something for AfD (where this would probably be SNOW kept fwiw) rather than through WP:PROD, which is supposed to be for uncontroversial deletions. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  For what it's worth is damn near nothing. Going straight for the TNT on the article for an institution of the prestige and impact of Tufts University is at level best profoundly blinkered. This diff represents the state of the article at the time the PROD was issued [48]; everyone here can judge for themselves whether the article needed extensive editing to meet our standards.

  Not, mind, that MST attempted to do so. That PROD was her first edit to the article in at least five years. She has never put in an appearance on its talk page. If she's indeed one of those rare editors who will admit error, this is a fine place to start. Ravenswing 18:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

• I'm mentioned in one part of the filing above, and I have, indeed, been watching at least some of what has been going on. Although I've been a long-time critic of the WP:ARS, I also think that fair is fair, and I do believe that there are some significant issues here. If you look at this sequence of two edits: [49], [50], you will see the most recent single incidence of something that has been happening repeatedly, to the point where it's difficult to conclude anything other than that MrsSnoozyTurtle is knowingly trying to annoy the other editors at the project, without particularly compensating for it with anything constructive. There have been a couple of times prior to that where I reverted her: [51], [52] during edit warring over whether or not to include the closer's name. I also observed an incident where she falsely and hurtfully accused another editor of canvassing: [53]. I'll add that there has been inappropriate conduct going the other way: [54], but that was an isolated incident, whereas here we are dealing with a lengthy pattern. I'd support a topic ban from anything having to do with ARS. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  The notion that deleting Tufts University would be uncontroversial is simply mind-boggling, and certainly calls this editor's competence into question. This is a serious problem and I am not sure what the best solution should be, but we need to find one. Cullen328 (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  The Tufts University article is horribly promotional in parts, with significant amounts of it being very close paraphrasing of the university promo material (with no citations, naturally), but that could easily be fixed by taking an axe to those sections. It's not even close to being in TNT territory. Black Kite (talk) 19:04, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  The best solution is easy to find. It would simply be to block this editor to prevent any further disruption. We seem to be reluctant to block disruptive editors when they are prolific, but that's even more reason to block them because they prolifically make disruptive edits. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  Yet this editor has a clean block log, so no admin appears to have found any of their 31,000 edits before this report particularly problematic. A solution such as that discussed below is perfectly adequate. Meanwhile, like HEB above, I would also like to know the actual identity of the OP. Black Kite (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  There is a difference between "problematic" and "block-worthy". I have certainly found their edits problematic before, and have said so on ANI. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  This ANI discussion from October 2022 concerned actions by MST [[55]]. This includes @David Eppstein highlighting a long term pattern of bad draftications. ResonantDis_tortion 08:24, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

• Another example: 4 days ago MST sent to draft this article: Draft:Sergei Mirkin. This is nearly 13 years old and the article creator is no longer active. This very much appears to be backdoor deletion and the warnings referenced above have not worked. ResonantDis_tortion 19:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
• MrsSnoozyTurtle: this would be a really good time for you to show up here and say something along the lines of 'Yikes, OK I get it, I will never again use draftification in cases like this.' Seriously, draftification is a valid outcome of an NPP review, but it's not OK for long-standing articles. If you think an article that has existed for years is chock full of promotional crap (lots of them are), then you should (a) look for a better version to revert back to, (b) improve it yourself, (c) cut away the rubbish, even if that means stubifying it or (d) nominate at AfD. Please indicate that you understand this, or suggest other options if you can think of them. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  Hello Girth Summit. Thank you for the advice. Yes, I understand that draftification is not suitable for long-standing articles. That was a mistake and I will be careful not to do that again. (Just to clarify, I haven't read this thread fully, but will do this soon when I have time). Thank you, MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  You have promised to pay more attention to the rules of draftification more carefully before, for instance in this February 2022 thread where you professed to be ignorant of the rules against draftifying the same article more than once. And yet as recently as December 2022 we find you repeat-draftifying an article three hours after a previous draftification was objected to. What reason is there to believe that this time, your promises to actually obey the draftification rules will be kept? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  Upon a brief look at the move log, while many are valid, there seems to be many other such invalid draftifications in the recent days as well 1 Jan 2023 after a de-prod, 25 Jan, 29 Jan. One thing in common, it appears, is that she tags the articles with COI/Advert/POI maintenance tags and then moves to draft. I also see edit warring [56], [57] (including a bizarre failed verification tag) — DaxServer (t · m · c) 23:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

• At minimum, it feels like a ban on draftifying should be enacted here, since that appears to be the primary disruptive activity being done (though there are several others too, that Tufts action is just ridiculous). Silverseren^C 19:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  I would support a ban on draftification. I think that would eliminate the worst of the problems. The mistake of prodding Tufts University is more spectacular, but the inappropriate prods and maintenance banners are more easily dealt with, and draftification can easily turn into stealth deletion with fewer checks and balances. (One might hope that whoever reviews the speedy deletion six months later would notice the problem, but I don't trust that to happen in all cases.) —David Eppstein (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  I’d support a ban on draftification, PROD, and speedy deletion. — Jacona (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

• Noting for the record that I have just warned MrsSnoozyTurtle about edit warring with respect to WP:BLAR at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 21#Élodie Chabrol. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  That goes beyond drafts, PROD, and CSD. I noted earlier that there are also problems with ARS. It really might be best to ban from all deletion-related activities, broadly construed. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

• Yeah, I'm starting to lean towards an all deletion activity ban as well, since all of their editing seems to revolve around trying to delete articles and remove whatever content they can get away with, regardless of the appropriateness of such an action. Silverseren^C 21:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

• I'm mentioned by the OP here as one of the users that has been accused of stalking by MST. My first encounter with this user was on Sam Wasson, where I contested MST's prod (rationale: Promotional article) because the article was salvageable and the subject is notable. The article got draftified by another user, I cleaned it up and moved it back to the mainspace per WP:DRAFTOBJECT, and MST and two other users edit-warred over draftification [58] [59] [60] [61]. Subsequently MST edit-warred to remove the bibliography, which included not only the books Wasson has written, but review citations that help establish the subject's notability [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67]. So I concur that the issues go beyond draft and deletion activities. Jfire (talk) 20:56, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

• I've re-added in the bibliography with some minor changes. The edits by MrsSnoozyTurtle there are a bit bizarre. It almost seems like they are purposefully mixing together proper removals of content with improper removals on purpose, in order for the former to obscure the latter. Stealth vandalism, if you will. Silverseren^C 21:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

• I'm reluctant to attribute actual malicious intent. I think it's more likely an overzealous anti-WP:PROMO attitude combined with a miscalibration on what constitutes promotional content and how to best deal with it (e.g. reaching for TNT rather than cleanup as we see with Tufts). The edit-warring is of course not acceptable. Jfire (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  The problem I have with that -- and why I'm leaning to Cullen328's and Phil Bridger's side of things -- is that we're not dealing with a rookie here. These antics, coming from someone with a few hundred edits and three months' tenure, would be (hopefully) correctable by a trout slap and sitting the newbie down for some home truths. MST, by contrast, has been on Wikipedia for approaching twelve years, and she has over 31,000 edits. There is no bloody excuse in the world for "miscalibrations" and such a shaky grasp of the standards and practices regarding deletions and deletion policies. Sooner or later, editors need to demonstrate that they get it, and this is far past the sell-by date on that. Ravenswing 10:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

• FWIW If one were to investigate into the articles acted upon by MST with draftification/deletion, I'm confident we will defo find one or more UPE rings — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

  I believe that many of their draftifications are of UPE. I also believe that many of their draftifications WP:BITE good-faith new editors by falsely accusing them of UPE. Once they have guessed that something is promotional they are very tenacious at fighting to wipe it from the encyclopedia, rather than allowing our processes to play out according to their rules. That is the problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

• I've just withdrawn the proposal below, but I want to express my personal opinion that we really do have a problem, and that the brief reply from MrsSnoozyTurtle in this discussion (followed by this: [68]) is not enough to put my concerns at rest. So I hope that no one will take my closing of the subsection as being a reason to close the discussion as a whole. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

• At minimum, I'm going to keep an eye on their editing when they get back from their vacation. If they continue the same draftification, PRODing, and edit warring activity they have been, then I suspect we'll be back here again soon enough. If they stop doing that sort of disruptive editing, then mission accomplished. Silverseren^C 21:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

• I'd also just like to say that this user has been nuking huge amounts of content in various automobile articles, such as Transmission (mechanical device), glow plug, automatic transmission, and straight-eight engine. I haven't pored over the edits in the detail, however, at a quick glance they've removed the mention of a continuously variable transmission (which is an alternative to fixed-gear transmissions) for no good reason. They've also removed huge sections of unsourced text, which could be easily sourced but I do not wish to revert to a previous version on the basis of taking out good intermediate edits. They also moved Turbine-electric transmission on the basis that they "thinked" that powertrain was the more common term. Aren't moves without discussion supposed to be non-controversial? X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 00:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I want to say that the OP has laid out a pretty good case for a topic ban. Speaking for myself I can say that I feel harassed by MrsSnoozyTurtle. I have not found them to be reasonable or helpful or collegial. Many times they follow the ARS project to ivote angularly, often they do not AGF and I have yet to see them ever attempt to improve the article's during AfD. At some point they have appointed themself the moderator of the ARS group; closing discussions, refactoring edits and accusing editors of wrongdoing. Even after a December 23 discussion where members agreed that we close the items on the ARS with the closer's name, MST obstinately continued to close discussions December 26, omitting the closer. I do not really think anyone needs more diffs than the OP has presented above. ATM it looks like there is some WP:ANIFLU on the part MrsSnoozyTurtle, but I do not their absence should prevent any action or sanction from happening. Everything needed is in the edit history of MST. Lightburst (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
• To my eyes, the evidence presented above does look like problematic overuse of draftification. I would support some kind of restriction on draftification for this editor.—S Marshall T/C 17:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposal for topic ban

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

---

Proposal: MrsSnoozyTurtle is banned by the community from page blanking, draftification, and all deletion-related actions and discussions, broadly construed.

• Support as proposer. It seems to me that the discussion so far has demonstrated that there is likely to be consensus for some sort of action to be taken. In my opinion, we are short of what would justify a site ban, but there does need to be a significant restriction. I believe that the discussion has shown that the problems center around deletion, in multiple forms, and that something like the language I propose will capture what we want to achieve. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support as per Tryptofish's reasoning. ResonantDis_tortion 18:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support. This seems to be the locus of the ongoing problems. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
• Question. What is the evidence that the user has abused AfDs? Is there am specific reason why their commenting at AfD or their nominating of articles for AfD has been a problem? Their AfD stats look fine on my end, so I'd want a bit more evidence of AfD-specific disruption before considering a topic ban that includes AfD. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

  It's not so much a matter of their keep/delete metrics, as their conduct related to those discussions. For starters, please see the evidence from the OP and from me about things like asserting bad faith on the part of other editors who participate in AfD discussions with them. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

  FWIW - there does appear to be a tendency to push articles to AfD as an escalation of edit warring - see for example this nom [69] which happened straight after this diff pointing out her edit warring [70]. Also this AfD nom appears to be an escalated edit war [71] per the talk page [72] and history. ResonantDis_tortion 19:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Little evidence of them abusing AfD, as RTH has mentioned just above. Topic ban from page blanking and draftification - fine, yes, but this is an overreach. Black Kite (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

  How about CSD, PROD, and ARS? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose CSD and PROD maybe, but this is overly broad. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
• Question. Based on feedback so far, I'm receptive to withdrawing this version of the proposal and replacing it with one that's worded differently. At the same time, I think it's important to frame any restriction on an editor in a sufficiently clear and simple way that it leaves no room for confusion about the boundaries. I am wondering about: "page blanking, draftification, speedy deletion, and proposed deletion, broadly construed", although I also feel like that might get to be too long a list. Also, should it include WP:ARS? (I tend to think it should, although maybe some editors feel that it's not worth worrying about.) I'd like to get some editor feedback on that, before I take any action about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban on "page blanking, draftification, speedy deletion, and proposed deletion, broadly construed", if others feel deletion-related activities is too broad. But the misuse of draftification and CSD/PRODs is the main problem here and clearly needs to be addressed. Silverseren^C 05:35, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Comment I find it highly irregular that an IP materializes out of the blue after an apparent UPE has begun stalking MST, in the wake of a pretty contentious Afd which an apparent UPE sock farm lost. I advised on MST's Talk to go to AN/I, advice which the UPE apparently took. I'd guess that a sock farm keeps an AN/I specialist on board for the purpose of avenging their defeats. The above AfD was, for me, a tutorial in UPE socks in action, as every !KEEP came from yet another blind apologist. If anyone would like to look into that bunch, you should find a nice web of 'coincidences'.--Quisqualis (talk) 05:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

    Not quite - check the timelines - the IP submitted this AN/I 5 hours before your comment on MSTs talk page [73] ResonantDis_tortion 06:24, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

    @ResonantDistortion, wow and thanks; the utter irony for MST. I stand by my accusation otherwise. Losing Biotique, however justifiably, has upset them greatly and they're out for blood. My initial impression of MST was as someone to avoid, but when I saw they were sniping with one of the suspected UPEs, I looked at the AfD and perceived a factory-made piece of unambiguous UPE. These parasites may be Wikipedia's undoing. Now to grab some diffs.-- Quisqualis (talk) 14:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

    Quisqualis your allegation against of sockpuppetry is unsubstantiated. You are free to to run or request SPI against me. I am writing this because I am not a sock. I stand with my confidence. Twinkle1990 (talk) 12:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

    @Quisqualis: These are pretty big accusations to be backed up with as little as you've provided. In lieu of a breakdown of this mess of a comment, I'll ask: do you have anything to back up what you're saying? Because I don't think you actually checked the diffs you point to as stalking, and Twinkle1990 being a UPE isn't terribly "apparent" to me. You're also clearly alleging bad faith. I'd strongly suggest either ponying up some pretty diffs, or striking the greater portion of that comment. GabberFlasted (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

    The Biotique AfD has been discussed at SPI, fyi. Beccaynr (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support as per they have Bludgeoning here, here, here, here and repetitively badgering the articles and editors without having WP:CIR about WP:NTV and MOS:TV . I wonder to see their edit history if they are WP:NOTHERE or not. Let's admins to decide. Twinkle1990 (talk) 13:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Additionally they have admitted that they are not "I am not very familiar with copyright issues, so am erring on the side of caution." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Candy_(web_series)&diff=prev&oldid=1136151323but never stooped Bludgeoning the Web series]] and Film, television articles. Henceforth I appeal to the administrators yo decide if they are for WP:NOTHERE or really constructing Wiki as per guidance, as Wiki clearly states "notable things shouldn't be deleted." Twinkle1990 (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
    • None of those examples are bludgeoning and they're clearly not NOTHERE. Please stop using phrasing you don't understand. Black Kite (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

      @Black Kite please correct me where I am wrong. I am not an user to redact my mistakes. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

      First, don't call Wikipedia "Wiki". XOR'easter (talk) 15:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

      That essay isn't very civil, and seems to be explicitly there to bite newcomers, I don't think it should be targeted at other users. Wikipedia:Don't_abbreviate_"Wikipedia"_as_"Wiki"! is much more neutrally worded and explicitly 'humourous.' JeffUK 17:33, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't much in the way of evidence at scale as a consistant habit. It seems overbroad for a productive editor. scope_creep^Talk 15:35, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose ban as currently worded--I think there is potentially a case for a ban from draftifying and BLAR-ing (and maybe PROD, although despite the very POINT-y Tufts example it's not clear that there's a continuous problem relating to that procedure), but I'm not seeing clear evidence of issues with CSD or at AfD, and note that the latter, in particular, is typically the correct venue for moving towards consensus when there's an impasse over whether an article is appropriate for Wikipedia. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:58, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: The OP's complaint is about MrsSnoozyTurtle's actions. A sanction that, as worded, prevents her from even expressing an opinion, is way heavy-handed. Further, no one should be draftifying a long-standing article without AfD so there's no point in banning one individual from doing it. Elemimele (talk) 16:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: Draftification seems to be the main issues, and MST's response has been contrite, and as sanctions should be preventative not punitive, I see no evidence one is required at this time. This section will serve as notification that they need to slow down a little on the other decisions. JeffUK 16:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
• support ban on "page blanking, draftification" and would consider supporting ban on starting PRODS and AFDS. I see no reason to ban from deletion-related "discussions" -- invovlement in discussions could help.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: The proposed ban is too broad as currently worded. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

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

The paleontological advocate/troll is back on 2023 in archosaur paleontology

• 162.40.242.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 75.89.116.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 174.130.225.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I never thought I'd say this, but the troll I reported here ten months ago appears to be back. These two IPs have engaged in engregious trolling on the 2023 in archosaur paleontology page since the middle of January. Their crimes include shouting in edit summaries, calling paleontologists "b*ms" adding personal comments to mainspace, deleting information because they personally find it boring, and making up fake taxa with trolling author names and sources (which are of course unrelated). The fake taxon names they mentioned were originally added to 2022 in archosaur paleontology by various IPs (see [74] [75] [76] [77] [78]), which makes me think all of these additions were made by a single user. I have suspicions that they are related to another paleontology-related troll, but in the spirit of WP:BEANS I will not name them nor disclose the hints I used to make that connection (although you are free to email me if you want to know). Atlantis536 (talk) 08:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

added 174.130.225.79, who is adding personal comments to the page. I suggest a rangeblock or page protection. Atlantis536 (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Heavy Chaos

This user claims to be a new user and and is leaving extremely WP:BATTLEGROUND comments such as [79] [80] [81] [82]. Attitude is not compatible with collaboration and user seems to believe discussion is not necessary for them. They also misrepresented their edits and claimed they were simply reorganizing the material when they were actually removing content, then said it was "Small potatoes" and let's move on[83]. I tried to tell them they need to discuss their edits and they claimed discussion already happened prior to their arrival so that they do not need to. I do not believe I need to discuss what's already been said on this talk page for years [84] I'm more stating what I intend to do, and a lot less asking for comment. [85] Andre🚐 20:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Your participation hasn't been honest. You should answer those charges. Heavy Chaos (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what are you referring to? You accused me of obstructing the page for years when my first edits to the page were in October 2022. [86] What exactly am I dishonest about? Andre🚐 20:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

And now this is third page that you have redirected attention. My user talk page, The NPOV message board (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Trickle-down_economics), and this. You explicitly say you won't answer the direct questions put toward you on the talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Trickle-down_economics), then start making noise anywhere else. This is grossly dishonest. You are playing an attrition game to get what you want. Heavy Chaos (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

This thread is to flag your behavioral issue to admins. The NPOV noticeboard is to flag the discussion on the talk page of the article. And yes, you also have your own talk page where I have warned you. This is not dishonest or forumshopping. Andre🚐 20:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

• Well if Andrevan didn't have a convincing argument before they certainly do now... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

• Please see more indication of battlegrounding, WP:RGW, WP:IDHT and an intention to edit war on the related NPOVN thread that I started prior to this one[87] Andre🚐 01:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  Due to the effort of about six contributors who decided it was time to start making edits instead of keeping talking about it, it is now an objectively better article, especially in the lead in. Compare the current version, to the version that I first saw. And this came from editing, not rehashing months and years old arguments. Sometimes you just have to pull the trigger. A volley of edits after that much talk will produce much more than any further talk ever could. Heavy Chaos (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  There are a bunch of edits being made now that are productive due to the post that I made on the NPOV noticeboard. Which you accused me of dishonesty and forumshopping. Do you withdraw those accusations? Andre🚐 21:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  No, I steadfastly claim still that your history on that page shows a general unwillingness to make any improvements for nebulous reasons. An strongarming me as you did appeared desperate almost. Like some terrible harm would happen to you if I edited the page. Heavy Chaos (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  That is a personal attack and is forbidden here. Also violates WP:AGF and in general incompatible with collaboration. Andre🚐 21:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Apparently not given this? Andre🚐 21:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

This thread may be automatically archived soon, given inactivity, and it is the first incident for this user, where ANI is a last resort for intractable problems. But that should not be taken as an endorsement of such behavior. If such behavior continues it can and will lead to another thread and/or additional sanctions and blocks. It is good faith to assume that an apparently new user is a new user. In the absence of a bright line violation after warnings, this thread may be archived without any action, but again if this does happen, it does not excuse or allow such behavior as personal attacks, alleging bias without evidence, questioning the motives of apparently good faith contributors, or edit warring against consensus without discussion. Andre🚐 21:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

User:BeanieFan11 and WP:BATTLEGROUND at NFL AFDs

"I don't f-ing care", "This website's notability rules have become a load of **** since that wrongly-closed WP:NSPORTS2022|discussion from a few months back", "Are you kidding me?", "ridiculous" (the closing non-admin re-opened), canvassing Therapyisgood (talk) 00:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

• I don't see how any of that is an issue at all. And again, that was not canvassing. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
• Boomerang. None of given diffs are disruptive. BeanieFan11 was asked to provide AfDs, so it's not canvassing, and it seems Therapyisgood was told exactly that by an admin before posting this. Filer should be reminded that ANI is a last resort and not to be used for trivial disputes. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
• Wikiproject editors violating notability rules I think the bigger issue being presented here is Wikiproject NFL members appear to be actively trying to circumvent GNG notability requirements for sports biographies (as determined by community consensus months ago) by canvassing each other to vote Keep en masse in these AfDs. Some of the AfDs have resulted in editors like BeanieFan11 presenting proper sourcing to meet notability requirements, but many others have NFL editors actively ignoring notability requirements and voting keep "per IAR". This is a much bigger issue than just what was presented by Therapyisgood above. Silverseren^C 01:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Commenting on the wikiproject talk page is not canvassing, and IAR is a policy, so I see no problem. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
    • IAR is not a policy to circumvent notability requirements for articles. The fact that you are even suggesting as such shows just how out of line said Wikiproject members are acting. Silverseren^C 01:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
      • Per IAR: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. I know as an NFL editor that in several of these cases, deletion would not at all improve the encyclopedia. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
        • You darn well know that IAR is not to be used but in only exceptional circumstances, and generally requires post facto sanction from the community (I recall an emergency desysop a bureaucrat did to stop a rogue admin). It does not permit us to ignore rules and policies whenever we feel like it. You're refusal to accept a very largely-attended RfC outcome sounds more like WP:IDHT behavior. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
          • You darn well know that IAR is not to be used but in only exceptional circumstances – these are exceptional circumstances. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
            • How? Mere personal disagreement with the decision of the community does not constitute an exceptional circumstance. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
              • Several are more than a "mere personal disagreement" – a few of these are in fact "exceptional circumstances" (one in particular especially). BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
                • Please explain how they are exceptional. If not, why can't I use IAR to declare myself God of the 'Pedia and then just unilaterally decide which article should be kept and which ones should be deleted according to my own ideas about what is best for the content? -Indy beetle (talk) 02:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
                  • The statement that "these are exceptional circumstances" might be made by a Zalophus californianus in someone's apartment. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
• Honestly, at this point, since NFL project members have their own list on their talk page where they are making sure to all together vote Keep on said AfDs, I think it's only appropriate to include said list here for the community at large to weigh in. And I will point out now that several of these are discussions where significant coverage has been presented and I myself voted Keep in the ones where that has occurred. So this isn't an all one way or the other sort of list.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ja'Quan McMillian
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Babcock
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruel Redinger
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Williams (guard)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marv Smith
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stan Robb
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Comer (American football)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Green
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willie Flattery

But, yeah, I think there needs to be a broader set of editor eyes on the proceedings going on here and the flagrant abuse of IAR claims. Silverseren^C 02:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I disagree that these are "flagrant abuse of IAR claims" – for a few of them (one in particular especially), IAR is a perfectly valid argument. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

While the IAR claims are not substantially all that great due to interactions with WP:CONLEVEL, they're being made in good faith and appear to express a genuine desire to improve the encyclopedia. That being said, I do think that adding a note in the AfDs themselves regarding the fact that they were mentioned on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League would be warranted, and could look something like those deletion sorting messages. The notifications appears to be neutral in tone, but it might be warranted to slap {{notavote}} on each of the AfDs if we want to indicate that canvassing may have occurred. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

• At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Green, Silverseren advised that the closer actively ignore any Keep arguments made above that are based on claims of "number of games played", which is not a notability requirement. BeanieFan's response: No, they should not be discounted, as IAR is a policy. This is blatant WP:GAMING (specifically WP:STONEWALL) in an attempt to subvert notability requirements which were created after extensive discussion in 2022 and after the community scrapped many number-of-games-played-type notability standards. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
• I'm involved in the discussion and have made several of the IAR arguments. What specifically is the violation being considered here at ANI? Is it just some civility comments, or is it because editors are in disagreement on the weight of one argument vs another?--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
• I'd argue that you're the one that's going against the spirit of WP:BATTLEGROUND. It's relevant to the discussion that this issue started with Therapyisgood nominating 9 NFL player articles in a short period of time.

Beanie cares, they're one of the best that I've seen at improving articles so that they survive AfD. There's been numerous times I've seen NFL topics nominated, look back at the page the next day, and the article has been significantly improved. They're frustrated that you've nominated a number of articles at the same time, as are others.

They approached you on your talk page, asking you nicely to stop nominating NFL articles so that they could improve the ones that you nominated. You removed it 7 minutes after they reached out without responding to them.

You were approached by an admin regarding the mass nominations, and you dismissed their recommendation.

@Lepricavark commented on the thread on your talk page, recommending that you listen to what others are telling you. You removed it with an edit summary of Stay off my talk page.

You also issued a template warning to BeanieFan11 and proceeded to accuse them of canvassing at a number of different AfD discussions. There was then a reply to you from an admin, posted on all of the discussions that you made the accusation on, recommending that you strike your accusation of canvassing.

Frankly, I think you've been very hard headed and difficult to work with in this whole situation. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

To the nominator's credit, the nom didn't bundle all of them, so each of the discussions can proceed on their individual merits. That being said, some of the noms were for athletes that were very quickly shown to have received SIGCOV, so I would urge the nom to conduct a stronger WP:BEFORE before nominating these sorts of articles. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

• NFL Wikiproject members canvassed here I thought everyone should know that and why Paulmcdonald, Hey man im josh, and I'm sure others will likely soon be here arguing for IAR to overrule GNG notability requirements. Silverseren^C 02:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  • That is not canvassing to let the NFL editors know about this, considering this is about the NFL editors. BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  • I voted in all of the deletion discussions and not once did I mention IAR, which you can review and search through here. I believe these players meet GNG, but I acknowledge that I may have a different view of what GNG is than others do. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
• I went through the AfDs listed above and recommended keeping four articles and deleting four articles. One appears heading to a snow close so I refrained from that. So, I am neutral on the underlying NFL player dispute. It seems several editors here are taking dogmatic stances that result in unnecessary confrontation and that includes editors on both sides. As for invoking IAR as if that wins disputes, gimme a break. Others can holler IAR as well. IAR should be used sparingly and only in unusual circumstances. As an administrator, I could cite IAR to block editors who rub me the wrong way, but I think I would be desysoppped pretty quickly if I persisted with that. Draw your own conclusions from that obvious fact. Trouts all around. Cullen328 (talk) 03:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  • Thank you--more commenting from uninvolved editors is likely the best solution and would yield the best outcome than all the arguing in the world here. More input, involvement, and discussion is good, but I don't see any real reason for this to be at ANI and I suggest this be closed here.-- Paul McDonald (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

• Uninvolved editor here. My impression is that Therapyisgood could have done more to try to resolve the dispute before taking it to ANI, but they have identified legitimate WP:CIVILITY issues. Silverseren is definitely correct that there is a much bigger issue here of users at WikiProject NFL attempting to WP:Game the system. The former might have been resolved with a simple discussion, the latter is not going away without serious community involvement. I would have been willing to believe that this was a misunderstanding, but the invocations of WP:IAR are quite damning. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  The canvassing of an AN/I discussion is particularly troublesome. CMD (talk) 04:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  Eh, I don’t think that’s the problem. This ANI was questioning some project members MO as using IAR as a trump card to do whatever they wanted, so them coming to the discussion probably would’ve happened anyway. The bald use of IAR is what troubles me. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  That is a separate problem. People probably coming to discussions is not an excuse for canvassing (it somewhat flies in the spirit of it). CMD (talk) 07:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  No, it is not canvassing to let editors know of an ANI discussion relating to them. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - It appears that we have a Gridiron Article Rescue Squadron creating controversy similar to the Article Rescue Squadron. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Are you saying that it is an issue that me and a few others try to save notable player articles from deletion? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
    • After reading through some of this, I would say that your rather antagonistic efforts are the issue here, yes. Just because you claim notability does not automatically cement that as fact. That is why we have deletion discussions, because the matter is up for debate. ValarianB (talk)

• Comment - I thought, in the ArbCom case on behavior in deletion discussions, that one of the factors was that some editors behaved disruptively and stubbornly, both to support and to oppose deletion, and that Discretionary Sanctions should be imposed. I don't want to say "I told you so", and so I won't now, but .... Robert McClenon (talk) 07:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: While I'm in broad agreement with Silverseren about the notability of these players, and while I agree that a lot of people have been trying to subvert, ignore or defy the consensus deprecating participation criteria, and while I firmly believe that citing IAR in a deletion discussion is almost always the last refuge of editors without actual arguments to buttress their "I know what I like" stances, there's nothing sinister in Wikiprojects being notified of deletion discussions. It happens routinely across the board. Ravenswing 07:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

• No, IAR is not a "last refuge of editors without actual arguments to buttress their 'I know what I like' stances." It is a Wikipedia policy that recognizes that the rules are not perfect for every case and that the spirit of the rules (i.e. building and maintaining an encyclopedia) is more important than following the exact rules in every case. Frank Anchor 15:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  I stand by my statement: IAR is routinely -- and I daresay overwhelmingly -- used to defy any and all guidelines and policies, and any consensuses, in defense of the speakers' pet hobby horses. Take this dispute, for instance. Claiming that removing unimprovable sub-stubs concerning obscure nobodies who played a football game or two would "damage" the encyclopedia is just this side of certifiable. Ravenswing 17:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

• The exception is if the WikiProject is a biased audience; from reading this discussion, WikiProject NFL is a biased audience and shouldn't be notified. BilledMammal (talk) 10:46, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  I think it's silly to say that the NFL WikiProject (or any relevant WikiProject) shouldn't be notified of articles that are up for deletion. There are users who genuinely improve articles to the point that they're worth keeping and I think that's something that should be encouraged. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  It should be encouraged, but in a way that complies with WP:CANVASS. The consensus system only works if the editors involved in a discussion are representative of the broader community; notifying biased groups subverts that. BilledMammal (talk) 13:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  So you're saying that NFL editors should not be notified when their articles get AFDd, and we should just silently delete all of them without anyone being aware? That's ridiculous. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  If the pages would all be deleted without the intervention of the NFL editors you're admitting that the brigading exists, is highly effective, and subverts the outcomes which would occur from traditional community discussions. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

  Thats not what I'm saying at all. And what's with your tagging my AFD comments as from an SPA? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

  Then what are you saying then? You make few edits outside of the sports topic area, someone who makes few or no edits outside of a particular space is known as a SPA. Its not an insult, its just a fact. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, transcluding a deletion sorting list at a project is totally fine; editors notifying the project of specific AfDs/discussions that they are involved in or have a clear opinion on should be disallowed if the project's stated or practical focus includes increasing wikipedia's coverage (=# of standalones) of their subject. This would be in contrast to those projects primarily concerned with moderating the quality of coverage under their purview. JoelleJay (talk) 01:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

  I suspect most WikiProjects are composed of editors "biased" in favor of the articles they maintain. If individual editors reject core policies and guidelines then that's a different matter, but you can't solve this by attempting to keep people at arm's length. Mackensen (talk) 13:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  The rejection of consensus is a separate issue from the subversion of consensus through canvassing. I believe the first is more important, but the second is also a violation of policy and needs to be addressed. BilledMammal (talk) 13:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  Intentionally not notifying the most relevant project because you claim it will bias the discussion is itself biasing the discussion. Frankly, it's not assuming good faith and is attempting to create an fait accompli. oknazevad (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  Agree with Oknazevad. There is no reason to think that the NFL Project members are interested in anything but improving Wikipedia's coverage of NFL topics, or casting aspersions like being biased or rejecting consensus. And they are probably in the best position to find sources in AfDs related to NFL topics. In many of the AfDs in question here, the nominator claimed to do a thorough BEFORE, but it was members of the NFL Project who nonetheless found sources that seem to have convinced several non-NFL Project members that some of these subjects pass GNG. Intentionally not notifying the project of an AfD seems to be an attempt to bias the discussion in favor of deletion even if sources exist.Rlendog (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

  Finding addition sources is good, and the best pitcome of these AfD discussion. Voting stacking with arguments that have been rejected by a community wide RFC is problematic. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Oknazevad: that's nonsense, you're arguing that essentially canvassing and refusing to canvass are the same because both "bias" the outcome. You appear to be ignoring that canvassing is not allowed and wikiproject notification is not required. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

  Intentionally choosing to not notify specifically because you don't want the input of editors that might disagree is no different than intentionally seeking out editors who are likely to agree. It's the same damn thing. oknazevad (talk) 15:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

  Do you mean not notifying due to bias or a lack of widespread competence when it comes to notability? Nobody has talked about not notifying editors because they might disagree. Canvassing and not canvassing aren't the same thing, again wikiproject notification is not required... Its not even expected, it happens in a small minority of cases. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: The National Football League and as a corollary, its players in that competition is, in short, a globally watched thing. In my opinion, any one of of those players linked above will now and will always continue to pass any number of tests for notability. That said, <Shirt58's odd sense of humour> I take a day off work each February to watch the Super Bowl, though I really don't understand why that American Football game starts about 10 am on a Monday </Shirt58's odd sense of humour>--User:Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
• Reading the AfDs, I agree that some of these votes are disruptive. Editors are required to accept consensus, even if they disagree with it, and consistently voting in a manner that rejects consensus is disruptive. I agree with red-tailed hawk that these votes are being made in good faith and appear to express a genuine desire to improve the encyclopedia, but that is often the case with editors who reject consensus and doesn't justify it. I think a minor warning would be sufficient at this time, but further action would need to be taken if they continue to reject consensus. BilledMammal (talk) 10:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

• There is no need for a warning. Editors are entitled to invoke IAR if they believe that it is appropriate, and that is not in any way disruptive. If they do not have strong support for why IAR is appropriate, their position will be given little if any weight in closing the discussion. Rlendog (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. I want to amplify something Cullen and Ravenswing said above. If you find yourself citing IAR during a deletion debate, you're almost certainly in the wrong and you should reconsider. It's the opposite of a strong argument. Mackensen (talk) 13:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

• I disagree. IAR is a Wikipedia policy that recognizes that the rules are not perfect for every case and that the spirit of the rules (i.e. building and maintaining an encyclopedia) is more important than following the exact rules in every case. Citing IAR most certainly does not mean the editor is in the wrong. Frank Anchor 15:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

The fundamental problem is that IAR claims of this sort have no objective merit beyond "Well, I think I'm right and the community is wrong and they can shove it". So why can't I just say say we should ignore all rules and delete all sports bios without further discussion? What if I'm a racist so I think we should IAR and just be racist against others? What if I'm biased in favor of a political party and say IAR Wikipedia would be better if we treat my party favorably and not the others? The strength of such arguments are exactly the same as yours. I feel like this is analogous to Hitchens's razor: "That which can be defended by ignoring all rules can be dismissed by ignoring all rules." -Indy beetle (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

IAR is a terrible argument 99% of the time. The remaining 1% are situations where you can clearly demonstrate that ignoring the rule is better for the encyclopedia. And that will almost never apply to notability for a specific article subject. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Using IAR in a deletion discussion is usually violating the spirit of IAR. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 01:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

• The RfC used as a basis for these nominations is and was a shitstorm and needs to be redone in simple form, and I've never sworn on Wikipedia before excepting a couple times on a user's talk page. An RfC with 13 sections and sub-sections, each argued over and then decided in an extremely close "consensus", and now some editors are using that to delete articles about football and baseball players who are officially credited with playing professional games in their sport, some of them many games. Nonsense. The RfC needs redoing with just one question, for example, "If a professional ballplayer is officially credited with playing professionally at the highest-levels of their sport can they have an article on Wikipedia?" No sub-sections, no wiki-lawyering, no complicated question after question. Just yes or no, with some discussion. This is one of the most, as Beanie says, bullshit RfC results, responses, and deletion-excuses in Wikipedia history, and calls for a re-do before any further articles are deleted because of it. A hold on these nominations and future nominations should be applied until the question is actually fairly resolved. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

• All the RfC determined is that presumed notability doesn't apply to sports biographies, as there's been too many cases where that presumed notability was questioned and no one was able to find proper source coverage. Because of that, all sports biographies taken to AfD must now meet the GNG, because their inherent notability is questioned. So, no, number of games doesn't apply here. If the subject is notable, then your presumption of notability from number of games should mean there's a bunch of sources with significant coverage on the person. All you have to do is supply those sources. Silverseren^C 13:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: If you would like to challenge the closure of the RfC as not reflecting the consensus attained at the discussion, please see WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Official stats provide enough evidence and reputable sources that an athlete has played at the top level of their profession. Not interested in challenging the close because the RfC, in-total, was far too complicated and too closely decided to wade through and comment on, in agreement with the IAR assertion that it thus does not, and did not, provide a fair accounting of community opinion on the simple question stated above. One which is now being used to delete perfectly fine pages and thus is hurting and does not maintain the encyclopedia, or maintain the encyclopedia anywhere in the vicinity of common sense application. The RfC as regards to this one question should be thrown out, with or without the bathwater, sort of like holding due to an appeal to the higher court, and a new and simplfied RfC should commence and apply. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the last sentence: WP:VPP is that-a-way. Curbon7 (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

• Not interested in challenging the close because the RfC, in-total, was far too complicated and too closely decided to wade through and comment on, in agreement with the IAR assertion that it thus does not, and did not, provide a fair accounting of community opinion on the simple question stated above. This reads to me: "The RfC did not go the way I wanted, therefore I will assert it is illegitimate and unfair without actually trying to prove why except for the fact that I personally dislike the outcome." -Indy beetle (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Accept the RFC or challenge not at the appropriate location, anything else is disruptive. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

There was one single proposal - the one I made - that said that game participation metrics should be stripped from NSPORTS, which got consensus. That's what seems to be triggering the AFDs on these articles and what those from the NFL wikiproject appear to be getting upset over. There were lots of other proposals, but that one was simple and easily seen through. Masem (t) 01:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Cbl's proposal requiring at least one GNG source be cited in athlete bios at all times also passed, with very strong support. JoelleJay (talk) 01:45, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment the only editor creating a WP:BATTLEGROUND is User:Therapyisgood, by making dubious accusations of canvassing, and refusing to acknowledge this mistake by striking the accusation when it was proven that canvassing did not take place. Frank Anchor 15:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  I mean... giving an editor a list of discussions that's close enough to comment on seems a bit like helping a user to WP:VOTESTACK. Granted, the list was requested by the user who was given the list, but dubious accusations of canvassing seems a bit harsh. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  It is obvious that the user in question should have been pinged to this discussion to explain why they asked for a listing, probably, if I may guess that users intent, to wade through the bludgeoning occurring at AfD'ing by a spate of time-sink nominations occurring at once. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  One editor asking for other editors in their group to link them to active discussions that the group thinks "need help" ought to be considered canvassing as well. JoelleJay (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Seems like a WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. Was there any attempt to deal with this one-on-one before escalating to a noticeboard?—Bagumba (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Well, I asked Therapyisgood politely to stop with the noms, he immediately reverted me ... then he accused me of canvassing ... and when it was shown that's not the case, he sent me to ANI. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I was approached via email to handle the situation, however I recommended ANI because I didn't feel it was appropriate for users to hand pick their admins when they want a situation resolved. If there's a conflict that needs an admin to handle it, all admins should be involved. The discussion was likely started because I directed the OP here. Other than providing historical context, I am otherwise deliberately staying out of this conflict given the way it was attempted to bring me into it via email in a way that I was not comfortable. Perhaps I would have had more to say about the matter had it just come here first, but given the prior inappropriate attempt to cherry pick me as an admin to respond, I am recusing myself from any further involvement. --Jayron32 16:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I received an email from a party to this discussion and I'm not sure why. If they would disclose who else they reached out to, it would help assess whether this discussion has been canvassed. No comment on merit as I have not reviewed this discussion. Star Mississippi 18:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  • @Star Mississippi: only to you and Jayron. I saw you were on vacation according to your talkpage after I sent your email so I decided to email another admin. Therapyisgood (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

    Thank you! I am still mostly offline so unfortunately unable to look into your query. If it's still outstanding when I return, happy to weigh in once I've been able to assess what the issue is. Star Mississippi 19:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

    Further comment as I've now read through the discussion. Unfortunately I've been far too involved in the sports AfDs and in discussions with @BeanieFan11 and @BilledMammal and others to be considered uninvolved in this discussion. No objection to being notified as @Therapyisgood is a new name to me/I don't recall working with them and wouldn't have known that. @Horse Eye's Back tagging editors with a long history as SPA in a discussion you're involved with may not be against policy but isn't productive. I'd suggest not continuing to do so. Star Mississippi 17:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

    • Length of edit history has no bearing on whether an editor is a SPA or not, especially when that editor is demanding that people with similar editing patterns be labeled. The editor in question here appears to make few edits outside of the sports topic area. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

      "Sports" is not "one very narrow area or set of articles". Levivich (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

      • This is the other account which was labeled as a SPA, [88]. I assume you're saying that isn't a SPA either? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:22, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

        Yes, that account is not an SPA either. Levivich (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

        That is the account which BeanieFan11 and ValarianB were insisting was a SPA. Good to know they're wrong about what makes a SPA, I thought their reasoning was a bit unique. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

        At a glance, they're not an SPA, but the account is CU blocked, and they're not editing in good faith. I have seen no indication that @BeanieFan11 isn't acting in good faith (this discussion or any other time I've encountered them) Star Mississippi 19:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

        Is anyone questioning whether BeanieFan11 is acting in good faith? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

        If you think they're behaving as an SPA, that's generally an indication you don't believe they're acting in good faith as a discussion participant. Like I said, your tagging isn't against policy but it doesn't help the issue. It appears by my reading of this thread that @Therapyisgood didn't believe they were either, but that could be my reading. Star Mississippi 19:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

        Not to me, IMO SPA and good/bad faith are completely separate issues. The vast majority of SPA edit in good faith and are productive editors. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

        Fair enough, although I'm not quite sure I see it your way. Apologies for putting words in your mouth...err fingers. Star Mississippi 19:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

        Its alright, I managed to fit my whole foot in there all on my own! Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:01, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

        @Horse Eye's Back yeah, BeanieFan11 isn't a single-purpose account and labeling them as such is disruptive. WP:SPA was never intended to cover an area as broad as "sports", and acting this way just distracts everybody from what ought to be the main idea. Mackensen (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

        You're a little late to the party, we already established that neither BeanieFan11 or Randy Peck was a SPA. Are you saying that ValarianB's tagging of Randy Peck was also disruptive? I think you should WP:AGF, I don't think anyone here is trying to be disruptive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

        You were the first editor to think BeanieFan11 was an SPA and the last to realize he wasn't. Nothing came of it except raising the temperature of the discussion and derailing it from the main issue. Mackensen (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

        You have literally no way to know that's true. The only person derailing the discussion right now is you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: I have found BeanieFan11 to be a highly productive and collaborative editor in the topic area of American football over the past couple of years or so. I don't think the cited examples of frustration or exasperation (often warrened) on his part warrant any sanction or discipline. Therapyisgood strikes me as the more disruptive and hostile actor here. I don't recommend the practice of coming into a new topic area and opening a bunch of AfDs. A more diplomatic approach would be to open a discussion on the relevant WikiProject talk page about the class of articles suspected of questionable notability. That would help to avoid spurious nominations and dust-ups like this one. I recommend this matter be closed with a request to Therapyisgood to slow the pace of his AfD nominations. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't recommend the practice of editing just one topic area and treating newcomers with open hostility. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

• I don't really find the quotes in the OP to be all that uncivil; not ANI-worthy. The list of AFDs mentioned above are problematic, I agree they show a failure of WP:BEFORE insofar as some of them were obvious keeps. I snow-closed some keeps and voted to delete or redirect others. The set is a mixed bag, though, as some of the noms are meritorious IMO, and everyone is allowed to make some mistakes and nom some things that end in keep. I'd feel better about it if the nominator had withdrawn the bad noms upon others posting GNG sources, and if an editor were to repeatedly nom obvious keeps, then a sanction might be needed, but not for Therapyisgood for one round with a few misses.

  The canvassing is highly inappropriate, as are the "Keep - played X games" !votes, which directly contradict WP:NSPORTS2022. If those !votes are discounted by the closers, then no harm no foul, I guess, as long as this group of editors doesn't ever try anything like this again. But if there is repeated canvassing, or repeated 'IAR votes', then I would support TBANs for editors who disrupt the process. I also fear that AFD closes don't often properly weigh votes (in my experience, the closer who will do this is too rare), and what this canvassing/anti-consensus-voting will do is result in one or more WP:DRVs and thereby waste editor time. I hope I'm wrong and our system works as intended and this blatant violation of WP:CANVASS and WP:NSPORTS2022 results in little actual disruption to the project. I hope it doesn't happen again. Levivich (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

  It is not canvassing to notify the primary WikiProject about AfDs pertaining to that content area. What a preposterous position to take. It seems bizarre to me that some editors seem bent on preventing editors from finding out about AfDs that pertain to their primary interests. But then us sports editors haven't had a level playing field for a while. Levi, like many others in this thread you also have failed to recognize the serious problems with an editor charging into a new content area, nominating a bunch of articles for deletion, and then refusing to collaborate at all with the editors who are actually trying to improve the articles. Therapyisgood has taken an adversarial position from the beginning, but so many editors are willing to overlook that because of the currently popular narrative that sports editors are bad. There is a reason why Beanie is so frustrated in those diffs. There is a reason why I stayed away for several days (and after being greeted with this upon my return, I think I'll log back out again). The community-at-large has abandoned us and only seems interested in threatening us vaguely with topic bans if we ever dare to step out of line with the sentiments of the day. The NSPORTS2022 RfC was a slap in the face to many of us, and in retrospect I should have left then. But I must say that I am especially sorry to see you, Levi, embracing this punitive philosophy. That is the only part of this that really surprises me. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  Posting a note like this on a single editor's user talk page is not an effective way to notify the primary WikiProject about AFDs pertaining to that content area; that message was WP:CANVASSing. Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League#Article Alerts is how WP:NFL is notified of AFDs. Levivich (talk) 05:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Again, that editor asked me to send that message. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:CANVASSing is wrong even if -- and I want to make this absolutely clear -- even if the other editor asks to be canvassed. After what happened in November, you (and Randy, Paul, and the others) need to stop trying to thwart WP:NSPORTS2022. If you want you can start a new RFC to see if consensus changed; until then, comply with global consensus. Levivich (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

And I'm going to quote from that November discussion: I really prefer not to take Beanie (otherwise an excellent and collegial editor) to ANI over this. I still agree with that sentiment, but you're making it hard for us. All you have to do is give up these bottom-of-the-barrel, played-in-a-few-games, totally-unknown-except-brief-mentions-in-local-newspapers, biographies. Just accept that we aren't going to have a standalone page for every pro player of every sport in history. Focus on the important topics, the encyclopedic topics. Please. Levivich (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

We have different ideas of what articles are "important" and "encyclopedic," and that's perfectly fine, as editors are free to disagree. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

No. You can have whatever ideas you want, and you can disagree, but you need to comply with global consensus. For example, you can have whatever ideas you want about canvassing, but you need to comply with WP:CANVASS. You can have whatever ideas you want about notability, but you need to comply with WP:NSPORTS2022. If you ignore global consensus and just do what you want, you are being disruptive, and wasting our time. Your noncompliance isn't harmless because it wastes editor time. At User talk:BilledMammal#Could you not nominate a bunch of NFL players for deletion right now?, you wrote At least wait for the others to complete - its becoming too much work for me. Well, it'd be less work for all of us if you didn't canvass and cast discountable 'IAR' !votes. We would get through what's notable and what's not a lot faster if everyone complied with our policies and guidelines. All those noms listed above are properly snow keeps and snow deletes--none are close calls--but we have to go the long way because some editors want to insist that playing a few games in the NFL is inherently notable. Levivich (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Now that I look further, I see BM only nom'd one NFL player, and you asked them to slow down? That doesn't seem reasonable. Also disappointing to see you once again listing many routine brief mentions and calling it SIGCOV. Man, I don't want to have to read another 15 links just to figure out they're all routine game reports. This is a waste of editor time. Levivich (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

This is the modus operandi of many athlete-inclusionist editors. It should be sanctionable. JoelleJay (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

@JoelleJay: Don't I know it, that's why I stopped bothering with AFD years ago. It doesn't really matter that NSPORTS2022 passed. We could delete NSPORTS altogether, it wouldn't really make a difference. Editors will post a series of short game summaries and call it GNG, and closers will close it as a keep. There's no real way to stop that, but it also doesn't matter. There are hundreds of thousands of these sports bios and if someone nominates 10 at a time, or even 100, or even 1,000, and they're kept or deleted, it won't be noticed by anyone, it won't make a dent one way or another. I marginally care more about BLPs because at least those are affecting people (the subjects), but even then, there are over 100k sports BLPs--get rid of 100 or 1000 and it's still a drop in the bucket. Levivich (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

BLP would be a reason to keep articles short. Require that all short articles be made longer or deleted and it's inevitable there will be more BLP issues. Peter James (talk) 20:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I think people notice, I've run into problems numerous times wikilinking to people and discovering they have to use a clunky disambiguating parenthesis due to some athlete with the same name occupying the title. Those articles also depress the proportional representation of women and minorities, give fodder to OTHERSTUFF arguments, and clutter up categories making it harder to discover the actually notable people (basically removing the utility of categories as browsing tools). JoelleJay (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The disambiguating parentheses can be removed for primary topics, it doesn't require deletion of another page, if they are not primary over an obscure athlete they are not particularly notable themselves, and on the few occasions where additional disambiguation is required it's probably useful to avoid confusion. They also don't "depress the proportional representation of women and minorities" - many of the deletions are of Olympic athletes from smaller or less developed countries or of cricketers from Asian countries, minorities are not particularly under-represented in professional football or similar sports, and this obsession with GNG (with the exception of Wikipedia:Notability (academics) - a possible indication of cultural bias or classism) has also changed the guidelines so that most schools in non-Western countries are being deleted. Peter James (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

It's a big pain to move pages and change redirects just to preserve the existence of what is essentially a statistical database entry. People notice that. There are hundreds of years of professional/high level sports for British men for which there are no possible counterparts for women or minorities, and contemporary Western men's sports have loads more funding and therefore many more professional player spots that can be filled (look at the depth of English men's pro football...). This absolutely reduces biographical proportions (Lugnuts, who even prided himself in actively creating sports bios on women, was still responsible for substantial decreases in the WiR percentage due to how many pages he made on male athletes). Raising the standards for inclusion (and deleting pages that don't meet them) is literally the only way to approach the theoretical upper limit of real-world coverage proportions. JoelleJay (talk) 01:28, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

• I'm wondering what the heck the point of WP:NSPORTS2022 was if the editors who don't like the outcome are just going to ignore it. Honestly, sports AfDs are just the Wild West.—S Marshall T/C 19:14, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

  @S Marshall I must note that I have seen some noticeable changes in at least the football/soccer AfD's following WP:NSPORTS2022. Not perfect, but alot better than it used to be. 13:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC) Alvaldi (talk) 13:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

• If someone tried to pull "but IAR!" on, say, a 1RR restriction on a political article, they'd be sanctioned in a heartbeat. Users who are casting votes in deletion discussions that blatantly say "I am ignoring a Community RfC" should likely be removed from the topic area. Zaathras (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
• BeanieFan11's "All of them" comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruel Redinger is a good example of their stonewalling and refusal to engage with other editors. Here we have a detailed source analysis by one editor who even pointed out that one source simply names the individual in a list. Instead of explaining specifically why they disagree, BF11 simply replied "all of them" to another editor's queston about which sources are not routine coverage. In fact BF11 voices their "disagreement" multiple times with no policy-based reasoning whatsoever, as if asserting the same thing multiple times will make it true. This is part of a larger pattern of editors continuing to cite number of games played or IAR as a reason to keep these stubs. Remember: You can ignore all rules, but you can't ignore consensus. –dlthewave ☎ 03:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Another issue is flooding/bludgeoning AfDs with useless sources which other editors must take the time to assess. For example, here at least the first four sources are mere passing mentions and therefore do not contribute to notability. This has happened across multiple AfDs and seems to also be misleading other editors who trust BF11's judgement and support these laundry lists of sources which often contain no significant coverage at all, even when combined together. We should expect an experienced editor to only provide SIGCOV sources. –dlthewave ☎ 04:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Completely agree. JoelleJay (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

• At the very least, we could topic ban some editors from citing IAR in deletion discussions. It might be an oddly specific restriction, but it would address a specific problem and would refocus discussions around how an article subject meets notability criteria, which is what they're supposed to be about in the first place. This seems easier than trying to modify the IAR page itself. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
• Comment To be honest, if I saw an editor repeatedly quoting IAR in multiple AfDs because they believe they know better than a community consensus, I would probably just give them a Wikipedia space partial block to ensure they don't do it again. And that's coming from someone who agrees that NSPORTS2022 was not exactly Wikipedia's finest hour. Black Kite (talk) 11:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support at least a Warning to BeanieFan11 not to use uncivil language, with the clear understanding that next time it's a block. IAR is meant to be invoked *EXCEPTIONALLY* and not simply as a blanket reason not to apply a rule - for that you need to overturn the original consensus. Don't make the same mistake made with Lugnuts and others in the past of just continually letting people slide without doing anything at all to stop them until the point it inevitably explodes on here again. FOARP (talk) 11:49, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  I would support a warning for uncivil langauge, but I'm confused about any time when IAR is or is not "meant to be invoked" -- I can find no such guidance anywhere, certainly not at Wikipedia:Ignore all rules nor at Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  IAR is "ignore all rules" not "ignore consensus". It's a little stunning to see an admin cite IAR as a reason to ignore a recent RFC they participated in, and vote to keep an athlete bio based solely on how many games the subject played. In your years on Wikipedia, can you point to an example of someone IARing WP:CONSENSUS and it being considered proper by the community? Levivich (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  No, but until this case I've never seen anyone complain about it either. An improtant reason to have IAR is so that consensus can be determined for or against application of a policy or guideline. Before Consensus can be determined to apply IAR on a specific case to override other existing policies, guidelines, and/or rules then there must first be a discussion about it. And before there can be a discussion about it, somebody has to bring it up.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  There was a discussion, at WP:NSPORTS2022, where you made over 30 comments, and given how it closed, it's hard to understand AFD !votes like this. Levivich (talk) 05:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

  That's because IAR is so simple and yet so nebulous that you can't, ironically, make rules for its use. However, it is clear that it is always the exception rather than the rule, and should be used in the rare case that breaking a policy or guideline clearly improves the encyclopedia. But using it - as in this case - to say on multiple AfDs "well, yes, this article doesn't meet WP:GNG, but I'm going to use IAR to say that it doesn't need to because I like these types of articles" isn't going to fly at all. A corollary would be me deleting a clearly notable BLP claiming IAR because I didn't like the person it was about. I think I'd get blocked - don't you? Black Kite (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  The Five Pillars summation of The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording is a simple way to judge it. I know its not objective, but there's a world of difference between someone missing the mark slightly and someone arguing that nothing matters and we live in a Dada-ist installation. --(loopback) ping/whereis 14:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  WP:IAR seems like when an employee chooses to ignore an illegal command form a boss. It is their right if they truly feel the order is illegal but they better be damn sure, otherwise there will be consequences for being wrong. Zaathras (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Your suggesting that the next time I use "uncivil language" I get blocked? Can you even give examples of my "uncivil language" (the ones linked in the first comment are most certainly not – I've had editors attack me with much worse language than that and nothing happened)? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

BeanieFan11 - Swearing at other people, even veiled, is uncivil, particularly in the fraught atmosphere of AFD. The clear intention is to offend the person you are disagreeing with. That others have also been uncivil in the past is immaterial - it would only matter if you had been provoked or it was not part of a pattern of behavior. Am I right in saying that you intend to carry on doing it in future unless we make it clear that it is not acceptable now? Then there is every reason to do so now. FOARP (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Civility is important, but issuing a warning only for civility invites the type of "civil rule breaking" that makes up the bulk of the disruption. Any warning should address the deeper issues of ignoring consensus/guidelines via excessive appeals to IAR; presenting game summaries etc as SIGCOV (NSPORTS specifically covers this); and claiming that playing a certain number of games and/or at a certain level is evidence of notability. It might be best to make a list of editors using these arguments at multiple AfDs and issue a general warning after giving them a chance to explain themselves. –dlthewave ☎ 16:49, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

dlthewave - My issue with this is that people should be allowed to be wrong. The people who really ought to know better are the closing admins. FOARP (talk) 18:09, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

To a point, if their interpretations of wikipedia's policies and guidelines are consistently wrong it becomes a WP:COMPETENCE issue. Its one thing to competently interpret them and disagree, its entirely another to interpret them incompetently. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree that editors that participate in discussions should be allowed to be "wrong" (whatever that is) and that there is no WP:SENIORITY. It's entirely possible that the best idea and/or freshest viewpoint comes from someone new or not entrenched in the Wikipedia Way. I grant that closing discusisons should have a higher standard, but even then there is an appeal process for that. We shouldn't demand nor expect perfection from Wikipedians.: we should seek to work together and collaborate to make Wikipedia better.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

It isn't really about being "wrong" though. This is about editors continuing to disregard guidelines and community consensus even after it's been explained to them. That absolutely is not allowed and if an editor (new or old) continues to ignore the policy, they can expect to be warned and then sanctioned. We actually give new editors quite a bit more leeway since they might not be aware, and in this discussion I've seen at least one comment from someone who changed their assessment method after being made aware of NSPORTS2022. These aren't fresh ideas from new editors either; these are experienced editors continuing to follow old notability standards that have been superseded by newer guidelines. –dlthewave ☎ 02:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

So it's not okay to disagree then?--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:01, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

It's okay to disagree with our guidelines, but AfD is not the place to voice that. –dlthewave ☎ 04:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

It's ok to disagree, but you need to respect consensus. If there is a high level discussion that forms a broad consensus, then you need to respect that consensus in lower level discussions where the consensus cannot change, even if you argue against it in discussions where it can change. To do otherwise is disruptive WP:IDHT behaviour. BilledMammal (talk) 05:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

BilledMammal - Before NSports 2022 lots of people disagreed with the state of affairs that existed then, and said so in AFDs (including me). I don't think we should have been blocked from saying so. There are still policies on Wikipedia that result in preposterous outcomes (particularly GEOLAND giving practically-automatic notability to any "legally-recognised populated place", whatever that is) and I do not think anyone should be blocked from pointing out that and !voting on that basis. The reason why is that the only way you can reasonably build a consensus for changing things is by slow discussion and advocacy. The point that needs discussing at ANI is civility and I don't see why we should go beyond that. FOARP (talk) 12:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

FOARP - I see a difference between the two cases. GEOLAND and NSPORTS pre-NSPORTS2022 only granted a presumption of notability, which allowed editors to have different interpretations of how strong that presumption was without rejecting a broader consensus and violating WP:IDHT. Here, editors are violating a broader consensus, explicitly presenting arguments that have been rejected by the broader community, and that is disruptive and violates IDHT.

My position is that editors are free to disagree, but they must do so within the bounds of policy. If you have a belief that is outside the bounds of policy, then your only recourse is to seek to change policy - you cannot just ignore the policy you disagree with. BilledMammal (talk)

I think where I'd agree BilledMammal is where editors are doing it purely to make a point, which is something we have a long-standing bar on. FOARP (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: I'd like to see some acknowledgement from @Therapyisgood that they could have done better in this situation. A couple examples being to not immediately removing Beanie's comment on their talk page when they tried to communicate, or by closing a couple of the AfD discussions once it became obvious that they should not have been nominated. With that said, I think this discussion has been educational for a number of users. I myself have been forced to reconsider what I believe meets notability guidelines, and I've subsequently struck a few votes I made. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
• Comment - I am concerned about some of the comments above on Wikiproject notifications of AfDs in their subject matter area. I am a member of the association football Wikiproject, and there is a lot of AfD activity involving football biographies (several new nominations daily). In my experience, these football biography AfDs rarely generate enough discussion to reach consensus - plenty of AfDs result in no consensus or soft deletion - even with Wikiproject notification. Removing that notification is going to lead to less discussion, more re-listings, and overall more stress on an overloaded AfD process. If the concern is that a Wikiproject member is attempting to vote-stack, that should be addressed with them individually, as opposed to a blanket block on notifications. Jogurney (talk) 20:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
• You guys are going up and down about how I'm a terrible editor and should be blocked for using IAR – but when you look at the AFDs, you will see there was only one where I said that and did not provide any sigcov sources – the Babcock discussion. This whole discussion is quite ridiculous in my opinion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

  There are four issues here; civility, rejection of consensus (with you citing IAR in multiple discussions), canvassing of individuals, and canvassing of groups. If you can understand what mistakes you make and commit not to make them again we can end this discussion here - although the rejection of consensus is an issue that applies to multiple editors - but if you can't then this remains unresolved. BilledMammal (talk) 05:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

"Civility" – using "f-ing" once is not violating any policy (heck, I've had editors say my edits are just a bunch of junk and attack me saying that I'm incompetent and know nothing about football – but nothing for them). "Rejection of consensus by using IAR" – IAR is literally stated at both WP:NOTABILITY AND WP:NSPORT as a valid argument (at the very top for both: This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline: It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. "Canvassing of individuals" – for the last time, answering users' request to see AFDs is not canvassing. "Canvassing of groups" – letting the WikiProject know about discussions relating to it is not canvassing, as long as the notifications are neutral (which in this case, they are). BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Then unfortunately I believe a series of warnings need to be proposed. My initial thoughts are the following proposals:

1. BeanieFan11 is warned against being incivil in AfD's
2. BeanieFan11 is warned against disrupting Wikipedia by rejecting broader consensus in AfD discussions where the broader consensus cannot be changed
3. BeanieFan11 is warned against canvassing partisan individuals to AfD's, even when the individual has requested to be canvassed
4. BeanieFan11 is warned against canvassing partisan groups to AfD's, including groups organized as WikiProjects
5. BeanieFan11 is warned against canvassing partisan groups to ANI, including groups organized as WikiProjects

I'm not convinced I will support #1 or #5, but given the allegations have been made and have found some support I believe they need to be proposed. Does any editors have thoughts on the wording or the scope of any of these proposals? BilledMammal (talk) 01:30, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - I believe one may notifiy a related-WikiProject concerning an AFD, as long as the notification is worded neutrally. GoodDay (talk) 05:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

  WP:CANVASS has four requirements; the notification must be limited in scale, neutral, to a nonpartisan audience, and open. These also apply to WikiProjects; notifying every WikiProject would be a violation, notifying a WikiProject with a biased message would be a violation, notifying a paristan WikiProject would be a violation, and secretly notifying the members of a WikiProject would be a violation. BilledMammal (talk) 07:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

  The "Appropriate notification" section of the policy you just linked to specifically gives "The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects...which may have interest in the topic under discussion" and "Editors who have asked to be kept informed" as examples of things which are not canvassing. The assumption that certain WikiProjects are partisan would constitute a blatant failure to assume good faith. Hatman31 (talk) 07:32, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

  WP:APPNOTE is clear that those examples do not grant an exception to the requirements of WP:INAPPNOTE; it states Do not send notices that violate WP:INAPPNOTE, and do not send messages to users who have asked not to receive them.

  It also isn't a violation of WP:AGF to recognize that some editors and some groups of editors (including some groups of editors organized as a WikiProject) are partisan on some topics. BilledMammal (talk) 07:37, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

  That's a complete BATTLEGROUND mentality. oknazevad (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

  No, it's acknowledging reality. There are projects and groups of editors who are here to right great wrongs, and it is not BATTLEGROUND to call that out. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

  Again, none of the notifications BeanieFan sent were inappropriate. First, this was a neutrally worded, clear, and brief note on the page of a WikiProject which is related to the topic under discussion, of the type which is explicitly permitted under WP:APPNOTE. Second, Randy Kryn asked to be informed of the other discussions happening here and BeanieFan obliged - which, again, is explicitly permitted under WP:APPNOTE. Then, a group of editors attempted to get them sanctioned based in part on a reading of a policy which is diametrically opposed to what the policy actually says.

  If this thread achieves nothing else (which seems likely), reading it will have at least helped me understand why some people view this site as such a hostile environment. Hatman31 (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

  As an editor who is highly experienced in turning 5kb keep discussions into 25kb no consensus shitshows, I hereby publicly declare my interest in contentious sportsperson AfDs and invite editors to link all such ongoing discussions on my talk page. Thank you. JoelleJay (talk) 01:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment the idea of sanctioning users for making specific arguments you dislike in deletion discussions is patently ridiculous. Rather than trying to sanction them against invoking IAR, the more reasonable approach would be to explain why they are wrong in the deletion discussion. If they are so clearly in the wrong, this should be a fairly thing to do. Toa Nidhiki05 14:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

  It's not really a question of dislike but rather an issue of bad faith. Imagine we had a BLP of a controversial politician, where one editor kept coming back to it again and again and again with the same arguments to put something in the lede about something super-controversial, but most other editors disagreed. When does the right to disagree cross the line into disruption? Zaathras (talk) 14:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. Reviewing this discussion I think it is clear that WikiProject NFL's position on making arguments against broader consensus at AfD is out of line with the broader communities position. As a strawpoll, I count 23 editors as having expressed an opinion on this, with seven appearing to be in in favor or tolerant of such arguments (BeanieFan11, Red-tailed hawk, Paul McDonald, Frank Anchor, Rlendog, Randy Kryn, Toa Nidhiki05) and 15 appearing to be against or intolerant of such arguments (Silverseren, Indy beetle, Robert McClenon, Cullen328, Thebiguglyalien34, Ravenswing, BilledMammal, Mackensen, The Hand That Feeds You, Sungodtemple, Levivich, S Marshall, Zaathras, dlthewave, Black Kite). I was not able to assess the position of the 23rd, FOARP.

Of the seven, four are listed as members of WikiProject NFL, a fifth is a frequent contributor to their talk page, and a sixth is an infrequent contributor. Of the 15, one is an infrequent contributor. This also supports the allegations of canvassing; WikiProject NFL is demonstratably partisan.

If there are editors whose positions I missed, or misassessed, I apologise; please correct me. BilledMammal (talk) 15:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

You can put me down as against/intolerant of that argument as well. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to count me as against it too BilledMammal. Trying to vote-stack in individual AFDs to get a local consensus to overturn much larger consensuses shouldn't be accepted as a real consensus by closing admins. FOARP (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Me too. JoelleJay (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

@BilledMammal Eh, I said that using IAR in a deletion discussion was ridiculous, because it is. If I encounter that as a closing administrator I disregard it. I have confidence that other closers will too.

You seem pretty worked up about your discovery that editors who self-identify as interested in NFL topics take a more expansive view of notability than third parties. I don't see that as important, surprising, nor actionable. Are you planning to bar WikiProject Members, as a class, from participating in deletion discussions about the articles that they write? I don't think that's compatible with the project's overall goals myself. Mackensen (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

All I propose is enforcing WP:CANVASS; preventing the notification of partisan groups of editors. I don't support barring members of a partisan group from participating in discussions if they discover the discussion on their own. BilledMammal (talk) 01:24, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Does that include getting rid of deletion sorting too?--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I've no opinion about IAR. But, I do know that we'd be setting a messy precedent, if we declare that anybody contacting a topic-related WikiProject concerning a AFD, is canvassing. PS - We should also not assume, that all members of a WikiProject think the same. Also, editors who aren't members of a WikiProject, can still have that WikiProject on their watchlist. GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The conclusion "WikiProject NFL is demonstratably partisan" is the result of using AN/I as a benchmark, but it just as likely that AN/I is partisan (and this thread in particular, from the list of participants). And there was no consensus at WP:NSPORTS2022. Peter James (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? The linked closing statement at WP:NSPORTS2022 says that there was consensus on proposals 3, 5, and 6 with a partial consensus on proposal 8. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to kindly request you refrain from assigning me as some sort of partisan here. I only commented becuase I find the idea of sanctioning people for making arguments in deletion discussions to be ridiculous. I didn't participate in WP:NSPORTS2022, have not participated in the RfCs in question, have not engaged anyone on either side, and frankly have no real opinion on this matter other than that it is silly to try and sanctioning people for arguments in deletion discussions. Toa Nidhiki05 18:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment If one may not notifiy a related-WikiProject concerning an AFD, we should ban WikiProjects altogether. — Jacona (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

  I personally thought we resolved the whole "WikiProjects inherently exist as advocacy groups" thing after WikiProject Conservatism was nominated for deletion in 2011 over similar (unfounded) claims, and such claims were pretty roundly rejected and have generally proven untrue. No single WikiProject has proven to be acting in bad faith, and this one is no exception - notifying WikiProjects of deletion discussions (or other related nominations, including GA, FA, FL, etc.) is pretty standard fare. Toa Nidhiki05 18:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

  No single WikiProject has proven to be acting in bad faith

  Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Cyclones involves things not at issue here and I'm not saying it's comparable. But I do feel your blanket statement about wikiprojects deserves clarification. --(loopback) ping/whereis 18:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

  We aren't strictly bound by decisions made in 2011. The culture of the project has changed tremendously over the last decade, and there's less tolerance for POV-pushing. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: Place edits relating to the notability of sportspersons and deletion discusssions relating to the notability of sportspersons, both WP:broadly construed, under general sanctions.

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

---

• Per Robert McClenon, I'm increasingly thinking that having this be under a community DS would allow for more civilized discussions and would allow administrators to better ensure good behavior in this area more broadly. In that light, I would like to propose the following community-authorized discretionary sanctions regime for this perennially contentious topic area:

  • Any uninvolved administrator may, at their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
  • The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length, bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict, bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics, restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
  • If the enforcing administrator believes that an editor was not aware that they were editing within a general sanctions area when making inappropriate edits, no editor restrictions (other than a logged warning) should be imposed. Prior to any editor restrictions (other than a logged warning) being imposed, the editor must be made aware of the existence of these community general sanctions and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve their editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
  • Additionally, any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict page protection, revert restrictions, prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists), or any other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project. Administrators must add an editnotice and talk page notice on restricted pages. Editors who ignore or breach page restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator only if the editor was warned about this decision and an editnotice describing the page restriction was placed on the restricted page.
  • Sanctions imposed may be appealed to the imposing administrator, at the appropriate administrators' noticeboard, or at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.
  • Editors may make good-faith requests for an uninvolved administrator to enforce these general sanctions by posting their concerns to the administrator's noticeboard or to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

I believe that the existence of these sanctions would help to keep the area calmer and would be an improvement to the current situation in this topic area. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  Still prefer my idea. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

• So admins can revert my edits to deletion discussions and ban me just because they don't like my comments? Oppose. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  Opposing out of fear of sanctions is... bold. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not opposing out of a "fear of sanctions," but because I think its truly ridiculous what this would allow. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Is it fear that individual administrators would misuse the existence of these general sanctions to win content disputes? There's a place to deal with that, as that would be desysoppable. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose as an incomplete remedy. The underlying issue appears to be with wikiprojects brigading AfD not with sportspersons per say... Perhaps we need to be more clear about whether wikiprojects are meant to be fan clubs and begin taking action against those who are members of a wikiproject first and wikipedia second. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  Would you be in favor, then, of general sanctions on notability and deletion, each broadly construed? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think I would be, the current system seems to do a good job of eliminating individual editors who create issues at AfD... Where it breaks down is in addressing groups of them (especially when the edits on their own are not sanctionable but the group conduct is). I would be in favor of a sanctions regime for fanboy wikiprojects (perhaps progressive page locks?) though. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  I believe we should let Wikiepdians be free to be enthusiastic about any topic they desire.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

  As long as they can remain impartial of course. The problem for many is that their enthusiasm throws their impartiality out the window and if they can't edit a topic area impartially they aren't allowed to edit it at all... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

  One person's "partaility" is another person's "common sense" -- that's too big of a judgement for people to make at an online encyclopedia. If editors are being "partial" one way or another, other editors are free to metion that and the closing editor is free to take that into consderiation. We can do that now. We DO do that now.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

• Could you present some evidence that these sanctions are needed? My experience of AfD discussions is that the problem (if it exists) is too small, but my experience may not be typical, as I usually ignore discussions about sports. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

• Ok. I've read the discussion above and it seems that this is just about one sport, and that there are two issues with it - one editor's behaviour and canvassing at the Wikiproject. Surely admins have enough tools to deal with those without using additional sanctions? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  Brigading in the more general sense absolutely happens at other wikiprojects, and not just the sports ones. JoelleJay (talk) 01:32, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

  • There are at least a dozen wikiprojects with a major brigading problem, off the top of my head WikiProject Catholicism, WikiProject Skepticism, and WikiProject Highways all have issues which exceed those of WikiProject NFL. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:34, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

    But can't that be dealt with by enforcing behavioral guidelines such as WP:CANVASS? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

    Question is "brigading" another way of saying that a lot of editors are enthusiastic about a topic, and other editors are not enthusiastic about that topic? I don't know how that could be stopped, nor do I think it should be stopped. That's not the problem that's the point --Paul McDonald (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose As unneeded bureaucracy, ValarianB (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose (I'm invovled in the discussions in quesiton) As long as it is WP:CIVIL, editors are free to WP:DISAGREE in discussions. Consensus can change, and the only way to change it is to discuss it. Editors are even free to speak against a policy if they like--even policies change.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  As long as it is WP:CIVIL and not WP:DISRUPTIVE. Repeatedly rejecting existing consensus in discussions where consensus cannot change is disruptive WP:IDHT behavior. BilledMammal (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

  I think I agreee. There is a right and wrong way to disagree. I don't read the link provided to mean that someone can never disagree, but to repeatedly disagree in the same discussion is certainly disruptive per essay WP:WABBITSEASON. Repeated disagreements can be a burden, but remember so can repeated agreements! However, to mention once something like "I disgreee because" and provide a short description isn't disruptive in my eyes. Is that in alignment of understanding or am I off base (which is ALWAYS a possiblity!): I would offer there is a difference between "I didn't hear that" and "I heard that but I think it's wrong." I observe numerous times where one editor presumes that Editor A is "not hearing" them but really Editor A "heard them" and just disagrees.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - utterly disproportionate to the problem and unnecessary bureaucracy. Rlendog (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. This feels like it would raise rather than lower the temperature. Mackensen (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Seems like a poor tool fit to this particular purpose. If the issue was that the prior RFC was too complex to be useful, then start a clarifying RFC on VPP or something and get clarity from the community. --Jayron32 16:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Unfortunately, the ArbCom case has failed to resolve the issue, and while this won't solve the problems of brigading and disruptive WP:IDHT behavior I believe it will reduce the scale of the issue and hopefully prevent a second ArbCom case from being required. BilledMammal (talk) 16:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The issue more relates to the near-impossibility of reaching any consensus for changes to WP:NSPORT. Until that changes this sort of incident will continue. Nigej (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per arguments offered above regarding "unneeded bureaucracy", disproportionality, and potential to "raise rather than lower the temperature". Jweiss11 (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
• ‘’’Oppose’’’. I disagree with Beanie on some of the afds where he argues to keep per IAR but I understand his passion. Beanie is one of the best editors we have working hard to expand football articles with actual reliable sources And encyclopedic content. I would say more in beanies defense but I am getting married in South America tomorrow morning so I will leave it at that. :) 23:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I see nothing to justify this. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

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

User:Mike Novikoff removing links without good reason

User:Mike Novikoff is removing links and information from the infobox of the Vladimir Putin article.[89][90][91][92]

The stated reason for removal of links and article content was WP:OVERLINKING. I believe this does not apply here. With other articles concerning world leaders, such as Joe Biden, Chris Hipkins, or Justin Trudeau, their birthplace does contain a link, and also the region they were born in. Additionally, there is not a link to Leningrad, now Saint Petersburg, present in the lead of the article.

User:Mike Novikoff also has a history of removing links and content without good reason from other articles, as seen in the following diffs: [93][94][95][96][97][][98][99][100]

There are more examples, but to keep this ANI report short, I won't include them all.

When I added the links and removed content back to the infobox, User:Mike Novikoff threatened to report me here for edit warring, despite never violating WP:3RR.[101]

Michael60634 (talk) 05:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Please show him WP:BOOMERANG. — Mike Novikoff 05:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I mean, his accusations are so stupid that he deserves to be punished prevented himself for that, doesn't he? — Mike Novikoff 05:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@Mike Novikoff: Please see WP:NOTPUNISH. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I was just about to correct it. Of course, the right word is "prevent". :-)) — Mike Novikoff 06:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Ahem. No, the accusation is not "stupid" -- it is certainly a content dispute, and I'm curious to hear from you why someone else restoring such material constitutes edit warring and worthy of an ANI complaint, while you removing such material doesn't. You want to explain that? Ravenswing 07:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't see it as a content dispute. Such a closure would be too weak. We have some rules described in the MoS, and we have a user who wouldn't obey. So it's about his behaviour. And since he had started this topic himself, it's about him getting a boomerang between his eyes. — Mike Novikoff 07:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

The MoS is a guideline, and while it should be generally followed, there is no compulsion for editors to "obey" it, nor have you been designated its judge, jury or policeman. I agree with just about everyone who's commented in this thread other than you that your pugilistic I'm-right-and-everyone-else-must-be-wrong attitude is not remotely helpful. Ravenswing 17:25, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I think this is largely a content dispute. On the one hand, I can see why Mike Novikoff wants to remove some of those links, as overlinking is an issue I, at least, am often guilty of. Easter-egging is also a thing we should watch out for, although I would argue some degree of it is almost unavoidable given the nature of this encyclopaedia. Mike [Novikoff]'s contribution in tidying up articles in this fashion is therefore very useful, as not many people take the trouble of checking these 'technical' issues. At the same time, I believe he is operating from too literal (and too strict) an interpretation of policy - some of the links (as well as some of the elements, such as references to the RSFSR) he's removing strike me as useful enough to warrant keeping, something that is subjective and on which some sort of compromise or consensus could be reached. His language in edit summaries, as well as here, is also perhaps too confrontative (I'm not judging, sometimes frustration gets the best of us), and given that he threatened to bring the OP before ANI it is also understandable that this ended up here one way or the other.

TL;DR - I think this could be solved by civil discussion/through mediation without the need for disciplinary sanctions for either party. Ostalgia (talk) 08:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree this is a content dispute, and should the issue with the links should be discussed. I only made a report here because Mike Novikoff threatened to report me for violating the 3RR, which I did not do. And I would prefer to not defend myself against something I didn't do. I find Mike Novikoff's repeated attempts to boomerang me ([102][103][104]) quite strange and petty, as I feel I haven't done anything to warrant it. My worst offences are most likely not providing enough detail in my changeset comments and/or not discussing a reversion of a content removal. And these ([105][106]) changeset comments in responses to this ANI report are neither helpful nor appropriate. Michael60634 (talk) 10:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree this is a content dispute – but I don't. "A content dispute" means "just close it", and I hope you'll not get away just like that. Mike Novikoff threatened to report me for violating the 3RR – I've never mentioned 3RR, I've said that I'll report you if you don't stop, and you have shot yourself in the foot. Now face the music. — Mike Novikoff 11:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

May be blocking Mike Novikoff for continuous trolling and refusal to discuss anything (communication via edit summaries is not really a valid dispute resolution avenue) during many years would be not such a bad idea. May be they should once face the music themselves. Ymblanter (talk) 14:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, this sort of pugilistic rhetoric on his part does nothing except inflame further interactions, when we all should be working to try and de-escalate. He's not quite at a block yet, but both parties ought to take a step back since ANI does not resolve content disputes and no further good can come from continuing to beat the war drum. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Also agreed. This is a content dispute, and the MOS is not a rule or policy, it is simply a guideline - which can often be irrelevant or even incorrect. Mike Novikoff needs to dial back the passive-aggressiveness quite a bit, frankly. Black Kite (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Question the OP and the accused both seem to be Russian/Russian-born/native Russian speakers, and Ymblanter seems to be suggesting there seems to be a long history of similar behaviour by the accused. It might be the ultimate coincidence, but is there some previous issue porting over from Russian Wiki that we should be aware of, or am I reading too much into it? Ostalgia (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Just to provide some clarification, I am not Russian, nor do I speak Russian. I'm from the US, and I natively speak English. Maybe you made this assumption after reading my userpage. The Russian language quote at the top is from the TV show Chernobyl. I just liked the sound of the quote so I used it. I am trying, with limited success, to learn Russian. At first, it was out of interest, but now it's mostly because it's my girlfriend's native language. My only experience with editing the Russian wiki was updating the name of the De Havilland Canada Dash 8, an airplane I am quite interested in, and creating a move request to change the name of the article for said airplane. Michael60634 (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Guilty as charged - read the quote, quickly scrolled down and saw a userbox with ru, and just made a quick assumption (and a false one at that!) without even checking the level of Russian in the userbox. Just to clarify, I was asking not out of any national prejudice but because not long ago (2-3 weeks ago?) there was a dispute here between two users who, as it turned out, had been duking it out at the Spanish wiki (a language I do speak!) for a while and both had gotten blocked for their troubles. It was important context. The dispute here, luckily, was in the end solved to everyone's satisfaction through mediation. Anyway, my apologies.Ostalgia (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I didn't assume you were asking out of national prejudice. And no offence taken. Michael60634 (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I am a native Russian speaker, and as far as I remember Mike Novikoff is blocked indef on the Russian Wikipedia, but I do not think this is relevant for this dispute. They demonstrated similar behavior here for a long time, making edits which are probably mainly good but having very poor communication style, sometimes going to clear trolling. When they get called out, and, especially, when they get dragged to ANI, they typically disappear to under radar, wait until the case gets closed as stale, to reappear and continue in a few weeks. I will try to get some examples later, the ANI notices should be on their talk page. Ymblanter (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[[

This is an ANI thread about the user I opened a year ago. They narrowly escaped a block then, and, apparently, did not learn much.--Ymblanter (talk) 02:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

refusal to discuss anything – If you search for my contribs at e.g. WT:MOS, you'll see that I had started some topics there in the past, and had even won some cases, so it's not true that "I never discuss anything". On the other hand, I don't insist on my proposals if there's clearly no one to support me, so "I'm always right" is not true either. — Mike Novikoff 21:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

What you should learn at some point, and we are not yet there, is that (i) Wikipedia is not a battleground, it is not about winning or losing (ii) your communication style is not really appropriate. Ymblanter (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

English is not my native, but I believe that "to win a case" is an idiom that has much less to do with military than, say, "AWOL". — Mike Novikoff 00:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps you should consider that “battleground” itself is being used metaphorically. (This comment to which I’m responding is a great example.) 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't insist on my proposals if there's clearly no one to support me, so "I'm always right" is not true either – Your comments here contradict this statement. Michael60634 (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

You see, my discussion with OP goes like this: I'm making a lot of effort to describe the rules, then our frined just dismisses it. Please defend me from such style of discussion. — Mike Novikoff 08:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

That's not discussion. That's edit summaries. Use a talk page for discussion. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 05:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

• Now, quite predictably, Mike Novikoff went AWOL again, clearly waiting until this topic gets archived without a summary. After that, in a few week they would reappear and continue the same behavior. This already happened in the past.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

  I noticed that. Mike Novikoff was quite active here, particularly with trying to get people to boomerang me....until that didn't happen and everyone else said it's a content dispute and didn't defend him as he requested. Now he has disappeared. Michael60634 (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

  Eh, so propose a tban from the Putin article. I'd support it. Ravenswing 10:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, like the last ANI, there's not much that can be done until someone proposes something. Levivich (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

  I hope this talk of TBs is a joke. — Mike Novikoff 04:37, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

  I already said I think we are ready for a block, with a warning that the next one will be of a long duration. Ymblanter (talk) 07:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

  If a topic ban is proposed, I don't think it should be limited to a single article, as Mike Novikoff has been making the same edits on other articles about people, living or deceased. But I don't think I'm qualified or knowledgeable enough to be the judge of what the scope of any topic ban should be. Michael60634 (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Mike Novikoff has finally joined a discussion about the links in the infobox on the article talk page. However, their dismissiveness and poor behaviour is still an issue that should be discussed here. Michael60634 (talk) 09:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

First, note that Michael60634 has continued the edit war: [1], [2].

Second, in the current discussion I'm trying to base my arguments on the established guidelines (that I'm supporting for some ten years now), while the opponent's arguments seem to be simply "it's not overlinking", "many articles do that" and "MOS is not a requirement". Then, instead of replying, he resorts to going back here and accusing me of "poor behaviour" again. Now what shall I do? MoS is a result of a widespread and long-term consensus, isn't it? I can't believe it's so insignificant that anyone can just ignore it. It worked for many years, and suddenly it doesn't? — Mike Novikoff 23:00, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I want to note that your second example of me "edit warring" was reformatting the way "now Saint Petersburg" was positioned in the line to bring it more in line with other articles about Russian politicians. I didn't add or remove any links or content. Michael60634 (talk) 02:52, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

No, you have reintroduced a WP:EASTEREGG type of link that was just corrected by the previous user. — Mike Novikoff 04:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Draft: Mike Afolarin

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

---

Moved to Draft talk:Mike Afolarin

 – FormalDude (talk) 10:10, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Long term ownership at WikiProject Years

There are currently ongoing disputes at WikiProject Years regarding issues of WP:OWNERSHIP and WP:STONEWALLING in which a few regular users of the WikiProject are enforcing their own local consensus against sitewide policy. I'm not going to try to summarize the whole sequence of events here, but the most relevant discussions can be found below, roughly in chronological order:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years/Archive 15#Standalone lists – prose in year articles – Discussion involving me and BorgQueen to invite input on the format of year articles. Our attempts to improve 2001 (before and after) were challenged by Deb and GoodDay on the grounds of "no consensus".
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#RfC on prose in year articles – RfC opened by me to appease Deb and GoodDay's request for consensus. BorgQueen advised me to seek arbitration based on this discussion when I asked for advice, but I ultimately chose simply to make a final comment and allow the RfC to play out.
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#Wikipedia:WikiProject Years – Decision by Deb and GoodDay to revert my update to the WikiProject's main page (before and after) that had not been significantly updated in over a decade and had several outdated sections. They were unwilling to discuss any possible changes when I had invited such discussion previously.
• Several discussions from January 2023, largely initiated by InvadingInvader, to propose discussion about the standards used on year articles. Many of the same issues are repeated and continued in these discussions. It's too much of a mess for a clean list of links, but none have yet been archived and can all be found on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years.
• Talk:2022#RFC on the inclusion of Barbara Walters in Deaths (Result:) (ongoing discussion) – RfC where Jim Michael 2 and TheScrubby engaged disruptively. An arbitration enforcement case was opened in response to Jim Michael 2's conduct.
• Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Create Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Years (ongoing discussion) – Attempt by me to seek sitewide input on the issue and get the ball rolling on a standard that complied with policy.
• Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RFC: split births & deaths from year articles (ongoing discussion) – RfC by Levivich to change the format of year articles in a way that has gained support on the WikiProject Years talk page. Jim Michael 2 opposes on the grounds that we cannot make any changes without Deb.

Note that these links begin when I first discovered the issue, but it appears to have been going on for much longer (one user had the same debate with Deb in 2008). I was hesitant to bring this to ANI because I (perhaps naively) believed we could resolve this dispute through discussion, but this has not happened. I'm bringing it to ANI now because, based on the last two links and on this post, it's clear that some of the users involved intend to continue enforcing their tenuous local consensus on year articles after the community has demonstrated clear opposition to this approach, and an injunction of some form is needed. Please let this be the final post made about this dispute so we can finally begin work on this section of Wikipedia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying we cannot make changes without Deb. I'm saying that having discussions about major changes to the format & inclusion while she's away is a bad idea. This report is unjustified & she can't defend herself against the multiple allegations against her. She's an excellent long-term editor & admin. She's the best editor of main year articles, which are being flooded with trivia in her absence. Scrubby hasn't done anything wrong. I apologised in regard to the Walters discussion & have left it. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse Thebiguglyalien's analysis that something smells rotten in Denmark. Wasn't entirely convinced before the performance put on by Jim Michael 2, talk about shooting your team in the foot. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

How have I done that? Do you think that Maine adopting a new flag was one of the most important things that happened in the world in 1901, so it belongs on that article? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

• Whom specifically are you accusing of ownership and stonewalling? Diffs would be preferable to linking to long discussions if possible, especially as some of those links just look like disagreement or still-pending efforts to attract wider participation (efforts which look to be succeeding at just that). Putting aside the matter that's already being dealt with at AE, it's unclear to me, as someone who almost never looks at years articles, what I should take away from those threads. If someone says "we shouldn't have a discussion without X" and that's unreasonable, ignore it and leave it to them to make the case. The idea that "it would be good to have someone who's very active on this topic comment on a discussion about that topic with far-reaching implications" seems entirely reasonable to me, and I don't see how having that opinion impedes the large number of participants from moving forward? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Bringing this matter here is a major overreaction. Several related discussions are ongoing & this isn't the place for this. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

While Jim and I do frequently disagree on content, I'm not convinced we need an ANI yet. Let's discuss this on other pages for now, instead of on ANI. We haven't gotten to this point yet. If behavior does become more egregious, however, I fully back some sort of wider action. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

For the purposes of clarity based on the discussion below this on TBANing Jim Michael and Scrubby, I am neutral, leaning oppose, to a TBAN. We disagree on a lot, but we shouldn't purge people from a project for disagreement. TheScrubby and I in particular can often form consensus, especially on the inclusion of deaths when it comes to sports figures. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Respectfully, this surpassed "disagreement" when several uninvolved, well-respected users asked them to stop and they did not. Otherwise I would not have escalated to ANI. Even in this discussion, Jim Michael has continued to falsely present a loosely compiled, policy-violating local consensus as true consensus after being asked not to. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

The immediate concern is that Jim Michael 2 and TheScrubby are persistently enforcing an "international notability" rule that they made up despite several users pointing out policy considerations and asking them to stop. I think Levivich summarized that particular aspect below rather well. The broader issue is that the WikiProject as a whole is attempting to enforce what may or may not be included in year articles, and I'm requesting administrator/community intervention to prohibit users from demanding that editors seek consensus at the WikiProject before making any edits. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

The criteria were decided by community consensus, not just Scrubby & me. No-one is demanding that editors seek consensus before making any edits. Insufficiently notable edits are often questioned or reverted, but that's commonplace on many types of WP articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

That is paradigmatically not how "community consensus" works on this project, Jim. If you think a given principle is generally advisable and works within the framework of exiting policy, then you make a WP:PROPOSAL in a central community space (by which we mean a space like WP:VPP, not a WikiProject talk page), or on the talk page of the existing guideline you wish to amend. Please see WP:Advice pages: WikiProjects and other editorial cohorts are expressly disallowed from coming up with their own standards via fiat and then attempting to apply that "consensus" to every article they perceive to be within their purview. There have been multiple ArbCom cases unambiguously defining this as WP:DISRUPTIVE conduct and numerous community discussions that have affirmed this principle and it's been in operation from nearly the earliest days of the project. Any conclusion you and your fellow wikiproject editors arrive at on a WikiProject talk page is a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, not community consensus, and any standard approach you decide upon is a recommendation at most, and cannot be presented as standing consensus on individual articles.

Likewise, any local consensus which (you believe) has been reached on a given issue for a given article is not transferable to another article, even highly similar articles like those for years. If you think you have the right end of the stick on what policy should be on a given editorial issue, then you can take that idea the community via a PROPOSAL and allow it to be vetted. The language you are employing on those articles, and even here, is highly misleading and problematic with regard to appropriate process, and raises serious questions about your understanding of fundamental principles of consensus building as it is meant to operate here. You're far from the first group of editors from a WikiProject to commit to such a walled garden effort at controlling content, but you should be made aware that this never ends well--and combining it in this case with the fact that WP:FY was upjumped (as I seem to recall) from essay to WP:guideline status without going through the proper PROPOSAL process, this continued effort to enforce unvetted standards across multiple pages begins to look very much like like a knowing refusal to adhere to this community's consensus processes--or a massive case of WP:IDHT at the least.

I would seriously consider dropping the stick and recognizing that you have been operating outside of process and reframing your approach within policy/community expectations, because I really do think the most likely outcome here if you don't is a topic ban: I for one am only barely hesitating from endorsing that course of action with my own !vote long enough to see if you are going to take on board the fairly uniform feedback that you are getting regarding well-established policy here. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd support TBANing Jim Michael for bludgeoning every discussion (not just Walters, also the one at VPP, the one at VPR, this one here already), but even moreso, for continuously wasting editor time by arguing about "international notability" or straw manning (as above: Do you think Maine's new flag is one of the most important things... blah blah blah, nobody said that). I read WP:RY and see this has been going on for at least 5 years. Sure, we can ignore Jim and just work around him, but he really makes it more difficult. Ditto for TheScrubby. Levivich (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

You want two editors who are currently upholding long-standing consensus regarding international notability on main year articles to be Tbanned?! There's no strawmanning from me. I removed that Maine entry from 1901 today, just like I've removed hundreds of other trivial, local, domestic & pop culture events from main year articles. If a quarter of the people on these discussions would also do so, they'd be greatly improved. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

You're not upholding long-standing consensus, you're violating it. This "international notability" concept appears to be the same one from WP:RY that you argued for and that was rejected by the community in 2017. Apparently, a few editors at WP:YEARS revived it in mid-2021, and now you and TheScrubby continue -- despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, namely: nobody outside of your group agrees with you, the same as happened with WP:RY in 2017 -- to insist that this WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is, in your words, "long-standing consensus regarding international notability". It's not. WP:NPOV is the consensus that will be applied to year articles. You need to WP:DROPTHESTICK about "international notability"; your failure to do so is why I support TBAN from year articles, broadly construed. Levivich (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Many editors remove events & people from main year articles due to them being domestic; it's standard practice on them. During last week & this week, several editors have done so on 2023 alone. Your claim that it's only Scrubby & I is clearly proven to be untrue. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

^ an example of the straw manning to which I referred. I never claimed that only Jim and Scrubby remove events & people from main year articles due to them being domestic. I never even mentioned anyone removing anything from anywhere. Sure, we can ignore it, but it will just continue and continue... Jim left the Walters conversation because of the WP:AE filing, only to engage in the same behavior elsewhere. Levivich (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not strawmanning. I'm disproving your claim that no-one outside 'our group' agree with Scrubby & I by noting that many other people also remove domestic entries.

I'd already left the Walters discussion permanently. I'm meant to be commenting here - defending myself against allegations. I'm also defending Deb & Scrubby because they're not here. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, you and Scrubby aren't the only members of "your group"; there are other editors imposing this "international notability" thing; I guess it's certain regular WP:YEARS editors, but not all of them. However, if you go to Talk:2022 and search on that page for "international notability", there are 56 hits for that phrase, and almost all of them are you and Scrubby. At WP:VPP, same thing, mostly you and Scrubby (though not only). And the problem isn't that you and others believe in an "international notability" standard. If you were like, "I think we should go with international notability but I recognize it doesn't have broad consensus," there would be no problem. The problem is that you continue to push that it is consensus, despite that clearly not being the case, outside of a handful of WP:YEARS editors. The problem is that this has apparently been going on for years. Levivich (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't know who else you regard as being part of my group. International notability has had consensus for years on main year articles. It's only during the last few weeks that it's been questioned as many editors who rarely/never edit main year articles have expressed their disagreement with it. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

It's only during the last few weeks that it's been questioned as many editors who rarely/never edit main year articles have expressed their disagreement with it. You're so close to getting the point. Levivich (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Recent years is not a policy and it is not a guideline. It is an essay. Jim Michael 2, please provide a link to the discussion that established this long-standing consensus regarding international notability. I would like to read that discussion. As far as I am concerned, notability guidelines apply everywhere on Wikipedia, and we should never have separate implicit notability guidelines for a narrow group of articles. In my opinion, this "the event received independent news reporting from three continents" and "if there are Wikipedia articles in English and at least nine non-English languages about the individual in question" stuff would never be endorsed by the wider community. Cullen328 (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I know that RY was downgraded to an essay; no-one in the 2020s has used that as a policy/guideline. However, the requirement of international notability has been the case for years. There have been many discussions relating to it during recent years, mostly on talk pages of main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Jim Michael 2, please provide a link to a few comprehensive discussions that established consensus. Cullen328 (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

There are many of them across the archives of the talk pages of recent main year articles. We often discuss individual events & people, as well as types - such as sportspeople, politicians & entertainers. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Jim Michael 2, I have twice asked you quite specifically for links to conversations where this ongoing consensus applying to all main year articles was established. Your failure to provide the links is quite troubling and leads me to think that the claimed consensus does not exist. Cullen328 (talk) 20:17, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Other editors & I have repeatedly correctly said that they're on the archives of recent main year articles when you & several other people have asked this. Consensuses on this are across dozens of discussions - they're not neatly in one or two discussions. If you don't want to go through the archives to find them, that doesn't mean they don't exist. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, this is an unhelpful reply. You are insisting that something (the claimed consensus) exists. The onus is obviously on you to provide some proof of the assertion. Dumuzid (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I've said where the discussions are. I can't merge them for convenience. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, can you provide a link to one, at least? Dumuzid (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree because I have been reading through the 2010 talk page archives and I see a lot of consternation over the WP:RY essay. I mean, it was being used to stop the Deepwater Horizon spill from being included.

I shudder to try and search through the archives from recent years to find a consensus discussion after slogging through those archives for 30 minutes. I am at a disadvantage because I'm not involved and don't know where to start. This is why we ask for diffs, so we can at least get started in the proper place.

Inomyabcs (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

The burden is not upon the community to go digging through numerous archives to find evidence that you allege supports your position. Community members are raising substantial concerns about your understanding of the distinctions between policies and guidelines, local consensus, and your own personal opinion on best practice; even if you are absolutely correct about the support you have for this "international significance" principle (which frankly based on what I am seeing, I tend to doubt it is as solid as you believe), it would actually do very little to address the underlying issues with your current approach.

But to whatever limited extent it would bolster your position, it would behoove you to provide easy access to the specific discussions you believe endorse this standard and support your perspective. No one else is going to do it for you, and telling the community members engaging here to go do your work for you--especially when it would take you a fraction of the time that it would for anyone else--looks very much like either a dodge because you know you exaggerated the supposed support, or (at best) pure chutzpah in expecting others to take time out of their day to dig up that which you are too disinterested in properly presenting yourself. Either way, not helping your case. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to get involved in this, however not only is WP:RY an essay, it's also marked as inactive. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Support a TBAN for at least Jim Michael 2 and TheScrubby - the ownership and gatekeeping at year articles needs to end. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 20:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

That's unreasonable because I've been in line with consensus & will continue to be whatever the consensus is in future, even if it changes significantly. Scrubby hasn't even had a chance to reply yet. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

You're already violating consensus with this "international notability" criteria that has already been explained to you by a couple administrators now has no basis in Wikipedia policy. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 21:11, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Conditional Support of TBAN, assuming a link to the consensus isn't forthcoming. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Support a TBAN for Jim Michael 2 who is either unable or unwilling to provide links to discussions showing consensus, despite being asked repeatedly. Here is a link to a 2017 discussion at Wikipedia talk:Recent years that closed as "no consensus" and we now have zero evidence that anything has changed. Cullen328 (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, even if there had been consensus in that discussion, it would still be, at most, an WP:Advice page: per longstanding community consensus, formalized in a number of ArbCom cases and community discussions, WikiProjects are proscribed from coming up with idiosyncratic standards among themselves and then attempting to enforce those as standing "consensus" on individual articles. No matter how unanimous or large the consensus on a WikiProject talk page, it still operates as a mere suggestion on particular articles, for purposes of WP:CONLEVEL.

It's fine to reach such a consensus on a WikiProject if the individual articles those editors operate across are mostly maintained by just those editors, and in such cases, having one conversation in one space can make sense. But if there is a dispute on an individual article, then you still have to have a new WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on that article talk page, and the members of the WikiProject are prohibited from presenting their cottage rules as standing consensus that must be followed, and doing so is considered WP:Disruptive (and this goes a long way back--at least to ArbCom rulings following the notorious "infobox wars" of the late oughts, which involved cohorts from WikiProjects attempting to enforce their own standards across vast numbers of articles without first getting these guidelines codified through the WP:PROPOSAL process. The potential for rival groups trying to enforce different approaches on articles where their perceived purviews overlap is just one of numerous reasons why the community long ago decided it is infeasible for WikiProjects to be designing their own content guidelines within their self-perceived mandate: or at least formal guidelines.

So it's one thing to come to an agreement about a standard on a WikiProject that you agree is appropriate and follow that just editing involving those same people. But once you attempt to enforce that standard on the wider project while working with editors who have not already bought into that approach, you are violating WP:Advice page, WP:CONLEVEL and WP:PROPOSAL, and have unambigously stepped into WP:Disruptive conduct. Looking at how the current WikiProject Years talk page reads, it's pretty clear most of the participants in that space have either no understanding of this principle or else just choose to ignore it outright, so the problem here does obviously extend well beyond Jim Michael 2. Still, starting with the person arguably pushing this approach most aggressively, and currently rejecting all input based on our actual content policies seems reasonable. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

There are many relevant discussions on Talk:2021, including its archives. That includes discussions resulting in consensuses in regard to notability requirements for people of particular occupations as well as individuals. How can I be wrong to have followed those? We discussed, agreed & followed that. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 23:32, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

This is still making us do the work. Which conversations would you cite to support your claim of consensus? A quick perusal of both the current page and the archive index didn't make that clear to me. Dumuzid (talk) 23:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

As other people & I have said, it's not all conveniently in one discussion; it's across many. There are discussions about many individuals, as well as discussions about inclusion criteria for politicians, sportspeople etc. The specific criteria for politicians are obviously different to those of sportspeople. For example, politicians need to be heads of state/gov unless they have some other major form of international notability. Sportspeople need an individual Olympic gold or to be winners of major international competitions such as tennis Grand Slams or FIFA World Cups. Those obviously aren't in the same discussion. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll stop here because I think this has basically become duplicative with Cullen's comment below. Best of luck whatever occurs. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

And as a number of community members uninvolved in the underlying disputes have told you here, that's not good enough. If you want to make the case that there has been some sort of broader community endorsement for an approach which seems to manifestly conflict with numerous basic content policies, you need to present evidence that is more than a rule of thumb that you and a close group of other editors have adopted out of your own subjective perceptions of what content is important. Instead you are trying to present local consensus discussions which you say dovetail with your preferred approach. Best case scenario, that would still not justify your approach and you'd still be facing a TBAN here unless you could DROPTHESTICK and commit to following our normal consensus building processes on Years articles. But at least it would demonstrate to us that your mistakes were born out of following a pattern of faulty thinking among other editors.

So you could collate a large number of diffs from these supposed consensus discussions and present them here (that's pretty routine for ANI when someone wants to stick to their guns), and it might give those of us who tend to look for any excuse not to sanction a reason to be understanding of your confusion. Or you could just provide a handful of diffs to discussions where such a consensus existed among the editors of a give years article. Indeed, you have also repeatedly been asked to supply so much as a single diff to a discussion where such a consensus arose, so we know you aren't completely fabricating this supposed support, but you refuse to do even that much. We just simply are not going to take your assertions on faith--especially given the overarching context here, the conduct in the diffs that have been supplied by other parties, and your complete intransigence in the face of community feedback. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Your last paragraph gives me an idea. Perhaps WikiProject talk pages (whether all of them or on a case by case basis) should have notices that briefly explain local consensus. Something to the effect of "This page is for seeking input from users interested in a given topic. If you wish to propose a new guideline, do so at this other location. Decisions made on this page do not represent consensus." Obviously it wouldn't solve the more egregious cases like this one where users persist after being informed, but it might help prevent some problems that seem to be reoccurring and make users aware of how situations like this should be handled. Is this something worth pursuing? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I like this idea, but make all of them traceable with links to the exact discussion. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I think there's something more fundamental (and at the same time potentially easier) than adding a disclaimer to every WikiProject, although that could be useful additional step. Where I think we ought to start is by moving the policy language at WP:Advice pages to it's own namespace, and increasing reference to it in other related policies, such as WP:CON, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, WP:DR, WP:CONLEVEL, and WP:PROPOSAL, among others. Although the principles enshrined at WP:advice pages reflect longstanding community consensus, having been codified repeatedly by ArbCom and the community at large, and even though this is the only way the broader project can work while permitting smaller WikiProjects (who we cannot allow to be constantly at war over their own idiosyncratic standards), somehow the guideline never got moved to its own committed namespace, even after all this time, and this means it goes unnoticed by newer editors for sometimes up to years at a time in the engagement on the project.

I can tell you this much: RfCs are the biggest single chunk of my contributions to community process over the years. I'd estimate I've responded to somewhere between a 1,000 and 1,200 over the last decade in particular. Increasingly over the last few years, I find that a larger proportion of those I am randomly brought to be by an FRS notice tend to be taking place at WikiProjects: probably around 15%, if I had to guess. And in almost every one of these cases it's clear that either the OP or a significant number of respondents are unaware of the existence of the WP:Advice pages rule and the fact that whatever conclusion they reach in that space, it's going to have limited application. Because we didn't position this guideline in a more visible space, every year we end up with a higher percentage of editors who don't understand that WikiProjects are not allowed to come up with default rules which they can apply to any article they perceive to be within their mandate, without concern for local consensus. Invariably this has to be pointed out by someone a decent way in to the discussion, if it gets pointed out at all.

And it's tricky, because you don't want to dissuade people from generating sensible, straightforward standards where they are unlikely to lead to dispute--especially in smaller wikiprojects where the active cohort might largely be the same editors who would be contributing almost all of the content to the individual article talk pages they work on anyway. But you also don't want people blundering into disruptive behaviour unintentionally (or, in the worst cases, failing to curtail the gatekeeping culture that takes root easily in some projects). Threading the needle is always a headache for the first person who realizes no one is presently paying attention to WP:Advice pages on a WikiProject talk page, and it shouldn't need to be that way. We need to make the existence of this piece of longstanding annd well-accepted community consensus more apparent to the newer editor, or the problem is only going to get worse with time. Indeed, it already has slowly gotten substantially worse in the last ten years. Once moving the language is accomplished though, TBUA's suggestion of putting disclaimers on WikiProjects is not a bad step either: that could be proposed at the WikiProject Council pages. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:56, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, this all needs to be done. I'd try to get things moving that way myself, but I have zero experience working in P&G. It was actually one of your explanations on an RfC listed above that helped me realize the extent of the issue and convinced me to move the discussion to the broader community. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I've changed my mind as I looked further into the situation, and I've come to the conclusion that if little to no further substantial evidence comes from Jim supporting his cause, I will Support a TBAN for Jim, albeit weakly. I retain the position that Scrubby is a competent editor, especially considering the progress Scrubby and I have made on agreement when it comes to athletic deaths, and I oppose a TBAN imposed on TheScrubby. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support tban for Jim Michael 2 or other remedies to address bludgeoning. I find it particularly concerning that JM stated that they would take a step back from the dispute when brought to AE (which I think is procedurally not quite the right venue for these complaints, and is now redundant with the discussion here), only to continue bludgeoning here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd already decided to stop contributing to the Walters discussion. I've been repeatedly called here by notifications, so how can replying be bludgeoning? If I didn't reply, I'd be ignoring. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

You've responded to almost every subthread of this discussion, despite not being pinged or otherwise asked for comment in virtually any of them. It would have been appropriate for you to make a succinct comment or two in response to this discussion being opened as a whole, and otherwise responding when prompted for comment. That's patently not the behavior on display in this discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:37, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I've received whatever you call the red square at the top right of the page on several occasions relating to these discussions. I've been asked for details, links etc. Here's a relevant link: Talk:2021 Jim Michael 2 (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Jim Michael 2, I have gone through the four archives and the current version of Talk: 2021, and did not find a single thread that establishes consensus for "international notability". I see you invoking it repeatedly with an authoritative tone, but no evidence for the actual consensus. I do not know whether it is that you do not understand what is required to establish consensus for such a sweeping and unprecedented concept, or that you are actively trying to mislead us. In either case, this whole situation is quite disturbing. Cullen328 (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

There are discussions which reached consensus for politicians & sportspeople as well as many individuals. Archive 1 of Talk:2021 includes discussions which reached consensus about Walter Mondale & how internationally notable politicians need to be, including the usual requirement to be heads of state. Archive 2 includes individual Olympic gold medals establishing individual international notability. It's clearly there. How could any of us have known we were supposed to seek super-consensus somewhere else? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Could you show us those discussions? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I've said where they are. What do you mean by show you? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

You say there are many discussions...you only provided two here. Those are focused on specific cases. What other discussions show the requirement for "international notability"? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:56, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

They're not merely specific cases - they include specific international notability requirements for politicians & sportspeople. There are others relating to entertainers as well as many individuals. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 01:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Support TBAN of Jim Michael 2 from years articles and related discussions, but reserving my opinion for TheScrubby and other users at WikiProject Years (and if this does come down to the need for bulk sanctions, arguably this should be kicked to ArbCom, who are better equipped to set and enforce sweeping responses on a project at large). Although I do not regularly participate in years articles, I have occasionally become aware of the issues there through a number of venues. Firstly, RfCs are one of my main areas of contribution to project space, and I've gotten an inordinate number of FRS bot summons to years articles (or to WikiProject Years itself) over the years. And basically every time I arrive at one of these discussions, I am gobsmacked by the sheer volume of opinions on inclusion that are being forwarded which are based in the idiosyncratic personal opinions of the involved editors, and not at all on our actual content policies. It is clearly a problem that is long overdue for the community to address, and this perception is only reinforced by the tone of the discussion at the WikiProject itself, which evidences a complete lack of understanding of (or else disregard for), basic policy considerations like WP:PROPOSAL, WP:CONLEVEL, and WP:Advice pages.

There's also the background of the fact that this group improperly bootstrapped WP:RY into a guideline (without a WP:PROPOSAL process) which the community then demoted back to an essay. As such, many of the players here were clearly aware of the distinction between the WikiProject's shared perspective and its lack of endorsement by the wider community, and were thus on notice that continuing to try to enforce these standards would be perceived as bad faith, disruptive conduct. That said, we can start by drawing the line in the sand for one particular editor and hoping it catches the attention of the wider cohort in question. Unfortunately for Jim Michael 2, they have essentially volunteered themselves for this role by being the most verbose and problematic enforcer of this un-proposed, un-vetted "international coverage" rule, and then adopting a completely hardened WP:IDHT attitude to all efforts here to point out why this is disallowed and is a big problem. So, with reluctance, I support the TBAN on them as the beginning point for reigning in this behaviour. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I didn't know anything about a lack of endorsement by the wider community. I was going by consensus on main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 23:23, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

With regard to that alleged consensus: a) it cannot abrogate existing policies and guidelines, unless and until it is endorsed through a WP:PROPOSAL and is introduced into guideline itself. This must be known to at least some of the WP Years crew, because someone attempted to re-label WP:RY from an essay to a guideline, and the community demoted it back. Now it seems the WikiProject participants have taken a different tact and simply ignore that there is the need for a guideline if you want to enforce the same rule over numerous articles, which substantially raises the certainty that some participants in this disruption know full well that they are violating process. I have no idea if you are one of these editors: I have not looked at the complete timeline of your involvement in the relevant complex of discussions. But you are clearly the single most aggressive pusher of this un-authorized standard and you're refusing to DROPTHESTICK and accept the fault in your approach here, so our hands are effectively tied at this point: we can't let this go on, and you won't acknowledge there is a problem with your approach.

And b) even to the (very limited) extent to which some local consensus on the involved talk pages might give you some cover in the sense that you were just following what you thought was tacit agreement, you steadfastly refuse to point us to where this supposed consensus exists, in that vast sea of talk page disputes connected with the relevant articles. Given what we are seeing here, it is all too easy to believe that any such consensus is fictional, exaggerated, or just a product of your own confirmation bias perception of the previous disputes, so we can't spend all day searching for something which may or may not exist and which would only minimally impact the issues with the disruptive conduct here anyway, if you are unwilling to do that work yourself to defend your position. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I only supported RY when it was a guideline. Since it was downgraded to an essay, I haven't tried to use it to back anything. Like I've said, Talk:2021 has Walter Mondale & politicians in general on Archive 1 & sportspeople specifying individual Olympic gold medals on Archive 2. There are very clear consensuses on those things acquiring necessary international notability. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC

I hope that you are not being deliberately obtuse, Jim Michael 2. We all know now that "international notability" gets tossed around on those talk pages. The issue is how the notion of "international notability" originated in the first place, and where is the discussion that led to a consensus that "international notability" should be implemented as a formal standard on this narrow group of pages? We have a 2017 debate that was closed as "no consensus". Where is the debate that created positive consensus for this concept which exists nowhere else on Wikipedia, as far as I know? If that discussion never took place, then the entire concept of "international notability" is the product of the imaginations of a handful of editors engaging in ownership behaviors. Although not dispositive, the fact that WP:International notability is a red link indicates that something is wrong. Cullen328 (talk) 01:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

The first mention of international notability was probably years before I began editing. I can't find out where that was first stated on WP by who or when, but it wouldn't have been me. If you're asking for that, you're being unreasonable. It's mentioned by many people & I'm not the editor who's done the most editing against domestic events. I've said which archives some of the relevant discussions are on, which give consensuses for specific levels of international notability for politicians & sportspeople. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 01:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Jim Michael 2, you are essentially conceding that you have been editing aggressively for years in support of the "international notability" standard, simply assuming that there was consensus for it, and not checking for yourself even though many editors have challenged your forceful editing behavior for years. At this point, unless further evidence emerges, it seems that "international notability" is a figment of the imaginations of the small group of regulars at years pages, a house of cards as it were. Those words should be removed from the Wikipedia lexicon. Cullen328 (talk) 01:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

It wasn't an assumption. Several editors formed consensuses on the basis of international notability for main year articles. Checking what for myself? How could I have known that there was a requirement to go to other places on WP to seek super-consensus for changes to main year article criteria? No-one mentioned any such thing during hundreds of discussions over a period of many years. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 01:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I am trying to figure out how to effectively communicate the concern here. You have shown us conversations where you say "this is the standard," and people acquiesce. Nowhere have I seen a conversation that asks "what should the standard be?" It looks to an outsider like you simply became a law unto yourself. Whatever the merits of the situation, I hope you can at least appreciate that viewpoint. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I've never been the leader of anything. On many occasions I asked if someone/something should be included, as well as where the inclusion bar should be for particular categories of people by occupation. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 02:17, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support TBAN for Jim Michael 2 (definitely), The Scrubby (less obviously), and possibly others This conversation, which was the point at which I gave up trying to contribute to the current year pages, was the main issue (note that a proper RfC later led to Coltraine being included, two of the four dissenting !votes being the two editors mentioned above), but there is no doubt that JM2 and a number of other editors are gatekeeping these articles in a manner that is not in any way conducive to Wikipedia policy. Black Kite (talk) 23:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

The consensus on Coltrane went against us, so how can we be have been gatekeepers? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

It took an RFC from the wider Wikipedia community to "overcome" the gatekeeper. Same with the other recent RFC on FTX and the ongoing RFC on Walters, which looks like it's going to be an include at present. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I was one of many people contributing to the Coltrane discussions, with no more say than anyone else, so how could I have been the sole gatekeeper? If I'd been the only one saying he shouldn't have been included, he'd have been included in the original discussion & there wouldn't have been an RfC. Also, I've never started an RfC in response to a discussion going against me. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

We're not focused on one sole dispute; we're just using Coltrane as an example where you had bludgeoned the process or had significantly impeded process. The above discussion has given us substantial evidence. Meanwhile, you haven't provided hard evidence of your own with international notability being the standard; just something that was "built up across many discussions". Show us those discussions. Now's your chance. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I've done so repeatedly. Consensuses were reached in regard to specific levels of international notability required for politicians & sportspeople. Archives 1 & 2 of Talk:2021. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, now where getting to the nub of where the confusion lay here. Under this project's content and consensus policies, you cannot establish such a position (that international notability is required for all politicians and athletes in all years articles) merely by agreeing to it with some other editors you happen to regularly brush shoulders with and find yourself in agreement with on those articles. There are two separate reasons for this: first, per WP:CONLEVEL and WP:LOCALCON, any consensus you arrive at on the talk page for an individual article (even if it were genuine, unanimous, and uncontroverted consensus) applies to that article only. Even in this case of articles with nearly identical considerations, you are not allowed to take a decision you arrived at one article and transport it to another, without again establishing consensus for it on that additional article.

Second, in order to generate a firm guideline which applies across multiple articles, the consensus discussion must follow the WP:PROPOSAL process. It doesn't matter how long or how often you and a select group of editors have been agreeing with one-another that a given standard makes sense: in order to cite it as "consensus" that applies to multiple articles, it must first be vetted by the community at large in an appropriately central space (not a WikiProject talk page, mind you: a central community space like WP:VPP if you want to create a new policy or the talk page of an existing policy or guidelines if you want to amend said PAG. This is vital and required in any scenario, but particularly elevated concerns are raised when the standard you are pushing for seems to run against the grain of existing policy. Finding a common rationale with certain other editors may be a good starting point for non-local consensus, but it is a far shot from the end of the process. Until you have met that burden, you don't have community consensus: you have yourself agreeing with a small number of other editors with whom you have a cozy working relationship, and the broader community being skeptical of the rules you are coming up with.

I honestly don't think your "international notability" standard has a WP:SNOWBALL's chance of being agreed to by the community, given existing policies and community perspectives, but you have every opportunity to make a proposal and see. Failing to do so and still pushing for an approach that runs counter to existing WP:PAGS and presenting your ad-hoc rules as "consensus" is simply WP:Disruptive. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

No-one said anything about needing to go to various other places to seek consensus. How would I or the other regulars have known about that? We discussed inclusion criteria & reached consensuses that substantial international notability be required, then specified what that means. You can see that from the discussions. It seems that we were all supposed to know that super-consensus need be sought at other places, without anyone mentioning that. How can any of use be blamed for not going to places on WP we hadn't been to & hadn't been mentioned to us. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Jim Michael 2, how can you possibly write that with a straight face when you were an active participant in the 2017 discussion at Wikipedia talk:Recent years that was closed as "no consensus" regarding "international notability"? You are certainly familiar with that outcome, but sometime thereafter, you started claiming that there actually was consensus for an "international notability" standard and described that with confidence as an established fact hundreds of times. And yet, today, you are unable to link to where that consensus was created. Do you really think that casual chit chat by the regulars at year article talk pages creates consensus that you can use to bludgeon editors who are not year page regulars? Classic gatekeeper behavior, in my opinion. Cullen328 (talk) 02:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

That was a RY discussion, which is irrelevant to editing in the 2020s & doesn't mention any of the places that this discussion mentions going to. International notability was already standard for main year articles long before that discussion. The OP in that was seeking to define it more precisely. My contributions to that discussion were to say that all heads of state/gov should be included (which there was already consensus for, but which the OP's plan wouldn't include) & the problem of including high-profile deaths of people who have little or no notability (which weren't usually included). Jim Michael 2 (talk) 02:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

It's been explained to you several times by several users just in the last week alone, but you didn't stop. That's the only reason I escalated to ANI. And even if no one has ever asked you why they should have to comply with "international notability" when there's no written guideline on it (which I doubt), it must have occurred to you at least once in the 10+ years you've been on Wikipedia that a small group of users can't disregard WP:WEIGHT, WP:OR, WP:OWNERSHIP, and WP:CONSENSUS simply because they decided to. And don't say that you weren't aware of these either. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't aware until last month that editors were meant to go to other places in WP to form a higher level of consensus. How could I know? No-one mentioned it in discussions on talk pages of main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 02:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't address the main point I'm trying to make here. Not knowing about procedure is entirely forgivable (albeit a little less so as a user's time on Wikipedia grows). But it seems you were under the impression that users are welcome to ignore policy pages like the ones I listed by just creating a "consensus" that it doesn't apply to them. That's essentially what's been happening here. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I was under the impression that consensuses on talk pages of main year articles were valid. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 03:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Jim, I'll take it on faith that you're being on the level about not getting the CONLEVEL distinctions here. And yes, absolutely, the rules on this project can be inaccessible to our newcomers--in fact, they can be downright inscrutable. And no, nobody who honestly operates from a good faith mistake about policy should typically be punished for it. But I hope you will also credit me with honesty when I say you have no presented as being very open to hearing what the community is putting out during the course of this discussion. The relevant policies have been linked for you repeatedly. For that matter, you're not exactly an ultra newbie: looking at your oldest account, you've been here at least 13 years and you're almost 150,000 edits deep in experience. Nor is the distinction between local consensus and community consensus exactly advanced policy: on the contrary it's kind of Wikipedia 101 level material. At some point, we expect you to do your due diligence and engage with understanding those policies, even byzantine and somewhat unintuitive as some of them may occasionally be. Failing to get get a grip on them by this point, especially combined with a concerted refusal to listen to an avalanche of community feedback until the 11th hour could be considered evidence of a WP:CIR shortfall.

All of that said, I wasn't being disingenuous when I said I look for any reason not to support community sanctions, and though I am not sure it would change the tide at this point, I for one will switch my !vote immediately, should I become of the impression that you accept that you cannot continue to bludgeon discussions on the years article with the assertion that there is "consensus" for an international notability standard unless and until you use a WP:Proposal] to get such language into a guideline, that you are going to discuss on talk pages accordingly, and that you will WP:DROPTHESTICK if you do attempt a proposal and it fails. Much as with blocks, community sanctions should be preventative, not punitive, and I'd much rather be advocating for WP:ROPE than a TBAN here, if I have reasonable room to do so. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of those policies until last month & not aware of consensus levels until yesterday. There are many things I don't know, including how to create diffs & how to copy & paste. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 03:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of those policies until last month & not aware of consensus levels until yesterday. That jumped out at me as so likely to be untrue that I just had to go search Wikipedia for "Jim Michael" "local consensus" "international notability" (results) to see if this has come up before, and of course it has: Wikipedia talk:Recent years/Archive 3#Other Wikipedias, Wikipedia talk:Recent years/Archive 4#RFC: guideline status of this project's inclusion, Wikipedia talk:Recent years/Archive 5#Rewrite to reflect essay status -- expand the collapsed box to find this wonderful gem:

Jim Michael Diffs please where "everyone who contributed ... wanted most events and deaths excluded from the main articles" please. Shouldn't be too difficult to find. The walled garden of RY is well and truly open to all now, and we're seeing a clear consensus for radical change. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Jim, you had the same conversation with TRM five years ago that you just had with Cullen328 today.

Another: Talk:2013/Archive 2#Kiss nightclub fire
Jim: "Year articles are for internationally notable events."
IP editor: "you are flat out wrong - it is eligible by the process you have just voted on - which is 'consensus'".
That was ten years ago. Levivich (talk) 05:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't remember most of the hundreds of conversations I'd had on WP during over more than a decade. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

This isn't about the conversation. It's about the policies you claim not to know of, and the fact you've clearly encountered them before now. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think something stronger than a TBAN may be in order here. At this point it's long-term disruption because they just pretend to be oblivious to things they don't agree with or care to acknowledge. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I encountered them briefly several years ago which until this discussion I'd forgotten about. I have a huge number of conversations on WP, other unrelated sites & in real life. I can't remember everything & no-one had mentioned them during any of the discussion I took part in from 2018-2022. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not, it's nothing of the sort & I didn't remember things being mentioned in a discussion in 2017. The same applies to real-life conversations. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Jim, I feel the need to ask: if you were to continue editing in this area, could you throw it open and abandon this "international notability" business in favor of seeking an actual consensus? Dumuzid (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'll go along with whatever the consensus is. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if it will change anything at this point, but that's what I would focus on rather than rationalizing past actions. Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Saying he shouldn't have been included didn't impede anything. My statements were as important as each of the other contributors'. I've given examples of discussions which reached consensuses for the amount of international notability politicians & sportspeople need. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 01:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I make absolutely zero apologies for believing that figures/events on the main international yearly pages ought to have notability and impact that go beyond one country/region, and for believing that inclusion standards for figures/events from all countries should all be the same rather than arbitrarily having one standard for one/a handful of countries and another standard for everywhere else. Having said that, while I agree with Jim that this report is highly unnecessary, I think it would be wise to consider alternate approaches. Like with the Walters RFC, I understand where Jim was coming from with the concerns r.e. Amanpour, specifically that until now her entry wasn’t listed in the page for her year of birth, whereas users were rushing to include (the arguably less internationally notable) Walters, a journalist whose work and achievements was predominately based and relevant in one country, when she passed away at the end of last year. But I do think that Jim overkilled the comparison, and continuously having done so even after the matter was neutralised with Amanpour being included in her birth year page was something I think was not only not constructive, but also undermined the credibility of himself as well as the other regulars/those who did argue and vote against the inclusion of Walters.

As for the Walters discussion itself, like with Norm Macdonald and Robbie Coltrane beforehand I have my reservations as to their notability beyond their home country/region and have expressed my reasons clearly on the relevant discussions, but I readily concede to consensus in favour of inclusion. Indeed, as I expressed on the Village Pump talk page, I think the Walters discussion was important and very valuable, and that it’s a positive that the discussion happened in the first place. It’s important that we scrutinise potential inclusions and that figures who are much more significant domestically within their own country are discussed rather than automatically included without question because of the country they happen to come from. I also think many of the participants in the discussion did an effective job in demonstrating that although her career and achievements were predominately based in one country, she had substantial influence within her field of journalism internationally.

I hope that the final outcome of all this will be that a standard will be established for the years page to the general satisfaction of not only the regular contributors of the year pages, but also to the broader community - one that not only follows the principles of prioritising figures/events who had notability beyond one country/region, and which addresses systemic bias and not having different standards for different countries/regions. It’s still important that we don’t just arbitrarily include without scrutiny a figure whose counterpart from any other country would be scrutinised and excluded. All of these issues were commonplace prior to mid-2021, and led to a significant skew towards Americentric bias because minor American figures whose international counterparts would never have been considered for inclusion… were being added without scrutiny and without anybody insisting on the use of reliable sources to justify inclusion outside of Year In Country. It would be entirely untenable to simply sweep such issues under the carpet and to go back to the deeply problematic standards that we had prior to 2021. I believe, and would be happy to help contribute, that we can achieve such a standard that can also fit into the broader community’s framework - and that we rely on reliable sources from multiple regions and from sources that come from more than one language, in order to sufficiently demonstrate impact and notability beyond one country of an event/figure, and the importance of the figure’s work and achievements beyond one country. Coming together to work on proposals like such would be far more constructive for all involved rather than attempting to blacklist anybody and ignoring concerns they have brought up time and again which the “international notability” criteria (as we knew it up to now) attempted to resolve. TheScrubby (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

@TheScrubby: Please explain this edit to Talk:2022/Archive 13 on January 17; particularly w.r.t to how it was appropriate or necessary to edit the Talk page archives in continuation of a previous edit war with multiple editors. And how that edit aligns with the above statement I readily concede to consensus in favour of inclusion. - Rotary Engine (was Ryk72) ^talk 01:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Somewhere along the line in 2022, it became a practice to include a “result” at the end of the title of each section of the Talk page. The overwhelming majority of “Result” summaries had a simple “Include/Inclusion” (for figures/events whose inclusions were generally not in dispute), “Borderline Inclusion” (for figures/events which are included but whose inclusions are not as clear-cut and were disputed - especially those that resulted in RFCs or long discussions in general), and “Exclude/exclusion” (for those who were deemed to lack substantial international notability; those where a clearly majority of users voted and argued against inclusion). In the case of Coltrane, it was labeled after taking almost two months of intermittent discussion to resolve as “Rough consensus to include” - which was a labelling not used for any other Talk page discussion result, and was essentially a longer way of saying what “borderline inclusion”, which is regularly used, basically sums up. The consensus for Coltrane to be included - borderline or otherwise - was no longer in dispute as the discussion had been resolved. I even said on one of the edit summaries at the time: “I’ll accept the consensus for inclusion, but once again as per how we label inclusion/exclusion statuses here, Coltrane’s inclusion can only be labeled as borderline given how contentious his inclusion was, and how long the debate lasted. Borderline also means that he was included in spite of Coltrane not meeting using notability criteria as we have it here, and means he would not be entitled to an image like more notable entertainers”. TheScrubby (talk) 02:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I am glad that you are participating in this discussion, TheScrubby. Perhaps you can answer the question that Jim Michael 2 has been either unable or unwilling to answer: What is the origin of the unique notion "international notability", and where specifically did this concept gain consensus that empowers its use hundreds of times on these talk pages? Cullen328 (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

As Jim has actually indicated, the turning point was really the discussions to do with the inclusion of Walter Mondale, whose inclusion was controversial because it blatantly exposed the Wiki’s Americentric bias and arbitrary inconsistency (users attempting to automatically include Mondale without scrutiny and complete with an image whereas nearly all other deputy heads of government/state do not end up included at all) when it came to the inclusion of political figures at the time - especially when one user attempted to justify Mondale’s inclusion by the fact that John B. Anderson, a minor figure of purely domestic significance whose international counterparts would never have been included, was included for years in the main Year page of his death. From there a political figures criteria was established with international notability as a key tenant and the standard that no country has their figures/events treated differently from other countries was applied. It was really after that where, although there was no formal discussion that specifically codifies the standard of substantial international notability, the standard became consensus when it was applied and backed up by regular users (not just myself, Jim Michael, or Alsoriano97 who was the other most prominent user backing this standard at the time) through edit actions on the year pages and through discussions where users used international notability as the main bar for inclusion. Though of course it was definitely an issue that no such formal discussion took place, because a clearly defined and formally codified definition of international notability and what it precisely entailed (for non-regular users to get their head around) was not written - and was only written up belatedly a matter of days ago on one of the WikiProject Years talk page discussions. TheScrubby (talk) 02:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

@TheScrubby: Please also explain these edits to the Archives of Talk:2021; which act to close discussions in which you were an involved participant; and which had been archived without formal closure. Why was it necessary to close these discussions? Why was it appropriate for an involved editor to do so? Why was it appropriate for the discussions to be closed in the archives? 1 2 3 4 (particular focus on the edit to the section "RFC : Standards for including people in Deaths", please) - Rotary Engine (was Ryk72) ^talk 02:09, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I’ll note firstly that I was not the only regular user (nor was Jim Michael) who went back to the archives after the practice of including the “Result” on the title of each Talk page discussion became a de facto standard. I did so to retrospectively add what was the ultimate result of each discussion to the older discussions, to bring it in line with the “Results” for the newer discussions that had been put into practice. The discussions had long ceased in any case, by the time the results were retrospectively added. TheScrubby (talk) 02:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

TheScrubby, since you declined to answer my original question to you, let me ask it another way: When and where did the "no consensus" regarding "international notability " at Wikipedia talk: Recent years on 19 November 2017 morph into "yes, we have clear consensus for "international notability"? Please give a specific answer. Cullen328 (talk) 02:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I have provided an answer above; I’m at work right now and writing up these responses takes time - it’s as simple as that. As for what happened in 2017, I not only had nothing to do with that discussion, but I was not aware of the existence of that discussion until another user brought it up yesterday (and a link to said discussion would also be useful). TheScrubby (talk) 02:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

TheScrubby, your answers have not yet been responsive to my substantive questions. But I will certainly give you some time since you are at work. Please respond in detail when you have the time to my specific questions about when and where consensus was established for the "international notability" standard? After all, you and Jim Michael 2 have asserted vigorously and forcefully hundreds of times that this consensus exists. Where's the evidence for the establishment of that consensus? Cullen328 (talk) 03:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I’ve given you the most accurate and precise answers as I possibly could. The fact of the matter is, this was a consensus that was formed more through edit actions and discussions on various figures and events where international notability was the bar by the regular users of the day rather than an explicit discussion which involved going over every detail and putting it to a formal vote. The closest there was, was with the political criteria we established and put in place in the wake of the Mondale discussions on the Talk:2021 page (it was in all these discussions that you can find the roots of what became international notability as we defined and applied it); indeed from the beginning my own focus was more on creating criteria for figures/events of specific fields - firstly with the political criteria, and then (much later, after a long period with no overall consensus and with the help of InvadingInvader) with the sports criteria. Which all helped considerably with the decision-making process of figuring out who should be included from each various field; beforehand users had the tendency to compare the notability of figures from incomparable fields (“you exclude x politician but you include y musician”) - basically whataboutisms that really wasn’t constructive in the slightest. I believe that had there been a far stronger standard for inclusion prior to 2021 where figures weren’t arbitrarily included and Americentrism wasn’t an issue, there would have been no need to resort to coming up with an alternative - in this case international notability being the main bar for inclusion. TheScrubby (talk) 04:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

You've misunderstood. International notability had already been usual practice on main year articles long before that 2017 discussion which was an attempt to define it in a way that the OP thought better. The suggested criteria were rejected, not the general international notability bar. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 02:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I have misunderstood nothing and you are Wikilawyering, Jim Michael 2. You have been asked repeatedly to document the existence of the consensus in support of "international notability", which you have relied on hundreds of times to assert your expertise and authority in these discussions, and your response amounts to a blend of "it's lost in the mists of time" and "we've always done it that way" and "it happened before I became an editor 13 years ago, so I have no idea". Not a good look. Cullen328 (talk) 03:26, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I didn't take notes on that long process. I haven't claimed to have authority or to be an expert. It appears to have started in the late 2000s, with consensus being solidified & specified during dozens of discussions, some of which I took part in. I can't remember most of them. The criteria were discussed a lot in 2021, partly as a reaction to some editors wanting to include Walter Mondale in deaths. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 03:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

What this tells us is that there was never actually a discussion to form consensus, you just assumed that this consensus existed "during dozens of discussions", without ever actually confirming it. Then proceeded to act as if it had been. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

It looked like there had been consensuses on various things, and several long-term editors said there was. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

That is generally how these rotten wikiprojects work, the newer editors are mislead by the OG's into believing that the OG's personal opinions are actually some sort of consensus and then that "local consensus" becomes dominant despite never actually existing in the first place... Which of course makes it nearly impossible to challenge, ideologues within the rotten wikiproject will just keep repeating "But we have consensus" without actually being able to point to a conversation which can be challenged. This is one of the things that makes these cases so tragic, the people who end up banned or blocked aren't the long-term editors who told the lies its the people who believed those lies to be true and edited accordingly. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I believed the consensuses to be true because they appeared to be. I joined editing & discussions when the guidelines were underway. I was one of many people taking part in discussions to refine those but at no point was I any sort of leader, nor did I claim to be. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

• Research and comment on "international notability". Looking at the original page for the start of the Wikipedia:Recent years, it looks like international notability was the one of the main reasons driving the essay creation. It listed years 2008 and 2009 as the sources for the target of consistent cleanup as a lot of events in those years could have gone into separate country lists. I then read back through 2008's Archive 1 and located a similar term to international notability, "international concern". Further, in 2008's Archive 2 there is a discussion with even more history which illuminates some of the guidelines that shape the formation of the WP:RY. In reading through the referenced years of 2005 and 2006, I couldn't find any reference to international notability. It might seem as though Archive 2 was the genesis of the term "international notability/concern". Inomyabcs (talk) 02:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Which is before Scrubby & I began editing, so neither of us could've started it. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

• Tban for Jim Michael 2 and TheScrubby, in line with Black Kite's reasoning, and subsequent posts from TheScrubby do not convince me. This situation mimics what went on at WP:MED for years and years, and the WikiProject never fully recovered from the damage done by a small group of gatekeepers who believed their personal preferences took precedence over sitewide policy and guideline. Stop it sooner rather than later; TheScrubby may be less of a problem here than Jim Michael 2 (so the duration of the Tban might be lessened), but there are plenty of other areas where these editors can contribute, so the WP can recover. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Even though we've both said that we'll agree to whatever new consensus there'll be? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 03:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, because then it shouldn't trouble you to move away for a time period to let others have space and a voice. Sorry, but this is too much like what went on at WP:MED, too many others had already been chased off, it is too hard to recover from, and a period of absence will be better for you, others at the WikiProject, and the WikiProject. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Supporting applying the same standard to figures/events from one country rather than having different standards for events/figures for one country and another for everywhere else…. is gatekeeping and not convincing? Silencing us (especially when we all made clear that we accept consensus, as Jim said above) for calling out the systemic flaws which plagued the main Years page and which the international notability criteria attempted to address would be downright petty and sweeping these issues under the carpet does nothing to help improve things here. I am willing and have indicated that I am prepared to work with the broader community to come up with a new standard that would be more acceptable to all involved and which addresses everybody’s concerns. TheScrubby (talk) 03:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

"Supporting applying the same standard to figures/events from one country rather than having different standards for events/figures for one country and another for everywhere else…. is gatekeeping and not convincing?"

It certainly can be if you use certain methodologies for advancing that position, such as presenting standards decided upon by a select group of editors at a WikiProject or in discrete local discussions as if they are binding WP:guidelines which apply by default to all articles you consider within your purview. In order to have anything above local consensus, you have to invite the community at large into the decision-making process, or all you are doing is wasting a lot of effort to set up future conflicts. Take these standards through the WP:PROPOSAL process and prevail, and then you have consensus you can cite in these discussions. But what you have been doing with your insular cohort up until now (even if you disagreed with one-another on the particulars and felt like you were going through a consensus process) is not how we make guidelines that are considered vetted enough to apply to numerous articles.

Additionally, I think there is an element of a strawman argument to how you present the debate on the advisability of your solution: no one here is likely to disagree that we shouldn't have a standard which applies with equanimity to all subjects, regardless of their national origin. The disagreement, rather, is likely to be with whether your proposed solution achieves that end. Personally, I tend to think that it far more subjective and amenable to the biases of our editors than the obvious alternative of utilizing the normal WP:WEIGHT test that applies to all articles. But at this juncture, we are talking more about a content determination that will not be resolved in this space. If you are not TBANned, please by all means pursue your proposal: you clearly in good faith believe the standard in question is in the best interest of the content in our years articles, and if you retain the ability to contribute in that area, you should be heard out. But it is critical you understand where you went of the track of normal procedure for formulating guidelines. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Comment. If someone asks you for proof of community consensus and you hand-wave at "various talk pages", there's a pretty good chance that we're talking about a local consensus. Now, a local consensus can survive for years or even over a decade, but eventually the rest of the project notices, and then you've got a problem. That's where we are now. Talk:2022#RFC on the inclusion of Barbara Walters in Deaths (Result:) has a certain through-the-looking-glass quality to it. I think topic bans can be justified if only to let someone else get a word in edgewise, though I want to think on it. I have no idea what "international notability" is, and after reading over who did make the "Death" list for 2022, I still don't. Mackensen (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

As was defined on the WikiProject Years page, and as was applied from mid-2021 until now, international notability is:

• Notability that goes beyond one country or one region/a handful of countries, and is not merely domestic.
• Being the recipient of multiple major international awards, rather than just awards that are domestic and mainly given to those from their native country. In other words, representing their country on the world stage
• Having an impact with their work in their relevant field beyond their home country/region, and are of international consequence; being an essential, central member of an internationally notable group; or achieving international notability beyond their most famous work (in other words, for example with actors they would be internationally recognised in their own right rather than say, being known as “x character in y franchise” and only being known internationally by fans)

International notability is not:

• Measured by international media sources/obituaries. They’re essential on this Wiki for who is notable enough to warrant an article, or for other lists, but not for a page that is focused on the most internationally notable figures and events. Furthermore, using media sources runs the risk of perpetuating systemic bias, particularly in favour of figures/events from the Anglosphere over figures/events from the non-English speaking world.
• Measured by the number of Wiki language articles or article views. Anybody can create language articles, including hardcore fans of celebrities, as is prominently the case with Corbin Bleu. Page figures can be an indicator of what is trending at the time, but cannot be used as a factor for determining international notability - which is not a popularity contest; nor are the international yearly articles meant to resemble tabloid papers (so we wouldn’t include trendy human interest stories that is not of lasting international significance).
• Measured by the number of fans somebody may have internationally.
• Having one set of standards for figures/events from one or a handful of countries, and another set of standards for figures/events from everywhere else. What’s notable in one country is not automatically notable elsewhere, and we would not include figures/events if their international counterparts are excluded. Americentrism or any other form of systemic bias is firmly repudiated.
• Including people on the basis of quotas, tokenism or positive discrimination.

As I have already said before, I’m happy to work with the broader community to work on a new standard which could potentially include the central tenants of this while at the same time utilising reliable sources to demonstrate significance and notability beyond a certain figure or event’s country of origin. TheScrubby (talk) 03:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

The definition above was posted to WT:YEARS by TheScrubby on January 27. I think it serves as a great summary of their understanding of "international notability", and a decent conversation starter. But I'm less certain that it reflects broad consensus; or that it reflects "international notability" as it has been implemented at the Years pages. It's certainly not a definition that was defined through a consensus process; nor does it pre-date its ostensible application (mid-2021). Rotary Engine (was Ryk72) ^talk 04:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok, but you do understand at this point that the editors of WikiProject Years don't get to make these perspectives into the established standard for inclusion before first consulting the community, to vet the ideas and see if they are found to be both advisable and consistent with the framework of existing policy, right? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I accept that now, as I have indicated when I have said more than once now that I am prepared to work with the broader community on a standard for main Year pages that is in line with established standard and which would rely on reliable sources. Which is decidedly not doubling down, as was accused in bad faith by Cullen328. TheScrubby (talk) 09:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

That's interesting, thank you. To take people I'm familiar with, that the process produces Jim McDivitt, Hardy Krüger, Wolfgang Petersen, and not Barbara Walters is perplexing, at best. Mackensen (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

McDivitt shouldn't be there. He was added, but not discussed or removed. I clearly stated that Kruger, Petersen & Walters shouldn't be included & gave clear reasons. I expected a large number of Anne Heche fans to push for her inclusion, as her death was one of the most high-profile of last year. However, they didn't appear. Much of the inclusion is based on how many fans want them included, and there needs to be something to combat that. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

In other words, the "international notability" consensus is not operative. Mackensen (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

It's inconsistent & depends who's in the discussion. McDivitt not being discussed or removed appears to have been an oversight. Robbie Coltrane was included because many of his fans turned up to the discussions on him. Heche was quickly excluded due to a lack of international notability, because her many fans didn't turn up. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Insisting who should be listed on rejected criteria, dismissing everyone that disagrees with you as "fans", rejecting media coverage's role in giving weight... Everyone here is trying to give you a lifeline, but you keep doing the things that you're being sanctioned for, and you're doing it in the discussion on whether you should be sanctioned. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm explaining what happened & why in response to someone being puzzled by it; I'm not insisting on it now. I didn't say that everyone who disagrees with me are fans. Many people turning up for Coltrane & Walters, but not the more popular Heche (see pageviews to see the much higher spike for Heche's death) is very surprising. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

The Deaths list in itself has been very perplexing for me personally as well, and while some people were obvious in their decision, sometimes it takes an RFC to resolve a particularly-perplexing no-consensus decision. This is what happened with Robbie Coltrane and presently with Walters, and the FTX Collapse also had an RFC. The decisions have been difficult to the point where I've had to suggest on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years a near-complete removal of the section entirely with only portraits of the most notable, which in an as-of-yet unresolved discussion got a few editors advocating for not even that but a complete removal. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 07:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support Tban for Jim Michael 2, in line with Cullen, Rosguill, Sandy & others above. The level of argument, evasion, and apparently inadvertent blindness to the community's requests and practises ~ if he still denies that it's bludgeoning ~ is quite unusual and provides plenty of evidence that this is an area he should stay away from, at least for a while, until he has had time to reconsider his actions and whether he would like to edit in line with the community. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 06:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  I can't remember all the discussions I've had in over a decade. I'll go alone with whatever the consensus is in the present & future. If I am going to be topic-banned, could it be limited to main year articles? I often edit year by country articles & haven't ever been in conflict with anyone on them. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from years articles for TheScrubby. I had hoped that this editor would back off instead of doubling down on claiming a non-existent consensus, but the editor has freely chosen to persist with spurious arguments lacking merit, in support of an imaginary non-existent consensus. All such editors need to be removed from this walled garden topic area, so that actual policies and guidelines can be applied by neutral, uninvolved editors, and inclusion critetia written that actually enjoy wide community consensus. Cullen328 (talk) 08:01, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Cullen328: Okay, that’s more than a little unfair - I answered all the questions that you had for me as best as I could, and in order to do so I had to be frank about everything, including why we took the actions we did. How can you accuse me of doubling down when all I did was give you an explanation for the actions taken while at the same time I made crystal clear that I now accept that consensus among the broad community does not exist. I have made clear that I am more than prepared to work with the broad community on a new standard that not only addresses concerns with systemic bias that existed prior to 2021, but also work within the framework of reliable sources that you all are insisting upon. At the same time, I’m not going to apologise for calling out systemic bias or insisting on an equal playing field for figures/events of all countries, or to not go back to how things were before 2021, with all the flaws that come with that. However problematic the international notability standard has been as it is up to now (especially r.e. sources), that doesn’t automatically mean how things were beforehand was at all also acceptable - even InvadingInvader has said that how things were beforehand was completely unacceptable. TheScrubby (talk) 08:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  TheScrubby, I do not consider my remarks to be unfair under these circumstances, but I do appreciate your willingness to acknowledge the lack of consensus. If you continue to acknowledge the depth of the problem and propose policy compliant solutions, I will withdraw my recommendation for a topic ban for you. Cullen328 (talk) 09:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  You cannot accuse me of doubling down when you asked for, and received an explanation. I have been compliant with your requests, and as co-operative as possible. For the explanation to work, I had to be frank about our motives, and why the actions taken were made. If your claim of me doubling down is because I posted the international notability criteria again, I posted that because users here still did not understand the concept as was applied from mid-2021 until now, so the repost was necessary for better context of what was in place until now. If I was doubling down, I would still be insisting that a consensus as defined by Wikipedia policy and as supported by the broader community exists or that we should continue to disregard reliable sources. Instead I’m saying we should all come together to work on an appropriate standard of inclusion that addresses concerns of systemic bias while at the same time relying on reliable sources - for a solution that would be satisfactory to all and which would remedy the fatal flaws both of the pre-2021 Americentric standard and the international notability standard only supported by local consensus and implemented from 2021 until now. TheScrubby (talk) 09:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  Furthermore, I have been an active contributor to the Year In Australia pages where over the years I have been improving formatting (mainly to do with tables and lists), as well as adding Australian figures to the Births/Deaths sections, of which many of the pages have been bare-boned up to now. I have never once been accused of misconduct or wrongdoing of any kind on the Year In Australia pages, and I remain an active contributor there. My work there has absolutely nothing to do with my work here, and any Tban would also affect my ongoing work on that project. TheScrubby (talk) 10:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  Likewise, my frequent work on many year by country articles hasn't been criticised or caused any conflict. I don't think either of us should be Tbanned, but if we are, please limit it to main year articles so we can continue to frequently do good work on year by country articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  When someone pleads for a subset of a topic not to be included in the TBAN it means that subset absolutely must be included in the TBAN. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  Why? Scrubby & I are both actively doing a lot of good on year by country articles without any conflict with other editors. The only issues are regarding main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  Added to WP:LAWS as "HEB's First Law of TBANs". Levivich (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  That's an essay. The only topic that Scrubby & I are being criticised in regard to is main year articles, so if we're to be Tbanned - which we disagree with due to it being unnecessary - the topic would be main year articles, not year articles in general. We're both good, frequent editors of year by country articles. The disagreements in regard to internationality have never been relevant to year by country articles, which are inherently national. Banning us from those would only make those articles significantly worse than they'd be if we're editing them. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:56, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose TBAN for TheScrubby: I do believe TheScrubby has been editing in good faith and that their contributions have value. They're willing to change it seems, and I'd like to give them the chance to do so. If things go sideways they can always be brought back here. Hey man im josh (talk)
• Oppose topic bans. In a nutshell, the situation is this: year articles need to have some sort of (fairly high) standard for inclusion, for obvious (I hope) reasons. The group of people who spend a lot of time working on these articles have developed, over time, informally, an in-practice standard that can be effectively applied to settle most inclusion questions in a non-contentious way and seems to yield an acceptable product. To describe this as "a consensus" is completely reasonable, even if it has never had an official stamp put on it (because WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY). Some editors who are not part of the regular group of editors of these articles don't think the evolved standard is good, which is their right. It's completely reasonable to propose changing that standard, or otherwise pushing to formalize (for example via an RfC) what is at present an informal and local consensus. So, do that. It's completely unclear to me in what way topic-banning these two editors will help in any way with this. I don't see any signs of anything inappropriate -- mostly I see a lot of confusion around bureaucratic demands ("where is the place where this was formally decided?") versus informal practice ("we do it this way because this is how things have always been done") that should be settled by good-faith discussion somewhere other than ANI. (In case anyone is curious, obv this is not my regular IP—I'm travelling—but I have never edited years articles.) --128.91.19.27 (talk) 13:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  It's completely reasonable to propose changing that standard, or otherwise pushing to formalize (for example via an RfC) what is at present an informal and local consensus. So, do that. We have. Have you been following the discussion on WP:VPP? It was listed in the OP's post, and that's where a good chunk of the bludgeoning occurred. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

A major difficulty is that during the past couple of months, several editors have proposed very different things. In regard to deaths, some want to increase the number listed, some want to reduce them, some want to move them to new list articles & some want them removed altogether. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I do not oppose a warning about bludgeoning, or narrowly tailored measures to enforce it in one discussion if necessary — but that doesn’t require a topic ban. (The same person, posting from a different IP address.) 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

• I was alerted to this discussion by a comment on WP:AE by Rosguill. At minimum, Jim Michael 2 needs to be given a formal warning not to bludgeon in discussions related to years. I have to think more about whether a topic ban is warranted for either party. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
• Note I've removed the "inclusion criteria" at Talk:2021/FAQ and Talk:2022/FAQ and replaced them with pointers to WP:DUE. I didn't find any other FAQs, but only checked 21st-century years. Levivich (talk) 15:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support a topic-ban for Jim Michael 2, without the requested exception, based primarily on their intransigence in this thread. No opinion on a topic-ban for Scrubby, having not read the previous discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I've clearly said in this thread that I'll go along with whatever the consensus is on main year articles in future. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

It's possible, we might have too many ongoing discussions about WP:YEARS. Anyways, I'm confident that we're all in agreement that a consensus is always a requirement for proposed changes to be adopted, no matter what the topic. GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

There are several major current discussions relating to the Years project taking place during the absence of their most prolific (& in my opinion best) editor. I don't think that a good idea, especially as some of them conflict with each other. I'll go along with whatever the current & future consensuses, which the people who want to Tban me are ignoring or not believing.

Talk:2023 is currently being disrupted by an IP who recently returned after their block last month for incivility & personal attacks expired. I believe that the talk page should be semi-protected to prevent this continuing. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I think what most of the people who are proposing a TBAN against you are concerned that your behavior is preventing a consensus from being formed. I have no doubt that you have good faith when you edit articles, but none of us want years articles to be the next infobox wars, which it seems like it has turned into. I personally interpret your assurance as less of a firm one and more so a sentence of weasel words to be honest, as you could lawyer your way through that assurance to stonewall the development of a consensus. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

There are no weasel words from me. I've made it clear that I'll allow consensuses. I don't know what the infobox wars were, so I can't comment on that. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

You haven't assured us when it comes to stonewalling, wikilawyering against, or bludgeoning developing consensuses. From my prior experiences, you've allowed consensuses before, but you won't refrain from bludgeoning or stonewalling developing ones. The FTX debate and the ongoing Walters RFC is still fresh in my memory. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

• TBAN for Jim Michael 2. I think it is safe to say that Jim's behavior is disruptive in discussions. I'm also in favor of respective AE sanction regarding bludgeoning separate from this ANI, to apply on all discussions Jim has been involved in outside topic areas. This is just too much. I would support TheScrubby's as well, but not as much as Jim. TheScrubby isn't really as disruptive as Jim in my opinion, but for people involved in the discussions have some concerns for TheScrubby, which repeatedly pointed to mid-2021 "consensus". MarioJump83 (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
• In case there's any remaining doubt, I'd like to point out that Jim Michael is still editing year articles while this discussion is going on, including at least one edit where he is enforcing the "consensus" after he promised to stop enforcing it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support indef block, or TBAN for Jim Michael 2 This is not the first time I've encountered Jim bludgeoning a preferred local consensus against a Wikipedia guideline. Back in the summer of last year Jim was one of a few editors who persistently and consistently advocated and tried to enforce a naming scheme for mass shooting events in the US against the accepted consensus laid out at WP:NCEVENTS. It is also not the first time nor even the second time I've seen Jim unable to answer what should be a straightforward question on where a consensus was established, as in the exchange with Cullen328. Like with Black Kite's example above, shortly after the discussion at the Village Pump, I decided to give up trying to contribute to the mass shooting pages, in no small part due to editors like Jim enforcing a consensus that they could not seem to prove. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:32, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I've not had much to do with these year articles but it seems that the editors in question are being scapegoated for inheriting an understanding that has grown up over a long period. My impression is that this has arisen because of the structure of the articles. You see, you don't just have a single article for each year, such as 2022. You also have articles such as 2022 in the United States; 2022 in film; 2022 in British television; 2022 in Brazilian football and so on. So, as a lot happens in a given year, there will be a natural tendency to put the local highlights into the corresponding local year article. The main article for the year would then just get the most globally significant highlights and a concept of international notability would then naturally follow.

Now, it's not clear what the alternative is. Are people suggesting that the 2022 article should be an enormous superset containing every death and event in that year? Or that should contain almost nothing? I have no particular preference but think that the solution to this issue is to establish what the supposedly correct method of doing this is. If this is articulated and then written down, then the regular maintainers of these articles would be obliged to follow it. If there isn't agreement on what the correct method is then we have a different problem that won't be resolved so easily.

Andrew🐉(talk) 22:29, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

• (Involved) support of TBAN for Jim Michael for aggressive topic-area ownership and violations of WP:NPOV. I tend to think that WP:OWN is often invoked incorrectly, but this is a case of someone repeatedly saying, essentially, "You're not in our club so your opinion doesn't matter". And, as I've argued at VPP, Jim Michael's feeling here—stated at length across many discussions—is that he and other WP:YEARS members know better than the reliable sources what is worth including. WP:DUE is not some essay; it is part of NPOV, a core content policy. Flagrantly violating NPOV is not acceptable, even if it's not the kind of POV we usually see in NPOV disputes. But there certainly is a POV at work here, for instance favoring mass-casualty events and disfavoring entertainment news, even though many RS take the exact opposite view. Tentatively oppose TBAN for TheScrubby. In my interactions with them at the Walters RfC I found them sanctimonious and condescending in their insistence on the "international notability" standard, but we don't TBAN people just for being wrong, nor for being condescending in their wrongness. They haven't shown, that I've seen, quite the same attitude as Jim Michael of superiority to the community and to RS. But it's a close thing. If broader action is needed, refer to ArbCom per SnowRise. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

user possibly creating hoaxes and adding hoax content to drafts

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

This came out of this thread at the help desk. After looking into a number of their drafts, I am having trouble confirming the existence of the upcoming albums these drafts are referring to. I would ask GrandePOV to address this concern here. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, while Draft:Is There Someone Else? is a very real song, on the other hand Draft:Heartless (Ariana Grande album) is very fake, with this "fanon" (completely fake creation by fans) entry being the only hit I could find. I'd be interested to hear if this was an intentional effort to create a hoax, or just an overzealous fan trying to be first one to create an article by using unconfirmed info, but neither scenario is acceptable. Sergecross73 msg me 23:35, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and nominated the Ariana Grande hoax for speedy as G3. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 23:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

GrandePOV created a parallel draft at this OID for Draft:Is There Someone Else (note lack of "?" in title) which has some genuine content plus the statement that an Ariande Grande remix "was [sic] released on May 19, 2023." Clearly a hoax. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:53, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Hanoi vandal back in action

Can we get a block on the Hanoi IP Special:Contributions/113.190.134.61? It's the Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Hanoi vandal coming back to familiar articles such as music by Supertramp.

An example of the vandal's disruption is this false song credit which is not matched by credits listed on the album label.[107] Binksternet (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours....on to the next one.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

The person popped back in with the range Special:Contributions/2402:800:610D:32EA:0:0:0:0/64, reverting to the exact same edits as the previous IP. Example 1. Example 2.

Related IP ranges that have been active recently include

• Dec 2022 – 2402:800:610D:86F8:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• Nov 2022 – 2405:4803:FEA0:E50:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• Oct–Dec 2022 – 2402:800:610D:164E:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• Jul–Oct 2022 – 2402:800:610D:7D0:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Let's shut this vandal down. Binksternet (talk) 04:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Also using Special:Contributions/2402:800:610D:ECEA:2CF6:DD9:A15B:742A. Binksternet (talk) 13:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Katie's blocked the most recent /64 range. Perhaps it should be extended to the /48 with account creation enabled? The only other editor on that range edits figure skating articles and could create an account. Katie, thoughts?-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, widened to the /48. Katie^talk 17:55, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Legal threat from IP

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

---

• 2600:6C50:4000:27D0:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Blatant, albeit probably not serious: [108].

This user has been making some mildly-incivil remarks of late as well, but the legal threat is plenty actionable. --Sable232 (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

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

attack-page against identifiable living minor person

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

---

The German-language content of the ostensible userpage User:Matyas.Brooch is an attack against an identifiable living real person, Micha Gempeler[109], likely still a minor.

I propose deletion and banning of the responsible user-account. --Túrelio (talk) 11:01, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

@Túrelio: Done, thanks. Though probably best to avoid quoting the material if you come across anything like this in future. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

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

European Windstorm Season

A range of IPs starting with 2A02 have been extremely disruptive on this years windstorm season. They have removed comments, changed my comments, risen unneeded issues, and insulted other editors.

I have also been a bit snoopy and found that me and this article is not the only area he has disrupted. Most dealing with European weather. ✶Mitch199811✶ 13:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I am personally not sure what to make of this User. The edits seem to be sound greta and fair. However, their instance on removing the word Unknown because its supposedly immature and attacking editors who disagree with him make me wonder if we are dealing with either a Sock Puppett, a Troll or both.Jason Rees (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Not only that, but they're still blaming another user for their "vandalism", when it was a good-faith edit. Is this a CIR or IDHT concern? Tails Wx 14:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

A mix of both, not understanding maturity and being convinced everyone who doesn't use their grammar is out to get them. Also, being disruptive by messing with comments, dunno where that'd go. ✶Mitch199811✶ 14:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

The Original Poster for this thread made a (reasonable) request for dispute resolution at DRN a week ago. I asked the parties, including the subject unregistered editor, whether they would agree to moderated discussion subject to the usual rules (such as not editing the article). After there was no response from the subject unregistered editor, I closed the DRN request as apparently declined. The subject unregistered editor does not appear to be willing to discuss, and is making personal attacks. I recommend that, at a minimum, the article page be semiprotected for at least a week. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

• Agree that the article 2022–23 European windstorm season, its talk page, and possibly others, should be protected for a while, restricting edits to registered editors. The ip editor has been quite disruptive and degrading to other editors, frequently asserting their own superior skill at writing in English (which I fail to see), substituting their own opinions, biases (including gender bias), assumptions, personal judgements, and even cultural superiority for WP policy and guidelines. (Numerous examples can be found on the talk page of the 2022–23 European windstorm season article.) As the editor is unregistered, I'm not sure what else could or should be done, but the environment created on the talk page has been made hostile and dominated by this user. I think the problem is evident in the ip editor's comment below, beginning with "No, I’m not a sockpuppet." It seems clear the editor does not understand how WP works, what standards we follow, or the importance of consensus. I've seen no comment in which the ip editor has been referred to as stupid or an idiot, or treated in a racist way. I did not describe the editor as egregious or comical, though I did describe some of their disruptive edits in that way. There seems to be a lack of understanding coupled with a lack of willingness to learn. Dcs002 (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

No, I’m not a sockpuppet, I’m not a spammer, I’m not a troll, and I’m not stupid. I’m sick and tired of people thinking I’m an idiot. And I have been harassed multiple times by many editors. And your alls “help” is unnecessary, I don’t want help, and I don’t need any help! I’m tired of your alls so called “help”, just because you all think I’m dumb as dirt! (Greyzxq (talk · contribs), Dcs002 (talk · contribs), Mitch199811 (talk · contribs), LilianaUwU (talk · contribs)). And I’m not egregious or comical (Dcs002 (talk · contribs). I’m not snarky (Mitch199811 (talk · contribs)). I’m not incompetent (Greyzxq (talk · contribs), Mitch199811 (talk · contribs), Tails Wx (talk · contribs), EuropeanXTwisters (talk · contribs)) And I’m not a bigot (LilianaUwU (talk · contribs), Robby.is.on (talk · contribs)) I’m absolutely disgusted and violated by these false accusations. And to make it even worse, I’ve been getting harassment messages from Mako001 (talk · contribs), Mitch199811 (talk · contribs), Greyzxq (talk · contribs) and many others. And (I don’t like giving away private information) but I’m actually a secretary for one of Denmark’s biggest companies, so yea, I’M NOT STUPID! I don’t really know why people think I’m stupid, it’s probably based on racism, because I’m not American or British. But just Stop being racist! And Stop thinking that I’m stupid! I have made a list of editors I dislike, and there are 46 usernames on that list, and 0 IP’s. So from now on, I only trust IP’s. If you all want me to release the list, I’ll do so gladly! And if you all want me to describe myself to you all, I’ll do so (maybe that’ll deter others from discriminating me) But just Stop thinking I’m stupid!

And excuse me while I vomit my guts up, because all this harassment and discrimination is making me physically ill!

2A02:A44C:6682:1:C538:D0BA:D6DC:CF44 (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Regarding all the ones I have been involved in,

I never called you dumb as dirt, maybe implied it slightly as I have no clue what you mean by mature grammar and you never cited any policies or guidelines backing you up.

I called you snarky after you started correcting every "mistake" I made and took my language literally and then at the end of the message you left a ";)".

Incompetent I'm a bit less sure of. You definitely don't own a perfect command of the English language, for example saying scenerio's as the plural (I think). But I do not think that you should be barred from editing for it.

I sent you three messages:

1. Warning you to stop removing comments in talk pages.
2. Telling you about the dispute resolution board so we could get another opinion on Unknown V Unspecified.
3. Alerting you to this.

If this is not the person we want, I would highly suggest creating an account. ✶Mitch199811✶ 19:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I just checked Robby.is.on's and Greyzxq's talks and it seems like your harassing them just as much as they are you. The heading on Robby's talk is literally "You are exceptionally immature" and on Greyzxq's you say he's on your hit list. ✶Mitch199811✶ 19:55, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I just checked Robby.is.on's and Greyzxq's talks and it seems like your harassing them just as much as they are you. Huh? There was no harassment from Greyzxq. Their replies were admirably calm in the face of the IP's bullying and rudeness. My only interaction with the IP was saying they were behaving rudely. How is that harassment? Robby.is.on (talk) 20:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Talking back I guess; I mostly meant if thats considered harassment, they have harassed as well. ✶Mitch199811✶ 21:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

The only thing I did was revert you once because you were being mean to people. How is that "harrassing" you? If you don't want me to talk to you (or the many IPs you went through), just say so. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 20:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I think that diatribe is blockworthy, in and of itself. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

How are we being racist? And how do we think you’re dumb? That would just violate WP:NPA. Just thinking that you have CIR concerns doesn’t mean we’re discriminating or thinking you are stupid. Tails Wx 20:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

• I have blocked the IP's /64 range for 72 hours for personal attacks/harassment. I will confess that I haven't read through all of the discussions linked from here, but (a) posting on someone's talk page that they have been added to a list of people one dislikes is weird and uncivil, and (b) accusing people of vandalism when they aren't vandalising is a personal attack. The the IP, if you read this: I am British, but I am not 'racist' against Danish people. I have many Danish friends; I know many Danish Wikipedia editors who are excellent contributors; hell, I live in York/Jorvik, which is proud of its history of being a Danish town on English soil. The block will expire in three days: be nice to people, and they will be nice to you. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for taking this step. When the ip range is restored, if the editor returns, and if the editor resumes the same pattern of disruptive editing, what should other editors (like me) do? I have been through a mediation process once (2009?), and now a dispute resolution process (in which this ip editor didn't participate), and I have no idea what to do if this step isn't enough. (I really do hate conflicts like this, but I value what we have here.) Will Admins be monitoring the situation, ready to take further action, if it becomes necessary? I hate to see a range of ip's blocked, but I consider the hostility, particularly against people who might be young editors, to be potentially very detrimental to participation, and I want to do my part to proceed carefully yet effectively.

  I still see the potential for this passionate editor to become a valuable contributor once they understand and accept how WP works, especially if they are young. People who come across as overly critical of others can sometimes become effective teachers and leaders if they channel their passions constructively. Thanks again. Dcs002 (talk) 01:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I first noticed the IP at Greyzxq's Talk page. What I've seen from the IP there:

• rude and trollish behaviour: [110]
• baseless accusations against of racism: [111]
• baseless accusations of rudeness against Greyzxq, bizarrely claiming Greyzxq's links to Wikipedia policy and guideline pages were crashing their phone: [112]
• implying Greyzxq was stupid: [113]
• (from half an hour ago) harassment: [[114]]

Robby.is.on (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

This IP might only be blocked for 72 hours, but they're going to be reblocked very quickly if they can't learn to collaborate with other users, and take a less combative outlook on the whole situation. Making a "list", seriously?

I actually restored some of their comments on the streptococcus outbreak talkpage, since it didn't meet the criteria for removal from the talkpage. Nevertheless, I expect that I am one of the 46+ editors on their list, though it sounds like it is probably good company. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 04:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

User:EEng

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

---

User:EEng has doubled-down on their incivility and hostility in a discussion around deleting or userfying one of their essays here: [[115]] ("you must be fucking joking. What a bunch of snowflakes are gathered here.") which I feel is an unambiguously personal attack, I have never seen language or comments like that directed at another user on here. I asked if they felt that was appropriate, hoping they would take the opportunity to strike it, but they claim to "think it's perfectly appropriate", along with making a number of other less than civil responses to myself and others here [[116]]. (For the record, not currently able to add the ANI-notice to their talk page as it's crashing my browser! I will keep trying a few different approaches) JeffUK 18:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

• I'm involved at the other discussion, but this seems like an overreaction that is unlikely to be found actionable here. Eeng's response is coarse, but understandable given the highly uncharitable reading of the essay presented by JeffUK at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't call it "Wiki". Frankly, both the nomination of the essay and bringing this to ANI are a waste of the community's time. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  I nominated the article because it was uncivil, another editor asked me to explain why I felt it was uncivil, they chose to edit the essay to resolve many of the issues I raised. Apart from being 'edits to an essay' so not exactly useful, I don't see how that's anything other than how we're supposed to behave on here. I don't see how calling that a waste of time is either accurate or helpful to this discussion. JeffUK 18:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  Don't look for troubleand act surprised when you get itStep back and findan articleto editBurma-shave

  _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  Please don't use that bright red font. Burma Shave. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

• I find JeffUK's interpretation of the essay pretty severe, and EEng's response was obnoxious, but apart from the curmudgeonly griping about "snowflakes" I'm not seeing anything particularly egregious. Foul language is frowned upon, but as long as it's not part of a direct attack on someone it doesn't usually rise to the level that meets with action here. I left OP some suggestions for possible counter essays in the MfD. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:53, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
• Typical fare it seems like. I don't see it as a personal attack. 18:55, 3 February 2023 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Scope creep (talk • contribs) 18:55, February 3, 2023 (UTC)
• I, too, have taken part in the MfD discussion, and what's more, I expect to be called a friend or enabler of EEng. But I agree with Rosguill and Rhododendrites. There's a degree of pearl-clutching in the way that the MfD nomination was worded, and it is somewhat snowflake-y, and it looks to me like it's heading towards a decisive "keep" consensus. JeffUK may "have never seen language or comments like that directed at another user", but I've seen worse directed at me, and at lots of others over the years. That doesn't make it OK, however, so JeffUK, let me say to you that I'm sorry that you feel hurt by the comments there and I hope that it doesn't discourage you from continuing to contribute here. And we all really should make an effort to treat one another more kindly. But EEng's comments do not require administrator action, and should not result in it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
  • From the Dept. of Unintended Effects, this ANI thread has drawn a flurry of WP:SNOWflakes to !vote "keep" at the MfD. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
• Should EENg have used course language and called someone a name like "snowflake". Probably not. Still, the entire MFD nomination feels antagonistic, and per Wikipedia:Don't poke the bear, if you're going to antagonize someone, you can expect them to react. So, no, EEng should not have said those mean words. However, having said that, and I want to be clear, he should not have said those words, that doesn't mean we have anything to do here. EEng, be better. Carry on. --Jayron32 19:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
• EEng is very much not my cup of tea but this is a petty squabble that should never have been escalated to ANI. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  For the record you're not my idea of java jive either. I say that with greatest of respect, of course. EEng 20:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  At this rate, this is becoming a Tea Party. (The link to a DAB page is deliberate!) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

• I've had far worse things directed at me, such as an editor telling me I should kill myself, and little has been done about it (not that I asked for anything to be done). I avoid using the word "snowflake" myself, because I have most commonly seen it used by people who demand privileges for themselves that they would deny to others, but can see little wrong with EEng's behaviour. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  FTR, I too avoid using the word snowflake, which gives you an idea how hurt and otherized I felt when a newbie who calls Wikipedia "wiki" opened an MfD on my essay on not calling Wikipedia "wiki". EEng 20:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  I came here to look up Frisco on wiki, but took a wrong turn. 23 skidoo! Dumuzid (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

• I won't close this myself, because I have a history of positive interactions with EEng, and could be accused of bias. I will say that this should be closed without any action. Calling other people a bunch of snowflakes is not ideal, but humans gonna human - if we required all of our long term and talented contributors to be uniformly and consistently perfect, we would essentially have to shut up shop. EEng, please dial it down a smidgen; no admin action required. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  If you like I can do something to alienate you somehow, and then you can close this with a clear conscience. EEng 20:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

• Leaving aside the merits of the dispute, which I find somewhat minor, I'm somewhat concerned that we're all acknowledging sub silentio that EEng is something of an asshole sometimes and that he's not going to take anyone's advice about it. It helps that (a) he generally has the project's best interests at heart and (b) he's usually right on policy. Still. If my conduct was defended on the grounds of "well, I've had death threats directed at me", I'd consider that grounds for introspection. Okay, that off my chest, EEng can feel free to post shitty memes and act the gadfly. I just thought someone ought to say it. Mackensen (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

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

2.206.214.160 at MV Astoria

• 2.206.214.160 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• MV Astoria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This IP has been adding original research to MV Astoria, in which the user claims that a cryptocurrency executive is looking for a solution to save the ship. The user is using LLC registration records to support their edit, though none of them expressly say anything about the article subject.

After an initial reversion by Thewolfchild, the IP user reinstated the edit four times[117][118][119][120]. The user has responded to all attempts to discuss issues with them on their talk page by blanking their talk page, including three times in this instance: [121][122][123].

After I opened a discussion on the subject on the article talk page and alerted the IP user on their user talk about the subject, the IP user finally responded by saying, in part, "Aoi knows nothing about ship" and "TradeNews mentioned this company, so do not know why youguy in USA have so difficult with english, when is too clear".

The user also left a nice message for me on my talk page, in which they again repeated that I know nothing, and kindly asked that I "Stop your Vandalismus".

Note that whoever is behind this IP has been editing the Astoria page disruptively for a while. Aside from this IP address, they previously edited under the following IPs:

• 2.206.214.197 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (blocked once in November 2022)
• 2.206.214.192 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (blocked once in July 2021)
• 92.218.124.118 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (blocked multiple times in March 2022)

I believe a block for disruptive editing is more than merited here. Thank you. Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

As I was typing all that, the user reverted a fifth time even after being left (and reverting) a 3RR notice. They also left this kind message to another user, asking them, "before you do your stupidity" to "go study first ...before writing me bullshit like this". Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I just realized why I felt deja vu while filing this. This is the same IP user who left this kind edit summary directed at me a couple of years ago. Their behavior has obviously not changed since then. Is it possible to block the range Special:Contributions/2.206.214.128/25? There doesn't seem to be any collateral going back to at least January 2021. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)p

Agree with Aoi 100%. There is a serious WP:CIR issue with the person behind these IPs. They edit disruptively to the point of recklessness and one wonders if there is perhaps a WP:COI issue driving some of these edits, though what is behind the hostility and refusal to communicate is anyone's guess. - wolf 20:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

As an aside, "vandalismus" is German for vandalism, and IP is in Germany. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

• I've taken the liberty of blocking them for 31 hours for edit warring on MV Astoria after multiple warnings. I considered narrowing the block to the pagespace under disagreement, but they seem to have operated in this OR/OS mode on all their works since their first edits, the edit-summary written in Italian, btw. I can't identify a source they've added which seems to meet RS, IMHO. BusterD (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you very much for the block. I hope their behavior improves after it expires. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Misuse of RfC process on West Herzegovina Canton

Governor Sheng (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is returned to include a disputed edit, for which consensus could not be reached, as closed RfC here clearly shows. Moderator Robert McClenon was more than clear in their closing statement, but this RfC is nevertheless misinterpreted and used as a justification to try and include again disputed edit solely on RfC's closing. Editor did nothing further as advised in a closing statement and just simply disregarded very long and exhausting procedure which took time and effort, as if nothing has happened.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

(Inserted diff's accidently deleted on first posting) Post-Rfc disputed edit:

• adding content,with using RfC as justification;
• removing content, restoring pre-RfC status
• reverting to disputed edit--౪ Santa ౪^99° 00:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I didn't close an RFC on the subject of the West Herzegovina heraldry. I moderated a dispute at DRN, and closed it as being at the wrong forum, because it was a dispute over sources, and I said that they should take their dispute to RSN. See:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_225#West_Herzegovina_Canton_discussion

It is a mistake to say that I resolved anything, or that I thought that my close of the DRN resolved anything. I told them to go to RSN. They then went to RSN, and filed an RFC there:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_395#RfC_on_sources_of_West_Herzegovina_Canton_symbols

However, that RFC never had a formal closure, and was archived without resolution. So there is no consensus or resolution. I don't see misuse of the RFC process. I see editors being in good faith confused by a complicated dispute that isn't being dealt with effectively either by the Bosnian courts or by the English Wikipedia community. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

You should check the editing history of the said article. Even though it wasn't I who returned the flag in the infobox, it was done correctly after the opinion was received from other eitors at WP:RSN. Governor Sheng (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

It may be good faith confusion but edit which sits at the heart of heavy dispute and is described as "first opinion on rfc delivered, nothing about constitutionality included in this edit just officiality, citations a WIP"' in edit-summary looked like taking advantage of the confusion. I am flash and blood editor. In situations like this, editors should restrain from disputed editing while dispute is ongoing and/or still unresolved, it will look suspicions to someone. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 05:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

And we really never had RfC to begin with, right ? We had DRN with you, and some RSN on Heiner. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 05:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

And, one additional important thing regarding this "first opinion on rfc delivered" justification for a disputed edit - editor who delivered it back in RSN-RfC said: "What I think that Wikipedia can report based on these sources is that there is a dispute over the constitutionality of the current official flag." No mention of squeezing them into infobox at all costs.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 05:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Opinion was delivered in an RfC at RSN. You were informed about the RfC. The RfC had two editors expressing the same opinion that supported adding it. There was no wrongdoing on Sheng's part, they simply reverted an edit that seemed to restore the pre-RfC status with a nonsensical reason going against consensus. You seemed to have confused the eariler DRN with the later RfC, the latter of which supported adding the symbols. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:42, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Rob's opinion that the RfC didn't have a consensus also makes sense, but either way there is no wrongdoing on me or Sheng's part here. Also, why is the "target" of this ANI report on Sheng when the main accusations appear to be on me? Aaron Liu (talk) 03:45, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Blatant sockpuppetry

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

---

Again at the article Eaton Township Weis Markets shooting the sockmaster I reported a few weeks ago has returned (see the report here). The edit was made by an IP that removed the same section they disagree with (number of injuries) using the same language ("Pointless section"). Please block them. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 00:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

No one will review this? Okay, I guess. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 17:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

@Nythar: Girth Summit blocked the IP for 1 month. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 03:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Metro2fsb

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

---

• Metro2fsb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I think Metro should be indefinitely blocked as a mixture of disruptive editing and WP:NOTHERE. I would do so, but at this point because I've reverted article content, I consider myself WP:INVOLVED. The user's account was created on July 23, 2021, their first edit on October 10, 2022. They've made 597 total edits, which includes 16 deleted edits. They've made only 224 edits to article space. Their primary content focus appears to be Russian articles.

The best place to start is to look at the history of their Talk page, which shows a user seriously out of control. Before I blanked it and left a warning, it looked like this, which I called, with some measure of understatement, an "unholy mess". If you scroll down that version of their Talk page, you'll notice that the user awards themself barnstars. They also attack admins, sometimes by name and sometimes just generally. One of the things they were unhappy with was the deletion of their userpage at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Metro2fsb because it looked like an article. They then redirected their userpage to their Talk page (since undone) and made their Talk page look like a disaster, as well as at times like an article.

Salvio giuliano notified the user that they had draftified Draft:Independent Institute for Social Policy. The user then posted to Salvio's Talk page asking for help, but repeated the draft notification with Salvio's sig. I suppose I would call that borderline disruption mixed with incompetence. Very confusing at best. That same page had been tagged by an IP for speedy deletion, and Metro notified the IP of the speedy deletion tag here as if the IP had created it, and further disrupted the IP's Talk page after that.

Finally, Metro posted this message to an LTA who hasn't edited since 2019 (reverted by me), asking about a Talk page the LTA had "created" (not exactly) back in 2018 and whether the LTA was "still editing".

I'll stop here as finding diffs is tiring. Hopefully, I've provided enough for others to get the picture.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh, they copied my user page. At least for the top of this mess of a userpage. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Bbb23 accusations are empty of any serious policy violations.

I want to point out the aggressive edit history of User:Bbb23.

Quote: You transformed your Talk page into an unholy mess. I've blanked it. Your Talk page exists for others to communicate with you and for you to respond. From now on you must use your Talk page in the appropriate manner, or you risk being blocked. [124]

Quote: Undid revision 1137299633 by Metro2fsb (talk) you are a hair's breadth from being blocked [125]

For this edit:

This user is an administrator on the English Wikipedia.

Wikipedia Checkuser.svg This user has checkuser rights on the English Wikipedia. (verify) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Bbb23&oldid=953877200

I note that on this page, it shows this editor has been editing for 14 years. I am sure that User:Bbb23 has made some admin friends which will happily block me.

I can mention WP:Stalking, in which he/she reverted Doctor Lisa, a page in which I had elected as a good article, and I was working on actively when he/she decided to start attacking me.[126]

I see the writing on the wall, some editors such as User:Bbb23 can do and say whatever they want with impunity.

That is why there is such harsh criticism of the way editors are treated on Wikipedia.

Metro2fsb (talk) 00:37, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Here we go again, their talk page is a "unholy mess" again. Yeah, a WP:NOTHERE or WP:DE block is needed at this point. Tails Wx 00:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Au contraire, Metro2fsb, severely disruptive users are too frequently handled with kid gloves, which is why some editors have been disrupting things for way too long. I mean, "WTF" is an acronym that comes to mind. And besides all the weirdness in user space (not just your own), I cannot find how your edits improve our project--and I just reverted your YouTube-supported additions on Alexander Gordon (journalist). This has gone on for long enough, and your recent reverts indicate as much. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) As part of their pattern, Metro notified me of this discussion on my Talk page (since reverted by another user).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

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

IPv6 blocked 31 hours, should be indef

After three edits at trans-related articles, including this bit of transphobic-cum-antisemitic ugliness, IP user 2600:4040:9AEA:2B00:D5EE:5D96:DE84:55E5 (talk · contribs) received a uw-v1 and a 31-hour block (different messages, same 04:38 timestamp) from Materialscientist.

I'd like this to be raised to an indef block. If I had the power, I'd make it a global site-wide ban. I see no reason for second chances, after a comment like that. If 31 hours is the correct call here, I'd like to better understand why. (Non-admin.) Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

IP addresses are often dynamic and reused/shared by many people. So, extending the block would most likely prevent innocent people from editing and do nothing to prevent the person using the address to make the edits you are reporting from being able to continue making inappropriate comments. 2600:1003:B842:B0DA:21AF:9590:2A95:7A72 (talk) 06:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I've heard that claim many times, and yet when I do CIDR-range contrib history checks on troublesome IPs, I never actually see that happening, unless I widen the range out of all proportion. What actual data do we have that blocking an IPv6 would affect anybody else? Please point me to the page about this, if there is one. Mathglot (talk) 06:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

For mobile IPv6 addresses, simply restarting the mobile device will almost always get a new address outside of the original /64. So, to be effective the block has to use a bigger range. 2600:1003:B842:B0DA:21AF:9590:2A95:7A72 (talk) 06:50, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Fine, make it bigger. Special:Contributions/2600:4040:9AEA:2B00:D5EE:5D96:DE84:55E5/48. Mathglot (talk) 06:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Try 2600:4000:0:0:0:0:0:0/24 which is the block assigned to Verizon that contains the address that the abusive editor was using. Verizon has more and larger blocks of addresses too. Additionally, some carriers pool multiple blocks to serve the same customer base. 2600:1003:B842:B0DA:21AF:9590:2A95:7A72 (talk) 07:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that making the range bigger will also increase collateral damage. Partofthemachine (talk) 07:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, which is why I chose /48 above, for which there is no collateral damage. But isn't the whole issue of dynamic IPs being looked at by WMF somewhere? As I recall, pt-wiki experimented with (or maybe implemented?) some restrictions on IPs, not sure what happened with that. But getting back to the original question: why not indef this IP at least?Mathglot (talk) 07:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I can't think of any benefit of indefinitely blocking a single IP in a range of dynamic IPs. Any user on that network would be hit by that block, but very rarely. —Kusma (talk) 07:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

This "I'm offended by what some random customer on a huge ISP said, so we should forever block the dynamic IP that they used to access the internet" is not going to happen. It will just inconvenience the next person who's randomly allocated that IP address. Range blocks are typically a possibility, especially for IPv6, but there are times when they're appropriate and times when they're not. In particular, it's pointless to call for things like "we should forever block the company that this vandal used to access the internet so nobody from New York City can ever access Wikipedia again in case someone from there says something offensive". Please don't suggest things like this because some clueless admin who doesn't understand how the internet works might actually do it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

All right I won't, but I'm going to start with the assumption that you were equally offended by what this random customer said, and that had that edit been from a registered account, you would support an indef or stronger measures. So does this mean, that because they're not registered, we just throw up our hands and give up? What tools do we have, otherwise? Maybe pt-wiki was right. Mathglot (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Given that next time they edit they might be on a completely different IP range, and that whoever uses this IP range next might be a completely different person, do you have any suggestions yourself? Indef blocking what is effectively a random range, as you initially suggested, obviously won't work. Other than just whack-a-mole, I really don't think there's any way to stop this kind of thing other than preventing logged-out editing altogether. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I will happily block any and every account or IP address that makes an edit like that. Normally, 31 hours is long enough for them to get bored or for the IP address to be reassigned. If it's not, we can block for longer; if they come back under under a different IP address I'll happily block that one. But I don't find it offensive. Partly because (sadly) I've seen much worse, but mostly because after 12 years as an admin and 23k blocks, I've realised that some people write things just for the shock value (aka "the lulz") and that getting upset about it is giving them what they want. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I have to wonder though, why is the "default" initial block for IPv4 and IPv6 the same? Apart from inertia, that is? A too-long block on a IPv4 isn't just pointless, it has a risk of being harmful. The address has a higher likelihood of being reassigned to some innocent user. But the IPv6 space is huge. The probability has got be lower. So shouldn't the "default" block length for an IPv6 /64 doing something that would get an account indeffed, be at least a bit longer than for an IPv4? Obviously not indefinite; the probability isn't zero. But why not a week or two? I realize that it's up to individual admins, and this would be an exercise in cat-herding, but it's worth considering. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

To turn your question around, why? If we block for 31 hours (which was conceived as 24 hours plus one school day; you'd be amazed how many vandals are just bored schoolkids/university students; just compare AIV on a Sunday to a Monday!) and they move on, problem solved. They'll probably get bored after far less than than 31 hours and the block is no longer preventing anything. If they don't get the hint, the block lengths can be increased exponentially (I block any IP returning from a 31-hour block for at least a week, then at least a month for a third block). Leaving an IP blocked when there's nobody on the other end doesn't accomplish anything, even if the odds of it affecting somebody else are small. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I guess I don't see the harm in a medium-term block (say 1 week to 1 month) of an IP that it turns out that no one is using. It's an entry in a database. If they don't come back so what? But not every ISP is Verizon, and sometimes they do come back. Then the block has accomplished something, after all. IP blocks are very short to protect the next user of the IP, and situation just isn't the same with IPv4 and IPv6. Again, not suggesting that any IP be blocked indef. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@HJM, thanks, and yes, of course, to DENY. I've known about/followed anti-troll advice since it was first identified pre-Netscape and DENY is Wikipedia's encapsulation of don't feed the trolls, but if I can make just one important distinction between that and what you said about "getting upset about it is what they want" which is mostly correct but misses one crucial element (the payoff): a troll wants to derail, stir chaos, and make the conversation about them, and—crucially—to do so in discussion forums where they see the outrage happening and the conversations disintegrating, which is the "lulz", and where getting users to quit the board entirely in disgust is the grand prize and ultimate payoff, so having the conversation, calmly, *outside* their view where they won't see it, isn't feeding them with our upset our outrage, it's figuring out calmly how to stomp on them, and, hopefully, how to poison their mole holes, rather than waiting, helplessly, for them to pop out of one of them again, which leaves them in charge of the amount of work and energy required of well-intentioned editors to deal with them. I greatly appreciate your 23k blocks and everything else you and others do to keep things from being even worse than they otherwise would be, but maybe it's time for stronger measures, which as a corollary would also lighten your load in that one area at least. DENY is definitely key, but let's strengthen our tools as well. I do think the amount of time we all spend dealing with them is increasingly untenable.

@Boing, I do have some suggestions. I'm developing a VPI suggestion in response, and will post a link when done.

I delved a bit into pt-wiki to remind myself what they did, and indeed, IP's are now restricted from mainspace editing on pt-wiki (per pt:WP:IP^[English]), although they can edit talk pages, help pages, since this discussion^[English] in October 2020 (originally proposed here.^[English]) Mathglot (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The single biggest thing that would poison the mole holes would be the ability to target a block at a device instead of an IP address. I can change my IP address with a trivial effort because IP addressing in the UK is ... interesting. I can just reset my router, connect to my phone, disconnect my phone from my WiFi, etc, before I even have to think about Tor, proxies, or VPNs, but the number of physical devices I have access to is much smaller. I'm not sure how feasible it is (it hasn't been done in 20 years of Wikipedia so that might be my answer) but we have cookie blocks now so it might not be science fiction. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

That would involve the same Dark Arts as employed by advertisers and other internet lowlifes. It would mean endlessly keeping up as browsers and users come up with new methods to defeat these techniques. It would mean using sophisticated method to track people who explicitly asked not to be tracked. Even if it's possible, do you really want to go down that road? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Just to jump in here, since I know you know I'm very willing to come down hard on these kinds of comments: I think the best way to look at it is that there are two kinds of IP tempblocks: ones that are for the same length you'd give a registered account (say, 24h for first-offense edit-warring); and ones that would be an indef for a registered account, but for an IP are converted to the longest block we can reasonably expect to apply to the same person. I have blocked some IPs for a year or more on the first offense, when it's plausible they'll still be on that IP in that time and the conduct in question would merit a no-warning indef for an account. Perhaps policy should make some distinction between temp-IPblocks-as-in-temporary and temp-IPblocks-as-in-indefinite-in-spirit. But perhaps it wouldn't matter. If it came to my attention that a user had, before they created their current account, engaged in some sort of egregious conduct like hate speech or death threats, the block for which was only 31 hours for tecnical reasons, I would be inclined to block them in the spirit of WP:SOCK, and don't imagine that would see much pushback. But I've yet to see that come up. It would require a strange combination of someone partly turning over a new leaf (i.e. new conduct isn't blockable) but somehow getting tied to their disruptive past. But I dunno. I'd probably support some language, somewhere, to the effect of "Users who have been temporarily blocked on an IP for highly disruptive or inflammatory conduct that would result in an indefinite block of an account may be treated as if they are under an indefinite block"—but at the same time I think that might be more trouble than it's worth. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

(I'm subscribed) Thanks for this, Tamzin, and everyone. I'm just scratching my head and trying to figure out whether we can somehow bootstrap this into some kind of better way of handling this type of issue, and I appreciate all the thoughtful responses so far. I've taken Boing!'s challenge to come up with a suggestion to heart, and have added a proposal at the Village Pump Idea Lab; please see this proposal; your feedback would be appreciated. Mathglot (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposed site ban for User:Cyberpunk2077JohnnySilverhand

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

---

This is probably long overdue at this point, but I would like to propose a site ban for User:Cyberpunk2077JohnnySilverhand. This guy is an extremely prolific sockpuppeteer and LTA, but has still not been formally site-banned. Partofthemachine (talk) 07:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

• Noting WP:3X. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 11:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Marked on user page per 3X. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 11:48, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

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

BennyV123

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

---

Abuse of power. Reverse’s edits on baseless claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8806:A302:C00:5CB:7594:1B94:F486 (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

This IP has been vandalising the Ana Navarro article, and attempted to vandalise my user page [127]. Bennv123 (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Baseless complaint. Any competent editor would have reverted the edits made by the OP, which consisted of changing "republican" to "democrat" in Ana Navarro, even in the titles of references. Schazjmd (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Spam, Vandalism and Bullying By Native Tribes

I have investigated a pattern of Spam, Deceptive Intelligence, Vandalism and Bullying from editors who have edits, data and affiliations with Federally recognized Tribes. The pattern leads towards bashing tribes that are simply State Recognized, specifically tribes who have never sought government assistance. The edits this group has made read like Russian anti-defitions of America

Starting with edits by user:Yuchitown on the Sappony page. He writes: "If a search yielding no results ("Sappony search". US Department of Indian Affairs. Retrieved 3 February 2023.) is not allowed, I can remove it." This statement is written because all of the edits to the page by User:yuchitown serve no value other than to question the tribal status of this group by the US Government rather than define or answer who, what, when, where and how they lived then and how the recognized ones live now. This is done by user:yuchitown consistently across pages because all of user:Yuchitown edits to the Sappony page and other similar pages have been worded to question the existence and validity of the pages subject/group and current federal recognition status rather than to provide insight.

User:yuchitown is reverting any new information and links about the groups be added including but not limited to support of new findings by archeologists from NC Chapel Hill as far back as 1984 but will only include data that questions their federal status which is divisive and grammatically ambiguous and deceptive.

User:yuchitown won't allow valid archeological additions like this from UNC Chapel Hill regarding the Occaneechi Saponi:

I sourced edits from The North Carolina Governments website and they were reverted as well as NCpedia etc. and they were all reverted with no valid explanation.

Example User:Yuchitown edit currently live and protected by a group user:yuchitown assigns tasks to, even from the talk page:

[[128]] The Sappony are a state-recognized tribe in North Carolina.[2] They claim descent from the historic Saponi people, an Eastern Siouan language-speaking tribe who occupied the Piedmont of North Carolina and Virginia.

I saw this an immediately saw the error. I corrected it and gave a summary.

The Sappony are a state-recognized tribe in North Carolina.[2] They are recognized by the State of North Carolina as descendants of the historic Saponi people, an Eastern Siouan language-speaking tribe who occupied the Piedmont of North Carolina and Virginia.

The reasoning is simple: The first sentence answers who. The second sentence should answer what, but it is currently ambiguous.

The first sentence starts with being state recognized, then the second sentence reduces that recognition to a claim which has already been decided by the state of north carolina. So, the obvious second sentence is what are they recognized for.

My edits were reverted by user:yuchitown who said don't make edits without a summary which I did several times. But it was clear that language wasn't the agenda of this editor. Which is what prompted this investigation.

The missions are monitoring the pages of native tribes of which one of the editors (User:Indigenous_girl) has admitted being a part of, which is a direct conflict of interest which I mentioned repeatedly. Every thing on the @Yuchitown editors profile is about Yuchi Native Americans. I mentioned a conflict of interest to @Yuchitown and the response was from the whole gang. User:Indigenous_girl says "If Native editors and allies did not contribute to Native articles, who exactly would be editing them?"

The issue is that this group has done exactly what everyone is afraid of.

If you do a search for the conspiracy book about Natives and casinos written by unaccredited author Miller, Mark Edwin "Claiming Tribal Identity: The Five Tribes and the Politics of Federal Acknowledgment" you see that the books link has been added to pages of state recognized native americans as a conflict on their page rather than as insight. This book was written to give instructions on fighting tribes who may want government casino money and to question the ethnicity of tribes that were historically in conflict with the five tribes mentioned. The major issue is that they are sharing this as poison by only sharing it on state recognized tribe pages and not their own tribes pages.

10 years ago the data on the pages of Saponi, Sappony etc was very different.

A simple search of related materials shows a scope of their malcontent and obvious conflicts of interest Insitemobile (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Sappony#Proving a negative and User talk:Insitemobile#February 2023. Insitemobile does not seem to understand what WP:COI (or most other policies) actually mean here, displays a clear WP:IDHT WP:BATTLE mentality and engages in repeated WP:NPA and WP:NPOV violations. Also, all other editors who disagree with them are apparently in some "cabal". Some admin scrutiny there may be necessary. Heiro 17:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The purpose of my comment quoted by the OP, "If Native editors and allies did not contribute to Native articles, who exactly would be editing them?", was to point out that the articles edited by members of the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America are knowledgeable in this area. The OP's reasoning would negate US citizens from working on any articles associated with the United States which is flawed logic. Also, the Sapponi are indeed a state recognized tribe in NC who claim descent from the historic Saponi people, an Eastern Siouan language-speaking tribe who occupied the Piedmont of North Carolina and Virginia. This is not a negative and I am unsure as to why the OP sees it as such. OP has repeatedly edit warred without discussion, when they moved to discussion it was hostile at best. Rather than taking the time to actually read and understand the original wording and engage civilly with other editors they went off into unnecessary rants about how they used to be an investigator. Lastly, I was not notified that I was included in this discussion. I am unaware if other editors were. Indigenous girl (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

• Looking at the edit history and talk pages of Sappony and Occaneechi Band of the Saponi Nation, I think we should consider a WP:BOOMERANG sanction for edit warring and uncivil talk page conduct. Rather than discussing the content and its merits, Insitemobile immediately jumped to casting aspersions at Talk:Sappony. Beyond that burst of bad behavior, this is a mundane content dispute and does not require admin interevention. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:48, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

  I’ve notified Yuchitown. Doug Weller talk 19:32, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support Boomerang sanctions. Especially as, if you look down the page history on both Sappony and Occaneechi Band of the Saponi Nation, the IP that was edit warring yesterday is clearly the same user. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
• I have blocked Insitemobile for one week fir disruptive editing, including edit warring, personal attacks, and tendentious editing. Cullen328 (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

  Because Insitemobile engaged in an ugly personal attack against other editors on their talk page, I revoked their talk page access and extended the block to one month. Cullen328 (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

• I first noticed the edit on Sappony by an IP summary on "Correction of ambiguous and irrelevant data" that removed cited information that they are not a federally recognized tribe, which is pretty standard and germane to the article's subject, so I restored the material and used the appropriate warning templates on the IP's talk page. The IP made similar edits to Occaneechi Band of the Saponi Nation, with misleading edit summaries, then logged into User:Insitemobile to make similar edits to these same articles. The individual was extremely persistent in rapidly reverting, so I stepped away for the rest of the day, went back to the two articles in the morning, and stepped away for the rest of that day.

I edit all sorts of Indigenous articles from coast to coast, and the state-recognized tribes articles tend to be most contentious because often single-purpose accounts use Wikipedia to promote their organization without bothering to learn any Wikipedia protocols. It is a challenge to find neutral, informed published materials about state-recognized tribes since they tend to be obscure and most of the material about them is self-published, so the book that Insitemobile kept trying to delete and call an advertisement or spam is incredibly valuable. Claiming Tribal Identity: The Five Tribes and the Politics of Federal Acknowledgment is published by a university press and written by Mark Edwin Miller, Department Chair and Professor of History in the Department of History, Sociology, and Anthropology at Southern Utah University. If people have advice how to better handle situations like this (because they come up fairly regularly and OP will be back in month), please let me know. Thanks, Yuchitown (talk) 22:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

I have some advice, be careful online with oppressing other groups of people and especially be careful what IT people you offend and call an OP because this site and country is not safe. people can drive around and use any ip and stalk etc @Yuchitown 2603:6081:893E:D3D3:A95F:515C:FAF:24C5 (talk) 08:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

References

The Cabin Chiang Mai

Article is prone to long term back-and-forth disruption between promotional, WP:COI accounts and those adding poorly sourced negative content. This needs more eyes, clean up and perhaps page protection; the most recent edits are characteristic, removing unencyclopedic negative content while simultaneously adding unsourced. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:4C4B (talk) 19:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the article for three days. Cullen328 (talk) 20:33, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd expect further disruption from both sides after the lock ends, but think increased attention will help a lot. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:4C4B (talk) 22:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Massmediazealot and refactoring talk pages

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

---

Are changes to other's talk page postings such as this, this, this or this appropriate? User:Massmediazealot's response to being asked to stop has been to revert their changes back in, change the talk page guidelines to remove advice not to do this, and edit war to keep that change (revert #2). All the while, they are making personal attacks both by edit summary and in talk page discussion. Thanks in advance for your attention and opinions. - MrOllie (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Their edit to TPO and their personal attacks are definitely disruptive. Firestar464 (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

How?

—Massmediazealot (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Massmediazealot here. I support this question. I do not support @MrOllie's passive aggressive mischaracterization.

I will summarize my position here:

WP:Talk page guidelines#Examples of appropriately editing others' comments states: "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is 'sometimes' allowed" and "Some reformatting may be necessary to maintain the sense of the discussion."

WP:Refactoring talk pages (also referred to as sectioning) states: redrafting/revising talk pages is useful to "improve the clarity and readability of a page; remove off-topic, uncivil, unclear, or otherwise distracting material; restructure discussions for clarity; and relocate material to different sections or pages where it is more appropriate."

The WP:Talk page guidelines does not say copy editing others' comments is prohibited, just that it is "not necessary." It does not state anywhere that "Talk pages are meant to record comments as they were made," as @MrOllie claims.

I admit I am a bit of a newcomer to WP, so I thought de-cluttering a talk page was ok, especially since the Wikipedia bot @InternetArchiveBot suggests removal of its sections to de-clutter the talk page. So on Talk:Lottery jackpot records I deleted four old, unvouched, irrelevant sections that were outdated by 5-15 years, but @MrOllie objected so I let them be archived since he prefers that.

None of my (very minor) edits changed the meaning of anything that was written, nor did they obscure the intent of their original author. I edit thoughtfully (I admit I may be a bit anal), and I edit in good faith. That does not seem to be the case for @MrOllie. He has spent so much of his time going through and "repairing" my harmless edits.

Is it really so bad to add (minimal) clarity and readability to a talk page when it has no negative impact?

The small edits I made to the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Examples of appropriately editing others' comments are completely unrelated to this. I just improved wording and removed redundancy. I leave an edit summary for all my edits, and I try to be as detailed as possible. @MrOllie does not leave edit summaries. He is just trolling me with personal attacks.

—Massmediazealot (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours for talkpage disruption after being asked to stop, for personal attacks, and for general wikilawyering. Acroterion (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Remarkably lenient! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Give them time to dig a deeper hole, they're doing themselves no favors with their unblock request. I blocked them before I saw their badly-considered response here, or it would have been longer. Acroterion (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Hole dug, block extended (twice) and talkpage access revoked. When people ask you to stop making personal attacks, it's best to actually stop doing it. Acroterion (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Ugh, between this and Massmediazealot's talk page. Heck, all of this could've been avoided if after being told to stop refactoring other editors' talk page comments, they actually stopped doing it, instead of kicking and screaming about how the OP is Doing! Nothing! But! Troll! Me! (What, on the fewer than 50 mainspace edits Massmediazealot has made in the last two-plus years?) Ravenswing 22:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Vandalism at Template:2022 African Nations Championship group tables

Some users attempt to change the results of Group C table in Template:2022 African Nations Championship group tables. The official results are here. Please protect the page. --Panam2014 (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:HARRAS (WP:outing, WP:hounding) support of murder by IP and commenting person not the content by IP & User:Sameboat

Hi. I feel WP:HARRAS by speculations on my alleged (nonsense) WP:COI, witch-hunting, WP:OUTING, WP:HOUNDING, WP:PA commenting editor - not the content.

• here WP:OUTING, WP:HOUNDING, IP user digs 10 years in my edit history to find an edit which does not exist in the article and the article does not exist either as it was joined to the other one. Why? To find a primary source used descriptively. Then speculated on my UC membership and COI instead of asking me. Commenting on me and not the content.

This IP user constantly harras the article with an anticult POV. Looks like all the time, the same user, for example:

• here, here, here, here, here, here (evidence for understanding motives) and
• HERE - this is interesting: glorifies a murderer assassin as a hero - is this support of terrorism? Should I worry? How to solve this threat?

This user (User:Sameboat), in reply to hounding/outing, instead of staying away, comments on the person (me), not the content.

• here where I should be "critical of other editors" - by the way, incorrectly, as I commented on the article issues, not the editors. Probably he cannot distinguish between the cases and take issues personally.

Nothing serious until now, but I'm curious where it ends. Can you admins help, please? --Dee (talk) 01:44, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

• @IP 91: Assuming this was also you, which seems likely based on geolocation and behavior, that's a comment I would have blocked for if I'd seen it at the time. Do not use Wikipedia to celebrate acts of political violence. If you do it again I will block you.
  With that out of the way, I'm not immediately seeing a cause for administrative action here. Editors are allowed to make COI allegations, including incorrect COI allegations. That said, I haven't looked too closely at the rest of this; maybe I'm missing something. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:00, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

  Funny how Dee is accusing other user of glorifying murder when what the IP user states is backed by reliable source (sans labeling the church as an "evil cult")[129] (Bit more context about the IP's comment on the talk page: The comment was made on 9 August 2022, almost one whole month after Shinzo Abe's assassination on 8 July 2022. By that point, it was already widely reported by Japan's mainstream media that the suspect has received lot of sympathy, admiration and donations from his supporters domestically. The Change.org online petition which pleads leniency towards the suspect began on 29 July 2022.[130] So what the IP said was merely stating an objective fact. Perhaps the language sounds quite personal, but I don't think it even justifies any kind of block besides a friendly advice to stick to the reliable sources even on talk page.)

  I don't even understand how my comments constitute WP:OUTING or WP:HOUND by pointing out one of Dee's edits has clearly violated WP:primary source. If anything, Dee should be advised to stop accusing others who don't share the same religious value. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 04:05, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:NATIONALIST bickering on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyrgyz Confederation

I'm not sure what to do here. There is some kind of problem that needs resolution. I think it is a pretty good example of why I wrote the WP:NATIONALIST essay. I wasn't clear if a WP:SPI is the right course of action or if some other kind of intervention is appropriate (e.g. blocks for WP:NOTHERE). This entire conflict seems to have originated on the Russian wikipedia. Appears that the article may be WP:HOAX.

Bogomolov.PL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) alleges that the following are sock (or possibly also WP:MEATPUPPET - my take) puppets and are associated with misbehavior on other Wikipedias. Kazman322 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is also involved on the side of Bogomolov.PL.

• Cianzera (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lauriswift911 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cianzera911 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (alleged by Bogomolov.PL but does not seem to exist)
• Foggy kub (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kozaryl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Torsva45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Th3Shoudy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I apologize for dragging this nonsense here as it will inevitably elicit more nonsense, but I am at a loss for the right course of action. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

This is a bit difficult. If there were a SPI on the Russian Wikipedia which concluded that all these users are socks of Cianzera I would just have blocked all of them, and we would be done here. However, I do not see such SPI, and I do not know whose socks they are for sure. May be one of the checkusers could comment. I would be happy to provide Russian translations of any (short) pieces if needed. Ymblanter (talk) 08:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Bogomolov.PL provided some links to SPIs but I assume you are looking for one that covers all the accounts? —DIYeditor (talk) 08:33, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Not necessarily, but for example for Foggy kub I see that they were blocked for abusing multiple accounts, but I do not see SPI not a connection to Cianzera. Ymblanter (talk) 08:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I've added Th3Shoudy to the list, missed them initially. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

• I gave the name Cianzera911 not as an example of another account, but because the Lauriswift911 account made a test edit of creating a personal page called Cianzera911, which once again proves its connection with the Cianzera account. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 09:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)