Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

AFD and judges appointed by Joe Biden

I'm noticing an interesting trend here at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. There are a lot of bio AFDs cropping up from ediror Let'srun, who has been editing since July 2022. Haven't checked them all, but they seem to be bios of people (mostly judges) appointed by Joe Biden. The only one I replied to was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rochelle Mercedes Garza. This user's first edit was to request deletion of Judge William Pocan. There does seem to be an agenda here on their editing history. — Maile (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I am just following WP:USCJN for the judge articles I am proposing for deletion, which notes that "Nominees whose nomination has not yet come to a vote are not inherently notable." In addition, nominees which failed to receive a vote are also not notable on its own per WP:USCJN. If you looked more closely, you will see I am simply trying to assist in the AfD of biographies for judicial which were often created WP:TOOSOON or politicians which failed WP:POLITICIAN. I have no agenda besides wanting to improve the standards of wikipedia, particularly for judges and politicians. Let'srun (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Your track record with the community is not good. AFAICT, not one of your AfDs resulted in deletion (I'm going by the fact that you have no deleted edits, which you would had any article been deleted).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

But... none of them have been closed, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Oops, thanks, I didn't realize all of them were started in the last few days.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

This user made 11 sporadic edits in 2022, then stopped editing. Then they reappeared yesterday, making 132 edits since then, mostly relating to PRODs and AFDs. In other words, this seems to be a new user who's jumping straight into article deletion. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Just as a note on the original concern about possible POV pushing: the fact the AfD'd judgeship nominees are all Biden nominees is probably just coincident to the fact probably all current nominees are Biden nominees. Valereee (talk) 10:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The issue I'm seeing is Let'srun seems to assume that NPOL about nominees is the only notability standard utilized, despite the individuals having notable careers as judges (and other activities) prior to their nomination for federal positions. There seems to be no attempt to determine GNG or notability about the individuals in themselves and several of them are very, very apparently notable under other grounds. Silverseren^C 22:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I am aware of WP:GNG, and it fails in the articles I have proposed to delete. Many of them have little in the way of secondary sources as well. Let'srun (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Are you aware of the difference between an unendorsed wikiproject standard like WP:USCJN and a notability guideline like Wikipedia:Notability (people)? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I've pointed out that many of the articles fail notability and have been created WP:TOOSOON, before the subject has been notable or because the subject was anticipated to become notable based on WP:CRYSTAL. Let'srun (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

And can you tell me what WP:TOOSOON is? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Creating articles before subjects are actually notable. This is not a crystal ball, and the assumption that stuff will eventually happen doesn't mean it will. Let'srun (talk) 22:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Haven't looked to see if there's POV afoot, but just some advice that applies in any case: Let'srun, in case you haven't noticed, mass-nominating for deletion, mass-creation, mass-anything attracts a lot of scrutiny around here. :) Especially if it's not an area you have a lot of experience in, it's usually a good idea to do a couple and see how it goes before doing more. Not a hard rule -- just best practice. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I hear you! Let'srun (talk) 22:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

That, and the fact that most (but not all) of what you have put up for deletion contains this wording, "President Joe Biden announced his intent to nominate ... " — Maile (talk) 23:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I have no political agenda, if that is what you are trying to say. I've nominated Trump and Obama nominees for deletion due to failing in the same areas. Let'srun (talk) 23:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• There has been a lot of disruption around judges. The history/Talk of Tiffany Cartwright and related deletion discussions are one that was on my watchlist. Judges are partisan appointments and people passionate about judges are well, passionate, which sometimes leads to issues following N:POL,USCJN, etc. If someone who isn't elected isn't necessary notable,the parallel that a judge whose appointment wasn't confirmed wasn't either. Like everything else the last decade or so, it's an ideological war, not a policy one. I don't know what the answer is, but a mass nom isn't it, unfortunately, but nor is copy pasting the same IAR rationale without explaining why it's a valid IAR at AfD and every judge related discussion. Get the policy changed if you find it wrong. That's not happening on one specific article/AfD, but folks don't want to go that path either. Star Mississippi 23:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  I agree 100%. That is why I only nominated those I felt were WP:TOOSOON based on the Tiffany Cartwright precedent. Let'srun (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  I do regret not making it more clear the individual cases but in many of them they are pretty much the same with few to no secondary sources and little to meet WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 23:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  Your first edits were related to article deletions. This is unusual. Did you previously edit as an IP or did you have a previous account you’ve discarded? 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:597:65ED:46F6:5C4A (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  I have made edits before with a couple of IPs. Let'srun (talk) 02:21, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  The Tiffany Cartwright fiasco was due to the activism of one editor, namely yourself, over the opposition of virtually everyone who has ever edited a law-related article. It shouldn't be used as precedent for anything. Iowalaw2 (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The problem with using the Tiffany Cartwright precedent is that doesn't support the deletion or moving to draft. Tiffany Cartwright's page has been put back into main space & guess what... She has NOT been confirmed yet. The WP:USCJN section on U.S. District Court judge's directive states a nomination doesn't mean they are inherently notable but that does not mean the nominees aren't notable. There simply is no way a person will be nominated to an equal branch of government for a lifetime appointment by the leader of the executive branch without having a notable lengthy career & background. All of the nominees have references to their careers in the press. The president's own announcement details each of their bios. MIAJudges (talk) 00:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Cloture (yes, not a RS but no one is debating this fact) has been invoked. Moving it back to draft, which you know I have supported in the past, is process wonkery when it will toll literally this week and she would be moved. That's why I didn't move it back or start another AfD. By the time either was resolved, she'd be confirmed. Hell she probably would have been confirmed if not for the mess around Dianne Feinstein and judiciary, I think we all know that. Cartwright is an example of current handling of nominees despite several editors thinking that isn't the case, or that it's political. You were offered the path to having that reviewed and you opted not to pursue it. I think unfortunately that means this is going to be a game of whack a mole for judges in limbo. Star Mississippi 00:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• Looking over some of those AfDs (and self-disclosing as an unrepentant liberal), I'm more concerned about those waves of bullshit cut-and-paste Keep votes, often on shaky or no legitimate grounds, than I am about the noms. Let's take MIAJudges's favorite: "Nominees for lifetime appointments to the federal bench & announced on the White House official home page are notable for that reason alone." Perhaps I am having a senior moment, and have missed the guideline which explicitly states so; MIAJudges, if you would be kind enough to post a link to it, please? Then we have User:Snickers2686 repeatedly using "Keep per WP:Some stuff exists for a reason" (an essay, to save people from clicking) as the sum total of repeated cut-and-paste responses.

  There are people tossing in IAR, and people claiming that membership on a federal commission constitutes prima facie notability, and people saying that the nomination process is a formality and the judges will soon be appointed (this with something like 1500 confirmation-required posts being held up) ... and what's glaringly missing from the cavalcade in the bulk of these AfDs are Keep votes citing actual notability guidelines. Since several people here have quizzed Let'srun on their command of pertinent procedural and notability rules, perhaps we can turn our attention to quizzing the Keep proponents as to theirs. Honestly, if vague essays are going to be legitimate grounds to advocate Keep or Delete, I might as well write WP:BECAUSEIFEELLIKEIT and use it for every one of my AfD votes going forward, and saving me the trouble of actually researching an AfD on its merits. It'll be just as thoughtful and legitimate. Ravenswing 01:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  So let me get this straight, the nominator can use the same criteria for multiple/mass nominations and that's okay, but I can't use the same response for 'Keep'? How does that make sense? Snickers2686 (talk) 03:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  When your !vote has no basis in policy, no you can't - to argue WP:IAR as you are functionally doing you need to provide a justification for why the rules don't and can't apply here, and a copy-paste vote of "Keep per WP:Some stuff exists for a reason" does not meet that standard. I would even consider such copy-paste votes to be disruptive. BilledMammal (talk) 03:42, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  So let me get this straight, Snickers2686, because demonstrably you exercised as little thought in this response as in your cut-and-paste flurry: did you notice that in the sixteen AfDs in question, Let'srun had identical wording in exactly two of them? No. I don't suppose you did notice. Beyond that, in each and every one of those sixteen, they expounded a policy-based rationale for the nomination. Each and every time you responded to one of them, you didn't. You are showing us as much contempt with responses like those as you did in the AfDs. Ravenswing 05:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  Based on your talk page, it looks like quite a few have contempt for you as it is so... Snickers2686 (talk) 05:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  Replies like these are neither acceptable nor productive; please strike it. BilledMammal (talk) 12:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Star Mississippi

  At no point in the Tiffany Cartwright deletion discussion last year was cloture being invoked ever used as a metric to make her notable. As a matter of fact, the fact that she has had her page moved back before she is confirmed only further shows my initial point last year when I said she was notable. It seems we are moving the goal post (Not you per say, just in general) to justify the present-day actions. When the initial deletion request occurred, we tried to explain she had a lengthy career even before the president nominated her. Her page has numerous references from the media & we were told that wasn't enough. I personally added three more & was told the three wasn't specifically about her so that didn't count. Then I was told only her confirmation will make her notable. The senate is out on recess next week & there are three other nominees that have cloture invoked before her, so she won't be confirmed until near the end of the week after next but somehow now a cloture vote makes her more notable than the president of the United States nominating her in the first place.

  As for I was "offered the path to having that reviewed and you opted not to pursue it", that simply is not true. I tried to prevent her page from being moved & after it was, I put in another request to have the decision reversed. It was unsuccessful because once again I was told she had to be confirmed. It seems as though that was not the case now. I was told she could withdraw, the president can rescind his nomination, or she could die before being confirmed so we must wait. Can those things still not happen between today & two weeks from now when she is ultimately confirmed?

  Let's be honest, her page should have never been allowed to be moved in the first place. Wikipedia needs to have some clearer guidance so users like @Let'srun can't come along & use Wikipedia lingo to pull pages down that thousands of people come to Wikipedia for. The idea that a lawyer who has had a career's worth of media articles written about them, then nominated by the president & then have a senate judiciary committee hearing not being notable is almost as unbelievable as Tiffany Cartwright is somehow notable today but wasn't last week when the only thing that has change is a cloture motion has been sent to the senate floor desk. And that is on top of out of over 100 Biden nominees at that time last year, she was the ONLY one who somehow wasn't notable. Once again, I know you were on my side of thinking last year so not frustrated at you. I'm frustrated we have to spend time yet again defending something that should be obvious because one user wants to make a point.

  MIAJudges (talk) 03:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  @MIAJudges: While I can't speak for Star Mississippi, it seems fairly obvious to me someone who is not an American so frankly doesn't know that much about how the process works, that what they are saying is that the article was only moved back to main space about two days ago without any form of discussion and based on a statement that goes directly against the guidelines and AFD [1] by User:Frenzie23. However despite this, because the judge has reached a stage of the process where their nomination is going to be confirmed very very soon, there is no point fighting this. Any attempt to reverse it other than simply moving it back without discussion is likely to take longer to resolve than the for this nomination to be confirmed. Again I don't know that much about US federal judgeship nominations and politics but from what I do know this seems an entirely reasonable assessment of the situation. It reflects the fact that Star Mississippi, unlike the editor who moved the article back to main space, understands that Wikipedia operates by consensus and discussion and so an editor cannot simply force their way through unilaterally. As for Frenzie23, while their actions are not good, as a single instance no one is going to support sanction against them based on this single misstep so we are where we are. It's better to discuss the general problem rather than concentrate on one specific action by one editor. Nil Einne (talk) 05:20, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  Oh no problem. We welcome users from all across the globe… Lol

  So to shed more light, a cloture motion being sent to the senate desk means these are the next items the senate will work on. There were three other nominees schemed before her & A vote hasn’t even been scheduled for Tiffany Cartwright, plus that’s on top of the senate being on vacation for two weeks. It took less than two weeks to get her page taken down in the first place. So the idea that somebody doesn’t have enough time to take her page down now isn’t really a sufficient argument if you’re of the mindset that she isn’t notable until she’s confirmed. And that’s on top of even when she finally gets a cloture vote, she will need another confirmation vote to actually be confirmed & theres no guarantee either will happen.

  Don’t get me wrong, I am in any way arguing that her page should be taken down again. I am just pointing out the inconsistencies with her page being taken down to show how unjust these results are now.

  Myself as well as many other users are VERY passionate about the judiciary here. We don’t want to see some user come along & use a loophole to start getting pages taken down, especially when the reasoning is neither in line with Wikipedia precedent or the general consensus.

  MIAJudges (talk) 05:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  @MIAJudges: if you think Star Mississippi is wrong and it's likely to take more than 2 weeks for the confirmation to happen then you're welcome to start the process to reverse the move. And there is no loophole. These articles should not exist unless there is evidence they meet GNG or some other guideline. If you don't accept that then you need to refrain from creating them, or participating in any AFD etc. If you don't accept than then we will topic ban you and any more productive contributions you can make to improve our coverage of the judiciary in areas where notability is clear will be lost. It's your choice Nil Einne (talk) 06:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  Wait a minute. You’re threatening to ban me? On what basis? I am a prolific Wikipedia user that is participating in the conversation. Each time I participate I am including precedent & factual information to back up what I am saying. I have not used any foul language, I have assumed good faith in all users even when they have a difference of opinion & I have listened to every view point. And the result is that is a threat to ban me???

  MIAJudges (talk) 06:28, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  @MIAJudges, you seem to be arguing policy you don't fully understand, and you seem to believe your understanding of it is the correct understanding, and you keep insisting so. At some point that becomes disruptive all by itself.

  Here for instance you argued there is "no precedent" for deletion. What policy do you believe you are referring to?

  When multiple other editors who are much more experienced than you are telling you you are misunderstanding policy, which is what's happening here, you should go investigate further. You say you are listening, but you aren't. The fact you're being civil isn't enough. Valereee (talk) 10:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  It is not that I am not understanding what is being said, it is that I don’t agree with what some are saying. I don’t agree because of both precedent & inconsistencies in the arguments being made. I didn’t know simply articulating a different view point is being “ disruptive all by itself”. As for other users being “ much more experienced than” me, does that mean I am not entitled to an opinion? I thought that’s what the AFD was for. I appreciate the advice that I “should go investigate further”. I have, which is why I am even more confused as to how there seems to be a change in policy & approach to this subject. As for me or listening, that is exactly what I have done. The fact that I still do not agree with a persons opinion because of both inconsistencies in the argument & precedent shouldn’t mean you state I am not listening. If I were to agree with you does that now mean I am all of a sudden listening now?

  But this AFD is not about me so I don’t want to take up all of the oxygen in the conversation. I just want those users who apparently are much more experienced than me to know I appreciate all views even if some do not reciprocate.

  Thank you all MIAJudges (talk) 12:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  It's fine to disagree. But arguing your opinion over and over again when it's clear your opinion is not the consensus opinion can be considered disruptive. Valereee (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, @Nil Einne that's 90% of my motivation. The other 10% is this article/Talk page/deletion discussions have been exhausting. Folks want to create pages on judges in contravention of current practice/guidelines, but when the article is deleted and that deletion is endorsed, it's either sexism or politics. @Frenzie23 moved it over protection and consensus, but I felt it was no longer worth the argument since, apparently, I misunderstood what cloture would mean for her nomination. It's moot as @Curbon7 has already done so, but I'm not sure I'd have moved it back this morning if they hadn't as it's exhausting. @MIAJudges I stand by what I have said throughout out conversations on Cartwright, she is not currently notable. If those of you working on judge's articles want to change the guidelines, start the process. Don't assume bad faith on those of us applying consensus. Star Mississippi 12:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for the start the process suggestion. I will look into that. For the record, I have never accused any users of sexism or politics. Other users have & I do not believe any have been threatened to be locked out if the AFD like apparently I have been by another user, but that’s ok. I don’t believe in making accusations unless it is warranted. I assume good faith “I literally wrote that in one of my replies above”.

  Thanks again & have a great day

  MIAJudges (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  oops missed this on first load. @MIAJudges we've had nothing but respectful conversations, for which I thank you, and I expect we will even though I think you have a flawed understanding of process. I'm frustrated we have to spend time yet again defending something that should be obvious because one user wants to make a point. No one is making a point. Cartwright was decided by consensus not to be notable, and you & @Snickers2686 opted not to follow the route to get the guidelines considered for revision. That's well within you're right as we're all volunteers. I closed the decision that reflected consensus which is why I was "allowed" to move it. You seemed to be OK with that because you didn't report me here or elsewhere for doing something I wasn't "allowed" to. Multiple folks have weighed in at the AfD/DRV and on the Talk. I don't know them all but it's fair to say we're all looking at it from the guidelines, not because we have a personal opinion on Cartwright's merits. Speaking of last fall when we were discussing, not this current batch of noms, if others should also have been draftified, AfD was there for you or anyone else as a tool. It's the one @Let'srun pursued now.

  These nominees could exist in draft space and be moved on confirmation. While draft space isn't mandatory for anyone but those with fewer than ten edits, it's a worthwhile tool to work on an article for whom notability isn't established but you expect will be in a near future. Star Mississippi 12:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Ravenswing

  @Let'srun is simply copy & pasting the same rationale for is multiple mass deletion request. I am responding in kind. As for your quiz, I will be happy to answer that. No, vague essays would not be acceptable for notability. But a career lawyer who has been nominated by the leader of the executive branch for a lifetime appointment to a co-equal branch is not a vague essay. Each nominee is covered in multiple media publications across the country the same day they are nominated so they become notable even if they weren't previously.

  MIAJudges (talk) 03:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  Alright, let me be less oblique about it. To wit: being a career lawyer meets no notability criteria on Wikipedia, and being nominated by the President to a government post meets no notability criteria on Wikipedia, and being nominated for a judgeship meets no notability criteria on Wikipedia ... and either you know that already and are being disingenuous in your votes, or you didn't know that, in which case you really don't have any business participating in AfDs at all. Deletion discussions revolve around whether a subject does, or does not, meet the extant notability criteria, not the ones that individual editors make up in their own heads. Ravenswing 05:47, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  You’re wrong using any Wikipedia precedent. Each & every single nominee to be a federal judge has never had their Wikipedia page taken down or moved except one. And that one is Tiffany Cartwright who has not been confirmed yet but even her page has been reinstated. There is literally no history, no precedent or no consensus to back up what you are advocating. And I believe I have every right to be participating in AfDs. I do not agree with what you are advocating but would never question your ability to participate in the discussion.

  MIAJudges (talk) 06:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  "Precedent" changes all the time on Wikipedia; you don't see WP:PORNBIO still up, after all, or participation standards for sports figures, or an automatic presumption that high schools are notable. This is why we deliberately do not cite "precedent" as a valid ground to keep. Beyond that, I'm curious: you have been on Wikipedia for a little over a year, and as far as I can see you have participated in precisely two AfDs before yesterday: one last month, and the original Cartwright AfD last year. What is your basis for your assertion that no nominee for a judgeship has ever had an article deleted? I've been on Wikipedia for nineteen years and have participated in many hundreds of AfDs, and I wouldn't dare to make such a claim one way or another. Ravenswing 07:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for your 19 years of service. This is not my only Wikipedia account. I use this one specifically for the judiciary. I’ve been on Wikipedia many more years prior but I would never throw my Wikipedia seniority around from my other account to try & justify that makes my point any more or less valid than other users. We have a difference of opinion, it happens. The only difference is I have never threatened to ban, block or discredit another users opinion like some on this thread apparently does. I have cited my reasoning for my opinion. It must have some validity to it because I see the Tiffany Cartwright page has been pulled down again which indicates me using that as justification to not pulling the other pages down struck a cord.

  Look, as I wrote above this thread is not about me. I certainly didn’t want it to turn into people going to my page to see how long I’ve been on Wikipedia or how many ADF’s I have participated in (Especially when the investigation leads to incorrect data & you could have just asked me in the first place). I respect everybody’s opinion. I gave me reasoning (Once) here as to why I think the pages should remain up. I was name checked in replies so I replied with my opinion. I was threatened I would be banned. I was accused of not thinking other users were giving their opinions in good faith when I literally wrote a few hours earlier I believe all users, even those I don’t agree with are working in good faith. I was accused of saying other users were engaging in sexism, racism & political bias for their opinions but when you simply scroll up, you can see I never said that, it was other users (None of which were threatened with a ban by the way). Now I have other users throwing their Wikipedia seniority around at me without even having accurate data on myself.

  I have given my opinion. I didn’t plan on having a back & fourth with anyone until my name was specifically mentioned by other users. Again I will repeat THIS IS NOT ABOUT ME. I look forward to reading others opinion on the matter now.

  Thank you & have a nice day all

  MIAJudges (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  That's quite a few words not to answer my question: what is your basis for your assertion that no nominee for a judgeship has ever had an article deleted? If you cannot support it, then it ought to be considered retracted. Ravenswing 18:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

You...you what? You've edited here under multiple accounts? Are you familiar with our sockpuppetry policy? Are you also aware of or willing to comply with our guideline for declaring legitimate socks? at WP:ALTACCN? Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 21:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, this is the last time I am going to repeat this. THIS IS NOT ABOUT ME. To answer your question before we end the conversation about me & go back to the issue at hand, I did not say I am editing under multiple accounts. @Ravenswing stated he went into my profile to look at how long I have been on Wikipedia (I still don't know why he did or why that would be relevant to this conversations). I explained to him I had another account. HAD, past tense. I do not use that account anymore, I use MIAJudges now which is why if he wanted to know anything about me he simply could have just asked. I have been on Wikipedia longer than this profile shows because I had another account I no longer use. Ok, once again enough about me. I look forward to the rest of the conversation regarding the issue at hand.

MIAJudges (talk) 02:43, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I can't help but notice that you chose to respond to this good-faith question regarding sockpuppetry (which is a serious issue in my eyes, but that's neither here nor there. I see guidelines here to identifying past accounts unless the new account is for a WP:CLEANSTART) as opposed to Ravenswing's many questions regarding policy-based rationales against deletion both here in this ANI thread and in AfDs like these: 1 2 3 4. Will you respond to those? I have made my position here at the bottom of the thread and in many AfDs. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 04:12, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, this is the last time I am going to repeat this. THIS IS NOT ABOUT ME

As a point of order, anyone involved in this incident is subject to scrutiny. That includes you. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

As for my rational, I have written it numerous times, here, on the individual nominees deletion request pages (To be honest there are so many that I’ve lost count) & I wrote at length on the Tiffany Cartwright deletion request page last year. I do not want to repeat my argument once again so I will stand by what I have written already.

As for “ anyone involved in this incident is subject to scrutiny”, anything I have written you are more than welcome to discuss & ask about. Any past account that I had years ago is frankly nobody’s business on this thread. There are numerous reasons somebody ends a Wikipedia account (Stalking, problem with a spouse or partner that has access to their account, ect.) that can lead to that person ending the account they have. I am not in trial here. I am a Wikipedia volunteer user. I will be more than happy to discuss the issue at hand but I will NOT continue discussing myself as I am not the subject of this conversation.

Thank you all

MIAJudges (talk) 23:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

MIAJudges: if there is 'simply no way' then NPOL really should be changed. The whole point of NPOL is it's supposed to list cases when we can be sure by the circumstances that the person is notable. Nil Einne (talk) 02:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Should clarify if it's not NPOL being changed then at least some other guideline or project page like WP:USCJN should reflect this special circumstance for US federal judge nominees which would potentially be linked to from NPOL. Nil Einne (talk) 05:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

(EC with BD2412) More generally, I'm in agreement with Ravenswing that several editors seem to be making claims about notability that are not written in any policy or guideline and which I doubt will achieve consensus. It's even more concerning that I think there is a good chance editors are creating articles based on this non existent notability guideline.

Note that it may be the case that a large percentage of such nominees are inherently notable and so it's reasonable to create articles for most of them and any AfD nominator needs to great care about GNG and before. But this also means that anyone creating articles needs to make sure that the person meets GNG before creating the article rather than just saying they are inherently notable due to their nomination and we must have an article. And anyone defending such an article needs to be able to find the sources which demonstrate GNG rather than just using the nomination.

Also I'd be reluctant to assume any sort of political bias by the nominator just because these nominees are Biden one. To state the obvious, Biden is the current president. Any nominees from Trump or Obama have either been appointed to the court or have lapsed. If they've been appointed then they pass NPOL. If they've lapsed, there's much of a chance that they've been dealt with especially since I find it doubtful people care as much as they seem to care about these nominees no matter the claim that such nominees are notable. Of course even without being appointed to the federal court, it's possible they've moved on with their careers in other ways making them more clearly notable.

I do have a question. Do we really have articles on every single one of Obama and Trump's nominees? According to the claim they're inherently notable then we could have, and given the interest in these we should have. If there are some we don't have articles on, did we never have articles or were they deleted?

Nil Einne (talk) 02:52, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Folks don't seem to realize that we don't need an article started as soon as a nomination is announced. Because they were "in the news" for being nominated doesn't mean "there must be an article today". If they weren't of note to be worth writing about the day before, being nominated doesn't make it urgent.

Courtesy @Snickers2686 since I'm citing their comment, but they're not the only one to make the case. Star Mississippi 03:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, but if you're autopatrolled, then it's okay, right? Snickers2686 (talk) 03:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry not sure what you mean by that. Articles that don't meet current criteria are an issue regardless of whether an editor is autopatrolled. Star Mississippi 03:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Meaning that if you're autopatrolled then they don't get screened and that editor gets a pass. But if you're not, then you're put under more scrutiny. Snickers2686 (talk) 03:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't get the relevance of this to the the existing discussion. This thread started off about articles which were nominated by Let'srun. I see no evidence they've only targeted articles from editors who are not autopatrolled. The thread has moved on somewhat to several editors expressing concern about comments by others who seem to be claiming something which isn't supported by the notability guidelines and using this to support the creation or keeping articles. I'm not even convinced many editors in this discussion even knows who started these articles (I haven't looked myself), or definitely that they care. However now that you bring it up, from my PoV, an editor who is autopatrolled and starting these articles under the rationale that any nomination for federal judgeship is enough to confer notability is far more concerning to me than an editor who is not autopatrolled precisely because we're assume editors who are autopatrolled understand such basics when they apparently don't. Can you list and notify any editor who is autopatrolled and is so poorly informed on our notability guidelines about federal judgeship nominations so that we can get an idea of the problem? I feel we need to seriously consider taking the autopatrolled flag away from any such editors. If the editor believes that but has not started any articles it's still somewhat concerning however since there is no effective misuse of the autopatrolled flag, it's probably something we can let slide with a reminder to the editor that they need to brush up on our notability guidelines. Nil Einne (talk) 05:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Should mention I partially confused Ravenswing and Star Mississippi, however I'm in agreement with both. Nil Einne (talk) 05:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure there are ravens in Misssissippi so it works ;-) @Nil Einne @Ravenswing Star Mississippi 14:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

(cackles) I expect so! Ravenswing 17:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, articles exist on all (or nearly all) nominees. If Wikipedia goes ahead with this change, it will almost certainly be picked up by the legal industry press. Judicial nominations are probably the most single important topic in judicial politics. New nomination articles are usually instantly the #1 headlines on legal news websites like Law360. That's why these threads have a ton of lawyers baffled at Wikipedia bureaucrats questioning whether nominations are notable. Iowalaw2 (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@Iowalaw2, Wikipedia doesn't actually care very much about being picked up by the legal industry press. We hope people will be interested in figuring out why we do what we do, but we're much more interested in getting things right in the long run. Valereee (talk) 20:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Of course, as we all know, providing useful articles on subjects of broad public interest pales in comparison with insider trench warfare. Iowalaw2 (talk) 04:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I have no opinion about the broader issue here, but if we're going to assign one of "what appears on Wikipedia" and "what appears on Law360" to the category "broad public interest" and the other to the category "insider [anything]", I think it's pretty clear you've got it backwards. --JBL (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, @Iowalaw2, I'm not sure what you're getting at? Could you please clarify? Valereee (talk) 19:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: As a primary contributor to WP:USCJN, I see no actionable issue with these nominations. AfD nominations of pending judges will always, of course, be restricted to the president currently in office, since any judicial nominations by past presidents would have expired upon that president leaving office. This is really not a tremendous number of nominations, and can be disposed of through regular AfD processes. I would tend to agree that a deep dive will find evidence of notability for anyone who ends up getting nominated for a federal judgeship, but that does not translate to automatically keeping articles in mainspace where that deep dive has not been made. BD2412 T 02:44, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
• Comment (potentially involved?): I see that I voted to draftify on the Tiffany Cartwright AfD last year, and it's an unpleasant surprise to see that popping up on this board. I will say essentially what I said then, though; the guideline for articles here has almost always been WP:GNG. WP:USCJN provides an exception to that when judicial nominees are confirmed, but not before. If, though, a nominee is notable or has garnered significant coverage in reliable secondary sources (e.g. Dale Ho before confirmation and really before his nomination too), that plainly qualifies the subject for an article. I see a lot of WP:BLUDGEONing here, for which I see that MIAJudges has been advised to avoid. The main thrust of the arguments against draftification then in the AfD and DRV and now are inconsistencies with other extant nominees' pages; here, these inconsistencies seem to be remedied through discussion. Even that runs counter to site deletion policy wherein extant consensus and guidelines, not inconsistencies in application thereof, hold sway. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 06:39, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
• I've got a considerably more disturbing bit to report. We've already seen that @MIAJudges is deeply resistant to answering questions about what actual notability criteria are represented in their keep advocacy, and deeply resistant to providing evidence of their assertion that no article on a judicial nominee has ever been deleted, and is now digging in heels over their revelation that they are operating under an alternate account. With that. See, a SPA has arrived to toss in Keeps on some of the AfDs in question, and while looking those over, the SPA had tagged one of the nominee AfDs I hadn't looked at before. So before chiming in on the discussion, I looked over the sources to see if they met the GNG (without exception, they hadn't.)

  The final source was added by MIAJudges, a New York Times article with the headline "Garnett was instrumental in exonerating five people". Okay, thought I, that sounds like it's going to be significant coverage. Not only was it nothing of the sort ("But the findings by Mr. O’Malley, who worked closely with a senior prosecutor, Margaret M. Garnett, would seem to raise serious questions about the convictions in Ms. Raymond’s killing because the Bronx prosecutor’s office relied on the same key witnesses and said the two murders were related." is the sum total of what pertained to the subject), but the headline MIAJudges attributed to the article was spurious. Here's the diff in question: [2]. Now MIAJudges has been very steadfast in not answering direct questions, but I think we can neither any longer tolerate that, nor assume MIAJudges' good faith. MIAJudges has some serious explaining to do, and to do at once. Ravenswing 06:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  Ok, I am not sure what your issue is. I have done nothing but answer your questions on MULTIPLE different deletion requests. I literally just answered you on the “Deepak Gupta (Attorney)” deletion request & you responded. I have my suspicions about you & your motivations but I have kept them to myself. You have on multiple occasions tried to convince administrators & other users to ban, ignore & bypass users opinions who are different from yours. You even used vulgarities on the Jennifer L. Hall deletion request. I wasn’t planning on replying any longer so that other users can give their opinions but for some reason you continue to name drop me. I am going to ask you again, please keep the conversation about the issue at hand. That is, should nominees for federal judges be considered notable.

  We have a difference of opinion in which the administrator will decide. I have given my opinion on this page & about a handful others on this subject over the last few days. Frankly I’ve spent too much time on this subject & certainly too much time replying to you. I am looking forward to the opinions of other users & decision by the administrator but please cease including me in your replies. Honestly I think your opinion like mine is well known at this point so I for one am not interested in continuing any further back & fourth with you.

  MIAJudges (talk) 06:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  You have repeatedly refused to answer the question as to what actual notability criteria you are referring to in your Keep advocacy. You have repeatedly refused to answer the question as to what evidence you have for your assertion that no judicial nominee's article has ever been deleted on Wikipedia. You've refused to answer questions about operating from an alternate account. And you are now ducking the question about you having added a spurious headline to a news source to make it appear as if the subject was notable. You damn well know what my issue is, at this stage ... but I quite understand, at this point, why you are not interested in further responses. Ravenswing 06:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  I haven't filed on that new account as I can't find the master, but I've seen the these pages are regularly created on the announcement text verbatim somewhere. Who knew judges were such a passionate topic.

  @MIAJudges all editors' conduct is looked at in a discussion. You're not immune simply because the original discussion wasn't opened about you. While I found you to be editing in good faith in our prior interactions, this isn't a good look Star Mississippi 11:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  I am a volunteer editor here on Wikipedia. I, like everybody else do not get paid for the time & work put into it. My editing is in good faith. I see a subject (Almost exclusively editing on judicial related items), update & reference accordingly. We are assumably all adults here. When I see another user make a mistake I usually correct it myself quietly. That’s how I view Wikipedia, an outlet for the world to read an online encyclopedia about various subjects.

  As I’ve said I have no problem at all with anybody responding to any opinion I have on this or any subject. This has seem to turn into something I have no interest in being included in. Treats to ban, vulgarities being used, people accusing others of political motives & racism & the intentions of others being questioned is nothing I’ve rarely if ever have seen on Wikipedia. I only intended on writing once or twice about this subject giving my opinion on the matter & waiting for others to give their opinion so the administrator can make a decision. Somehow every time I log on to Wikipedia now, I see my name being tagged either on this or another deletion request. I have made my opinion known. I’ve asked repeatedly for all users to give their opinion without including my name in it unless it’s to reply about an opinion I’ve given.

  I am a busy man who has a life outside of Wikipedia. I’ve spent entirely too much time replying to other users about this subject. I am hoping this will be the last time I log in & see my name referenced or tagged on this manner. Once again I have no interest in adding further to this subject. I have written my opinion on it as far back as the Tiffany Cartwright deletion request last year. I am hoping this will be the last time I need to reply to any user.

  Thank you

  MIAJudges (talk) 12:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• "but they seem to be bios of people (mostly judges) appointed by Joe Biden" So, newish BLP articles, about people who were not particularly notable prior to the 2020 elections. These type of articles are not inherently notable, nor is there a guarantee that reliable sources will pay attention to these appointments. Let "Let'srun" deal will all this political Fancruft to his/her heart's content. No big loss to get these articles scrutinized. Dimadick (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  I don't know. I think that there might be a pretty serious behavioral issue brewing here, especially given a dayslong avoidance of policy-based justifications for keeps coupled with stuff like this misrepresentation of a title of a source to help bolster the keep case at the article's AfD. I haven't seen a satisfying explanation for that, if there is an explanation at all. @MIAJudges: might you pop in? Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 06:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  Once again I am going to assume good faith & you missed my reply yesterday, the day before that & the day before that. So I will repeat myself. I have given my opinion on the notability of the nominees in question on this AFD as well as the deletion request for about a half dozen others. My opinion has not changed therefore I have no additional comments. As I have said repeatedly, other users surely have opinions so I will not continue commenting over & over saying the same thing. Everyone is welcome to give their opinions & the administrator can make a determination.

  I had no intentions on commenting further but I open my email & see my name tagged yet again so I am only replying because of that. Me not logging into Wikipedia for a day is not a behavioral issue. I have a life outside of Wikipedia. Had I not gotten an email saying somebody tagged my name it probably would have been a days or maybe week long absence because as I have repeatedly said I have given my opinion & I stand by it. I will await other users opinions & final decision by the administrator.

  Thank you

  MIAJudges (talk) 06:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  @MIAJudges: that's funny; I went through your recent contributions again and still can't find an explanation for the misrepresentation of the article or a justification for keeps rooted in policy. Would you mind linking to diffs? Otherwise, @Ravenswing:, yeah, I've half a mind to propose a TBAN. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 14:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  Be my guest. I'd certainly support it. Ravenswing 14:05, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Iseult, they've requested not to be pinged here multiple times now. Valereee (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Whoop, I must have missed that. MIAJudges, my apologies. @Ravenswing: if you start it up (I have a job etc. to take care of), I'd be interested in seeing your proposed resolution. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 15:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

• It's spitting into the wind at this point; MIAJudges very resolutely refuses to answer the questions about his several misrepresentations and his outright falsification of a source. Especially given his staunch refusal to explain himself, I'd think the latter worthy of a topic ban, myself. Ravenswing 10:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  WOW, four straight days of requesting you to keep my name out of your mouth yet I wake up & the first thing I see is an email from Wikipedia with you tagging me yet AGAIN. If I were a lesser man I would say this was borderline harassment but I’ve dealt with much worse so I won’t even bother.

  AGAIN, this is an AFD about should judicial nominees be considered notable. I have an opinion on that subject & have given it repeatedly. If you have an opinion on that feel free to comment. At this point there seems to be 2 or 3 users taking over this AFD engaging in everything from accusing people of making accusations they did not make, throwing their Wikipedia seniority around trying to belittle other users who may have less time contributing, using vulgarities, trying to get people banned to now outright harassment.

  I hope the administrator who will determine the subject at hand completely blocks all of the nonsense out. I know it’s hard but once again this is about the notability of judicial nominees & them being allowed to have a page created or not, no matter if a few users try to turn this into anything but that. I hope the administrator takes a good look at who has tried to stick to the subject & respect others views even in disagreement & who has turned this discussion into a mud slinging affair.

  I have for four days straight asked for the discussion to stick to the topic at hand & let other users comments since mine as well as a few others views are well known by this time. I hope the administrator sees I have been repeatedly tagged in replies from a few users after four straight days of asking them to stop. The funniest thing about the few users who continue to try & ban users from this discussion is if they would just stop tagging them repeatedly in their comments, they would de facto get their wish because I for one have said I have given my opinion & will now await the opinions of others & then the decision by the administrator.

  MIAJudges (talk) 14:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  Were you going to let any of us at this discussion know you had posted this [[3]]? Let'srun (talk) 13:42, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  Why? Do you object to an editor in good standing making a proposal at the Village Pump for something they think would improve Wikipedia? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Beyond My Ken, I have no objection to MIAJudges making the proposal, but it would be nice if they had pinged more than just the people he or she thought would support it. Let'srun (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  Eh, there's nothing wrong with such a proposal; I've suggested a couple times myself that the avenue towards getting their POV across was to make one. Discounting anon IPs who just happened to discover it (hrm), it's going down to near-unanimous opposition in any event. Ravenswing 23:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion for judge nominee articles

Personally I think these articles are harmless and focusing on deleting them isn't necessary. Most of the nominees will be confirmed, and we can eventually consider deleting the articles on the ones who aren't; and there is value to the nominee articles in the meantime for readers who might be interested in the backgrounds of the nominees. Person-by-person notability debates, about articles most of which will inevitably be created and kept in any event on the upcoming weeks or months, are not necessarily the best use of contributors' and community's time.

However, as a compromise, how about an umbrella "Joe Biden judicial nominees" article (or perhaps a series of articles by circuit or state)? This could include a short bio of each nominee, if he or she is not otherwise deemed notable, which could then be spun out and expanded into a full article upon a nominee's being confirmed and taking office. Not to strain for an analogy, but this is how we handle, for example, baseball prospects projected to reach the majors but currently in the minor leagues. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I kind of feel like this is a good choice. These nominees are basically all going to become notable, either because they are confirmed, which makes them notable, or because they aren't confirmed, which makes them notable. Maybe we could simply create drafts instead of articles, and once there's some conclusion, move to article space? Valereee (talk) 04:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

A significant proportion of the AfDs in question have draftification under discussion. I don't think there's any policy argument that judge nominee articles belong in mainspace. There's certainly no one doing that in this section. I've said above that drafts are the way to go, either by starting them out as drafts or by draftification pending confirmation. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 05:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I certainly have no objection to any (or all) of these articles being moved to draft space. There's just far less certitude that these nominations are going to be confirmed than any of you might think. My apologies for diving into the snakepit that's US politics, but the unfortunate fact is that with the Democrats holding just a razor thin Senate majority, confirmation of hundreds of Senate-required positions have been held up, and two and a half years into Biden's term, there are still many hundreds of posts that are being filled by acting officials or caretakers. WP:CRYSTAL really does apply here: some of these nominations are likely to fail confirmation. Ravenswing 13:41, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but if they aren't confirmed, that is quite likely to make them notable, too. Valereee (talk) 15:12, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Moving the articles to draft space means that if a reader wants to know something about a pending, and potentially controversial, nominee, he or she will not be able to find that information on Wikipedia. For that reason the idea of merging background information on the nominees to an article on that subject strikes me as a clearly better alternative.

This noticeboard may not be the best place to advance my proposal, though, as it doesn't relate to a conduct issue. Is there one central or primary pending AfD where I should mention it? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

If the nominee passes WP:GNG, I agree that they should have an article. It is why I didn't submit an Afd for Charnelle Bjelkengren or several other more currently controversial nominees, as they do pass GNG by having WP:SIGCOV written about them. Let'srun (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Problem is that you're starting to fall into the trap of some of the fuzzy keep proponents at the AfDs. We do not have articles about "potentially" controversial subjects; as a lot of people are fond of saying, Wikipedia is not for breaking news. Our notability guidelines accord notability to subjects that have gained media attention. An omnibus article doesn't pass CRYSTAL either if there aren't reliable sources giving that subject coverage in "sufficient detail." 0+0+0+0+0=0. Draft space is the perfect place for articles on subjects that do not yet have the significant coverage we require in biographical articles -- let alone BLPs -- but where there's a reasonable chance that there might be down the road. Ravenswing 21:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it's probably a reasonable point that moving to draft space means readers can't find the information. But merging into Nominees for US judgeships means creating an article that would need to be updated constantly forever, wouldn't it? Valereee (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Some nominees will simply not even receive a vote, and not be renominated. Let'srun (talk) 17:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Again, we are falling into the trap of WP:CRYSTAL. We can't assume that someone will be notable before they are, and certain editors are creating mainspace articles WP:TOOSOON. Let'srun (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Failed judicial nominations are so rare that they are in and of themselves notable. Respectfully, the idea that a significant number of judicial nominees are not confirmed demonstrates a lack of familiarity with the subject under discussion. Whatever the probability is for confirmations in the executive branch, the overwhelming majority of judicial nominees are confirmed. Iowalaw2 (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@Iowalaw2, if you look at WP:USCJN, you'll see that WP knows that many failed nominations are likely to result in notability even if the person wasn't notable before. The problems is that it hasn't happened. There's a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Presidential_judicial_nominees_automatically_notable on whether that fact means we should just go ahead and create the articles. Valereee (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah it makes complete sense to upend Wikipedia's universal practice of covering judicial nominees even when (1) there is a strong case to be made that the nomination itself is notable, (2) many or most nominees are notable regardless of the nomination, and (3) everyone agrees that virtually all will be notable in a few months. What is the actual policy benefit of this, in English? Beyond a couple of editors getting angry at MIAJudges and trying to antagonize him by deleting his articles, in the process spiting the rest of legal Wikipedia? Iowalaw2 (talk) 04:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't actually even have a strong opinion on the policy itself. The concern for me is more that we've got one, and without a good reason not to, we follow it or we get consensus to change it. But we don't just say, "I disagree with that policy so I'm going to work outside it." Valereee (talk) 12:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Not saying you are at fault, but certain editors have the tendency to create articles for judicial nominees WP:TOOSOON. I would be fine with the compromise of having the articles in draftspace if that would end the discussion (unless they pass WP:GNG otherwise), but many of these nominees (and former nominees, for that matter) aren't notable people. Let'srun (talk) 18:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad Person-by-person notability debates, about articles most of which will inevitably be created and kept in any event on the upcoming weeks or months, are not necessarily the best use of contributors' and community's time. that's part of why I advocated for @MIAJudges et al on the Cartwright Talk to try and get the guideline re-explored rather than continuing to litigate there (no pun intended). It's current consensus, but doesn't necessarily mean it's future consensus. Hell there's an article I started whose subject I'm pretty sure fails N:POL as written, but I felt confident in a GNG case should someone bring it to AfD that I decided to work on her article.

@Iseult I think Draft space is perfect for these. Interested editors can begin to work on them there so that if/when they are confirmed, there's probably at least a start quality article which is more useful to the reader than rushing to create stubs. Star Mississippi 21:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@BD2412: I think you are the most active editor in this area, so I'd welcome your thoughts on my suggestion, and your view on where would be the best place to discuss it. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• @Newyorkbrad: List of federal judges appointed by Joe Biden exists, and lists nominees not yet confirmed. We could in theory have a separate List of pending federal judicial nominations by Joe Biden, which could house biographical paragraphs on the nominees, but I am somewhat dubious about creating an article that by definition would need to cease to exist at the end of the Biden presidency. I think it is common sense to at least maintain drafts on any nominees who are not otherwise notable. BD2412 T 03:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

There are 435 voting members of the U.S. House of Representatives, all of whom are deemed notable. But a candidate endorsed by a major political party is not deemed notable, even though an opponent who is an incumbent member will have an article. There are a greater number of federal trial judges, and what is proposed now that a nominee for a judgeship will be entitled to a wikipedia article. So apparently judges who apply the law are more notable than representatives who actually make the law. And the argument that Wikipedia articles are important to vet judicial candidates (even though it is doubtful that such an article would be important to the President), would apply with greater weight to voters who actually choose the lawmakers. Let's be consistent here. Kablammo (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

How do you figure that? The legislators who MAKE the law ARE notable, don't know where you read that they weren't. In any case the two examples (candidate versus presidential nominee) are not in any way equivalent, it's a false analogy, and not helpful in any way. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:59, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

A nominee for federal judicial office is no more inherently notable than than a nominated candidate for congress. The mere nomination does not by itself confer notability. Kablammo (talk) 01:40, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I get that you believe that, but, in fact, they are totally different things and cannot be compared with any justification. The person nominating the judges is the President of the United States of American, properly elected by the people of the United States. The persons nominating a candidate for the House are local politicians of one political party who represent only that party and nobody else. Their gravitas is negligible. No comparison. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I get you believe that, but -- in fact -- your POV is nowhere reflected in any notability criteria on Wikipedia. For the purposes of WP:JUDGE, the nominator is irrelevant. (It's also irrelevant to ANI, this being a dispute that belongs on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people).) Ravenswing 19:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

A judicial nomination is not even plausibly analogous to a party nomination for elected office. And anyway the idea that Wikipedia should refuse to provide articles for major-party nominees is very questionable (see all of the coverage of the war over the Theresa Greenfield article). Iowalaw2 (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• There is already a solution for articles that might be notable, either draft or user space and making the articles that do become notable live once notability has been confirmed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: temporary TBAN

I'm proposing a TBAN for MIAJudges revolving around deletion discussions for one month, broadly construed. This is mainly due to the fact that they misrepresented a source title in Margaret Garnett [here and have not provided an explanation for that since Ravenswing challenged them about it on July 5 (three days ago) here and two subsections above. MIA has been defending extant articles on U.S. federal judicial nominees for a bit more than a week now, and this is one of the articles under discussion. Given that, it's hard to assume good faith; if this were a misunderstanding or accident, judging by MIA's activity since, they have had many opportunities to clear this up.

They have also commented often in AfDs seen here using non-policy-based rationales. Ordinarily, I would not consider this significant, but they have repeatedly been challenged to provide policy-based rationales, and they have repeatedly failed to do so. This, coupled with the misrepresentation above, serve to convince me that either they don't possess the requisite familiarity with our notability guidelines despite participating in many discussions (thus tying up volunteer time and energy) or that they are not operating in good faith due to passion for the subject. In either case, I hope that a TBAN will allow MIAJudges the opportunity to step back for a bit, review our notability guidelines, and avoid misleading editors at AfD through sourcing issues. I ask for a short time frame because I do believe that they are a productive editor otherwise and, by then, the AfDs in question should have concluded. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 02:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support: I concur in every particular with Iseult's position. With the somewhat grave exception of MIAJudges' falsification of a headline in the Garnett article (apparently to make it seem as if the subject was considerably more prominent in the news article than was genuinely the case), MIAJudges' actions -- as well as the bludgeoning for which they've already been cautioned -- might not be taken collectively as sanction-worthy. Toss in that falsification, and double that with MIAJudges' consistent refusal to proffer ANY explanation: not for their misrepresentations, not for their falsification, not for operating an alternate account with the professed purpose of promoting judges? Instead, as is manifest in the thread above and in the respective AfDs in question, their modus operandi is to write long walls of text that don't actually address the questions.

  The reason for talk pages, for reply buttons, for responses on threads like these is to communicate. We are none of us immune to being questioned, and it is neither good nor collaborative practice to treat questions as an insulting imposition only worth ignoring. Perhaps a time-limited TBAN would bring MIAJudges around to sticking to the facts and to a less adversarial way of behavior. Ravenswing 14:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - This appears to me to be motivated by politics, and not policy-based. Nominations by the President of the United State for high office are (or should be) automatically Wikinotable, regardless of whether they have been confirmed or not, especially when the president involved is dealing with a Senate controlled by the opposite party, which is apparently deliberately holding up confirmations for poltical reasons having nothing to do with the quality of the nominees, similar to what happened to Merrick Garland's Supreme Court nomination near the end of the Obama administration. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tool of any political party, and we should avoid becoming a de facto tool in this case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• I'd also like consideration to be given to the rather abysmal behavior in this thread of the proposer and the support voter just above to the nominee. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  I presume by the proposer you mean me? I welcome and appreciate your feedback and scrutiny. I do have a few questions, though; I went through my comments in this thread and, asides from this proposal and my initial note, which was a reiteration of my position on these articles, is unadulterated shock at a naked confession of sockpuppetry. The comments following are requests for clarification regarding that and also asks for policy-based keep rationales so that I might change my position if warranted, as any editor should do (w.r.t. the latter). When I pinged MIA one too many times (I confess here that I did not and do not see any requests from them not to ping), I immediately apologized without reservation or qualification. What should I have done instead? What makes this abysmal?

  As for politics, I resent any implication of political malfeasance. Asides from a general assumption of less-than-good faith, I think that my actions in the relevant AfDs vindicate me. I have taken each article on its own merits and have concurred or broken with (to !vote keep) Letsrun whenever appropriate based on my own judgement.

  Lastly, I'm sorry to hear of your family situation. I've seen you around the project for many years now and have garnered great respect for you and your work. I hope it is resolved well and soon. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 06:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah this looks like a vendetta to me. (Full disclosure that I'm also generally more sympathetic to @MIAJudges than @Ravenswing or @Iseult on the merits, and I do not think either @MIAJudges or @Ravenswing have conducted themselves very well.) Iowalaw2 (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Editors are expected to make policy-based arguments at AfD. Repeated making ones that are not based on policy and failing to justify them when questioned is disruptive, as it can result in issues with local consensuses. BilledMammal (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
• Leaning oppose. I see nothing here rising to the level of a month-long punishment, where a warning would suffice. BD2412 T 02:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  Support: I actually was feeling along the same lines as you here as well (although I might have supported a shorter punishment just for the Garnett title), but I recently found that @MIAJudges (or at least I presume this is them, if not I apologize) was canvassing on a blog which is a source for many of the judicial nominees in discussion here for keep votes on his proposal to make federal judicial nominees inherently notable. [[4]]. I'm willing to believe that MIAJudges was unaware that this is frowned upon, but regardless I think a suspension from the topic is in order for them to take the time and learn about the various policies. Let'srun (talk) 13:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  I cannot believe a full TWO WEEKS after I asked for @Let'srun & another user to stop communicating with me after their 8 days straight of doing so, I wake up & see an email from Wikipedia with him still doing so.

  First you accused me of currently having multiple Wikipedia accounts. This is after I repeatedly told you I only have one, & had one many years ago that I no longer use & couldn’t even remember how to log into even if I wanted to. A simple IP address check could confirm that.

  Last week you started some bogus Sock Poppet investigation on me after I stopped replying to you, knowing I would have to respond to you because of it. After that went no where, I didn’t reply to you, mention your name or bash you. I just want to be done with you. I just want my name to stop coming out of your mouth.

  Then, you put in deletion request for non judicial nominees articles I started. That’s well within your right but that also went nowhere & the articles were KEEP. Once again in each case I stayed my opinion (Which were agreed to) & didn’t communicate with you further.

  Somebody put in a T-ban for YOU. I didn’t bother giving my opinion on supporting it or not, not because I didn’t have one, but because it would require me to communicate with you which I don’t want to.

  Now, two weeks after my initial comments on the manner & after asking you no longer communicate with me, you are looking outside of Wikipedia trying to link me to this & that. What’s next, linking me to the Kennedy assassination???

  At first I thought you were just passionate about a certain subject. Then I thought to myself (Never wrote it on here) perhaps it was politically motivated. Then I thought perhaps you were just principled. Now I think you’re simply obsessed & unhinged. The fact that your still talking about me two weeks later is concerning.

  For the last time, the “Garnett title” that you keep bringing up is a ridiculous accusation. I did not put the initial comment about Garnett exonerating the 5 individuals. Somebody else put that on her page & put a reference with it. I added a reference. The NY Times article I referenced came from the initial reference that was put in the first place. I simply added the reference that was already in the initial reference. I didn’t go looking for the reference on line, it was already in the article that was initially referenced. I just added it.

  Look, I want to make this perfectly clear. I haven’t seen you mention my name, attack me or make outlandish accusations about me for about a week now. It felt great opening my email & not seeing you & the other user not mentioning my name so I can go on with my life. I have NEVER put in a request to ban anybody on Wikipedia or even write in support of one. I am really really trying hard not to break that streak but you are pushing it. I do not want to communicate with you & I would appreciate if you kept my name out of my mouth. I have asked you this for two weeks & I hope this is the last time I ever have to communicate with you.

  MIAJudges (talk) 14:12, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Counter-proposal: TBAN for Let'srun

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

---

• For nominating a large number of Biden-nominated judge articles for deletion, based, apparently, on their personal political PoV, Let'srun is topic banned from nominating such articles, and any other articles about Biden's nominees, for six months.

• Support - as proposer. Nominations by the President of the United State for high office are (or should be) automatically Wikinotable, regardless of whether they have been confirmed or not, especially when the president involved is dealing with a Senate controlled by the opposite party, which is apparently deliberately holding up confirmations for poltical reasons having nothing to do with the quality of the nominees, similar to what happened to Merrick Garland's Supreme Court nomination near the end of the Obama administration. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tool of any political party, and we should avoid becoming a de facto tool in this case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  Let's recognize that basically all current nominations are by the current administration. That's just the process: whoever is in the white house is making the nominations. I do believe most high-level judgeship nominations are likely to be or become notable, even if not confirmed, but that doesn't make these AfDs political. Valereee (talk) 21:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  Unfortunately it does, considering the tenor of the nominations, which (if you haven't already), you should read. Obviously notable people are presented as not passing GNG, for instance. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  That's your opinion, anyway. Of the AfDs in question, four have closed as Delete, one as moving to draft space, and two have closed as Keep. It would seem that in the majority of these cases so far, the other editors disagree with your contention that this is "obvious." (With that, you were challenged on more than one of those AfDs to back up your assertion that the articles did indeed pass GNG with the sources you felt qualified. In every such instance, you remained silent.) Ravenswing 01:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  I "remained silent" because of a medical crisis in my family IRL, which left me with very little time for Wikipedia (check my logs, you'll see my time here has been well below the average since a week ago Friday, except for today (Sunday) and a little yesterday). All is not as it seems, sometimes - but the politics being played here is very much for real, and Wikipedia is being sullied by it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Beyond My Ken First off let me say I hope the medical situation with you & your family has been resolved. I wish whoever it was good health & God speed.

  As for the ban, I will stay out of it because I have made my opinions about him & @Ravenswing crystal clear. I honestly have no intentions of communicating with either of those users ever again. I just wanted to let you know I made a proposal for Wikipedia to consider so feel free to take a look & comment on the link below titled Presidential judicial nominees automatically notable.

  But once again the health of you & your family is most important so please take care of that before dedicating any more time to Wikipedia. Have a good day & take care.

  MIAJudges (talk) 20:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) MIAJudges (talk) 20:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  BMK, I've read the bottom six (userfy, keep, delete, delete, delete, not closed yet) and I don't see what you mean by "the tenor of the nominations"? In each case the nom rationale is "does not meet notability under WP:NPOL and is WP:TOOSOON since nominee has not been confirmed as a [whatever] judge" Can you clarify what you mean by the tenor being political? Valereee (talk) 09:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose: The nom seems to be playing the same game as MIAJudges is: claiming a standard which is not actually reflected in any notability guideline, and making a blanket statement without presenting one single shred of evidence to back it up. If Beyond My Ken wants WP:JUDGE to read differently, then they're free to make a proposal on the Notability talk page. In the meantime, we gauge notability on the standards that are already in place, not the standards we wish were in place if we were the ones writing the rules, and WP:JUDGE doesn't have any carve-out clauses reading "... except in cases where we really really think the opposition party is being naughty." This is a spurious counter-proposal reeking of bad faith, and it's saddening that Beyond My Ken can only conceive of political bias as a rationale for nominating such articles for deletion. Ravenswing 02:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  I am not "playing a game", I am attempting to see that Wikipedia isn't used for political purposes, and that its content is the best in can be. If you insist on a policy-based justification for that, I suggest you re-read WP:IAR. That we would allow outside political manipulations to affect our content is totally abhorrent to me - and I would absolutely say that if the parties were reversed. As for the results at AfD, I note that your votes and those of Iseult helped bring about those conclusions, so your citing of them leaves me cold. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  Since you don't like the results, I suppose they do leave you cold. They remain facts, all the same. "I would absolutely say that if the parties were reversed." Perhaps you would forgive this lifelong Democrat, and one-time elected Democratic officeholder, for believing that this vindictive, plainly partisan proposal of yours indicates quite the opposite. Ravenswing 15:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, and it strikes me as unfair to Letsrun that this was even proposed. The only thing they've (arguably) done wrong in this area is bundle some AFD nominations which didn't belong together, which only hurt their own aims, and there hasn't been any evidence presented that the nominations were done for political reasons (unless I missed something important upthread). If there's a problem here, it's inexperience, and Letsrun has been willing to acknowledge that in this discussion; this sanction wouldn't help them improve! Hatman31 (talk) 04:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
• Strong oppose, as others have said, there's no evidence Let'srun has done anything substantially wrong. This was the case even at the beginning of this thread and has become clearer as their AfDs have been closed. They might have made some BEFORE mistakes or otherwise failed to properly consider certain issues but their track record isn't that bad. In particular, there's no evidence of any inappropriate political motivation other than this happening at a time when Biden happens to be president. In fact the only concern about inappropriate political motivations seems to relate to the proposer Beyond My Ken's actions who by their own admission is making this proposal for political reasons. Per WP:RGW, Beyond My Ken is welcome to vote in the US (as many commentators have demonstrated, this often includes more local positions who can affect such things in various indirect fashions), lobby their senator or other senators or whatever else they want in the real world to fix whatever wrongs they see; what they shouldn't be doing is trying to topic ban people because our current guidelines and policies create outcomes they don't like because of what is going on in the real world. They are of course entitled to try to get these guidelines changed but an experienced editor would know that would involved making a proposal somewhere suitable (which is unlikely to be at ANI, although I don't mind User:Newyorkbrad etc starting discussion here) for the adoptions of these new guidelines or rarely simply by taking part in the AFDs and successfully making the argument (i.e. convincing others) that while yes current guidelines suggest a deletion, it would be better to instead to keep for reasons of X, Y and Z. Changing the guidelines definitely does not start with topic banning someone just because they are helping to enforce our current guidelines. Nil Einne (talk) 09:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  Further to my comment on changing how we handle articles on such appointments, since that seems to be a key part of Beyond My Ken's argument even if as I said, irrelevant until they've actually changed the guidelines. As someone who is probably significant more left-wing than the average American or Biden in many areas but is not American, I'd note that I was leaning oppose towards any such proposal for a change in guidelines at the start of this thread. Comments by Newyorkbrad and some others have given me pause for thought, but comments from most of those arguing for these changes often have done the opposite and this is especially the case for the way Beyond My Ken has approached this. Indeed one of the arguments for keeping these has been that most of them are likely to be notable sometime 'soon' because their appointments will be confirmed, or if they are rejected this would be significant enough to warrant an article. Yet ironically Beyond My Ken has came here to effectively even if I guess unintentionally argue the opposite. Because the mess in US politics many of these may simply never come up for vote, meaning that while there may be an article on that mess, there may be no articles on most of the individual minor level judge appointments affected by the mess who aren't notable individually for it. While the mess in US politics concerns me since it does have significant real world negative ramifications even for me in NZ, I'm not going to support us ignoring our normally notability standards just because this mess has created an unhappy situation. Wikipedia shouldn't be used for political purposes even when we agree with the politics. Again for Americans there are multiple avenues they can try to improve the situation. For non Americans there may be far less. But either way it doesn't mean we should do dumb stuff which will harm Wikipedia out of some misguided purpose. Nil Einne (talk) 09:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - it is not an offense to AfD Biden-nominated judge articles, or any particular president’s. starship.paint (exalt) 11:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per all of the above. BilledMammal (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. A topic ban for nominating articles for deletion under existing notability guidelines is one of the most absurd proposals I've seen here, and the continued accusations by the proposer of political bias with no meaningful evidence border on a personal attack at this point. --Sable232 (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

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

HazaraHistorian

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

I believe I've given this user more than enough WP:ROPE.

I suspect it's mainly thanks to their false belief (this is not even close to the mainstream consensus in scholarship, not sure where they're getting it from) that the Hazaras are basically "Turks" [5] which have led to much of this disruption.

• Yesterday they added that this Hazara tribe was descended from the Karluk Turks under the guise of a citation, except the citation mentioned no such thing. I.e. they inserted their own personal opinion/interpretation.[6]. They previously attempted to the same here without a source even [7]. Simultaneously, a random IP tried to do the same here [8]. That same IP tried more or less to add the same WP:OR POV edit of HazaraHistorian [9] here [10], trying to connect the Hazara to the Khazar Turks. Moreover, a mere day after I reverted HazaraHistorian for inserting a primary source [11], the IP conveniently knew of the rule, removing info about the Mongol connection of the Hazara [12]. In other words, that IP is probably theirs.
• [13] Once again their own words under the guise of a citation.
• [14] Removed info that was heavily sourced in the body of the article.

Based on this, I would wager there are probably more edits where they have mixed sources with their own words.

And here are some of their grim remarks (WP:NPA/WP:ASPERSIONS):

• "Why is there an Iranian editing Turkic pages and calling them Persian? Wtf is this Wikipedia so biased"

• "So the HistoryOfIran guy removes cited sources but allows un cited sources that say Ghurids were Tajiks 💀💀💀" (spoiler, I have done no such thing, that mention of me was completely random as well, hadn't been in contact with them for some time or done anything controversial in that article, unless reverting random IPs altering/removing sourced info counts)

• "Literally no sources of it saying it’s a Tajik dynasty, please stop disturbing pages and abusing your admin privileges" (spoiler, everything was sourced in the body of the article, which they couldn't even bother to check, or maybe they did see it and WP:JDLI followed)

When I told them (again) to stop attacking me [15], they acted like any other mature and collaborative Wiki user and responded with a head exploding emoji [16] --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll wait for HazaraHistory to respond to this thread, but I'm not seeing much which inspires confidence. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

The book I cited literally mentions some Hazaras being Karluk, it don’t know if you can tell, but Qarluk is Karluk but with a q, without any sources you can see the connection. I also have DNA prove from Vaha duo distancing but idk if Wikipedia allows them to be uploaded. He adds that the Ghurid Dynasty is of Tajik origin, which is really disputed and there are many sources that say it is a Turkic Dynasty, I can provide them too. HazaraHistorian (talk) 03:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Another thing is I only have/use 1 IP address, I never used a different ip to make edits. I even didn’t use a different ip when I was banned earlier. HazaraHistorian (talk) 03:51, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

For the Ghaznavid edit I’m not sure if I did anything wrong about the Middle East part, but I’m sure I didn’t do anything wrong with the Karluk part since I cited 2 sources of Ghaznavids being Karluk, if he doesn’t know that it’s clear that Ghaznavids were of Kalruk slave origin. HazaraHistorian (talk) 03:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Can you also ask him why he put the deletion request template on the Karakhanid-Sassanid War page, other than the reason of it being against what he likes. HazaraHistorian (talk) 04:51, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• Before Bloop was sock blocked, the interaction between them and Hazara was triggering my spidey sense. Dropping the analyzer if helpful to anyone assessing. Note, I'm not saying HIstorian is a sock, I just think there was shenanigans present before Bloop was IDed as a sock. Star Mississippi 20:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  IK bloop, he has a TikTok account that makes racist vidoes against Hazaras, (Redacted). HazaraHistorian (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• Today was yet another WP:OR POV addition made by HazaraHistorian, continuing their attempt to connect the Hazaras to certain Turkic groups and vice-versa [17] --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Did you even see the picture? You keep saying tried to connect which is funny. You clearly have no understanding of Hazara tribes and their origin. HazaraHistorian (talk) 23:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

And yet you were reverted again by another user for WP:OR and non-WP:RS [18]. I would advise you to stop commenting on me. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

You advise me not to comment on you but you comment on me HazaraHistorian (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

HoI is commenting on your behavior. And you're doing a great job of demonstrating that your behavior is in conflict with Wikipedia's policies. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@HazaraHistorian The matter at hand is whether you understand Wikipedia policies such as WP:Reliable sources and WP:No original research. Your edits appear to demonstrate that you do not. —C.Fred (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

HazaraHistorian's recent addition of "Origins" to the Ghaznavid article. The talk page discussion received no response, after I quoted from the source they provided(which made no mention of the middle east) and then I provided sources stating unequivocally the origins of Sabuktigin(ie. Ghaznavids). I would have to say HazaraHistorian does not understand original research. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

User:HiLo48 and incivility

Hello. A few days ago, I opened a requested move at Talk:Bill O'Reilly (political commentator). While I have seen some valid arguments opposing my proposed move to Bill O'Reilly and the idea of it being a primary topic (the only other page that exists under this name is one about an Australian cricketer), one user at the talk page, User:HiLo48, has felt the need to make fun of others who disagree with them, making comments about how they will "mock any comment that shows an ignorance of cricket," as well as calling those who lack knowledge about cricket "parochial Americans." Personally, I believe this is unacceptable and violates the core policy of WP:CIVILITY, and while I have tried to explain to them that they should be commenting specifically on why the move itself wouldn't work, and not make fun of others who disagree, they seem to be set in their ways about mocking the sentiments of those who disagree with them. I didn't want to take this here, but their comments about how, among other things, American contributors should "learn more about the world outside of [their] borders" seem unnecessarily rude, and they certainly have no place in a page move discussion, regardless of how "ridiculous" it might be to them. JeffSpaceman (talk) 12:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

JeffSpaceman, I'd just rise above HiLo48's potshots, as tedious as they may be. Continuing to engage with this person will waste your time because, unlike you, HiLo48 is probably enjoying this fight and your discomfort on some level.

The page move decision will be on consensus, not the volume or tenor or one person's posts.

I'm not an admin; they may decide otherwise. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 13:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your advice -- I think I will take it and stop engaging with them. I am trying to get through to them and assume good faith (as I try to with a lot of people on here), but that clearly just isn't working. Thank you for your kind words. JeffSpaceman (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

"HiLo48 is probably enjoying this fight and your discomfort on some level." Basically, HiLo48 is behaving like a troll, intentionally trying to provoke you. Please try not to answer in kind, because emotional outbursts never end well in Wikipedia. Dimadick (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment JeffSpaceman has also fallen for the classic trap of not checking the archives before proposing a move that has been shot down on multiple occasions. HiLo48 may be slightly glib at talk but the truth is that the American newsreader Bill O'Reilly simply isn't globally relevant enough to make this move. At best he's a washed up former debate partner to Jon Stewart and a generally disgraced journalist. Simonm223 (talk) 14:56, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  I will admit fault at not checking the archives, since I tend to just check whatever is currently on the talk page (something that typically works for me on pages that aren't updated as relatively regularly as O'Reilly's, but clearly didn't work this time). At the same time, I don't believe that HiLo48's snarking is a good way to go about it, since civility is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. Personally, I think that there are better ways of getting the opinion that they hold across (including in ways that other users who have opposed have used as reasoning). JeffSpaceman (talk) 15:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

While I doubt that this thread will result in any sort of formal action being taken, it would be nice if an uninvolved admin could go to Hilo's talk page and explain why it is not appropriate for them to mock any comment that shows an ignorance of cricket or refer to other editors as parochial Americans. These are bright-line violations of our civility policy and they clearly run afoul of the collaborative spirit required here. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm willing to block people for bludgeoning, incivility, or discrimination based on where someone is from. I don't really see that here, though. I just see someone threatening to do that. If that happens, I'll block or topic ban. I'm tired of dramamongering in articles related to American politics, and I think maybe the topic area needs to be cleared out. If anyone is tempted to engage in dramamongering, they should consider this before posting. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, are you saying that HiLo48’s comments are OK and that JeffSpaceman is to blame? His proposal, even if ultimately not the best, certainly is within the realm of reasonable. It seems tendered in good faith. His reactions to HiLo48 seem civil. HiLo48’s don’t. As for American politics, I’m sure the majority of Americans would also like the drama dialed down in the U.S.

As for your comment, ”I think maybe the topic area [American politics] needs to be cleared out” - what are your intentions? A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Great. More dramamongering. Did JeffSpaceman threaten to bludgeon or mock anyone? If not, what I wrote probably doesn't apply. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: No; but they don't seem too fond of being reminded of their own responsibilities in the area; I imagine it's more satisfying getting one's opponents hung out to dry at ANI. While they can do what they like with AC/DS notices, of course, it's always interesting to see how positive a response is. Or not, as the case might be. SN54129 16:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, they did snap back on Simonm223's talk page, and I interpreted "I am not going to explain this a second time" as enough of a threat to check whether or not they were an administrator (to see if they would or could follow through on such a threat), but I agree that none of this rises to the level of warranting action. While "parochial" (as in Wiktionary's description, "characterized by an unsophisticated focus on local concerns to the exclusion of wider contexts") is absolutely a correct descriptor for Americans of the belief that their pet newsbarker exceeds in notability a top athlete in a sport of intense popularity pretty well everywhere else on the planet, it's still an insult even if in jest, and Wikipedians should not be throwing it at other Wikipedians for any reason. All of that being said, calling attention to drama is rarely a suitable approach to squelching it. Can we all agree to go do something else? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I will say that I shouldn't have said the "I am not going to explain this a second time." I think I was just angry with what you correctly point out is an insult that should not be used against other users on here. I appreciate your forthright approach here, Ivanvector. JeffSpaceman (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I left Hilo a note and I hope they'll consider it. Mackensen (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• Here's a question I have to ask though - and I know it's irrelevant to the general policies at a RM discussion, but this sort of thing always bugs me. When someone types "Bill O'Reilly" into Wikipedia, looking for the (incredibly famous) cricketer or one of the other people at the dab page - do we really want to say to them "no, the one you're looking for is this guy who if you don't live in the USA you've probably never heard of, and who is best known for inventing sensational news stories and abusing women"? I'd say we probably don't. Black Kite (talk) 19:08, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

"" "I'm tired of dramamongering in articles related to American politics" O'Reilly is not particularly relevant to politics, American or otherwise. He is just a former television presenter and a notorious hack writer, whose main claim to fame is a series of scandals concerning non-consensual sex. Dimadick (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I accept the premise. I have no stake in the RM, but you're asserting without proving that the cricketer is more famous than the media personality. Leaving aside any question of morality (e.g. who should be better known), how do we know that? The page views point the other way. The media personality article exists in 32 languages, against 9 for the cricketer. If this speaks to the outsize influence of American media on the rest of the world, then I apologize, but we have to take the world as we find it. Mackensen (talk) 19:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  However, are we a popularity site or a work of reference? As I asked in the RM, should a musical act that lasted all of seven years be the primary topic over a millennia-old foundational spiritual concept, just because of pageviews? Zaathras (talk) 20:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Well, you said it yourself. I don't think anyone would make that argument. If they did, I don't think it would convince many people. The example is inapposite. Mackensen (talk) 22:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Editors are literally making that argument now, to rename the article based only on pageview arguments. Zaathras (talk) 00:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  With Bill O'Reilly yes, we're speaking of two men, one alive, one dead, who lived within a few decades of each other. Pageviews may well be relevant since we can't evaluate lasting importance. Your analogy, involving a millennia-old foundational spiritual concept and a recent rock band, doesn't speak to this issue, and that's what I was responding to. By all means, if Nirvana gets moved on the strength of pageviews I'll reconsider. Mackensen (talk) 03:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  Well, in a way we can. The cricketer last played an international match 77 years ago and is still talked about as one of the best players in the second-most popular sport in the world. I'd be very surprised if the "political commentator" that has more pageviews (because controversy and being American) is likely to be remembered 77 years after his last rant on the Internet - wouldn't you? Indeed, if pageviews weren't being taken into account here, I'd say the cricketer should be at the base article name. Black Kite (talk) 09:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  Ehh we’ll cross that bridge in c. 77 years Dronebogus (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  In 77 years, I hope someone still remembers Bill O'Reilly's exceptional performance in the field of falafel-based sexual harassment. --JBL (talk) 00:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  ...I don't even want to ask. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Snow Rise: Oh, this is so worth knowing about :). See the end of section 78 of the first harassment lawsuit (NSFW) against him. --17:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC) JBL (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Mackensen: I'm fairly sure I've heard a number of people making arguments that the programming language should be the primary topic for Java based mostly on page view type arguments. At the very least people have said there is no primary topic. Edit: I initially posted this on my phone so didn't bother to check the history but now I'm not I checked and sure enough it was about 14 months ago that a move was proposed on that premise [19]. True the specific claim of the programming language being the primary topic got FWIW no support (the closer said "Pretty much a snowball close", I don't actually see anyone other than the proposer who supported it). There was however a bit more support there being no primary topic (albeit at least some was abandoned) and you can see the several previous proposals listed in the history which again were mostly of the no primary topic variety but with some the programming language is the primary topic variety. While you might argue the failure of these RMs proves that the community will get it right, I'd argue that the persistence of these good faith but clearly flawed proposals does demonstrate why people tend to get annoyed. Nil Einne (talk) 06:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC) 08:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Nil Einne Yes. An assumption of good faith means that a clearly flawed RM springs from ignorance, not malice. It's an opportunity to educate, not belittle, and the community generally gets move requests right, or at least not wrong. Mackensen (talk) 15:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, that's why I said my comment is probably irrelevant to policy, I was more theorising about an IAR "what should we do" scenario. Having said that, looking at the RM the status quo is likely to be upheld anyway. Black Kite (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Generally speaking, yes, we do want that. We're not here to judge (and especially not to influence) what are the most likely to be searched topics; our role is, once the most likely topic is reasonably determined, to get the most readers to the information they're looking for with the least amount of effort. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC already covers the hypothetical case that Bill O'Reilly the Fox News personality is a much more (like, a lot more) likely topic amongst readers globally than Bill O'Reilly the accomplished cricketer, but that's not the case here. Disregarding the guideline over a morality panic would not be a good use of IAR. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I've both disagreed with and defended HiLo48 on and off for about 14 years. It may be cultural for them to have rough-and-tumble conversations, including with friends. I find them to be refreshingly blunt without all of the underlying vitrol and clever wiki-warfare that underlies most of our drama situations. Not saying that that should make anything OK, but it's useful to understand it in that context. North8000 (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Conversely, IMHO HiLo48 should also calibrate. Understand that what may be OK routine rough and tumble conversation in other venues might be the equivalent of tossing hand grenades in the Wikipedia venue. North8000 (talk) 13:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

An interesting, unusual dynamic in this dispute: each Bill O'Reilly is very important and noteworthy to a passionate, large group (hundreds of millions). Almost every member of one group has no interest in or even knows of the other Bill O'Reilly. The circles in the Venn Diagram are huge, flamboyantly colored and barely touch, let alone overlap.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Given that William Joseph O'Reilly is deceased (and therefore incapable of political commentary), obviously the best resolution here would be for Wikipedia editors to convince William James O'Reilly Jr. to take up cricket. --JBL (talk) 00:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

How many times does this topic come up? Surely at some point we need to do something. I've dealt with this editor many times and although I can get a little dry in my humour, at least I play the ball and not the man. I find wikipolicy generally settles disputes, not raising one's voice and making discussion so unpleasant that the abuser wins by default.

If we use this sort of procedure to create our encyclopaedia then it shows and well-meaning newbies are scared off. On that point, HiLo seems to take a particular delight in "welcoming" new editors by making comments about their mistakes, often using some sort of passive aggression to boot home the message and making assumptions about motives, if not morals.

I appreciate the sort of wikignome work he does tirelessly and without complaint but perhaps a little more tolerance of fellow editors wouldn't hurt. Can we get a commitment to be nicer, or are we going to be reading the same old anti-American diatribes again and again? Doesn't that come under the heading of racism? Do we tolerate that sort of thing? --Pete (talk) 10:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I said somewhere in the sea of words above that throwing fuel on the fire is a poor way to deal with drama, and calling anything that happened here "racism" is exactly that. It is a very long way off from racism to note the documented tendency of the archetypal American to be disinterested or entirely unaware of the world happening outside of their own borders, as discussed for example in The Hill, The benefits of American disinterest in world affairs; Washington Post, Do Americans care about the rest of the world?; The University of Buffalo, Researcher says Americans are "deluded" regarding what they know about the rest of the world; Pew Research Center, The problem of American exceptionalism; Council on Foreign Relations, Americans lack knowledge of international issues yet consider them important; or Forbes, The American public's indifference to foreign affairs. It is also not racism, and frankly not a personal attack, to challenge an argument on the basis of it being grounded in this noted American parochialism, though as I said using it as an ad hominem crosses a very bright line. That said: calling this incident racism is just inflammatory rhetoric, whether you intended it or not, and not only does it not help to solve anything happening here, it also cheapens genuine discussions about real, systemic, institutionalized oppression. That is in fact an incredibly serious issue, and the term deserves not to be thrown around casually and haphazardly like this. I must also note here that baselessly accusing editors of racism crosses that same very bright line.

As for HiLo48, they're aware of this discussion, and hopefully will absorb the criticism of their approach (although their most recent responses seem to indicate they instead feel justified in their "blunt" approach, which this non-American administrator suggests they should not). If they're also causing problems for new editors I have not seen evidence of it, but if they are they need to knock it off yesterday. Many an editor who felt their collection of contributions outweighed the civility policy have had that opinion noted in their block log. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps we should just sweep it all under the carpet. Again. Until some well-meaning editor runs afoul of some harsh comments. Again.

I chose that word carefully. Here is an extract from WP:NPA:

Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, religious or political beliefs, disability, ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.

The colour of one's skin or the colour of one's passport; in the eyes of Wikipedia it is all one when derogatory remarks are directed against another editor. This is one of our fundamental pillars.

Americans are a diverse bunch. I have many American friends and family and for every one of them who disagrees with my politics there are others who are shoulder to shoulder. Some are insular, some are well-versed in the world, some are this and some are that.

I make the point that Americans who are also Wikipedia editors might be reasonably accepted as having views and attitudes that are broader and better-informed than the average. I'll accept that many Americans are insular and ignorant of the wider world. But that is definitely not true of many Americans of my acquaintance and I suggest that American Wikipedians are more open to other views, other eyes, other minds than the mass, simply by being part of the project. There is a degree of self-selection in play.

I am chided for adding fuel to the fire. A valid point, but if so, then just what has HiLo been doing for years and years but just exactly that? There seems to be no capacity for acceptance and repentance and understanding on just how hurtful his remarks might be. Passions rise, discussion becomes inflamed, and we end up dealing with the fire here on a regular basis.

I'm not seeking to raise the temperature here with ill-advised comments. I'm looking to find out the truth and I think a big part of the truth in general Wikipedia editing is disruption caused by heated personal attacks. What goes on in this forum is - by definition - out of the main stream of routine editing. Can we at least work towards making Wikipedia a safer, more welcoming, cooperative place for editors of all levels of experience and nationality? --Pete (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that HiLo’s comments are obnoxious and casually xenophobic, but they barelyrise to the level of offensive conduct. What are we even supposed to do here? Dronebogus (talk) 12:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

It's the long term behaviour. Offensive to other editors, unable to accept there is a problem, unwilling to accept that there is a community setting the standards and enforcing the rules.

We accept all manner of views and reasons for editing and styles of participation. That's fine. His participation is as welcome as anyone else's.

But we can't have someone ignoring one of our basics - WP:NPA - if they also set themselves up as a sort of wikipoliceman as this guy does with his "welcomes" to new editors who offend him for whatever reason.

He's not participating here in this forum because he knows that if he says nothing, it will all go away and he can keep on driving his own bus the same way it's happened dozens of times before. Until it happens again.

I'd like to see a commitment to lift his game, and I'd like to see that backed up by the community of editors who don't want to see the disruptive behaviour continue.

I don't know how that's going to happen, though. Look at his user page. He is one of those people who melts down when shown that the facts contradict their opinions and it is just heartbreaking to see such anguish.

I don't have the deft touch to steer him calmly into safe waters. As a diplomat I make a good hockey player. --Pete (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

HiLo's behavior at the requested move was pretty uncivil. He said that Jeff has a "standard American lack of knowledge of cricket and lack of respect for history", as well as is a "parochial American". Directly aimed at Jeff. He called Jeff lacking in knowledge because he's an American. That's a personal attack. HiLo treats the discussion as if having deep knowledge of a subject gives your !vote more weight, and when Iamreallygoodatcheckers said subject knowledge wasn't relevant, he called that "wikilawyering". SWinxy (talk) 06:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

HiLo48: courtesy break

Before we go running off and closing this thread as no action taken, I want to attest to HiLo's behavior being extremely difficult to work with at WP:ITN. He seems completely incapable of having any sort of civil discussion where he doesn't immediately erupt into bursts of all-caps and shouting. A difference in user conduct is to be expected given differing cultural backgrounds, but some of these diffs go beyond the pale:

[20]You clearly cannot read!!!! My opposition is NOT because the event is only relating to a single country. It's because it's about one PARTICULAR country, the USA!!!! I simply cannot imagine this getting any support at all if it happened in any other country. It's pure and blatant US-centrism. - Edit summary: "Stupid argument!!! Can't you read????"

[21]Not another one!!!!! We are getting blurb nominations every few days at present. WE NEED BETTER RULES!!!!!

[22]IT CANNOT BE PROVEN!!!!!! You have been told why. You are asking for the impossible. You are proving nothing with that demand. Read what others say carefully please, think about it, then bugger off!!! - Edit summary reads likewise

[23]WHY ARE THE ADMINS IGNORING THIS??? Several Admin actions have occurred since the most recent comment above. My question is a serious one.

[24]In a time critical environment, ignoring it for that long simply isn't good enough. You want the glory of being an Admin? Do your job!!!! If you can't do it, something really needs to change.

Just a few examples. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

That’s pretty embarrassing conduct that would get a newbie blocked. I think a topic ban from ITN might be necessary. Dronebogus (talk) 12:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I mean yes, ITN/C has its problems. Yes, lots of people don't like ITN and think it ought to be removed from the Main Page. Yes, you can argue there's just as much a civil POV pushing problem going on that page as there is with HiLo's incivility. However, if you look back in history to when he was previously topic banned from ITN for similar comments, this rises to the level of chronic activity. Or is this actually allowable as long as he's telling someone to "bugger off" and not actually calling them a slur? Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:20, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I read HiLo’s talk page reply anc rant archive userpage and it’s pretty clear that, despite assertions to the contrary, they hold some chauvinistic views towards Americans. Their overall attitude seems combative an incomparable with Wikipedia. Dronebogus (talk) 12:25, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@WaltCip: I looked in the usual places but don't see any record of HiLo48 having been banned from ITN in the past. Do you have a link for that sanction? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Here you go. It was a very long time ago, admittedly, back in 2012 and I had thought it was sooner than that. I'm not certain whether this would lessen the significance of it. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

One thing that has changed is he is no longer calling people "fucking morons" so in that sense, this current behavior a significant improvement as it no longer includes direct personal attacks. --Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I also found these:

• HiLo and Pregnancy Ban Proposal (ANI October 2011, archived without closure)
• HiLo48 civility (ANI July 2012, ITN topic ban imposed)
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/HiLo48 (RFC/U October 2012, closed because HiLo48 refused to participate)
• User:HiLo48 (ANI October 2012, HiLo48's incivility noted as "unnecessary, tiresome and counterproductive" but closed for no admins willing to act after reasonable time)
• HiLo48 block review (ANI February 2013: HiLo48 had been blocked "indefinite (or until this editor demonstrates s/he understands it's not ok to refer to other editors as "nutters" or "fools" per WP:BLOCK#PREVENTATIVE"; indef block endorsed as noted by the closing admin but they reduced it to 7 days anyway))
• Personal Attacks by HiLo48 against Collingwood26 (ANI November 2013, HiLo48 blocked for personal attacks, then unblocked; OOP indeffed)
• HiLo48's incivility (ANI April 2014, closed with no action)
• Personal attacks from HiLo48 (ANI October 2014, closed with no action)

Note that these incidents were all within a span of roughly 3 years between 2011-2014, and their block log also mirrors this period. A common theme in these is a closing admin noting the problematic behaviour but referring the discussion to RFC/U, which was a handy catch-22 as RFC/U would not consider complaints if the user being discussed did not participate, and so in many of these cases action should have been taken but was not. However, there have been no other discussions (other than one which was frivolous, and this one) and no more blocks since December 2014, which suggests either that HiLo48 learned something from being reported so many times, or that the community got tired of reporting an unblockable and having admins pass the buck.

Their recent behaviour at ITN (from WaltCip's diffs) suggests they're returning to their decade-past disruptive outbursts, but it would be a stretch to call this a pattern based on four edits over three months (one of the diffs is a duplicate). I think all that's warranted here is a warning that civility is required regardless of who your opponent is or what you believe their motivations are, and that further incidents will result in blocks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

In general long-term productive editors are given a lot of leeway for obvious bad-faith lashings-out compared to newbies who might get an insta-indef. while in some ways this is understandable (thousands of good edits to one personal attack is a net positive; 100 edits entirely of angry POV warring isn’t) it’s also disturbing that we’re starting to let things like literal vandalism slide from experienced users Dronebogus (talk) 14:20, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

That edit was 7 months ago, but if you wanted to bring it up there's already a thread about that editor on this page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

…and as you can see it’s closed. I was bringing it up as an example of the abysmal standards we have for behavior from well-established editors. Dronebogus (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

That example was instantly self-reverted. Do you have other examples? Aaron Liu (talk) 17:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

It doesn’t matter that it was self-reverted, in fact that’s basically system gaming because an experienced (or even novice) editor would know there is zero tolerance for vandalism on WP. So vandalism and subsequent “lol just kidding” is still vandalism. Dronebogus (talk) 18:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

This goes back for a while. I only posted those as a current example, but HiLo has recently been posting on and off on ITN for more than a year. This is a sample of some of his behavior and absolutely does not represent the totality of his behavior at ITN/C, which I could certainly compile if I had the time in the day to do so. But if you think a warning - a FIRM warning - will do then so be it. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Note that they keep editing while this discussion continues, but they did not show up here. I am afraid all wishes that they take the criticism onboard are wishful thinking until they show up here and acknowledge the existence of the issues.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I suspect that HiLo48 is watching this. Maybe they're too humiliated to participate? I could sure see why. Their peers are wondering out loud if their future contributions are worth the aggravation of any further bad behaviour.

In any event, if they like editing Wikipedia, they should understand that many people are now aware of their negative behaviour and watching. They should understand they've just had their "last bite at the apple" before serious sanctions, even an indefinite block.

They've played their last remaining "but they're a productive editor" pass.

On the plus side, nobody's asking them to do anything exceptional -- just be polite like most everyone else. That's all. They can even secretly despise each one of the 335 million Americas alive on the planet -- they just have to keep it to themselves and treat them like everyone else. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Of course he's watching this discussion. He doesn't participate for two reasons:

1. If he doesn't say anything, it will get set aside with no action taken. Like always.

2. He's pants at polite discussion. If someone contradicts him - like with facts and diffs and stuff - he blows up and melts down and lashes out. That sort of behaviour doesn't help when people are discussing his behaviour.

Perhaps he might be induced to make a statement on his talk page or similar protected area where he can feel secure in simply removing responses he feels are upsetting him? -- Pete (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

• I was introduced to the move discussion through this ANI and I have to agree that HiLo48's general attitude towards those with whom they disagree is problematic.[25] It's weird to me that a simple move discussion is contentious, but HiLo48's comments certainly haven't helped the tone despite multiple editors asking for people to tone it down. This behavior shouldn't be ignored. Nemov (talk) 13:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  Well that’s… (sunglasses) just not cricket. Dronebogus (talk) 21:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• I just want to highlight this comment in particular, which was made after most of this ANI discussion. I know this is a foreign concept to most Americans, so they need to defer to people who do know about it. I don't know if this is HiLo's intent, but I read this as saying certain people shouldn't be allowed to participate in a discussion or that their input is less valuable on the basis of their nationality, which would be a bright red line on xenophobia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:38, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  He didn't say they couldn't participate or that their input is less valuable, just that American editors need to acknowledge their limitations. Like trying to impose the American concept of a "bright red line"; most will recognise this as a gaff, inadvertently proving Hilo's point, but many people around the would would see it as an example of American cultural imperialism. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:07, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah I agree, I would personally not have tried to evoke the silly concept of a "bright red line", which to me evokes thoughts of some recent events that happened on the international stage when America was playing world police. If there is a case to be made against HiLo, this isn't it. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 11:27, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  ...What limitations? --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 03:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  That most of them don't know about a global sport. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  A global sport that’s only played in the commonwealth because Britain introduced it. Let’s drop the “imperialism” natter. Dronebogus (talk) 14:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what you mean by your second sentence, and the commonwealth is still all over the world and quite significant; I don't get your point here. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  The second part was kind of a response to Hawkeye7, it was admittedly kind of unclear. But I think we’re digressing too much over whether it’s socially acceptable to be ignorant of cricket and not focusing on the fact that this user is frequently uncivil and combative. Dronebogus (talk) 15:05, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

HiLo: How to fix

HiLo hasn't commented, presumably he thinks it's fine to abuse other editors based on nationality.

Because we never do anything about it. --Pete (talk) 16:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I was prepared to say that I too was of two minds on this when reading the initial portion of the thread. On the one hand, context is king, as the old saying goes, and I can see some circumstances in which the comments that are quoted by the OP could be taken in a affable light. But then I actually went and looked at the context. First HiLo apparently said "standard American lack of respect for history" followed up by "That too is a standard response from parochial Americans. It's NOT an insult. It's an invitation to you to learn more about the world outside your borders" I'm sorry, but how is this not a textbook WP:PA of one of the worst sorts? This is literaly item number one on the list of "types of comments that are never acceptable" (emphasis in original), according to the section of the policy "What is considered to be a personal attack?":

"Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race ... ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors."

This is not sassy "glibness", or blunt straight talk: it's just plain small-minded, bigoted regurgitation of tired stereotypes that serve no function other than to incite outrage in others and signal the speaker's general small-mindedness and willingness to reach for the most offensive representation of another editor's motives: that is a presumption of sheer ignorance on the part of your rhetorical opponent. This kind of behaviour has no place on this project and editors (American or otherwise) are very right to be upset with this and concerned about what it says that we are not nipping this sort of thing in the bud the second the first pair of community eyes falls on it. Do we really not have a single admin here willing to block such a brightline violation of WP:CIV? That surprises me, because there are names attached to mops that I respect in this discussion already. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

And let me add that such would be my opinion if I was basing it just upon those comments initially alluded to by the OP. To see it followed by those additional diffs that can only be described as histrionic meltdowns? This seems to be an editor with tonal and self control issues that should have been addressed a long time ago. Indeed, I'm also pretty certain this is not nearly HiLo's first time here when it comes to this kind of thing; I did not participate in previous occasions his conduct was brought here, that I can recall, but I do feel confident in saying I've seen something like "HiLo and civility" in a discussion header here at least a dozen times over the years. Stopping to look at the conduct this time, it's clear why.

I'm not familiar enough with the overall conduct to feel comfortable making a proposal for an appropriate preventative sanction, but if someone else does and it's reasonable, I am prepared to strongly consider support. HiLo could have shown up to defend this cluster of behaviour: their choice not to means I have to assume the pattern will persist if we don't do something. A block, TBANS...something seems called for. We can't let our editors/community members run around making these kinds of comments, stoking nationalistic rhetoric and division, in plain view of everyone. I try to avoid emotive appeals whenever possible, especially in a context like ANI, but honestly, it's an embarrassment that we even have to debate this. If these kinds of comments don't get an administrative or community response, I don't know what the point of having WP:CIV and WP:PA are. I really was starting to feel the community was turning a corner on "popularity armor" when it came to these kinds of issues, but the fact that this hasn't been acted on in the last couple of weeks makes me wonder.

So if an admin is not willing to step in on this on their own onus, let's have an !vote, and we'll see what the community thinks about the idea of casually dismissing another editor by talking about "ignorant/myopic Americans" (or "loud Italians" or "drunken Irish" or "defeatist French" or "violent Africans" or "calculating Asians" or any other easy, stupid, hateful stereotype that we might slot in there). SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Here's a random community opinion for you. I don't think much of the idea of casually dismissing an entire race of people in words like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stolen_Generations&diff=prev&oldid=853625286. This is from an editor who later tried to shoehorn a poor quality source into the Stolen Generations article: [[26]].

Yes, anyone who's been around for a while knows that HiLo and Skyring don't get on. It looks to me like this is dragging on because of Skyring's agitation to get HiLo censured by any means possible. Good on HiLo for not taking the bait.

The notion that Americans have little interest in the world outside their borders is a cheap stereotype but isn't racist. It's well known that Americans are one of the tiniest minnows in international cricket. It's no more racist to point that out than it is to point out the absence of an even vaguely competitive gridiron team in Australia.

But basically we have two editors to contend with here. HiLo is blunt, abrasive and a net positive to Wikipedia. Skyring is polite, calm and a net negative to Wikipedia. Are we here to build an encylopaedia, or are we here to have a dinner party? Daveosaurus (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:NPA is a policy, you don't just dismiss with with "are we here to have a dinner party?" and excuse poor behavior. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I've heard about Skyring (btw why is his sig "Pete"?)—'s poor behavior, but I have not seen why they are a net negative while HiLo is a net positive. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Some people have too much “fun” creating screwy signatures. Hence why mine has always been the default. Dronebogus (talk) 17:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm more asking why it doesn't violate WP:CUSTOMSIG/P. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

It pretty clearly does but that’s the least of our concerns here Dronebogus (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Can’t we just censure both for casual racism/xenophobia? Dronebogus (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, or if there is no appetite for that for this particular user at this moment in time (which is unfortunate but not entirely unheard of a when a long term editor acts in a thoroughly unacceptable way but makes the conservative tactical choice not to comment here), then the least that should be done is to give a final warning, so the next time it happens, the community's lack of tolerance for any further such is a matter of record. That shouldn't be necessary, mind you, when we are talking about a bigoted screed, but it's better to get half the job done in this thread than nothing at all. (Bearing in mind that I for one would still consider supporting a limited and tailored sanction to get HiLo's attention, but don't get the feeling that's where this is headed). SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I think there's a consensus above to treat this as a final warning. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I hope the closer reaches the same conclusion. I'm still pretty concerned about the milktoast response from the community here, given the specifics of the conduct. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

If this is the final warning it must be logged in at the talk page of the user as such. (Not sure why this is final since they have been blocked before, but fine). If it is not logged we will be back here in a couple of months. Ymblanter (talk) 07:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Daveosaurus, that reasoning is flawed in numerous ways. First off, it's a false choice to suggest we can't address the conduct of both editors in a situation like this. Second, I don't see the value in the suggestion that we should downgrade one editor's clear pattern of abusive language for another--least of all in this kind of area--because it happened to coexist with similar policy violations. Further, as a purely rhetorical/policy matter, it doesn't matter that most Americans take little interest in cricket: the argumentation techniques employed by HiLo here are clearly just stirring the shit: you are meant to comment on the content, the sources, and the policy factors when discussing work on the encyclopedia, not opining on what you perceive to be your rhetorical opponent's failings or gaps in knowledge: even if he had just kept his comments to "Americans know nothing about cricket", that would still be a weak, unconvincing, and problematic discussion style under our policies that should be immediately discouraged. These kinds of comments can do nothing to resolve the content issue and only serve to drag out and personalize things.

But further, and crucially, HiLo went well beyond such unwanted dead-end comments straight into the territory of nationalistic invective. What he said was unambiguously unacceptable: again, it is literally the first, paradigmatic example given at WP:PA for comments that are never acceptable. I don't see the point in arguing whether this is Racist with a capital R; for what it's worth, that's not the first descriptor I would use either (though it's certainly in the same family of observation, make no mistake). It's bigotry, no matter how you slice the rest of the semantic label: the ascribing of supposed personal flaws to a monolithic group. Regardless, it suffices that it is unambiguously against policy, unquestionably a bad faith behaviour, and clearly WP:disruptive. We regularly block on sight new users exhibiting this exact conduct, and I never see any hand-wringing about whether their behaviour was "that bad" when we do.

This combined with the other demonstrations here of a longtime pattern of incivility and losing his cool in a frankly childish manner when confronted with opposition paint the picture of someone who does not respect our community behavioural guidelines, in that the shortfalls between their conduct and what is expected of them has clearly been pointed out to them numerous times. Inaction is clearly enabling this to persist, and the community has recently had declining patience for the "net positive" argument for doing nothing in cases of brightline behavioural issues, for very understandable reasons. If Skyring has done anything nearly as bad as we've seen presented here for HiLo, by all means, let us look at that and consider action there. As to HiLo, I am convinced: this user needs to hear from the community that under no uncertain terms will this trading in comments about the supposed shortcomings of the people of X country be tolerated. It has no place in an open project like this, where inclusion is a mandate and your comments are meant to be avoiding personalizing discussion anyway. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Daveosaurus, Ben Roberts-Smith was awarded the Victoria Cross for gallantry but it has subsequently emerged he committed a number of atrocious war crimes. By your argument we should overlook the latter because of the former. 1.136.105.123 (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC).

I love a good analogy, but it is very easy to slip into reductio ad absurdum with them, as you’ve just proven, IP. — Trey Maturin™ 21:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Inclined to agree: an example from such another universe of misdeed that it can only really inflame and muddy the waters. Nevertheless, the underlying point that existed before the IP's hyperbolic example remains: we don't give community members free passes on violations of pillar policies just because they've been here long enough to accrue a body of positive mainspace edits. ...Well, actually, as a community we routinely have in the past, but we shouldn't. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Possibly Confused Comments

I made the mistake of reading this series of posts, and I either have missed the request for administrative action, or have concluded that there isn't a request for administrative action. This isn't as much of a tentacled monster as the discussion about BHG and her enemies and categories, but it is at least as confusing, because I can't see the call for administrative action. I see that the discussion is mostly about:

• Insults to Americans. (Many Americans ignore national insults.)
• Two people with the same name, a great Australian sportsman, and an American who should be forgotten.
• National differences in sports and in interests in sports.

As soon as User:HiLo48 is mentioned, it seems that the subject gets changed back either to someone else or some other thing about nations.

There are several mostly valid reasons to insult Americans. Ignorance of cricket is not one of them. That sport is international, but is not worldwide. Americans play a different game that has an almost lost common ancestor with cricket, and is also international but not worldwide. It is reasonable to insult an American who is ignorant of another sport of British origin that is worldwide. This month and next, an American who expresses a lack of interest in the worldwide game is probably not so much ignorant as misogynistic.

Is there a request for administrative action, or should this discussion be moved to a subpage or archived or closed? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

How in the world does misogyny come into it??? EEng 21:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Most American sports fans do not usually follow association football as much as other sports, but will be watching the defending champion United States women's national soccer team in the 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup, unless they don't care for women's sports. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah... about that. As much as I'm a big fan of UConn Huskies women's basketball (about as much as the men's team, this year was a mirror image of the more common outcome for each team), if you want a decent summary of my attitude (which is very representative of Americans) towards women's soccer this should do the trick. I only know anything about it because I heard Sue Bird was on the cover of SI, and... did not know it was the Body Issue (I've never understood the appeal) or that she was married to Megan Rapinoe. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

This is going nowhere except on a grand tour of prejudices and their intersection with sports. Can we just get into the inevitable transphobia and get it over with, or better yet actually discuss the topic at hand? Dronebogus (talk) 02:14, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

There's a discussion below I think Aaron Liu (talk) 21:48, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there's a request to give HiLo a final warning for their insults. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Since the community has mostly been discussing the side issues, maybe an administrator should give HiLo a final warning as a normal administrative action, and then close this before it becomes another giant squid. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll be honest Robert, I'm having a hard time understanding what you are saying here. There's no need for some kind of formal "request for administrative action" in order for the community to discuss behavioural issues, and if there was, I would say that it was satisfied by the OPs bringing the matter here in the first place. And while there have been short divergences here and there, the bulk of the above discussion is clearly focused on HiLo's poor record for civility in general and the recent unacceptable PAs in particular: the discussion does not look very "confused" to me at all. further, I think your summary of the conduct a) leaves out a lot of the more problematic language, thereby minimizing the community's concerns, and b) just generally does not align with the rough (if non-unanimous) consensus above that this behaviour is in fact not "reasonable" but rather quite serious violations of policy. It's possible I am misunderstanding you, though, because your comments seem to me to go back and forth on whether this is a serious issue or not.

All that said, while heavily disagreeing with your analysis of the situation, I do find that I am agreement with your suggested course of action. Speaking as one community member (un-involved in the underlying disputes but kinda aghast at the behaviour here and the inaction of multiple admins who watched this unfold) I'd be happier if the community sent a more unified message in the form of a sanction for HiLo (even a slap on the wrist half day block or a narrow TBAN would be something), but it doesn't look like that it is going to happen. An admin issuing a formal warning would certainly be better than nothing--ideally it would be logged/relayed to HiLo via his TP and put in the formal close here. But I think I have to agree that the writing is on the wall here: there's not sufficient community will for a sanction here. That mystifies me, personally, but there's insufficient justification in keeping the discussion open indefinitely if it is not leading to a useful conclusion. So let's hope an admin is willing to make the warning and close the thread. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

User:SnowRise - I wasn't really commenting on the seriousness of the nationalistic attacks by HiLo. I was reading the discussion here in the possibly futile hope that it would enlighten me as to what the offense was. It didn't enlighten me, so I was and still am confused as to what the details of the main issue are, if the main issue is the conduct of HiLo. I will admit that I don't normally get upset by non-Americans who say stupid things about Americans. Either the stupid things are true, or they are not true, and citizens of a big country can ignore stupid comments. I didn't see any specific evidence of a civility problem by HiLo here, although I am aware that there is such a problem. I thought that the discussion here was mostly tangential, which is why I said it was about other things. Maybe I was expected to read several months of archives, but I am not doing that. I didn't see evidence presented here that amounted to a real case against HiLo. Do you want to show me where it is? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello Robert. Like you, I believe it is a dubious use of time to go digging through historical reports for past misdeeds. I do believe that a large and consistent enough pattern of behaviour is worth noting after a time, and I think one exists here, but more to the point, I don't think you need look at anything more than what has already been reported here to be able to appreciate the depth of the problems. That includes some comments that you are clearly aware of but (if I am reading you correctly) are largely dismissing, suggesting the gap between our perspectives is one of philosophy about what is appropriate conduct and speech on this project, rather than a difference in the facts we are working from.

For example, I still feel you are underrating the severity and the damage done by the nationalistic people-bashing comments in question. First off, even if HiLo's comments had been restricted to the message of "you clearly don't know anything about cricket because you are American--therefore get out of my way", that in itself would be a major issue. That's not how we discuss or form consensus on this project, and as someone positioned as an ADR guru on this project, that's something I'm surprised you don't readily agree with me about, and take more seriously. It's a brightline WP:CIR issue when an editor decides to take potshots trying to tear down their rhetorical opposition personally, rather than arguing a priori from the sources, content, and policy.

But HiLo then went far beyond this, beginning to opine more broadly about ignorant Americans with no vision or interest beyond their borders. There is no question that in doing so they leapt straight across any dubious plausible deniability they had for their prejudice and straight into nationalistic WP:PA territory. I respect that you (and probably many of our American editors) have thick enough skin that you can shrug this kind of comment off. That's a character strength. It does not, however, change how unacceptable this kind of comment is, and we don't need you or any one particular American editor to take offense at it before it is a massive problem. Even if the OP had taken no issue with, it would still be a serious violation of core (even pillar) policies, and needing addressing.

Then also in this thread we have a number of diffs of this user losing their ever-loving mind on people in ways that I can only really classify as "TEMPER TANTRUMS, OMG why can't people see what a problem this guy is!!!!!!!!!", to ape the form of these posts. This is somebody who is not exercising the minimum we expect (or at least I thought we expected) for communication in a productive and civil fashion on en.Wikipedia. Worse yet, if you look at this editor's user page, you will see that they themselves have documented that these kinds of observations have been incoming for them for years and years, and yet they have dismissed all such efforts at community intervention (regarding what are clear basic competency issues with regard to discussion) as they themselves being harassed by the "niceness police" or "civility police". This is clear WP:IDHT that, from all indicators, has been going on for well over a decade. Their block log further reflects this.

So, this seems to be a community member who has had more than fair warning that they are falling short of community standards, and yet interprets it consistently as whinging from editors who just don't get how important their contributions are and why they can't be expected to adhere to the normal rules, which they consider an unfair burden. Well, respectfully, at least with regard to this recent wave of behaviour, I think they have been let off lightly up until now. This inaction is not helping the situation with this user, and it's not a good look for us to continue to enable the status quo, simply because of the resistance in this space to sanctioning and established user, relative to a new one. From jut the details established in this thread, HiLo's arguments are often not valid policy arguments, and even cross the line into bigoted invective. What is the argument for tolerating any of this, when it could not be more clearly a violation of WP:PA, WP:CIV, and WP:DISRUPTIVE? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

All that said, this is the end of my contributions to this thread: after four sizeable posts, I don't have anything more novel to add, or better ways to say it. And even as an uninvolved party to the underlying dispute, there comes a time where one more comment begins to look out of proportion. Indeed, I'm only adding these last two posts to respond to your inquiry, clearly made in good faith. I recognize there is not an appetite for a sanction here. I'll repeat that this confuses and worries me. But there should be no doubt that the problems here are real and substantial, whatever our collective response to it. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Even just a warning would be sufficient. A thread like this closing with no action sends a message to contributors (and not incidentally, also to admins) that the community has decided violations like these are tolerable because they are not against an unacceptable target and because nothing was done about it in the past. I for one won't stand by idly if disruption like this continues at WP:ITNC, however. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl's lack of civility in CFD

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

• Examples of Recent Incivility by BrownHairedGirl

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

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

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

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

• Talk Page Discussion

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why did your post above make no mention of my reply[27] to you in that CFD , in which I explained why it was impossible to believe that the nominator has done WP:BEFORE?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You a few others want to amke it about me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  What's going on here?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So the merry-go-round is back.

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

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

BHG is and has been a very prolific editor.

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

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

However...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@RevelationDirect: Aaaargh!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Nederlandse Leeuw: this is significant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To BHG,

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

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

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

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

To the rest:

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

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

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

Wow!

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

This is utterly appalling conduct.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  @CapnJackSp That's just tu quoque.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The core issue of WP:SMALLCAT

Small cat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@RevelationDirect: Here they are: [28][29]. Please note that LL removed them completely instead of striking them out. This is in violation of WP:TALK#REPLIED. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  What on earth is going on here?

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

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

  What on earth is going on?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Smallcat

• Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Small with no potential for growth

Just for those who have not been around CfD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Laurel Lodged at CfD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The side issue of WP:SMALLCAT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@RevelationDirect: again, I remind you that the headline of WP:SMALLCAT says "Small with no potential for growth"'. It had exactly the same headline ten years ago.[30]

Ten years ago[31] the body text of the guideine said "Note also that this criterion does not preclude all small categories". The current version[32] of WP:SMALLCAT uses exactly the same words "Note also that this criterion does not preclude all small categories".

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

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

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

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

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

That is not true, @RevelationDirect.

In the discusion User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Apologies_for_CFD_comment you repeatedly refsued to uphold the "Small with no potential for growth" principle. Instead you retained the position you had taken at WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_June_25#People_by_occupation_in_Northern_Ireland, when you expilicitly !voted to upmerge because, as you wrote in your reply to me Your clarification that you're not planning to populate these categories moves my !vote to Merge.[33]. A I noted in my reply, that both grossly misrepresented my position (I did not say that I was not planning to populate these categories), and also breached both WP:SMALLCAT's empahasis on "no potential for growth" and the "accepted series" clause. Your hostile repsose accused me of refusal to compromise.[34]

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

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

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

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

Secondly, I did not accuse you of being part of a secret tag team. That is a straw man fallacy which you invented, and which I replied to on my talk 8 days ago: I also do no know whether you are a part of the tag team. All I do know is that you both repeatedly endorse the tag team, and that you repeatedly act as their attack dog by piling on me for criticising them.[35] BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:55, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thoughts about possible restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NL has also made a number of blatant personal attacks on me here at ANI, which include an allegation of lack of empathy, a typo flame[36] (after I challenged it, NL doubed down on it[37]: you could have kept that information private, to prevent people from mocking you for it. Now it's out in the open, and that is on you.). NL also wants to drive me off Wikipedia, suggesting you always have the option of WP:RETIRE.[38]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Miscellaneous Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  1. WT:WikiProject_Ireland#Local_councillors_by_city_categories, from June 2023, where I was the only editor to spot that Laurel Lodged has seriously misuderstood the issue.
  2. WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 16#Emigrants from Ireland (1801-1923), where Laurel Lodged failed to understand that neither start date nor end date was relevant, and lashed out at me for proposing an ALT action for which the closer found a consensus.
     An ALT propal is routine in en.wp discusios, but LL accused me of trying to hijack this nom[39] and anounced that It's my [i.e. LL's] anointed role in Wiki to make BHG sigh[40]
  3. WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 March 3#Template:S-par/ie/oi, which LL weirdly and disruptively brought up today in an attempt to disrupt work at WT:WikiProject Ireland#TD_navboxes:_getting_there. I have brought that to ANI at #Disruption_by_Laurel_Lodged. In that 2016 TFD, LL proposed an action which coud not resolve the stated problem, and lashed out at me repatedly and cruelly for having demonstrated how the issues could be resolved.

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

  LL repatedly smears the motives of editors who disagree with LL. See e.g. WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_March_12#Category:Local_councillors_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland wher the nomiation opened with an attack on zealous irredentist guardians ("irredentist " is a regular smear term used by LL; see e.g. this[41] from 2010 when LL smeared other editors as uber-nationalist and irridentist).

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

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

  For goodness sake!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support effectively per McClenon. This should calm the topic area down without inhibiting otherwise useful work from being continued. SN54129 09:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Question I can't effectively form an opinion without some understanding of what happened here[42][43]. If the edit history needed to be suppressed that seems pretty severe? Is a one-way IBAN even adequate to address it? —DIYeditor (talk) 10:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Special:Diff/1163981973

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

Special:Diff/1163982760

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

Special:Diff/1163946868

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal D: User:BrownHairedGirl is TBANned from all CfDs

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

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

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

Disruption by Laurel Lodged

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

At WT:WikiProject Ireland#TD_and_MEP_articles_and_the_'s-par'_template, @User:Bastun initiated[45] on 10 July a discussion on misleading uses of succession boxes for Teachtaí Dála (TDs), i.e. members of Dáil Éireann, the lower house of Ireland's parliament, the Oireachtas. The discussion has so far involved 4 editors: @Bastun, Iveagh Gardens, and Spleodrach: and me (BHG). It sooned reached agreement that while properly-built succession boxes for multi-seat constituencies can be made, not enough editors have been willing to do the very time-consuming work required.

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

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

Then today, Laurel Lodged posted two comments[46][47] to the sub-thread WT:WikiProject Ireland#TD_navboxes:_getting_there. Those comments have nothing whatsoever to do with the refinement of the navboxes, or with any alterative solution. They are pure snark, whose purpose is solely to score points, and to try to stoke a dispute in an otherwise highly productive discussion. So I inserted[48] a new level 2 header above LL's comments, to allow discussion of the navboxes to proceed uninterrupted.

Laurel Lodged's substantive point is that since their 2016 nomination of WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 March 3#Template:S-par/ie/oi those of us now working on the navboxes of us have revised our views, based on our experience of doing the work, and esp from the lack of other editors doing this work. LL seems to think that this learning from experience is a bad idea, and still seems to be unaware that their 2016 TFD nomination was wholly misconstrued: LL's proposed deletion of {{S-par/ie/oi}} would have left the succession boxes in place, just without their header. (I pointed this out[49] in the 2016 discussion).

LL's conduct in that 2016 discussion was terrible. After I demonstrated a solution by adding properly-formatted succession boxes to some articles, LL falsely acused me of attempting to subvert, or at the very least to render moot this discussion by doing a solo run of a load of the boxes for TDs[50] with the edit summary "deplorable&nsp;behaviour". Nobody else supported LL's complaint, and @Wikimucker denounced[51] LL harshly: a User edits articles to give an example of what they are talking about they get swarmed by nutters indiscriminately quoting WP:*.* at them on talk pages all the time. Anyway I highly commend User:BrownHairedGirl for the given examples

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

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

1. The 2016 discussion at WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 March 3#Template:S-par/ie/oi showed disruption by LL:
   • a nomination which coud not resolve the problem asserted. As I noted above, LL's proposed deletion of {{S-par/ie/oi}} would have left the contested succession boxes in place, just without their header.
   • a bogus allegation by LL that I engaged in deplorable behaviour[52] by creating examples of succession boxes which resolved the problem described by LL. That's why Wikimucker referred to LL as an example of nutters.[53]
   • LL's continued hostility[54] to my demonstration of a fix, even after 3 editors (NSH002, Wikimucker & Bastun) supported BHG's efforts.
     • LL's comment in the same edit An Admin has spoken, causa finita est, which falsely suggests that I used admin powers or status, and tries to smear me as some sort of Roman commander.
2. The disruption in today's material is in two parts, as I explained in my initial post:
   • LL disrupted the sub-thread WT:WikiProject Ireland#TD_navboxes:_getting_there by posting comments which had nothing whatsoever to do with the refinement of the navboxes, or with any alternative solution. They were wholly off-topic to that discusion.
   • LL's posts today included unhelpful and misleading snark: The positions taken then versus now are amusing and instructive.[55] Remarks like that do not in any way help anyone to agree and build better solutions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  And yes, you have made your threat absolutely clear.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please read the LL's two edits[56] together.

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

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

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

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

As @Spleodrach replied to LL this evening, If Laurel Lodged has nothing construtive to add then perhaps they should bow out of the discussion[57] BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Resumed disruption by Laurel Lodged

Laurel Lodged (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has returned to WT:WikiProject Ireland#Comment_on_previous_debate_about_succession_boxes, to post more snark.[58]

Yet again the snark is accompanied by no understanding of the issues, as I noted in reply.[59]

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

Laurel Lodged is still sniping away at WT:WikiProject Ireland#Comment_on_previous_debate_about_succession_boxes: see [60].

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

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

Now what

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Unsubstantiated accusations of tag teaming are uncivil."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BrownHairedGirl blocked

BHG has been blocked for 48 hours by User:Paul August as a "community sanction" for apparently breaching the civility ban imposed in 2021 [61], despite the fact that there does not appear to be any community asking for a block here (which whilst not strictly necessary, you would expect there to have been rather than a block out of the blue). Since he did not bother to leave a block notice on BHGs talkpage, however, it is uncertain which edits he has actually blocked for. Quite apart from those two issues, this seems to me to be a spectacularly tone-deaf block given that BHG is taking part in this thread and on the case page at ArbCom. I would merely note that this is only Paul August's second block in three years. Black Kite (talk) 13:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

People here are proving my wikifriend theory more and more everyday. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 17:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Community consensus

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

---

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

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

• This was a potentially bad block and an even worse unblock. @Courcelles: can you explain how a discussion lasting 1 hour was determined to be a valid community consensus, thank you. --qedk (t 愛 c) 17:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive editing by Chamaemelum

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

---

(Given the exigent editing by Chamaemelum even while these discussions are onongoing, I am going ahead and closing this thread with the unanimous evident consensus that Chamaemelum is indefinitely topic banned by the community from aspartame/alternative medicine topics, broadly construed. Standard UNBAN conditions apply. Thank you, Lourdes 12:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC))

• I have reopened this discussion to allow the community to explore whether the scope of the ban should be extended to include all medical related topics, broadly construed. Thanks, Lourdes 04:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

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

This novice user (< 1500 edits since first in April) has been highly disruptive on Aspartame, warring against talk page consensus, and an admin revision (29 June, DMacks) with page protection (1 July); examples (among numerous in article history):

• [62]
• [63]
• [64]
• [65].

On Talk:Aspartame, the user has been warring against comments and clear rebuttals by several experienced editors; examples:

• Tgeorgescu - [66]
• Draken Bowser - [67]
• Psychologist Guy - [68]
• Valjean - here and here
• acknowledging that consensus was opposed, here, but continued warring on the article and talk page
• encouraging blog trivia and even trying to dispute WP:NOTFORUM with this.

The user has been warned for disruptive editing by several talk page notices.

• Support WP:TBAN on the aspartame and related articles. Zefr (talk) 03:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I caused page protection by posting on a noticeboard to prevent edit warring due to a recent series of reverts he made. I first added the news story, which was widely reported as fact (~100 media outlets), that the WHO is reclassifying aspartame into possibly carcinogenic. Once I concluded this was not reliable (the result of "possibly carcinogenic", not the reclassification consideration) despite widespread secondary coverage, I instead added the non-disputed, also widely reported (including on the WHO's website) fact that they are considering reclassifying aspartame. This was in response to confused editors wondering why there was no mention of it. To be clear, at no point did I advocate for saying aspartame is unsafe or causes cancer, and I believe it doesn't, though I and multiple other users thought the widespread factual coverage of the WHO's reclassification was notable enough for inclusion.

Multiple editors (e.g., WhatamIdoing, Little pob, cdh1001, TypistMonkey, many IP addresses, and countless other editors who made edits but didn't use the talk page) were on the side of the inclusion, and multiple were on the side of the deletion of the excluded content. There was no consensus.

I repeatedly tried to open a dialog with Zefr, for example regarding the POV tag, but he didn't respond, instead removing it. The edits linked by Zefr [69] [70] show me deleting or rephrasing (to be closer to the source text) a non-independent source written entirely by a current employee of Cadbury about sweeteners. Per the talk page and my edits, I always tried to facilitate discussion to avoid editing disputes. Zefr said I acknowledged consensus was opposed but "continued warring" here [71]. This was in response to the comment "I think it would be appropriate to mention the certain facts, namely that a review will be happening. Just mentioning this fact (which is an "event", not Wikipedia:Biomedical information). . . ," by WhatamIdoing, and my comment intended to indicate a willingness to compromise "if" consensus was reached; it is not a claim about current consensus (indeed, multiple users had a dispute in that thread). I understand and respect the rules against disruptive editing and it's never my intention to go against consensus. I shouldn't have mentioned the trivia [72]; I was just surprised to see a peer-reviewed article about a Wikipedia user. Many of my edits or comments such as this [73] should be read in context of the discussion on the talk page. I left warnings on Zefr's talk page relating to edit warring (many reverts of multiple editors), improper template removal while declining discuss ([74][75][76][77][78][79]), and deleting others' talk page comments that have relevance to the article ([80][81][82]) or article discussions [83]. Because of the widespread nature of Zefr's disruptive editing here, but also with many other users on aspartame, I think it would be wise to consider Zefr in addition to myself in this report. Of course, I am also happy to revise my editing approach as necessary. Chamaemelum (talk) 05:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is very hard to take that final sentence at face value due to a general inability to understand and listen to consensus over the last few days. Draken Bowser (talk) 06:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for Chamaemelum on aspartame and related articles. It seems to me that this is simply classic WP:IDHT. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 06:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
• Why the hurry, Chamaemelum? Just wait a week or two for the report to be published and we can then report accurate information, rather than selective speculation by the media. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I agree. If I remember correctly, only my first edit was an attempt to include this media speculation. Afterward, I wanted to include only the information on the WHO's website regarding the situation (not related to the decision leak), and I still could wait with that, too. Chamaemelum (talk) 08:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support at a minimum whatever it takes to get them off the Aspartame/talk for the next few weeks. They moved from edit-warring on article, to talk-page discussion with substantial comments not directly aimed at improving the article, to now edit-warring on the talkpage over a discussion about a discussion about a disucssion that isn't directly about the article. I have not looked closely at their edits beyond that page and its talk to see if there is a wider problem. But I note that disruption of the article resumed after protection lapsed. DMacks (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Based on spread of edits and parallel disruptive behavior that is continuing even now, I now support TBAN on medical-related. DMacks (talk) 23:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
    • Upgraded !vote later. DMacks (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support WP:TBAN. Unacceptable behaviour on the Aspartame article and talk-page from Chamaemelum. The same user has also made some bad edits on the red meat article, including copyrighted material. There seems to be a theme here of ignoring scientific consensus and what mainstream health authorities say, and ignoring advice from other users. Off-site Chamaemelum has been doing some research into Zefr's Wikipedia account and pasting in various websites. This is not outing because of anonymous account names but this has been done to me in the past and it is not very pleasant. I do not think that was being done in good faith. The user has also edited articles and talk-pages related to Water fluoridation, Ephebophilia, child sexuality, criticism of Islam, the age of Aisha, irreducible complexity, Innocence of Muslims, Richard Lewontin and articles related to race and intelligence. I have never edited any of these articles, I find it odd a brand new user would start editing all of these controversial topics within the space of a month. The user has posted that they had an older account on Wikipedia. This is definitely not a new user. My advice would be to edit non-controversial topics for a while and stay out of drama and edit-wars. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  I absolutely did not post Zefr's name into any offline website in any shape or form. It's offensive and wrong that you accuse me of that, and I would never react that way over a simple disputed edit. Chamaemelum (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  I think you might have misread that sentence, it says pasting not posting. Draken Bowser (talk) 22:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  Pasting implies posting: for the paste to be published it must be posted. I mean "in any shape or form" which means no even tangentially related activity that could in any way be construed as something close to pasting Zefr's Wikipedia account in various websites. Chamaemelum (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  You have misunderstood what I wrote. I was referring to websites you pasted onto Wikipedia, I never claimed you were writing stuff off this website. I would agree with others users here including the user below. This is a massive time sink. Lot's of time has been wasted addressing concerns about your editing. I also have a bad feeling you are a returning banned user. I will not be responding again. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Chamaemelum: frankly IMO Psychologist Guy and Zefr and whoever else dealt with your talk pages posts have been very generous IMO. What you did seems to be a clear cut violation of Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment. Please do not make such posts again. If you have evidence of an editor behaving inappropriately, post about it in an appropriate place using only on-wiki evidence, not based on what someone else has said in some other site. An exception would be if there is some serious discussion of including the content in some article, but that clearly wasn't the case here. Nil Einne (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  Just to be clear, I never posted external links relating to an editor on the aspartame talk page. Chamaemelum (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yet, even though other editors deleted it and explained why in their edit summaries, you insisted on edit warring over it and restoring the negative content about another editor found off-wiki. That's a serious BLP violation. Editors here should not be harassed, and we get literal and serious death threats, so your actions were seriously bad. So far I think you are a net negative here and am seriously wondering if you shouldn't just be site banned as a massive time sink. When you meet resistance from other editors, and that is often in the form of a revert, immediately stop. Don't persist or repeat. If it's important to you, then start a discussion, but that brings us back to where much of your disruption has been. It is in many and long discussions on talk pages. Your IDHT behavior wastes our time on long and fruitless talk page discussions. SMH. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:52, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  The comment which was deleted included discussion about the article. My proposal, to paraphrase the intent of the comment while deleting the link, was reasonable. Chamaemelum (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Chamaemelum: I admit, I missed that it wasn't you who initially added the link and so I apologise my comment was not as clear as it should have been. However your claim "I never posted external links relating to an editor on the aspartame talk page" is still bull. You reverted the removal of the comment wholesale which included adding back the link at least three times. Your reversions are still visible in the edit history clear as day. I'm not going to link to it since unlike you, I do not believe in contributing to off-wiki harassment, but these include 1164101590, 1164112776, 1164123422. If you are claiming someone else took control of your account and made the reversion, then your account needs to be blocked until we can be sure you have full control over your account. If you are not making such a claim, then please understand you are responsible for your all edits made via your account, which includes any harassment, BLP violations, or whatever else you choose to revert. While it's accepted that sometimes editors may sometimes inadvertently make mistakes e.g. add back BLP violations mistaking their removal for vandalism, in this case having done so 3 times and when you were clearly aware there was a problem with the comment, and where the problems with the comment were plainly obvious, there is no excuse for doing it once let alone 3 times. Whatever else you may have proposed, you did make such reversions so please don't come to ANI and try to bullshit us. And BTW, your highly belated proposal is still highly flawed. Removing the link is not sufficient. Again, either report the alleged inappropriate behaviour somewhere suitable which would not be an article talk page using only on-wiki evidence, or don't. But don't bring what other people on other sites have said about editors into the discussion unless you are proposing that we add this to some article. Nil Einne (talk) 18:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I reverted the deletion of a comment supporting the inclusion of the WHO's reclassification consideration, and this comment also had a the external link which discusses the editor if you pay to view the article. I have no issue with anyone's "inappropriate behaviour" and I had no desire to keep a link to the peer-reviewed paper which discusses Zefr: my issue was that Zefr, who was against the inclusion of the WHO's reclassification, deleted an opinion he disagreed with off of the talk page without a note that said something like "Comment removed due to unwarrant linked, editor voiced support for the mention of the WHO's reclassification in the article." Notice that the second paragraph, not containing/discussing the link, was deleted as well. Chamaemelum (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. Rschen7754 and I have called this user out for WP:PRODding 1/3 of the Nigerian road articles and, when that did not work out, WP:BLUDGEONING the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A236 highway (Nigeria). The latter discontent was only expressed by me, unless I missed something. Chamaemelum's behavior at the Nigeria national roads and the problems indicated above are extremely time consuming for the WP community that can use its time much better elsewhere. gidonb (talk) 00:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

That's interesting, gidonb, about a month ago, in my regular activity at AFD land, I noticed two editors who were focusing their attention on nominating bios of Nigerian people for deletion consideration. Undoubtedly, there are frequently a lot of poor sources in those articles but it seemed like a very specific focus. I wasn't sure what to make of it and when I contacted one of the editors about an unrelated AFD issue, this activity stopped. I kind of filed it away in case there were problems in the future but your comment brought it back to mind. I'm not suggesting coordination, it's just an odd coincidence. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for being vigilant, Liz, against such threats! In general, the more people AfD or PROD, this affects precision. The only possible exception I presently notice is a user who always addresses sports and refrains from arguing. Someone who compensates the negative effects of quantity by being a subject matter and standards expert. When WP:BLUDGEONING is thrown into the mass PRODding or AfD mix, and it often is, the combination will become a brutal nuisance. This in general. As I mentioned in my responses at the Nigeria A236 AfD, specifically for Africa and many other regions, it is difficult to maintain good coverage, while balancing both quality and quantity. gidonb (talk) 06:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi gidonb,

My comments there (and the PRODs) were due to my not knowing that a local consensus existed, having never interacted with road articles before. I know more now, but at the time I saw it akin to having articles for every individual tollbooth. That was my first deletion discussion and I'm more aware of the best practices now, like not responding to too many comments. I hope we can edit and discuss collaboratively in the future. Chamaemelum (talk) 06:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I reacted to what I saw. If the next encounters will be better, that would be good. gidonb (talk) 06:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from Aspartame and Alternative medicine topics. A huge timesink with RGW, BLP, CIR, and IDHT issues. I suspect (I'm applying an extreme degree of AGF) there are also language issues involved which create misunderstandings. Editing here requires a minimum of English language comprehension. If that is not the case, then the problems are more serious and warrant a Tban, at a minimum. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. These edit wars put unecessary strain on the Enwiki community. gidonb (talk) 15:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
• Not only alternative/aspartame; I'm having a heck of a time with this user at Alzheimer's disease. My sense is that they want to be a good editor, but the amount of damage repair needed at Alzheimer's was a constant over the last few days, and Chamaemelum hasn't gotten yet a good grasp of even how to create a section heading[84] or a good understanding of how to apply WP:MEDMOS or WP:MEDRS. And there are organization, flow, prose issues as well as other (MOS) stylistic problems, along with the introduction of factual errors (Aducanumab was not fully approved, info not supported by source). Alzheimer's is a highly viewed article, and we just can't have factual errors added there. Perhaps this editor should build expertise outside of the medical realm entirely in the meanwhile. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  While I mixed up lecanemab and aducanumab (a single factual error) and some technical concerns (e.g., a different citation format), my overall contributions to the article have been net positive. This include major cleaning up and organization, [85][86], adding information [87][88], and improving misleading/wrong information (late-onset Alzheimer's is not inherited, mutations alter the Aβ42 ratios without increasing Aβ42 generally), etc. I wouldn't think my edits on this page support a ban on all medical articles. Chamaemelum (talk) 19:08, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  One if your own diffs is [89]. I agree with SandyGeorgia that the way you just tacked that on at the beginning didn't really improve that section. Per the talk page, you have been taking on feedback about your edits and trying to improve. I'm concerned though that your comments here suggest you still don't really understand why your edits can be problematic. Nil Einne (talk) 19:52, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  I agree: it's true that I tacked it on, which wasn't great for flow. However, consider how I subsequently improved that section in my following edits. Chamaemelum (talk) 19:59, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on aspartame broadly construed. From their postings on the aspartame talk page and here, it's clear this editor has a great deal of RGW. Further while I appreciate it's always tricky when there are concerns readers may be confused by a lack of information, it seems particularly silly that we're wasting all this effort on something which they agree is likely to be resolved in 1-2 weeks which to be clear includes their long effort to get some mention of the current review in the article. Especially, since as was fairly easy to predict IMO, after a massive spike in the first day, we're now down to about only 3x normal page views [90]. While I am deeply concerned about their apparent blase attitude to links and discussion of off-wiki comments on editors, it's not clear to me a wider topic ban will resolve that. Holding off on further discussing a wider topic ban for now due to EC with Sandy Georgia. Nil Einne (talk) 19:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  I remain concerned. The Genetic section at Alzheimer's is not improved; it was in bad shape to begin with, but it's still quite a jumble of poor flow and organization and confusing text. The research section is also jumbled now. And as I mentioned on talk, the idea that we can compromise on facts is just odd (wrong is wrong). And I only happened across this ANI; it's always troubling to see a user talk page where all past commentary is blanked. It doesn't yet seem that Chamaemelum understands how medical content is built; in their defense, all of the NOTNEWS errors in that discussion were not Chamaemelum's, but their edits made clean up of the errors more difficult (in fact, it still has not been finished). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  I don't believe that one should compromise on facts. That diff was intended to incorporate both perspectives from both you and the other editor to avoid a continuance of the dispute, as these types of compromise edits have been very constructive previously. Chamaemelum (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think it matters what you believe. What matters is what Wikipedia policy is. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• Groan!!! Will it never end? Now they're making nonsensical edits at Multiple chemical sensitivity. A Tban from alternative medicine and all medical topics is really needed and needed yesterday. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  See the diff: [91]; "Although" casts doubt on the following claims by the AMA and WHO. Chamaemelum (talk) 22:19, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  Chamaemelum, stop arguing and start listening to the community. Please. Or you're probably going to get blocked. If I were you, I would voluntarily refrain from making edits to topics related in any way to medicine for a period of several months. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 22:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  Chamaemelum, no, it doesn't. There is no conflict between the existence of debilitating symptoms and the non-recognition of MCS by mainstream medicine. These people present with real and debilitating symptoms which they mistakenly attribute to MCS. Some of those symptoms may be caused by serious conditions and some might be psychosomatic. The long-standing version is accurate. Stop messing with articles at Wikipedia. You're treating this places like your own private website, and you do it at a dizzying pace and complexity that indicates you are likely a block-evading experienced editor. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  I understand these concerns. I will be sure to not argue or revert for my preferred version of an article. I hope, since I believe we have similar worldviews in general and philosophies pertaining to pseudoscience, that you think of my edits more positively than warranting the suggestion of "Stop messing with articles at Wikipedia. Stop all editing. Just disappear." I believe, despite hiccups, that I will be a net-positive contributor. Chamaemelum (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  You are quite determined to push an emerging treatment of marginal benefit with serious risks into the lead of Alzheimer's disease as if it were a standard treatment protocol. I don't think you are getting the message. Talk:Alzheimer's disease#Immunotherapies continued. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  PS, for those unfamiliar with the state of Alzheimer medication research, I'll add here that a) it's a cash cow because of the projected growth in the number of cases due to the aging population, and b) emerging therapies are the subject of intense lobbying by patient advocate groups, resulting in fast-track approvals for drugs with serious adverse affects and unproven benefits. New York Times 1, New York Times 2, BMJ, NPR, CNN, New York Times 3 ARStechnica, Neurology Wikipedia is not a place for WP:ADVOCACY and our medical content should be uncorrupted by it; adding this emerging therapy to the lead is UNDUE. The information is appropriately added to the correct section, but Chamaemelum (having hopefully read all the info on talk), adds it to the lead with sourcing issues, as if it's a standard treatment protocol (maybe we should also add Gingko biloba to the lead then?). This is editing while under ANI scrutiny; I don't believe Chamaemelum should be editing medical topics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Lourdes, SandyGeorgia has expressed legitimate concerns that Chamaemelum should not be editing medical topics, and there are a number of other editors who have similar concerns. Please revise the close and ban accordingly. This editor is a wild bull in a China closet and needs very tight restraints if allowed to edit at all. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Valjean, I have reopened the discussions. Thanks, Lourdes 04:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

---

Beginning here is the discussion of ban of any medical topic or a site-wide full ban, as opposed to the above discussion of an aspartame/alternative medicine ban. Chamaemelum (talk) 07:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

In total, my edits to medical topics have been beneficial to the encyclopedia, and there have been no disruptive editing, policy violations, or edit disputes that warrant a such a complete ban from all medically-related topics.

My track record on medically-related articles is overall positive. See these medically-related articles I created: [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98]

(And many more planned that are off-wiki drafts.)

Or significantly contributed to: [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104]

And numerous contributions, in:

Biomed: [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113]

Maintaining NPOV with people or organizations: [114] [115] [116]

Other: [117] [118]

Including minor edits to accurately represent the (il)legitimacy of fringe pseudoscience: [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] ([126], page at the time: [127]) [128] [129] [130] [131]

And a large number of grammar/other small corrections on medical articles.

SandyGeorgia’s medical-topic criticism comes from the Alzheimer’s disease page: [132]. Look at the difference between the “causes” section before [133] and after [134] my restructuring of the causes section. (Also note that there hasn’t been disruptive editing, long arguments, or edit disputes here.)

Throughout my medical editing and in my interactions with SandyGeorgia, I’ve accepted criticism of my edits and improved them (e.g., citevar), which I will continue to do. I don't claim that all of my edits are flawless.

Being banned from medical topics means I won’t be able to fix pages like this [135].

I hope that my steady, quiet work improving a variety of medical topics is not overshadowed by a single, noisy dispute on aspartame: it would be a clear net-negative to permanently ban all of my future contributions in this regard. Chamaemelum (talk) 07:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Support T-Ban for all Medical Topics — per SandyGeorgia's comments here and on the Alzheimer's Talk Page, this is an advocacy issue. Moreover, it is my opinion that this user's edit count and behavior much more resemble a very experienced Wikipedia editor with an agenda than a 3-month old editor learning the ropes and trying to improve the encyclopedia. Combefere ★ Talk 08:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I added a new FDA approved treatment to the lede--SandyGeorgia pointed out that it is too emerging to be in the lede, which I acknowledged and accept. I don't think a topic ban on all medical topics is the correct response. As I have said before, I am a returning editor: "I had an account a long time ago (I stopped about 8 years ago).... Since then, when I was in college, they forced us to edit Wikipedia instead of giving us assignments for one of my classes." I would be interested to know which agenda I'm suspected of having. Chamaemelum (talk) 08:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

You admit to being a returning editor but don't identify which one. Our concern is whether you are evading a block or ban.

1. Are you the indefinitely blocked editor Rayner111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? That editor was blocked on 15:00, 8 May 2023 by Doug Weller. (User talk:Rayner111 is instructive.)
2. Is J. E. R. Staddon (John Eric Rayner Staddon) your biography?
3. Is Theoretical behaviorism an article you created and have returned to editing under your new username?

While we really like having subject matter experts and published scientists editing here, sometimes they refuse to manage their COI appropriately. We even had to ban a Nobel Prize-winning physicist for this reason. Such achievements do not mean you have more rights than any other editor. Here we are all equal in that regard, and editors who run roughshod over other editors, do not respect WP:PRESERVE by making substantive deletions without discussion, and refuse to collaborate are not worth keeping, regardless if they are God herself. We effing don't need them! They are a huge time sink. We shouldn't have to analyze every single edit they make. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

No. If you believe that's me, investigate further as needed, but don't base a reason for a ban on suspicion. Chamaemelum (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

"when I was in college, they forced us to edit Wikipedia" This would be an example of such an agenda. Again, this is only my opinion, but it seems like you are more interested in meeting some sort of quota than in collaborating constructively with the rest of the community. It is impossible for any of us to know specifically why you are behaving this way (student assignments? paid contributor? CIR? something else?), but the effect is the same regardless: 'like a bull in a china shop' as another editor put it. I would also support a total ban from Wikipedia as it seems to me that you are not interested in collaboration which is a pillar of our project. Combefere ★ Talk 17:46, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Please don't assume that I'm acting in bad faith. That doesn't make sense: I was a student a long time ago, and my edits don't push any sort of "paid" agenda. It would be helpful if my critics would provide diffs to claim that I have "deep state conspiracist views" or are pushing some quota/agenda. Chamaemelum (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support total ban from Wikipedia. Whatever the case, your lack of collaborative skills, CIR issues, and political "deep state" conspiracist views make you unsuitable for editing almost anything here, so I support a complete ban from Wikipedia. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my sole interaction with Chamaemelum has been at Talk:Justyna Zander, where their lengthy rationale was irrelevant to the article's issues, including citing a foreign language wiki that was written by the article's subject, and a reliance on WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST. Probably all of this is beside the point if we're dealing with simple block evasion. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

No foreign language wiki was cited. Chamaemelum (talk) 19:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• Siteban. Enough. Even now, they are trying to control the narrative of the discussion about them, and not understanding that now we are still continuing what began in the now-reopened discussion rather than a "after this point is the start of the discussion" of an already-in-play topic. We've spent enough time here, no matter what we do in one realm just leads to a spread or new problem at some new target. CIR/timesink/sealion, take your pick. DMacks (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
• For reasons including those explained at User talk:Lourdes, I really don't have time for this timesink right now. So one brief observation only; politely interacting on talk does not assuage the concerns-- the proof is in the pudding/edits. I look at the first line only in Chamaemelum's long response above, and I see the CIR issues ... "My track record on medically-related articles is overall positive. See these medically-related articles I created: ... " and from there Cham lists a number of bios including one put up just yesterday in draft space, and they all have the same issues that had to be corrected by others. Medical editors learn quickly about MOS:DOCTOR, yet Cham doesn't take that on board even after creating multiple Dr. So-and-so bios. Something is off here. Cham is now engaging on talk at Alzheimer's, rather than pushing through edits, and that's good; are they engaging overall and listening, or creating work for other editors? I don't think anyone reading of the serious advocacy issues that have plagued Alzheimer medications would be still pushing towards altering text to account for the possibility that these medications may eventually provide, while people who are using them are dying while hoping for a mere few months of cognitive improvement. Spending time on that content is a timesink; wait for the secondary reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support siteban—I had reservations and issues with this editor on the Nigerian road PRODs/AfD, and seeing the rest of the commentary here about other issues, I don't think this editor is here to contribute productively. For the good of the community, I think we should ask this person to leave. Imzadi 1979 → 22:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
• Sadly, I feel like we are banning a high-profile editor. But they have been given enough WP:ROPE. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  • Comment: (This is not an argument against a ban.) I'd like to continue editing on Wikipedia, so I want to make sure I understand what I can do to, frankly, not annoy people and to edit more collaboratively. I'd like to define what the issues are and receive feedback to see if I'm missing or misunderstanding.

  1. Adapt much more quickly to other editor's opinions, or simply drop the argument altogether, regardless of the correctness of the argument or if there is support from other editors. (Relevance: aspartame discussion, A236 highway AfD.)

  2. Make large edits slower or smaller. (Relevance: Alzheimer's disease, highway PROD.)

  • Combining 1 and 2, my plan is to, instead of bold->revert/get reverted->discuss, to do non-bold (to minimize reverts in the first place), get reverted or criticised, move on (don't discuss much if at all). Basically, treat every article like a hot potato: touch it only briefly and drop it quickly.

  3. Pay more attention to detail. (Relevance: SandyGeorgia's mentions of saying "Dr. First Last" instead of "First Last" on new articles, and matching the article-specific citation format.)

  I'm new to medical editing so I won't claim that I will never make a mistake again, but I hope that my proposed strategy will help minimize the frequency and the severity of any future mishaps. Is there any operationalization that I'm missing or misunderstanding? Chamaemelum (talk) 22:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support siteban User is not listening to others, nor acting in good faith, they have now joined WikiProject Medicine [136]. This is not the sort of user that should be editing here. The user has been given so much patience and time from other users but never listens. They are not helping or improving Wikipedia, they are nuisance soaking up users valuable editing time. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Support siteban, this user is not paying attention, the same disruption continues at other articles, and the repetition of the same kinds of issues across multiple topics and articles, even after explanation, is suggestive that they might be using AI to generate content. WP:NOTHERE, and someone else will need to decide whether to fully revert at multiple sclerosis or attempt to salvage something from the 2022 review; I don't have time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

And they've done the same thing at rheumatoid arthritis; that is, contrary to the promise above to make slower and smaller edits, and to pay attention to what they've been told, they've made broad edits introducing non-MEDRS sources; all will need to be checked or the whole thing reverted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Creating articles using book sources without page numbers, sample, Butterscotch Tart. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Adds primary source at Type 2 diabetes, after multiple times having been pointed to WP:MEDRS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I've modified all edits on multiple sclerosis and rheumatoid arthritis to align with MEDRS. I hadn't looked at what counts as biomedical: I read MEDRS thinking that "biomedical" means pertaining to "medicine based on the application of the principles of the natural sciences"; for example, the efficacy of a treatment for a disease. Instead, on Wikipedia, biomedical includes "the molecular or cellular basis of a disease", which I'm now aware of. If my edits are bad, they are easily fixable by a single revert (edit summary, e.g.: MEDRS).

I'll continue to improve the work-in-progress articles I created (the URLs often take you to the specific page; not ideal, I know). Chamaemelum (talk) 11:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: my edits aren't always perfect; however, anyone advocating for a site ban should look at the totality of my edits and articles created to see why they are a strong net-positive contribution. The few edits I have had that I have needed to correct are a small fraction of my 2000+ largely uncontroversial and constructive edits. Chamaemelum (talk) 11:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  Support site ban asap. Since the first edits in April, this user has consumed the energy and time of multiple editors across 818 diverse articles and talk pages. There has been WP:FANATIC editing and talk page behavior that draws others into editorial quicksand. No one can competently provide encyclopedic content across such a range of topics. The Wikipedia project will be just fine without this disruptive user. Zefr (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  Requested close at WP:CR. Combefere ★ Talk 16:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

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

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

I posted about this issue here on this noticeboard but nobody responded to my post: [137]

This user (User:Harmanjit Singh Khalsa123s) continues to disruptively edit Sikh pages, see: [138] , [139]

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

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

Having seen this edit [140], this is vandalism. This is a case of WP:NOTHERE. I would support indef block. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

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

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

User:Bgsu98

User:Bgsu98 A consistent disregard to rules, uses discriminatory language against IP editors and implements changes without taking to the talk page first. Suggesting a warning 2A00:23EE:13F8:30C3:200F:9DEA:4AE5:AD46 (talk) 20:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Diffs please? Anything other than a wild accusation? RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

IP, you have failed to notify Bgsu98 of this discussion. I have done so for you. I would also like to note to passing editors that this entire /64 range has been edit warring on these Big Brother articles, nonstop, without providing sources for their edits. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Online) 20:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

There you go https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_Brother_24_(American_season)&oldid=1164737635 , again probably nothing is going to come of this as you have an attitude also. Wikipedia is made BY everyone FOR everyone. Not just the odd few chronically online editors. Thank you. Sources have been provided. 2A00:23EE:13F8:30C3:200F:9DEA:4AE5:AD46 (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

A passing note to editors that User:Yoshi24517 should not be involved this dispute due to a conflict of interest and biased to the user involved https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bgsu98&oldid=1164739879 "I hate to do this to you" is inappropriate. 2A00:23EE:13F8:30C3:200F:9DEA:4AE5:AD46 (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Making a note here, that the underlying /64 range was blocked by Jauerback for disruptive editing. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Online) 20:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not about to continue an edit war over this nonsense. IP uses the phrase "official title" to refer to "Walked" vis à vis "Quit" or "Withdrew", like there is such a thing as an "official title." Maybe "walked" is a phrase used in the U.K. - the "source" IP provides references only self-evictions from the U.K. version of the show. Here is an example of a source using "quit" in reference to the American version of the show: https://screenrant.com/big-brother-contestant-quit-show/ IP has also edited in bad faith: I offered "withdrew" as a compromise to "quit" since he didn't like "quit" and his response https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_Brother_24_(American_season)&diff=prev&oldid=1164735151was: "We'll [sic] compromise on "Walked", the title that has been used on WikiProject Big Brother for the past twenty years." As if "It's always been that way" is any excuse at all for anything. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree that Bgsu98's comments sound like personal attacks and are inappropriate regardless of the underlying content dispute. Bgsu98 previously cast aspersions against me as well, trying to ban me for sockpuppetry even after Blablubbs's investigation came up negative. I think that Bgsu98 should work on their civility, especially with newcomers.  — Freoh 12:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Per the BRD process, users who find themselves reverted should take it to the talk page, it is not the onus of the reverter to discuss it. The first change was initiated by the IP address in Special:Diff/1164620739, so they should've taken their own advice and headed to the talk page. Don't see anything particularly wrong, even the fly-by-night comment (if we're being really technical it's a non-static IP, so Bgsu98 isn't wrong in that regard). Two diffs in a recent discussion don't point towards a pattern of incivility either X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 22:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying I particularly covered myself in glory here, but in my defense, I had just dealt with an IP editor last week, who also geolocated to the U.K., and who was given a one-year time-out from Wikipedia for disruptive editing on the Dancing on Ice pages. The M.O. was also the same: persistent reversions, staunch "that's the way it's always been" B.S., etc. For all I knew, it was the same editor. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

It would not be unhelpful to extend a bit of empathy in understanding Bgsu98's frustration; personally, I do not see them straying too far from the straight and narrow. An uncooperative user is a handful, registered or not. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 09:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Did you have any evidential basis for assuming it was the same IP editor - or when you say "for all I knew" do you mean you made an un-sourced assumption? Did you stop to consider that mobile internet providers like EE assign the same IP address to multiple users over the course of the same day, or that 21 million UK citizens can/do access the internet via an EE cellular network connection?

Hopefully all you "registered" users can figure out some way of reining in people who try to elevate WP but will never register as users because of the dismally sad ramifications of doing so (aka those "handful[s]" you so detest). 2A00:23EE:1268:522D:D460:320A:BDDD:8B3F (talk) 20:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Do you have diffs to add to this complaint? [141] certainly doesn't seem like it rises to an ANI issue on its own and your statement here seems like it boils down to you having an unrelated grudge against the editor being reported. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 21:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

FYI to admins: The reporting IP here, as well as the one responding above, are A) likely all the same person (they're going onto editor's talk pages connecting complaints that no one else had actually connected yet (see [142]; presumably this is about this ANI filing for totally unrelated IPs) and B) likely a known LTA (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Best known for IP). Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 21:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Talk pages receiving WP:NOTAFORUM violations

I have been patrolling talk pages for quite some time, and I see violations of WP:NOTAFORUM on some of them. There are certain pages that get this treatment more frequently than others, listed below:

• Talk:The View (talk show)
• Talk:Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum
• Talk:English Wikipedia
• Talk:XNXX (the inappropriate discussions it recieves are more on the nonsense side)
• Talk:YouTube
• Talk:TikTok
• Talk:Instagram

I am requesting to any admins who see this and are interested to make edit notices, like this one, to discourage inappropriate discussions (even though they may not do much). Thank you. Zoe Trent Fan🎤💍 20:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

-Removed troll comment. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Online) 23:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Zoe Trent Fan. I recommend that you (and all other editors) remove NOTAFORUM talk page posts on sight, with an edit summary of WP:NOTAFORUM. That's what I do. Cullen328 (talk) 02:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that's my standard. If no one has replied, just delete it with the edit summary pointing to NOTAFORUM. 90% of the time that's the end of it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Request to restore talk page access

Can an admin please restore talk page access to my colleague User:Dancey2 so that they can appeal a block?

My request for this was declined on the talk page in the section User_talk:Dancey2#Confirmed_identity for being out of process, when the request needs to be here at ANI. The user's own request for unblock was declined at UTRS based on need to confirm identity, which I vouch for as I know them personally. Thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 11:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn’t WP:CLEANSTART or WP:SO have been better for an account that got the chop 6 years ago? That Talk Page history’s gonna go against them somewhere down the line. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 12:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Users who may not have a clean start: Any user who has currently active bans, blocks or other sanctions imposed. No, CLEANSTART would not be better for an indeffed editor. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:10, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I vouch for as I know them personally users vouching for others to "confirm identities" is not accepted on wikipedia especially for those vouching the identity of blocked editors. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:17, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

This editor appears to be unable to appeal their ban via the ticket system as they cannot prove they are the original account owner, and they cannot appeal their ban here because their block prevents them. They don't appear to have any option whatsoever. Surely we don't have a system that actually forces banned editors to do exactly what we don't want them to do: open a block-evading sock-puppet in order to appeal a ban, where, if they're honest, they will be instantly re-blocked (and the unban-request summarily dismissed) for being a sock-puppet of a banned account? That would be silly at a truly Yes Minister level. Is there a constructive way out of the dilemma? Elemimele (talk) 12:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Adding some context that Dancey2, in their UTRS appeal, claimed to have been evading the block since February 2022, from an account that has continued to make edits after the appeal was declined. So if Bluerasberry is vouching that Dancey2 is telling the truth when they say that they've been socking for the past year and a half, then I would suggest that the ball is in Dancey2's court in terms of demonstrating a good-faith commitment to following all policies, including WP:SOCK. Dancey2 has not been banned from UTRS, and is able to open a second UTRS appeal (hopefully a more substantive one) when they're ready. DanCherek (talk) 13:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm unsure if it would be accepted or not but emailing the VRT at info-enwikimedia.org explaining , could be a method for confirming identity.

If not then, another account could work, we've allowed socks who no longer have access to their original account to appeal from their newest account before. Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry about all this. I do not think this situation has to be complicated. Anyone please make any specific demand and we will comply. The user got blocked for copyright violation, which is serious but it is also teachable and more easily corrected than a conduct problem. The user wishes to appeal.

As Elemimele says, they have no appeal option right now. They do not have talk page access so they cannot give a public explanation as they prefer. UTRS - the private backstage option - is blocked because of someone requiring them to do WP:Identity verification. Also UTRS has a rate limit for appeals and they are in time out right now, and cannot submit.

Lavalizard101 If my word of personally knowing this user is insufficient to restore their right to appeal on their talk page, then please suggest any method of identity verification and I can have this person do it. The problem is that UTRS is demanding identity verification, but WP:Identity verification is not a standard process.

DanCherek This user is not requesting privacy. Their current account, old account, and public identity can be connected. After being blocked for 7 years they made a new account. I do not think anyone would call that "socking" or "evasion", but yes, the point of this appeal is to connect the accounts and identity. The process that the Wikipedia platform offers for such users is to make a new account, and other options are non-intuitive. Nevertheless, I will support them in expressing understanding of WP:SOCK in their appeal. Since the problem in UTRS was identity, not copyvio, and not socking, I thought to come to the wiki since no one here is asking for the privacy inherent in UTRS.

Matticusmadness I do not see any shame in past violations. If someone was blocked years ago and they do confession and contrition then I see no reason for them to carry guilt or for the wiki community to shame them. Whenever possible, I encourage appealing blocks through the standard process.

Again, suggest any process, and I will support my colleague in applying. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

emailing the VRT at info-enwikimedia.org explaining [the situation], could be a method for confirming identity. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I emailed VRT! See the message at ticket:2023071210009396. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• This is clearly wrong. A sysop should restore this user's access to their own talk page for the duration of their block appeal.—S Marshall T/C 08:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Matticusmadness, Lavalizard101, Elemimele, DanCherek, and Writ Keeper: Can I please ask for reconsideration of my original request to unblock this person's user talk page so that they can engage in on-wiki appeal?

At VRT in the ticket linked above the agent found the request to be out of scope, and I think it is. The cause of the problem as I understand it is that UTRS perceived phishing strangeness in an unblock request for a 17-year old account, blocked for 7 years for copyvio. We could do another UTRS request, but I think the privacy of UTRS has scared some reviewers in the appeal process so being public on-wiki is preferable.

The harm to mitigate here is the danger of a user posting on their talk page while multiple people observe them. I see this as low risk. If no one expresses a concern, can someone either unblock for the appeal or make a specific request for what we can do to merit the unblock? Bluerasberry (talk) 14:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Considering that, according to the username they gave in the (underwhelming) UTRS appeal, they were still evading their block as of two weeks ago, I'm not particularly compelled. To be clear--the identity question about UTRS is because it looks like a joe job to get the account named as the sockpuppet blocked. If your friend is really interested in playing by the rules, rather than using Wikipedia as their own personal playground, then they'd need to first do something like making a single edit to the sock account's user page to confirm that they have control over that account. Then, the sock can be blocked, and we can go from there; I personally would be all right with restoring talk page access after that. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:10, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

This one’s tricky because CU’s got no Tech data to go off of (7 years, it’ll all be loooong  Stale) and behavioural can’t be used because they can’t edit in the here and now. I for one, am making a judgement call here, on quotes from requester, and from someone I think is on the UTRS List (that means you, Writ)

UTRS perceived phishing strangeness in an unblock request for a 17-year old account

And as per Writ:

they were still evading their block as of two weeks ago,

it looks like a joe job to get the account named as the sockpuppet blocked.

So that’s a Oh HAIL no! from me, chief! I like Writ’s idea, though.

Also, trout me if y’all must, for ‘dim idea of the day that we all already thought of’, but has anyone checked that Blue isn’t compromised? Trying to vouch for a 7 year blocked account, isn’t… normal, I think?

On a last note, that ‘Identity Verification’ page’s piece about Twitter’s Blue checkmark meaning ‘Verified’ is just asking for trouble. ‘Block the Blue’ ring a bell to anyone? MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 11:39, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

They were socking as recently as June 30 as HappyBear5000. Courcelles (talk) 01:12, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

That's enough for me to say this discussion can end now. RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:16, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Fortnitegamer3432 repeated additions of unreliable sources

Fortnitegamer3432 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has already been blocked once for personal attacks. Requesting block from article space due to failure to understand WP:RS policies per WP:CIR. Despite already having been warned that social media (reddit) is not RS, this user continues to create articles cited to unreliable sources, and to copy content from other articles without attribution, creating multiple low quality content forks that have been reverted. The user used an AI generated source (rebellionresearch.com) and unreliable Youtube video to create this article, and cited an unverifiable facebook page in this edit.

In addition, numerous articles created by this user are unattributed machine translations from Russian wikipedia such as Armed Forces of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, and the user has made no effort to copy edit the page. The user also fails to copy content without verifying that references actually support it, for example Afghan Army (1978-1992) has blatant factual errors in the lead (the name of the military itself) that are not supported by the references cited, demonstrating failure to read references. Kges1901 (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

the Afghan Army was litterly called the Afghan National Army in the 80s my friends grandfather and multiple uncles served, what's your source buddy? Fortnitegamer3432 (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately sources must be from published sources, so that other editors can verify the information. Friends, grandfather's and uncles can't be used a sources. You'll need to find published sources for your changes. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

the sources i cited in the articles litterly referred to the Afghan Army as "Afghan National Army" Fortnitegamer3432 (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

They refer to the Afghan National Army of the 21st century only as the ANA, while the sources cited refer to the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan's army as the Afghan Army or DRA Army. Kges1901 (talk) 19:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I would also like to register my concerns about Fortnightgamer3432 and his use of unreliable and AI sources. He is also creating non-standard categories. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

He is also creating images which have false attribution templates: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Afghan_Ministry_of_Defense_Emblem_1978-1992.png. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I talked to my friend and also looked at some sources from Pre 1993 and I misinterpreted him. mb you're right about the name Fortnitegamer3432 (talk) 03:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I’d have WP:UNCONF concerns over anyone using ‘Fortnite’, ‘Grand Theft Auto’, ‘Call of Duty’, etc, in their username, under Confusing usernames can often be a red flag for other problems. I mean, we’re in a report at ‘other problems’ central, right now, so the point kind of wrote itself here, no?

Other than that, is this not a whole load of Content Dispute? Or am I missing something here? MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 14:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@MM: There's nothing confusing about having 'Fortnite' in your name? I've seen a lot of vandalism-only accounts with that name, sure; but it's not exactly a deal-breaker. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

MJL? Michael Jackson’s Leader?! Big fan of ‘Man in the Mirror!’

Jokes aside, I was more focused on Some usernames appear problematic without fitting clearly into any of the above categories. and Confusing usernames can often be a red flag for other problems. ^{(the latter? Well, where are we having this conversation, Yaknow?)} rather than This is often the case with confusing or extremely lengthy usernames and if their confusing username contributes to the disruption._{(Please correct me if I’m misinterpreting you. It’s important to acknowledge and understand others’ POV, right?)}

if someone else thinks you’re right, I’ll happily step down, and strikethrough. Cool? MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 12:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Taisho79 vandalism and uncivil

Persistent contrafactual editing by Taisho79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Uncivil and edit warring, too. Examples:

• TNT Equivalent: Changing numbers contrary to citation: here. After reversion and talk page notification, deleting entire section here. After reversion and 3RR warning: Removing a smaller section here.
• Chelyabinsk meteor: Changing numbers contrary to citation: here. After reversion, removing statement entirely: here
• Orders of magnitude (energy): Changing numbers contrary to citation: here. After reversion, removing section entirely: here

Uncivil behaviour on talk page: hereand here. Tarl N. (discuss) 18:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Nice insults by Taisho… Could a mop wade in, please? MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 13:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, all the problematic edits have since been reverted (by other editors, I wasn't going to deal with them any more), and Taisho79 seems to have stopped editing since the ANI notification. Tarl N. (discuss) 07:49, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

User:AlphabetFIXER making mass edits and refusing to communicate

User:AlphabetFIXER (contribs) started editing in June. Their edits have quickly become disruptive; they seem allergic to using the preview button and make massive numbers of small edits (here's 26 small edits in 13 minutes, here's SEVENTY straight edits adding all sorts of trivial and unencyclopedic information. Their talk page is littered with warnings and pleas to at least communicate from 5 editors including myself, all of which have fallen on deaf ears. An indef block is necessary here to stop their disruptive edits, essentially all of which contradict the MOS. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Seems like classic WP:RADAR behavior, having a closer look now. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I've partially blocked them from article space, which appears to be the only namespace they have edited in, and informed them that they can and should comment here if they wish to be unblocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. (I’m late joining the discussion here because I had a long day yesterday—my wife had surgery—and I turned in pretty early last night.) I don’t have anything to add to the several comments I left on the user's talk page, the final two of which regarding state abbreviations seem to me to demonstrate the crux of the issue about the combination of pointless edits and ignoring other users' comments. I suppose I also find it frustrating that, as noted in my original comment there, the user's edit summaries aren’t useful, but at least now that the user has settled into a semi-predictable pattern of mostly adding state postal abbreviations it's easier than it was at first to figure out what’s going on. I’m inherently skeptical of edit summaries that say "added word" or "added content" because over the years I’ve come to associate those with vandalism, but at least "added state" has come to reflect a pattern in this user's case. 1995hoo (talk) 11:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Another rangeblock needed for Youngstown music vandal

• Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Youngstown music vandal
• 174.251.192.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Youngstown music vandal is an ongoing problem. The range Special:Contributions/2603:6011:5401:34A7:0:0:0:0/64 was recently blocked for a month, but the person is evading that block by using IP4 addresses. To me, it looks like the range Special:Contributions/174.251.192.0/19 would cover the problem, with just a minor amount of collateral. Perhaps a smaller rangeblock could be crafted. Below are the involved IP6s from the last four weeks. Binksternet (talk) 01:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• ‎174.251.209.214 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 174.251.209.255 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• ‎174.251.208.72 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 174.251.209.148 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• ‎174.251.192.67 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• ‎174.251.192.31 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• ‎174.251.208.243 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• ‎174.251.192.62 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• ‎‎174.251.209.136 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• ‎174.251.209.50‎ (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• ‎‎174.251.209.139‎ (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

I blocked 174.251.192.0/19 for a month. Johnuniq (talk) 05:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Perfect. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 17:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/142.134.96.119

Special:Contributions/142.134.96.119 has been making track list changes which are disruptive as the editor has had it explained to them why they are incorrect, yet continues to make them. I don't think AIV is appropriate as its not vandalism. I believe a short block of a week (24 hrs is not enough as the edits have been sporadic over 3 days) may be needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lavalizard101 (talk • contribs) 11:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Hello, at least go add the topic at the top of the screen and inform the IP address. Also don't forget to sign using four tlides. ToadetteEdit ^(chat)/ _(logs) 12:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Copy vio

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

Some of the IP addresses are -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consistent low-quality edits from 2804:1054:3015:EE90::/64

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

---

contributions

This IP range has been making consistent low-quality edits for about 11 days. Most edits are on the topic of language. About 70% have been reverted; others have required fixing due to, for example, disambiguation links added.

It seems like they mean well FWIW, but their changes have been minor improvements at best, with most others being degradations, some even incomprehensible like for example linking the page Glasgow dialect back to itself under the word "Scots", which is not the same thing (diff).

Mutt Lunker has been involved in reverting a bunch of their edits; see contributions and Ctrl+F for "rv mass". I've done a bunch of the others.

I'm not quite sure how to post a warning for a whole IP range, but I've already put warnings on two of the IP talk pages (1, 2), and I'll put an {{ANI-notice}} on the most recently-used IP.
— W.andrea (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Possibly a bkf ip clone. Blocked for now. Thanks for the report. Lourdes 16:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. What's a "bkf ip clone"? — W.andrea (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:BKFIP MrOllie (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

There is the ring of familiarity about a prolific language topic editor in the broad geolocation, no edit summaries, evident scant understanding of the subjects they are addressing and either a poor grasp of English or a failure to read back their edits in the full context before publishing. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Mutt Lunker @Lourdes This is WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Helivelto, a Brazilian editor that makes disruptive edits to articles/redirects with particular focus on Scotland, Ireland and Americans. 2804:1054:3010::/44 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has just come off a 1 year range block due to disruption from this editor [143], since the same person seems to be using it to continue the same disruption may I suggest that the block should be reinstated? 192.76.8.82 (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

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

Range around 197.144.98.197

Moved from User talk:ToBeFree

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

197.144.64.0/18 (range copied from WHOIS) has a history of removing content without explanation going back to 19 February. Please block whichever range is responsible for this.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

They apparently also edit from 105.71.145.0/24 but that range hasn't been active for awhile.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Now I see that I've interacted with them before.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I guess 197.147.0.0/18 is also them.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, well, well. I found a blocked proxy with the same MO.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Skywatcher68, I'll move this to ANI as I usually don't create rangeblocks of this size in response to a talk page request. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

User repeatedly adding unsourced content to articles for years

I have filed a complaint on the Conflict of Interest noticeboard on 8 July [144] but no other user has helped with the issue, I have also left warning templates on the user's talk page but they have continued adding original research. I have also posted on the talk-page of the article but the user has not replied.

Wmdarrow has been editing Werner Hegemann for the last 8 years slowly adding unsourced material like this [145]. Wmdarrow has claimed that Werner Hegemann is his grandfather [146]. Unfortunately this user has been adding unsourced original research to the article for years, he has reverted me many times but does not leave an edit summary. I have explained to him about WP:OR but he does not listen. Only in the last two days has he added two sources but I have checked one of them out and it is not accurate. This user's preferred version of the article was this many times [147] but all the content he was adding is unsourced. Before they started editing the article, everything on it was sourced [148]. The current version still contains some of their unsourced material which he restored. He is also adding large chunks of text that do not support the source and is adding duplicated material [149].

There is no cooperation from this user, no apology for repeatedly adding unsourced content. When the unsourced and unreliable content is removed it goes back onto the article. The user is using his grandfather's Wikipedia article to add his own personal historical research. On his talk page he has accused me of "gas-lighting" and "stalking" him and elsewhere has claimed I am trying to expunge his "research" which is not in good faith [150], [151]. There are too many things wrong here. I believe this user should be blocked from editing the article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Going through Wmdarrow's problematic editing. Almost every edit he has made to Wikipedia is unsourced. Just one of hundreds of examples at Fort Vengeance Monument Site [152], Anatolia College in Merzifon [153], George M. Darrow [154], Karl Eugen Guthe [155], Ernst Illing [156]. Another at James M. Hinds [157] who he also claims was a distant relative "James Hinds has been of interest since I discovered that he was the brother of my great-great-grandmother." [158]. There seems to be a long-term violation here of WP:OR. I seek admin advice about how this can be handled. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

Unfortunately, Wmdarrow doesn't give the full story about his edits. In most cases he doesn't source content that he has added to Wikipedia. On occasion it is true, he has added a book or paper but he puts it directly in the references section without any linkage to the text he has added and doesn't add specific page numbers. I have listed examples above where he added entirely unsourced content, many others could be cited. The outcome is unsourced content being added by Wmdarrow to Wikipedia on many articles, so it is long-term abuse as he is damaging articles by adding original research. These are not isolated examples, it has been going on for years so it cannot be dismissed as a one off mistake. More examples at Constitution of Arkansas [159], Frederic C. Howe [160], Peter T. Washburn [161], Elisha Baxter [162] and Guy W. Calissi [163]. Wmdarrow will sometimes add between 5 and 8 lines of text entirely unsourced or sometimes just one line (the latter examples). Unfortunately his unsourced content has remained on many of these articles. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Another issue with Wmdarrow's editing has been his addition of unsourced material about James M. Hinds to 6 articles, examples of that here [164], [165]. This isn't just original research there seems to be a conflict of interest here, as he claims Hinds is a distant relative of his. As for his edits on the James M. Hinds article almost every edit he has made to that article since 2013 has been unsourced material like this [166], [167]. Which ever way you look at it, this is not good editing. He says above that he "published a scholarly paper on the subject in the Arkansas Historical Quarterly", by this he is referring to his 2015 paper, which he has added to the article but much of the content he added to the article is still unsourced and there is an obvious conflict of interest here citing his own paper. Wmdarrow has a history of telling other users he has 30 years experience as a lawyer [168]. I do not think that is relevant. I see two serious issues here WP:COI and WP:OR. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

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

I have listed many diffs showing that he has added entirely unsourced content to Wikipedia for years, actually 10 years, it doesn't matter if the content is not unreliable, look at the diffs I provided, there are no sources being added, this is against Wikipedia policy. He's been doing this for 10 years, and it is a problem because many articles need now to be checked. If you look at Cullen328's talk-page - Wmdarrow has already defended himself by claiming oddly that he has never added unsourced content to Wikipedia [169]. You can easily disprove this by looking at the diffs I provided or going through his editing history and looking at all the unsourced content he has added. This isn't just about adding original research, he's also been adding his own papers to articles, so that is a conflict of interest as well. Psychologist Guy (talk) 09:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Going through the history of the James M. Hinds article, Wmdarrow was using an IP address in 2015 where he added 15 lines of unsourced material [170]. That IP is definitely this user because he has made the same edits on Hinds, Karl Eugen Guthe and Brooks–Baxter War directly before and after Wmdarrow was editing. Psychologist Guy (talk) 09:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

There is also the conflict of interest regarding James M. Hinds (see the diffs I already cited), he seems to be using Wikipedia to insert that person on other articles, another example here [171], he will insert a line about Hinds onto another article but the content is unsourced. He inserted that line about Hinds onto the Ulysses S. Grant article on 8 November 2021. As of 16 July 2023 (today), the information unsourced is still on the article. I have already listed about 6 articles where this has happened. Are you personally going to check all of these articles and remove the original research? Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for citing Beacon Falls, Connecticut, I had not seen his editing on there before. On 16 January 2017, Wmdarrow added around 20 lines of unsourced text to the article [172], he added more the next day [173]. He's made many other unsourced edits on there. Today in July 2023 his unsourced content is still on the article. I believe this issue is severe. I do not want to spend any more of my time looking into this. I would like to see what other admins and editors think. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

Disruptive editing and refusal to engage

I am currently in dispute with WikiEditWaste regarding the content of the Economy of Afghanistan page.

The page is littered with a vast amount of misinformation, that has been noted by myself and three other individuals in the talk. I have since taken steps to remedy this by producing a lengthy explanation in the talk on why I believe this article is promoting misinformation and suggested better alternatives. I also took steps to correct the article. It is highly concerning given the amount of time such misinformation has been left to view, and it also is included on many search engines instant answer functions.

WikiEditWaste believes that their source is accurate, which inflates the size of the Afghan economy 60-fold. The source itself acknowledges this is extremely poor quality data, and I have been told that this source should be taken with skepticism from editors on the [source noticeboard]. They have gone so far as to produce false statistics surrounding nominal GDP, when the article itself only discusses GDP in terms of PPP, and has falsified various parameters such as HDI. All in all, it seems that there is an attempt to produce a heavily biased (and false) article that paints the Afghan economy as far more developed than in reality.

I have attempted to engage in discussion on the talk page, and even on the user page. I have been met with point blank ignorance and continued disruption of the article, which has now been reverted back and forth multiple times over many days without any progress being made.

LeoHoffman (talk) 23:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

WikiEditWaste correction LeoHoffman, this is primarily a content dispute but there may be a behavioral aspect as well. You are required to formally notify the other editor as explained on the top of the edit window on this page. Since you haven't done so, I have done it for you. Let's wait to hear from WikiEditWaste now. Cullen328 (talk) 00:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I think you meant to ping LeoHoffman.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I pinged the wrong editor. Thanks for noticing, Bbb23. Cullen328 (talk) 01:00, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, I thought I'd already done so. Thank you. LeoHoffman (talk) 00:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive POV pushing and aspersion casting by BobNesh

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

I reported BobNesh last month at ANI after he attempted to canvass editors to an RfC at Talk:Battle of Bakhmut in order to influence the outcome of the RfC to change the battle's status to "Russian victory." My complaint specifically focused on his canvassing and subsequent edit warring, during which he removed a comment I left at Talk:Battle of Bakhmut four times. He was blocked for edit warring for 1 month by Cullen328.

BobNesh's block expired around four days ago, and he resumed editing several hours ago, his only contributions being comments at Talk:2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive, where he is pushing the same idea that Ukraine lost the battle of Bakhmut. Constructive comments are of course welcome, but BobNesh's comments are disruptive and don't help improve the article: "Ukrainian Ministry of truth didn't admit it, and NAFO blindly follows their directives.", "Bakhmut as fallen to Russians long time ago, yet that fact is still negated, because is contrary to NAFO agenda", "shameful example of distorting facts and wishful thinking". Apparently, an edit of his was reverted from FGM-148 Javelin, and he proceeded to cast aspersions at the editor(s) who reverted his edit: "NAFO fanboys deleted the entry, claiming that the Russians are not 'legal' operators". After I warned him about this at that talk page, he proceeded to post this comment in response: "Russian victory in Bakhmut is not an idea, it is a fact, no matter how much you hate the reality and the truth.". I again warned him to not cast aspersions, and then a minute later, he said this in response to another comment: "NAFO fanboys have no shame. They will disruptively push their agenda and false claims until the very end."

BobNesh's comments to that talk page involve casting aspersions and making personal attacks by referring to editors he disagrees with as "NAFO fanboys." Editors are welcome to discuss POV issues, but personal attacks are not acceptable. I don't believe BobNesh is here to constructively contribute, and their previous block doesn't seem to have put an end to his personal attacks (which, as can be seen in the ANI report linked to above, included accusations of sockpuppetry). Nythar (💬-🍀) 02:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

It looks like they've since been whacked indef for the community CTOP vio. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 02:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, though I logged it as ARBEE, which overlaps with the community GSRUSUKR. Courcelles (talk) 02:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Community inputs requested: Site-ban of Chamaemelum

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

---

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

Chamaemelum has posted a request on their page that the imposed CBAN has been via consensus of involved editors (as opposed being decided by uninvolved editors, as per the CBAN policy). The discussions on Cham's talk page are provided below (collapsed). I request uninvolved editors to provide their inputs on Cham's appeal, consolidated in the following question:

• Does the community here endorse the consensus reached at Special:Permalink/1165210433#Persistent disruptive editing by Chamaemelum?

Chamaemelum's relevant talk page discussions

Hi @Lourdes, reading the ban policy, it mentions consensus of uninvolved editors of having the ability to impose a ban. Every editor who supported a site ban was involved, so no uninvolved editors voiced support for a site-ban. Are there different process guidelines that I'm missing? Chamaemelum (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC) I was not involved and I supported a siteban. Combefere ★ Talk 21:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC) @Combefere This is true; I missed it at the time. You're the only one. Either way, one or zero editors doesn't seem like an uninvolved consensus. Chamaemelum (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Hello Chamaemelum, please write down the names of editors you believe are involved and at least one diff against each name showing evidence of involvement. Once you do that, I / any administrator will take your request/assessment to ANI and let the community decide on that. Thank you, Lourdes 18:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC) I would like to add a comment saying that although I am banned, the investigation may still be useful because I'm planning to appeal the ban at the appropriate time, but I won't add it if I'm not allowed. Chamaemelum (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Thanks, @Lourdes. Here are the diffs/pages showing involvement: Names and involvement Zefr: select few of many reverts/talk page discussion: [174] [175] [176] Opinion: “Support WP:TBAN on the aspartame and related articles.” “Support site ban asap.” , takes issue with my editing of “diverse articles”. Rockstone35: unrelated editor who did not voice support for site-ban or medical topic ban. Opinion:”STOP” “Support topic ban for Chamaemelum on aspartame and related articles.” DMacks: multiple others; here are a couple [177] [178] [179] [180] Opinion: “Siteban.” Psychologist Guy: around 7 different articles, including: [181] [182] [183] [184] [185] [186] Opinion: Support WP:TBAN due to “behaviour on the Aspartame article and talk-page”, the discussion he was involved in. Then “Support siteban”. Valjean: e.g., [187] [188] [189] [190] Opinion: “Support topic ban from Aspartame and Alternative medicine topics.” “needed yesterday”. “Stop all editing. Just disappear”. ““This editor is a wild bull in a China closet and needs very tight restraints if allowed to edit at all.” * “Support total ban from Wikipedia.” (Note: these comments make it seem that Valjean wants a siteban (as opposed to a topic ban) as a punishment.) Gidonb: multiple comments here [191] (Though we’ve collaborated since then). Opinion: “Support topic ban Imzadi1979: e.g., [192] Opinion: “Support siteban” due to having “reservations and issues with this editor on the Nigerian road PRODs/AfD” SandyGeorgia: e.g.: [193] Opinion: “Support siteban” Nil Einne: uninvolved editor. Opinion: “Support topic ban”, “it's not clear to me a wider topic ban will resolve [issues].” Combefere: uninvolved editor. Opinion: “Support T-Ban for all Medical Topics”, then changed their opinion to “support a total ban” after thinking I was a “paid contributor” or sockpuppet or something. Other clearly involved editors like Draken Bowser, or uninvolved editors, commented but did not voice support for anything. (Even among involved editors, only editors who were against my edits talked on the talk page. Multiple editors (e.g., WhatamIdoing, Little pob, cdh1001, TypistMonkey, many IP addresses), voiced support for my edits but did not see/participate in the discussion.) There isn’t a consensus of uninvolved editors: one voiced hesitancy to a ban broader than a topic ban, the other upgraded to site-ban based off of suspicions that I’m a sockpuppet or paid user. Four of the users based their argument on my ban at least in part on believing I am a blocked sockpuppet user because, which doesn’t seem like a valid reason to count towards consensus. Users who think I'm a sockpuppet Note: I’ve cut out the irrelevant parts of comments. “I also have a bad feeling you are a returning banned user.” Psychologist Guy (talk) You do it at a dizzying pace and complexity that indicates you are likely a block-evading experienced editor. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC) You admit to being a returning editor but don't identify which one. Our concern is whether you are evading a block or ban. Are you the indefinitely blocked editor Rayner111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? That editor was blocked on 15:00, 8 May 2023 by Doug Weller. (User talk:Rayner111 is instructive.) Is J. E. R. Staddon (John Eric Rayner Staddon) your biography? Is Theoretical behaviorism an article you created and have returned to editing under your new username? Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC) Moreover, it is my opinion that this user's edit count and behavior much more resemble a very experienced Wikipedia editor with an agenda than a 3-month old editor learning the ropes and trying to improve the encyclopedia. Combefere ★ Talk Again, this is only my opinion, but it seems like you are more interested in meeting some sort of quota than in collaborating constructively with the rest of the community. It is impossible for any of us to know specifically why you are behaving this way (student assignments? paid contributor? CIR? something else?) Combefere ★ Talk 17:46, 11 July 2023 (UTC) Zefr believes I am a blocked user: [194] [195]

Discussions/Support/Oppose

• Support Siteban Well, this is incredibly annoying Wikilawyering. I am completely uninvolved (other than warning Chamaemelum at ANI that he was about to exhaust the community's patience), and I can't help but feel like this is a waste of time.. Chamaemelum has completely exhausted the patience of the community and is now trying to force us to address this issue again, despite the fact that there's a snowball's chance of the outcome being any different. I don't think the requirement that an editor be uninvolved can always be satisfied anyway. The point of a ban exhausting the community's patience is that it exhausts the patience of those involved and those not. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 06:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support for ban. Something is very fishy, I also suspect that "Chamaemelum" is a returning banned user. Which is per se not a violation, if he has changed his behavior. What is annoying is his method of discussion disrespecting our rules, as mentioned by other users. What makes it suspicious is his POV, shown e. g. here. Suddenly, the user showed up and cited what the sources don't say, not even what his linked source say. Also this kind of new articles (Genetic nurture) are subject to AFD as they violates WP:OR - this is not (yet) established knowledge. --Julius Senegal (talk) 07:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

• It is indeed. I have placed a proposed deletion template on it. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 07:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• If Chamaemelum is a returning banned user, then that actually is a violation, per Wikipedia:Clean_start#Criteria. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support site ban, I was on the fence if one was needed, but as with so many editors Chamaemelum response to the site ban being imposed has convinced me those who supported it were right. Nil Einne (talk) 11:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  Chamaemelum you've misinterpreted my comment. When I said' “it's not clear to me a wider topic ban will resolve” that', I was specifically and intentionally excluding a site ban. A site ban clearly will resolve all issues with your behaviour on Wikipedia for the obvious reason that you cannot continue to cause problems when you are banned. (Well you can if you violate the ban, but that's besides the point. I will never say I don't support banning this editor because they're just going to ignore it and don't think any editor should say that.) I would also note I only said a topic ban would not IMO resolve certain problems with your behaviour I specifically highlighted. I did not say anything else about whether it may help with other problems with your editing that I did not mention. For further clarity at the time, I saw one specific topic where you were clearly causing problems. There was a proposal for alternative medicine but although I was concerned about some of your editing in general including your poor ability to distinguish between what is support by most sources/the main stream, and what has limited support; there was no specific topic I was sufficiently concerned at the time to justify a wider ban whether for alternative medicine or anything else. I actually wrote a bit more on this but then got hit by an EC with SandyGeorgia. SandyGeorgia's comments were enough to raise additional concerns but not enough for me to support anything else so I just said "Holding off on further discussing a wider topic ban for now due to EC with Sandy Georgia" and removed the other stuff I had said. To be clear, I did this because I was beginning to wonder if there was in fact justification for a wider topic ban so my earlier comments saying that I didn't see any reason for a wide topic ban were no longer valid. However my comment on a wider topic ban not resolving some specific problems, remained valid as they do now. Okay I should have removed the "wider" part for clarity but the point remains a topic ban will not IMO have resolved those specific issues since it's not really a specific topic but your continued inability to understand our policies and guidelines that were also a problem. I saw various followups including the thread morphing into a discussion of a siteban. I did not discuss further in part because while I was deeply concerned about the problems highlighted by SandyGeorgia and even more by your response to them, I was not quite convinced we needed to go that far. However I was also not opposed to a siteban, and it seemed clear to me from the discussion that was almost definitely going to be the result, so there was no reason for me to pile on anyway even if I had felt a siteban was definitely needed. So I just did not say anything. But your response to the siteban both in the pointless appeal, and your apparent inability to understand that while a topic ban might not resolve certain issues with someone's behaviour, a siteban clearly would; convinced me. Nil Einne (talk) 11:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

• Chamaemelum's comments on their talk summarizing involved vs. uninvolved editors seems less than accurate. No editor was against sanctions, no editor spoke against a topic ban or a site ban, and several uninvolved editors spoke in favor.
  Uninvolved:

• User:Rockstone35 [196]
• User:Nil Einne [197]
• User:Combefere [198]

I note that the same problematic edits continued across multiple articles during the ANI discussion.

Chamaemelum, you have not answered queries as to whether you are using Atificial Intelligence to write content and responses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll also note that Chamaemelum has claimed to be a returning editor, but has not answered the question: which editor? Combefere ★ Talk 16:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support a massive timesink of IDHT. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support amazingly, the user may actually be correct that there was sufficiently few non-involved editors to demonstrate an adequate consensus for the ban in that discussion. Unfortunately for them, even if I choose to ignore a technically correct complaint as further IDHT evidence, there was so much evidence of CIR, IDHT, fanatic editing, edit warring, listed in the original discussion that us needing to reconfirm it is a pretty quick step. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:44, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support - I don't speak up much at ANI, but since input from clearly non-involved editors is being sought: Their behavior at the various pages linked in the ANI thread certainly supports a topic ban; their behavior in the ANI thread, and afterwards, makes a site ban warranted in my opinion. There is always the ability to appeal. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support siteban again. This user has been spamming junk content into articles at an alarming pace, including 500+ edits in only four days while the ANI was open. However, instead of getting mad or annoyed at the situation, let's all just appreciate the Catch-22 levels of supergenius logic at play:

"The few edits I have had that I have needed to correct are a small fraction of my 2000+ largely uncontroversial and constructive edits."

"Every editor who supported a site ban was involved, so no uninvolved editors voiced support for a site-ban."

Apparently if an editor spams promoted content into our articles so fast that it's impossible to fix it all, then those edits are "uncontroversial." And any editor who does happen to see the problem and raise the alarm is by definition "involved" and can't be a part of the sanction process. I mean, come on, it's funny! I hope this brings a bit of joy into everyone's Friday. Cheers Combefere ★ Talk 15:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

LMAO! Indeed, the catch-22 nature of this is absurd. Of course, involved editors' concerns should also count (IOW, the wording should be changed). -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:22, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support site ban. This needs to stop. Woodroar (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support the ban. Sea lions belong at the water's edge, not in Wikipedia. We also should restate the question by User:Combefere. Asking a question twice is not WP:SEALIONING, even when asked of a otariid. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support site ban. Life is too short to drag this out longer. XOR'easter (talk) 19:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Chamaemelum has said on their talk-page after this is over they are going to appeal their block. This user is a major timesink for other editors. Their entire editing history has been net negative. I suspect this user will not go away until their talk-page is revoked. I can see this going on for a long time as they will likely appeal their block more than once. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support site ban (note, I may be involved). Not only have they been disruptive in the medicine area, but they've also been bludgeoning AfDs for roads (which is where I guess I could say I'm involved as a roads editor). Also, as Psychologist Guy said right above me, this seems like a time sink when we could just revoke their TPA and move on. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:14, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support CBAN - Nothing more to say, except that Wikilawyering should almost never be rewarded. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
• ^{(Definitely not involved, JBL can vouch that all I do is close ANIs.) No offence, Jay)} Support Full Ban, Site Ban, whatever you call it. Nothing I can add, that hasn’t already been said. Wikilawyering, huh? Applied correctly, you could probably get a good job in that stuff, and not need Wikipedia to fill your time, Cham. Just a suggestion. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 13:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support And go away. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support - Pettifogging like this tends to invoke the Law of Unintended Consequences. You complain that your last ban discussion was populated mainly by involved users? Watch as the uninvolved users come to an unanimous consensus to siteban you because it's clear the argument being made isn't in good faith. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 15:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  And as an addendum, revoke talk page as they've made it clear they're going to waste their efforts immediately appealing it, disregarding the whole "ban" part of it. This is more so that they don't waste their time on a no-hope appeal. Leave email access in place for now, and revoke it iff they make abusive or no-hope appeals to admins, UTRS, or ArbCom (though I am certain going down that last path will end with the ban being upgraded). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 15:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  +1 re: TPA. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:14, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• In the immortal words of Bugs Bunny, throw the bum out. Support site ban. oknazevad (talk) 17:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

The tone of quite a few comments in this discussion is not productive; I'm surprised to find myself as the first one to say so. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• Yeah... @Oknazevad, there's no need to call anyone a bum here. And @Matticusmadness, humor at AN/I is always difficult to pull off, and your above comment does not manage that, nor have several past attempts at humor I've seen in your AN/I closes. I'd suggest maintaining a more serious demeanor at AN/I until you have a better sense of the rather nuanced norms as to what is and isn't appropriate here.... Or, better yet, avoiding AN/I entirely. (I have literally never, ever, ever, seen someone regret taking the advice "stay off of AN/I".) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oh come on, we're not a jury considering whether to impose the death penalty here, this is not life and death, it's about whether someone will be allowed to edit an online website or not. It's not all that serious, let's lighten up a little. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support, though I will agree with SandyGeorgia that the tone of some of the commentary is, generously, a little bit past the line. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 04:58, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

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

Continious trolling by blocked IP editing their talk page and keeps making death threats to others

User in question is 101.162.94.218 — Preceding unsigned comment added by IsaacAndHisIsaac (talk • contribs) 09:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

They've been blocked for seven days and shortly after that, their right to edit their own talk page was removed. @IsaacAndHisIsaac: would you mind keeping an eye on this person when the block expires in a week? CityOfSilver 17:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Footwiks, competence is required, and copyvio

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

• Copyvio Copying within Wikipedia without attribution, I apologize :3 F4U (they/it) 11:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC) - Here, copied from here without attribution
• More copyvio - [199]
• [200] No diff because Footwiks makes talk page comments across ... many edits, each of the many comments there are 20-40 edits each, so I'm not really able to provide a single edit (They have made 424 of the last 475 edits to that talk page). There's WP:OWN, not understanding Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines despite multiple explanations, etc.
• Discussion on my talk page Again, I see here a lack of ability/want to understand English Wikipedia policy

Footwiks was previously blocked for competency is required reasons in 2013 after edit warring in football articles against consensus and failing to understand what other editors were telling them. Unblock request here In 2022, Footwiks was brough to ANI again following a copyright violation, where editors tried to explain to Footwiks what they did wrong, and to which Footwiks failed to understand them. (Other ANI incidents: 2012, 2012, 2013, 2021,) What I see here is that despite many many editors trying to explain to Footwiks (who now has amassed over 60,000 edits) basic Wikipedia policy on copyvio, citing sources, etc., Footwiks has demonstrated that it is too difficult for them to read/understand what they are being told. :3 F4U (they/it) 10:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

• (1) Please check out United Kingdom in the Korean War. Memorial section is the tiny part. All contents in the United Kingdom in the Korean War are my own contributions.
• (2) Please check out South Korea in the Korean War. I created this article 10 July 2023, Timeline section, Caualties section, Main Battles section are my own contributions. I copied Order of Battle section from Korean War order of battle. But this Order of Battle don't have ROK Navy, ROK Air Force, ROK Marine Corps. So this weekend, I have a plan to expand this article including Order of Battle section with various statistics soon. Today (14 July 2023), I was expanding the article - South Korea in the Korean War. But other users didn't wait my contributions. Currently, This article is redirected to Korean War article. So I also don't want to wast my precious time to expand this article - South Korea in the Korean War
• (3) F4U is a native Korean Speaker, I'm a South Korean. So I left a message in Korean on talk page. What is the problem?

In my opinion, I didn't breach WP policy to report here.

Footwiks (talk) 11:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

My issue is that editors, including myself, are pointing you towards policy, but I do not see any sign that you are understanding what they are saying. I have no doubt your edits are in good faith, but I find it difficult to find that you can be a productive member on English Wikipedia if you have difficulty understanding what other editors are saying and when they point you towards English Wikipedia policy. I told you on my talk page that in its current state, South Korea in the Korean War was not suitable for article space and that I would be willing to move it to draft state. You responded by telling me to leave it alone. Your messages in Talk:List of military special forces units also demonstrate a lack of ability to provide comprehensible messages that other editors can understand and respond to. And the copyvio demonstrates that previous discussions about disruptive behavior seemingly did not have an impact. :3 F4U (they/it) 11:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

You moved article to draft status. But I politely asked you to keep the status.

So you voluntarily reverted to the original status and I left a thank you message on your talk page.

Please check out conversatons on your talk page. What is the problem? You and me didn't have any disputes.

I really don't understand why you report my actions to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

• Talk with Freedom4u
• Footwiks: 안녕하세요? 혹시 한국인이신가요? South Korea in the Korean War 지금 이 문서 7월 10일에 만들어서 계속 확장 중인데 왜 삭제를 신청하신거죠? 느긋하게 지켜 봐 주시길 부탁드리고 영어와 한국어 네이티브급이라고 쓰여져 있던데 문서 확장하는데 동참해 주시면 더더욱 감사하겠습니다.

(Hello, Are You Korean? I created this article on 10 July, I'm now expanding article. Why do you attach deletion tag?

Please wait and I think that your English is native level, If you expand together, I'll appreciate your contributions.)

• Freedom4u: 아 알겠습니다. 아직 확장 중이라면 Draft: namespace에 넣고 준비가 되면 제출할 수 있습니다.

(I understand what you mean, If you are still expanding this article, Let's move Draft: namespace.)

• Footwiks: 지금 문서 수준이 드래프트 상태는 아닙니다. 제가 계속 업데이트 할 것이고 외국인 유저들도 기여를 할 수 있으니까 그냥 가만히 두시면 감사하겠습니다.

(I think that this article is not draft status. I'm now expanding this article and other foreign user can expand this article, Please keep current status.)

In the middle of this converstaion, Freedom4u moved this article to draft status but he reverted to original status.

• Footwiks: 제 부탁을 들어 주셔서 진심으로 감사합니다.

(Thanks for your favor.)

• Freedom4u: 이 상태에서 이 문서는 WP:Articles for deletion 토론에서 살아나물 가능성이 없습니다. Articles for Creation으로 이동하면 원하는 속도로 적고 Mainspace로 이동할 준비가 되면 다시 이동할 수 있습니다.

(South Korea in the Korean War article can be delete after discussion in WP:Articles for deletion. So I recommend the Articles for Creation.)

End of the talk

Footwiks (talk) 13:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

• I support a WP:CIR block of Footwiks. After reading the evidence above and Talk:List of military special forces units, it's clear that Footwiks either doesn't read, doesn't understand, or simply ignores what they're being told. At that Talk page, they repeatedly insist on South Korean sources over Western sources (because apparently the SK sources are correct and the Western sources aren't), then they have the gall to cite Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth and criticize User:Thewolfchild for attempting to compromise. A competent editor would recognize that this version of an article is clearly not ready for mainspace. Then there's the copyright violations, ownership, edit warring, etc. Woodroar (talk) 14:28, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Their reply to me below is a perfect encapsulation of the CIR issue with Footwiks. I mentioned that I had read Talk:List of military special forces units, then Footwiks asked if I'd read it and pasted comments from the Talk page. It's like talking with a brick wall. That they wrote Please Please listen carefully is ironic when it's evident that they can't or won't do the same. Adjusted and bolded my !vote above. Woodroar (talk) 18:10, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

There's also this 2022 ANI in which Footwiks repeatedly struggled to understand why their copyvio was copyvio (including: believing the only issue was an article title, believing the issue was the source used and not the copying of content from that source, and believing the issue was grammar related). Given that they're still struggling with copyvio after those explanations, I support at least a block that can be lifted with a clear explanation from them, in their own words, that demonstrates a solid understanding of copyright policy. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 16:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@Woodroar: Did you check out thoroughly the long discussion of the Talk:List of military special forces units?

• Yes right, I repeatedly insist that South Korean sources are correct and Western sources aren't.

  I'll explain the reason in detail and Please Please listen carefully.

  Firstly, South Korean sources about 'Spartan 3000' are published on 20 March 2016,

  • (1) Telegraph source (2016-03-21) - Telegraph source have a follow sentence - "according to the Seoul-based news agency Yonhap
  • (2) The Diplomat source (2016-03-24) - "The Diplomat source have a follow sentence - "a South Korean military official revealed to Yonhap News last Sunday."

  Telegraph source (21 March 2016) and The Diplomat source (24 March 2016) cited South Korean Yonhap News Agency (연합뉴스) but original Korean prose (20 March 2016) from source of Yonhap News (연합뉴스) didn't have any sentences and terms - 'Spartan 3000' is the Special Force Unit or Spartan 3000's main task is the Special Operation.", Actually, Yonhap News (연합뉴스) announced that 'Spartan 3000' is the just Quick Maneuver Force (신속기동부대).

But these Western sources announced that Spartan 3000 is a Special Force Unit or Spartan 3000's main task is the Special Operation and these western news outlet's articles are now using as the sources in the List of military special forces units

• (3) New York Times (2017-09-12) NY Times source absolutely didn't have any terms "Spartan 3000" or ROK Marine Corps. NY Times source was definitely not about the "Spartan 3000", NY Times source was about other South Korean Special Force Unit.

In conclusion, "Telegraph and Diplomat sources made a translation errors or intentional journalistic exaggeration, NY Times source are not relevant source about 'Spartan 3000 Unit."

I hope that you understand the issue of this discussion and why I didn't accept compromise in this discussion.

:Discussion participant "Buckshot06" also pointed out the flaws of Western Sources.

I and Buckshot06, We are planning to open discuss again in order to correct wrong information in the List of military special forces units soon.

You were not a participant of this this long discussion and You didn't check out this long discussion throughly. Please don't comment this discussion here.Footwiks (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I was notified of this and then pinged here, so I suppose I should add something. In regards to the comments above, this is not really the place to try and relitigate the specific Spartan 3000 dispute. If people want to know about that, they can read the assosciated talk page discussion, or the subsequent discussion at DRN. On these pages are numerous examples of why people may have difficulties with Footwiks and why Footwiks may have difficulties with Wikipedia, issues that have already been noted by others here. What is not evident, unless you had tried to follow/watchlist these disussions at the time, or unless you check the histories, is Footwiks' refusal to simply use the preview function. For participants this can be problematic, (re: at the DRN, Footwiks made over 470 edits... I made 17). In the Spartan 3000 thread, Footwiks lengthy and often posted repetitive comments that would regularly take up to 30 consecutive edits or more before being complete. They made a total of 424 edits in that one discussion alone... that is a lot of notifications, and often leads to numerous edit conflicts, not to mention the blowing up of related page histories. (Fyi: their final post to that thread was 38,000+kb in size and took 55+ consecutive edits to complete.) I did try to notify this user of the preview function, which one of WP's widely accepted norms, but that just largely ended up like other attempted discussions with them. In closing, I will say that I was initially under the impression that this was a new user, and was surprised to find that (at the time) they had been here for over 13 years and had made 62,000+ edits (this does not count their experience at the ko.wp or others). At this point, I'm not sure what can be done to resolve these issues. - wolf

@Freedom4U: Did you check out thoroughly the long discussion of the Talk:List of military special forces units?

If you read the South Korean sources - "Korean newspaper and official answer from Republic of Korea Marine Corps in this discussion."

You can understand issue of this discussion. In order to finish discussion rapidly. I asked for official answer from Republic of Korea Marine Corps and received it.

But unfortunately, discussion lengthened. In this situation, There is WP:OWN and I don't understanding Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines?

Please check out thoroughly the long discussion of the Talk:List of military special forces units, Especially, You are a native Korean Speaker,

Please South Korean sources - "Korean newspaper and official answer from Republic of Korea Marine Corps in this discussion thoroughly.

• Screenshot of official answer from ROKMC about Spartan 3000

I really understand the sourcing guidelines, Do you know the below the sourcing guidelines?

I discussed in accordance with common this sourcing guidelines.

• Primary, secondary and tertiary sources

Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages

You were not a participant of this this long discussion and You didn't check out this long discussion throughly. Please don't comment this discussion here.Footwiks (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

We cannot accept official answers from the marine corps, or anything similar. Secretlondon (talk) 18:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Official answers is primary sources. I know that Wikipedia prefer secondary source.

Please read this sourcing guideline.

• Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages

Footwiks (talk) 18:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@Dylnuge: Please check out my all contributions From 7 to 14 July.

As you see, I created 3 articles about Korean War and I spended so much my precious time for development of English Wikipedia.

• UN Forces in the Korean War
• Medical support in the Korean War
• United Kingdom in the Korean War

• Belows are sources and I provided new informatin about Korean War in English Wikipedia. That is to say, Most information in my 3 articles are the new information which don't have in existing English Wikipedia article about Korean War.

• • The Statistics of the Korean War - ROK Ministry of National Defense Institute for Military History, 2014 (E-BOOK) (in Korean)
  • The History of the UN Forces in the Korean War-1 ( ETHIOPIA, PHILIPPINES, SOUTH AFRICA, THAILAND, TURKEY) - ROK Ministry of National Defense Institute for Military History, 1972 (E-BOOK)
  • The History of the UN Forces in the Korean War-2 (AUSTRALIA, CANADA, INDIA, NEW ZEALAND, UNITED KINGDOM) - ROK Ministry of National Defense Institute for Military History, 1981 (E-BOOK)
  • The History of the UN Forces in the Korean War-3 (BELGIUM, COLOMBIA, FRANCE, GREECE, LUXEMBOURG, NETHERLANDS, DENMARK, ITALY, NORWAY, SWEDEN) - ROK Ministry of National Defense Institute for Military History, 1974 (E-BOOK)

I immersed myself in creating articles with new information for 7 days for development of WP. But tiny part is copyvio, Yes, It's my mistake, Wikipedia want to block me? I am deeply disappointed.Footwiks (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I believe that your intentions are good. The problem is that copyvio can't be a "tiny part" of your contributions. It should be none of them. I'm not an admin, so I can't see the deleted diffs from 14 July, but it sounds like you're not contesting that those edits included copyvio. Between this and the warnings you got in December, I support a block indefinitely with any unblock being contingent on (at the least) your ability to demonstrate a clear understanding of the copyright policy. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 00:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

A Wikipedia exists in Korean. See this. Perhaps you’ll be more ‘at home’ there. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 17:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@Matticusmadness I don't think that this comment is necessary, as they are also a prolific creator on there with around 70k edits. :3 F4U (they/it) 17:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I tried to mediate the dispute over List of military special forces units. User:thewolfchild has provided a link to that proceeding, and I will provide it again for the convenience of editors taking part in this inconvenient case: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_232#List_of_military_special_forces_units. If an editor tries to read it and concludes that they can't understand what the problem was because User:Footwiks's posts are so long and unfocused, they do understand what a major part of the problem was, which is that User:Footwiks was unable to comply with my instruction to be concise. I do not think that User:Footwiks understood the nature of DRN, because they, more than once, appealed to my editorial judgment and common sense. I try to mediate using common sense, but at DRN I am not an editorial judge. It was sometimes impossible to follow the lengthy posts by Footwiks that too often were a confusing mix of Korean and English translation, and made heavy use of bold face in a way that did not provide emphasis so much as distraction.

The mediation almost didn't happen, because I told Footwiks to notify the other editors, and they said first that they had notified them, and then that they decided not to post to the talk page of thewolfchild because they seemed angry or about to be made angry. Again, they didn't seem to understand.

Unfortunately, this editor seems to be a time sink. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I really apologize for my mistake of copyvio. If administrators give me a chance to contribute on Wikipedia, I'll strictly comply with the rules of Wikipedia:Copyright violations

But I have something to tell all Administrators about breach of sourcing guidelines. Freedom4U misunderstood the situations in the [Spartan 3000 Unit discussion

user:Freedom4U reported here as belows

"There's WP:OWN, not understanding Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines despite multiple explanations, etc."

I absolutely can't accept this report of user:Freedom4U.

Currently, ROK Marine Corps 'Spartan 3000 Unit' is on the List of military special forces units and User:thewolfchild attached Western sources.

Let's check out below 2 sources which attached by User:thewolfchild

(1) Telegraph source (2016-03-21) - Telegraph source have a follow sentence: "South Korea has formed an elite force of 3,000 marines which is poised to carry out raids inside North Korea (in 2016)

(2) New York Times (2017-09-12) - NY Times source have a follow sentence: the South Korean defense minister, Song Young-moo, told lawmakers in Seoul that a special forces brigade defense officials described as a decapitation unit" would be established by the end of the year (end of the 2017).

If NY Times source is really about ROK Marine Corps "Spartan 3000" Unit, How can ROKMC establish the unit (brigade-level) with by the end of 2017?, "Spartan 3000" was already fully formed in March 2016 (based on Telegraph). Actually, South Korean Defense Minister Song Young-moo told creation of Decapitation Unit (참수부대) on 4 September 2017 ([source]) and other ROK Army Special Force Unit - "13th Special Mission Brigade / Decapitation Unit (참수부대)" was really formed in December 2017 ([source]

In chronological order, two sources are saying contradicting facts, also, Please find the term "Spartan 3000" in the whole prose from NY Times sourse.

NY Times source didn't have the term "Spartan 3000" or ROK Marine Corps.

This don't need the good editorial judgment. This is about the just reading comprehension ability of English newspaper article. I'm not an English native speaker. But I founded this flow in the NY Times source.

I think that Administrators of English Wikipedia are English native Speakers, Please throughly read and compare two newspaper articles - Telegraph source (2016-03-21) and New York Times (2017-09-12)

At that time, I pointed out flaw of NY Times source and I asked User:thewolfchild a question about this flaw twice.

But User:thewolfchild didn't reply.

Attaching of the irrelevant source and source with translation errors , Is this the compliance with the sourcing guidelines of Wikipedia?

I think that providing appropriate sources is duty of users in the Wikipedia.

Who did breach the sourcing guidelines of Wikipedia? me and User:thewolfchild?

User:Freedom4U was not the participant of 'Spartan 3000 discussion, It appears that User:Freedom4U TL;DR about all posts in the long discussion. User:Freedom4U didn't explain about my breach of sourcing guidelines in a concrete way.

About below accusations by User:Freedom4U. This is the definitely allegation and Wikipedia:Wikilawyering

• There's WP:OWN, not understanding Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines despite multiple explanations, etc.
• Discussion on my talk page Again, I see here a lack of ability/want to understand English Wikipedia policy

About breach of Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia accused by User:Freedom4U

(1) Memorial section, I copied from Battle of the Imjin River#Memorial

In my defense, I just forgot to link to the source article in my edit summary.

(2) Order of Battle section, I copied from Korean War order of battle#Pro-Southern forces: United Nations and Republic of Korea

In my defense, My Korean War History Book also had same ROK Army structure chart, This is not the sentence or description. I was planning to improve order of Battle section including ROK Navy, ROK Air Force, ROK Marine Corps. But South Korea in the Korean War article are redirected to Korean War article by some user. So I couldn't improve order of Battle section.

FYI, Structure of the Republic of Korea Army, I created this articles. If I have enough time, I can improve order of Battle section.

Anyways, I really apologize for my mistake of copyvio again and I really apologize for all the trouble in the Wikipedia Community.

I am sincerely trying to provide better information in Wikipedia, I throw myself on the mercy of the ANI and beg for light punishment.

Thanks for your reading.Footwiks (talk) 18:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the above post by Footwiks is informative in an unintended way. I had wondered whether Footwiks is able to take part usefully in collaborative editing of the encyclopedia. I no longer wonder. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I really appreciate your mediation and Sorry for long post in the DRN. I understand TL;DR trend in the Wikipedia. At that time, I focused the flaws of Western Sources but I think that you didn't read key western sources which cause dispute. Additionally, I also asked a question about flaw of NY Times source on your talk page. But you didn't reply. I think that long post in the DRN is not entirely my fault.Footwiks (talk) 10:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

The Trinity wants to edit Wikipedia

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

---

At User talk:Robin 1972 09 10 an editor insist they are the Trinity, a God, and thus entitled to WP:SOAPBOXING their own religion at Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Consider me a blasphemer. Blocked for NOTHERE. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I pointed out to them that Wikipedia accounts are for one individual only, role accounts are not permitted. The other members of the Trinity would need their own. Canterbury Tail talk 15:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Well I guess I know where we will be meeting later. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Meh, it’s fine: all my friends are going to be there too. — Trey Maturin™ 18:41, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

ANI is already Hell. I guess we're going to some sort of super Hell? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Do I get a seat in the ‘close’ section of Hell? MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 22:12, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Considering my namesake is a necromancer, I would assume I'd be prioritized over you. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Bringing gender equality to the skeletons, zombies, and other undead. You’re alright, Lili.

_{No ill intended, but feel free to tell me if that joke’s just one too far.} MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 09:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

idk, technically the Trinity would fall under Tamzin's multiplicity best practices since all 3 members are homoousion and consubstantial. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Considering my shared initials and numbers, I suppose it's up to me to forgive you all... Naaaah...  : )

Passes out handbaskets, instead : ) - jc37 14:53, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

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

Some users are hiding information from Speak Now (Taylor's Version) article

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

---

The user Ronherry has reverted my edits in Speak Now (Taylor's Version) article several times. The user is hiding general information in the beginning of the article arguing that my edits are not favorable about the album's critical reviews. The fact is that my edits are crucial for people who look for general information about the album because most users read the articles' first lines and they never scroll down to the critical reception section. Furthermore, I was not the first user who added the general reviews in the first place, and Ronherry removed it just because he/she wanted to. Then when I asked him/her not to do revert my edits, he/she called me a vandal. The user is partial to the feminist agenda, which is why he has deleted my edit multiple times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielin1987 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG suggested. This account was made 6 years ago, but made its first edits 10th July this year, which gives off ‘sleeper’ vibes. That’s before you factor in the The user is partial to the feminist agenda, insult / aspersion in this report.

 No comment regarding article dispute, as that’ll be a WP:DR fit. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 22:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I have indefinitely pageblocked Danielin1987 from Speak Now (Taylor's Version) for edit warring, editing against consensus, and POV pushing. The editor has also been warned that any further personal attacks will result in a sitewide block. Cullen328 (talk) 01:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

And personal attacks are exactly what happened. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

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

Request for help; named editors are behaving abusively to contributors

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

---

I just presented multiple examples of this to this board, only to find it immediately deleted. Please help, what should I do? 2601:249:9301:FF80:A107:1D80:84AC:9A1B (talk) 01:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

My recommendation is that you stop making spurious reports. Cullen328 (talk) 01:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

But you were the one who recommended I present the information here. I don't understand. Did you get a chance to read my first, lengthy post? There is nothing spurious about any of this- it's documented clearly in my first post.

It's here, in yellow:

Revision as of 00:41, 15 July 2023 (edit)

2601:249:9301:ff80:a107:1d80:84ac:9a1b (talk)

(→‎Belligerent and Inappropriate Behavior from Named Editors: new section)

Tags: Reverted New topic 2601:249:9301:FF80:A107:1D80:84AC:9A1B (talk) 01:26, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Where would you get the idea that any of this is spurious? He's directly insulting contributors, telling them to go away and play, etc. I don't understand this. 2601:249:9301:FF80:A107:1D80:84AC:9A1B (talk) 01:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I wouldn't be surprised if this was an IP sock of Jpeterson101, who just got blocked for sockpuppetry for using this account. There's been a bunch of IPs disrupting at Talk:Sound of Freedom (film), a page the sock disrupted. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:43, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Why does everyone presume that just because people don't want to register a name that that person is a sock puppet? Based on my experiences and the way I've seen others treated here, I'm very unlikely to ever want to create and account and share my information. Surely you can understand that, as well as how this hostility toward contributors who haven't chosen a handle would alienate many? 2601:249:9301:FF80:A107:1D80:84AC:9A1B (talk) 01:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll go further- I don't think there are sock puppets at the Sound of Freedom (film) page- or if there are, they're very few. It seemed to me more like a group of upset conservatives, in various stages of clarity and confusion. Some did have good points, others were hopelessly muddled, but they all seemed like believable individuals to me. And aren't we supposed to assume good faith and at least be polite if not kind?

Funny thing, it's usually easier to create a consensus that way too, as well as weed out the disingenuous and power-seeking. (Referring to the original editors named in the complaint here, not you.) 2601:249:9301:FF80:A107:1D80:84AC:9A1B (talk) 02:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

You couldn't even have had time to read it. I included enough quotes for a dissertation, showing these editors behaving aggressively and unwelcomingly to newcomers, demonstrating hostility and frequent assumptions of bad faith.

If you really believe me to be spurious, rather than delete my evidence- why don't you put all three of us before administration. That way, at least the other Administrators will be given a chance to view it. As I've repeatedly said, I will accept the judgment of the Administrators- plural- but I cannot trust a system that simply deletes serious charges. Please, bring all three of us before administration, based on my original post here, and whatever the other two wish to argue. 2601:249:9301:FF80:A107:1D80:84AC:9A1B (talk) 01:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

If you really want to be blocked I'm sure eventually someone will oblige. You could just voluntarily refrain from editing though. It seems much simpler for everyone to me. Nil Einne (talk) 02:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Do whatever you like. You don't explain yourselves, you don't ask questions or even acknowledge if you've read the material I presented, you just make bad faith insinuations and threats. What is so terrible about what I have said here? 2601:249:9301:FF80:A107:1D80:84AC:9A1B (talk) 02:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

You say 'Do whatever you like', yet last time someone removed a pointless thread by you, you opened another pointless thread in quick order. So what is it? Nil Einne (talk) 02:38, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

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

Argumentative user in Talk page of Metabasis paradox

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

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

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

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

Edit warring and sockpuppet accusations by Filetime

Filetime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been engaged in an edit war at Juris Doctor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for the past couple of weeks. The other editor engaged in the edit war, Anonymous345123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), stopped after being warned and has begun participating in the ongoing discussion in the article's Talk page. Filetime, on the other hand, has continued the edit war. They have also accused Anonymous345123 of being a sockpuppet although they haven't opened an investigation (despite telling Anonymous345123 that they had opened an investigation).

Diffs of Filetime's edit war and relevant warnings and Talk page messages
Previous version reverted to: [201] Diffs of the user's reverts: [202] [203] [204] [205] Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [206] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [207]

I reported Filetime's edit warring at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring but Daniel Case closed the report as Filetime hasn't made four or more reverts in the last 24 hours. He then suggested that other fora would be more appropriate and thus I am here to ask for help.

Can someone please block, partial block, or otherwise engage with Filetime to prevent their continued edit warring and accusations of sockpuppetry? ElKevbo (talk) 04:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Ignoring this request for assistance (a) provides tacit approval for edit-warring and accusations of sockpuppetry and (b) demoralizes editors who request assistance from administrators expecting help or at least a response of some kind. ElKevbo (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @ElKevbo, follow the advice at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution as this isn't an administrator matter as there have been no 3RR violations. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 15:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

No, an editor who (a) edit wars despite being warned and there being an open discussion in Talk and (b) repeatedly accuses another editor of sockpuppetry but doesn't open an investigation is not a content dispute. Nor do the technical details of 3RR constitute the only definition of edit warring. This is a conduct issue that regular editors are unable to address. ElKevbo (talk) 15:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I think many admins are less active during these summer weeks, ElKevbo — I know they're regrettably thin on the ground in at least one area I follow. You are surely not being deliberately ignored, especially not a mere 15 hours after your original post. But I don't blame you for feeling frustrated. I've warned Filetime somewhat sharply. And Zippybonzo, admins take an interest in many forms of disruptive editing, not just violations of bright-line rules. Bishonen | tålk 15:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC).

IP trolling

Can an administrator put a block on the range Special:Contributions/2600:4040:5E51:5400:FCCF:63F:A372:A61B/64? Their edits look like trolling and usually get reverted. Many of the edits include adding "brutally beaten"[208][209] and other unsourced changes that look like jokes,[210][211][212][213][214] sometimes these are BLP violations. This has been going on for several months, if not longer. Mellk (talk) 07:39, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Blocked the /64 for a few months. Courcelles (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Mellk (talk) 16:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Racist WP essay

User:Maxaxax created the page Wikipedia:Topics where reliable sources should be banned from Wikipedia indefinitely in the WP namespace a few weeks ago. This was apparently spurred on by the automated contentious topics message left on their talk page when they edited some other article. The essay is a rambling complaint about a) Wikipedia's consensus against the use of racialist pseudoscience and b) racial penis sizes. Obviously it does not belong on Wikipedia. This user clearly has an agenda which drives them to add bad content to Wikipedia and then [edit disruptively] when it gets deleted. Maybe a topic ban is needed. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 07:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I have deleted the 'essay' and warned the editor. If any admin is feeling like a block is warranted, I would not have any issues. GiantSnowman 08:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

A TBAN is a no-brainer here, and I was prepared to impose that just from reading the first few paragraphs of the essay, but...

Environmental factors of racial differences in IQ include social and economic inequalities, malnutrition, and inadequate prenatal and health cares. The blacks are claimed to suffer all the above disproportionally. At the same time, the blacks just happen to be superior athletes with superior penis size. Watching NBA or Blacked.com, malnutrition or inadequate health care is not what comes to mind.

The word "penis" appears another 12 times in the essay, and Blacked.com gets a second mention too. There's a point at which we have to ask whether it's fair to ask editors in a particular demographic (in this case, Black and Asian men) to participate alongside an editor regardless of topic area. Here I think the answer is no, that would not be fair to such editors. We wouldn't be okay with an editor making these kinds of racialized sexual comments about women, and we shouldn't be okay with an editor making them about men. And so I have blocked indefinitely. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 08:11, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I had a moment after making this block of realizing that I hadn't checked whether they had some wealth of constructive contributions that would have made it better to wait for more input here. Then I looked at this, which... I'll let it speak for itself. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 08:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't get the nephews bit. EEng 09:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm contemplating creating a userbox with the text "The user is partial to the feminist agenda" with links to Sam Kerr and Bluey. Both of these are all over Australian media at present - and we love them both to bits. --Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

It's a non-native speaker issue. "Nephew" has a very specific meaning in English now, but the Latin root "nepos" could mean basically any kind of descendent. You'll see they also use "learned" instead of "studied" on their userpage. -- asilvering (talk) 17:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

"I had a moment after making this block of realizing that I hadn't checked whether they had some wealth of constructive contributions that would have made it better to wait for more input here."

Even if they had, that essay is unacceptable enough to warrant a block. 2603:7000:CF0:7280:79F7:3A92:7E07:1A5F (talk) 14:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• @Tamzin: This is a very good indef! Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• @Tamzin: Agreed. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

• Playing devils advocate is there any way that this was some sort of malformed attempt at humor or parody? Some of it is really over the top even for a rather committed racist. Their user page says that they're on the spectrum and that one of their two primary goals here is "I like humor, to laugh and make people laugh (short of vandalizing Wikipedia)." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  If so, it's so badly misguided and instead so inappropriate itself that it merits the block. WP is not therapy...if they can't control themselves or recognize what is-vs-isn't ok to say here, they don't belong here. They're welcoe to appeal the indef. DMacks (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  Based on their post at Wikipedia talk:No racists, I'd say no. No chance. I'm not sure even the Devil would have wanted any part of this. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 21:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

It was a good block (pretending on a supposed "information" page that articles like Cum shot and Bukkake are in the category of human emotion) Cambial — foliar❧ 18:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Dorsetonian

Violated 3RR, edit warring, and trying to stop me from me getting my rollback request accepted.

Tried to warn him, he didnt listen. Tried to revert, he didnt stop. Now when I request for rollback, it will be denied for edit warring while its his fault. PotassiumLover72 talk 08:25, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

PL72 appears to fighting vandalism, mostly performing good work. But earlier this morning they reverted what appears to have been a good faith edit and warned the editor so I politely asked why. They removed my message and templated me for "not assuming good faith", which I thought to be a peculiar response. A little later they reverted an obviously good grammar correction so I undid this mistake of theirs and was was promptly reverted myself, and warned for edit warring, which was completely back-to-front. Oh, and I got reported here. It's all very odd.

Anyway, I have not violated 3RR, I do not believe I am edit warring and I have no particular interest in this user's rollback request. Dorsetonian (talk) 08:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Thats not what we are talking about. We are talking about you edit warring. PotassiumLover72 talk 09:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) You may want to read WP:BOOMERANG. Kleuske (talk) 11:54, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Please take edit warring case to related Wikipedia:ANEW, it will be faster than reporting here. -Lemonaka‎ 09:14, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

PotassiumLover72: you have not provided any diffs in your report. Looking at Dorsetonian's response above, I do see some rather questionable reverts by you there, and some unnecessary templated warnings. Please can you either provide some actual evidence that Dorsetonian has engaged in edit warring, or (if there is no such evidence) do some self-reflecting and consider which one of you is in the wrong here? Girth Summit _(blether) 10:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

And then there's this, which doesn't inspire me with confidence, especially after warning someone for not assuming good faith. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:24, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

check his contributions. PotassiumLover72 talk 11:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• Someone whose English is not fluent should probably not be going around making grammar "corrections" which are actually mistakes, and then edit-war over them. Seems like a very good reason not to grant rollback to me. Black Kite (talk) 11:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  Hey, guys, you may not see me again. I will be fine, I will be alright, and I'll come back soon. PotassiumLover72 talk 11:56, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked - this is Pyrodude7172. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Thank you for quickly getting to the bottom of this! Dorsetonian (talk) 12:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Flamelai

Well, it's my second time came here to request for revoking TPA access against Flamelai (talk · contribs).

After explaining my good faith, they made a threat of harm or something indistinguishable from it yesterday since a month has passed. And this special again reminds me that they may have some other accounts already have been globally banned.

FYI, previous discussions are Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1130#legal_threat_of_user:Flamelai and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1127#Request_a_ban_for_Flamelai -Lemonaka‎ 09:13, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

•  Done. TPA revoked. Black Kite (talk) 11:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  Hello, @Black Kite. Do we need a checkuser for possible other accounts? Since that special global ban me again looks rather strange. Anyway, thanks a lot for your rapid response. -Lemonaka‎ 11:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  It might be useful to create an SPI for this if you believe it is worth it, although of course we have no master account. Black Kite (talk) 11:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, I've never created cases like this one. So I'd like to ask for sysops' advice. It's now on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Flamelai -Lemonaka‎ 11:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Black Kite Thanks for your advice, Horsemeister (talk · contribs) was found as sockpuppet. -Lemonaka‎ 16:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

شايب محمد مهدي 93 CIR issue

شايب محمد مهدي 93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been very active and problematic for the last week or so. They have received warnings from multiple experienced editors, including User:BrazilianDude70, User:Mattythewhite and User:GiantSnowman all of which seem to be about adding unsourced information to articles. My experience with this user is that they have continued to create unsourced articles, including BLPs, and have been completely unresponsive when spoken to about it. None of their mainspace edits seem to be sourced at all and they are continually performing copy and paste moves. For example, Draft:Salah Al-Masnad and Salah Al-Masnad and Draft:Saeed Ghorab and Saeed Ghorab. I don't think that any of their work in mainspace has been sourced and they are becoming a time sink as a lot of their edits require reverting. I can't get through to this editor at all. It's possible that they don't speak any English at all or it might just be a case of WP:NOTLISTENING or WP:CIR. Please can someone intervene? I personally don't think they should be allowed to continue to edit mainspace until they improve. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• No communication at all. I have blocked them from mainspace to see if this prompts them to do so. If they continue to create unsourced drafts I will extend the blocks to all namespaces. Black Kite (talk) 11:13, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick action on this. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Google Translate suggests that this is a name and birth year, in Arabic. Is there anything to suggest that this user knows any actual English? {{subst:welcome-foreign|ar}} is another welcome-foreign that only signposts in English, so no good. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 18:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I personally don't think that they know any English so if any Arabic speakers want to try to talk to this user, then it's worth a shot. Otherwise, they're going to be more at home editing on Arabic Wikipedia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Changing a redirect page to an article

Hi, I hope this is in the correct place. Tooxma (talk · contribs) has changed a redirect page into article Swimming at the 2010 Asian Para Games. I reverted and posted a message to their talk page [215]. The editor then reverted [ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swimming_at_the_2010_Asian_Para_Games&diff=prev&oldid=1165462993] which I then reverted and posted a message on their talk page [216]. The edit was then reinstated. Tooxma (talk · contribs) posted some messages to my talk page. I think they meant that this was a copy of an article at zh.wikipedia [217] which they then deleted. I did report this to WP:AIV with a request stating I wasn't sure if this was the correct place to report it and asked for advice. The suggestion was to try here. I don't know if any of my actions were appropriate? I've run into editors trying to make an article out of a redirect page before but they've usually stopped. Many thanks, Knitsey (talk) 13:24, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I should add, the editors additions are in good faith. Knitsey (talk) 13:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Any particular reason that the redirect should not be turned into an article? The target seems like an overview. So if the editor can create a specific article out of the redirect, with references from verifiable reliable sources, I'm not sure that I see an issue? - jc37 13:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I assumed (incorrectly it seems) that new users couldn't or shouldn't create new articles on the main space. Knitsey (talk) 13:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I do not understand at all. Explain the law to me. Because I was upset and nervous about this behavior. Tell me if there is a problem with making the article. Because there are two other diversions that I would like to turn into an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tooxma (talk • contribs) 16:43, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

In general, turning a redirect into an article is not a problem. I did it myself today. Anyone may disagree that the article is worth creating and turn it back into a redirect, but that should be based on whether its content meets the usual notability criteria and not on the way it became an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I do not understand the reversion rationale This is a redirect page when the (very incomplete) Category:Redirects with possibilities (>84,000 members) exists. Narky Blert (talk) 07:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Long-term, super-persistent vandalism on The Day Britain Stopped

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

These two are the just most recent IP users who have continued a disturbing trend of adding thousands of bytes of fabricated information on The Day Britain Stopped page, making it seem as though the depicted traffic situation was far worse than it really is. A quick look of the article's history shows that similar information has been added by multiple IP addresses (likely the same person) starting April 2021, and has persisted despite several reversions (from different users), warnings, userblocks, and page protections, sometimes returning mere hours after being removed. I think some drastic action needs to be done here. 49.144.201.128 (talk) 13:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Given that the size of the plot section is wildly excessive, and that none of it is sourced to anything except presumably the programme itself, something needs to be done, for sure. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Semiprotected for a year. Bishonen | tålk 21:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC).

Mellk

•Mellk (talk · contribs)

I have given Mellk three warnings to cease his no edit summaries and give his rationale in one of the templates, yet he refuses. I subsequently reverted one of his edits on an article after giving him these warnings yet he persists with his no edit summary; this is perspicuous disruptive editing. Nevertheless, I was inclined to revert more edits that he did on an another article but I have thus written this complaint before he fabricates his own perfidious notions on why I should be banned or something to that nature to you admins. Naturally, I was willing to cooperate with him as we did in this latest talk but he has went so far as to not provide his rationale on his edits, warn me for giving him template warnings and finally to persist in his actions. Thus, I desire some action be taken on this user Mellk. Raulois (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I already told you to stop spamming templates on my talk page and to not post there[218] but you still continued[219] so clearly you were not "willing to cooperate". Three times you templated me in less than 5 minutes before I could even make an edit anywhere else. Mellk (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Au contraire, you said: “you are not welcome here, if you template again I will request a block”. Wherefore, then, can you say I was not willing when you grimly say I am not welcomed on your talk page? Wouldn’t that mean I am not allowed to be able to talk on your talk page? Raulois (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

You use the article talk page. When you spam the same template immediately after I remove it, I don't want you posting on my talk page. Mellk (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

It would’ve been nice if you had gotten rid of your pride and had written your rationale in your edit summary, told me on the talk page or even on the discussion page instead of letting your ego get ahead of you and telling me you don’t want me on your talk page. Raulois (talk) 17:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Maybe don't spam templates then unless you're trying provoke a reaction, which is clear what you were trying to do. I'm not going to entertain you any further. Mellk (talk) 17:22, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

First of all, why did you revert it in the first place? It was a notice with no bad intentions asking for you to write your rationale. Seems to me that you desire to entertain someone with your prideful reverts. Raulois (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, you did not mention your history of following my edits and WP:ABF[220]. Mellk (talk) 16:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Following your edits? We’ve already discussed this on the Ivan III fracas section. But, I will admit that even if I did have bad faith according to how Wikipedia describes bad faith, it doesn’t excuse you from the actions you’ve done especially as you have more experience than me as you’ve been on Wikipedia for 6 years now. Raulois (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I reverted your unsourced changes. You should know better than to make unsourced changes, especially when the text in question is already sourced and I've told you repeatedly to not do this. The issue here is WP:IDHT. Mellk (talk) 16:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah yes, now you want to say “You should know better than to make unsourced changes, especially when the text in question is already sourced and I've told you repeatedly to not do this.”

Please cite a previous time when you’ve said to stop doing unsourced edits. On the Vasily I edit, I provided a source yet you said “why don’t you discuss first” you didn’t say any of that before. Also, you reverted my edit here for no reason, please stop providing your rationale when someone makes a admin notice instead do it immediately. Raulois (talk) 17:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Redrose64 (talk · contribs) RoySmith (talk · contribs) it’d be nice if you admins could overlook this and give your opinion on the matter. Raulois (talk) 17:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Okiyo9228, although edit summaries are strongly encouraged, they are not mandatory. Also, if another editor tells you to stay off their talk page, please do so, except for making mandatory notifications. Continuing to post after being asked to stop is harassment. Cullen328 (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Quite questionable, for if someone asks for a rationale for an edit then they should receive it before an edit war commences. I only posted the template on his talk page three times because it was quite weird to me that he reverted it and I ceased to do it once I saw that he said that he would ask for a block. Naturally, if you desire to see edit warring on Wikipedia then that’s fine but I prefer to know the rationale since edit warring is not allowed on Wikipedia. Raulois (talk) 18:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@Okiyo9228, i agree that an editor should explain (if asked) why they made a revert. However, I cannot find any diff in which you asked Mellk why they reverted your edit. All I see are "edit summary" templates from you on Mellk's talk page. Also, the best approach, after your initial edit was reverted, would have been to start a discussion on the article's talk page (pinging the reverting editor) to work through the dispute. Schazjmd (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I would like to remind you that I went on his talk page to ask why he made his edit so that we didn't have to edit war on the article but I was rebuked by him and told that I wasn’t allowed. Apropos to edit summaries not being required, H:FIES states “It is a good practice to provide a meaningful summary for every edit, especially when reverting (undoing) the actions of other editors or deleting existing text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit. In appropriate circumstances, a summary can be quite brief ("ce" and "rvv" for example).”

Therefore it is quite mandatory when he reverted my edit and when I inquired why he did such an action his actions persists such as this. The man literally reverted my edit twice without giving his rationale. Raulois (talk) 18:14, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I was pinged, but since I'm here, I agree with @Cullen328; use of edit summaries is a recommended best practice, but not required. If somebody doesn't want to use them, there's not much you can do. As for user talk pages, I don't know if there's a specific policy about it, but if somebody says they don't want you on their talk page, my suggestion is to just leave them alone and find something else to work on. There's plenty of other things that need fixing on the wiki. RoySmith (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• I haven't been pinged, but I just happened to notice one of my diffs was mentioned here. Indeed, Okiyo9228/Raulois has a prior history of possibly WP:HOUNDING Mellk, and possibly WP:ABF on the part of Mellk; this incident seems to confirm that pattern. I already told Okiyo9228/Raulois If you are unable to cooperate with another user, I suggest you go work in some other area, or at least take some time to cool down and try again with more patience. I have reason to suspect that Mellk might be right about you hounding him. If that is true, you should stop that. Please be respectful to other users, even if you disagree with them. We do not engage in bullying here, and I will not tolerate you doing that. These latest developments suggest Okiyo9228/Raulois has not heeded my warnings. Mellk is getting tired of Okiyo9228/Raulois following him around, harassing him, and posting on his talk page. As the others have said, edit summaries are strongly encouraged, but not required. I don't see why Okiyo9228/Raulois needed to take this issue to ANI, and then further harass Mellk here above (who already warned he would request a block). I would suggest something like an WP:IBAN might help to prevent Okiyo9228/Raulois further hounding Mellk. A two-way IBAN is also possible if Okiyo9228/Raulois desires not to be contacted by Mellk anymore either, although I don't think Mellk needs to be sanctioned at this point, as they are the target of hounding, not the one doing the targetting. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

62.121.132.130 by Alexander Davronov

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

Hi. Please, can someone take a look at this ip contribs? It seems like it's another puppet of a long-term abuser WP:BKFIP. Thanks.
Notice: [Jul 15, 2023, 16:12] AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 16:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• Note to admins, I think it is the filing user who has a problem with wikilinks and easter eggs. See for instance, [221] and recently Talk:Max_Planck#Plank_constant. In my view, all the ip's reverts seem entirely appropriate. - DVdm (talk) 19:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  This is unrelated to this issue and is of course false. I will take this accussation as another sign of incivility. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 07:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

User Authenticbigb

Authenticbigb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This editor has made about 100 edits over the past five months, marking all edits as minor, even though many of them make substantial changes to article content, (e.g., [222]). I have notified/warned this editor four times ([223], [224], [225], [226]) to please stop, including a suggestion to not mark any edits as minor to avoid problems. Not only do they continue marking all edits as minor, they have made no effort to communicate on user talk pages or article talk pages. I'm hoping that a suggestion from an admin might change this pattern. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I've assumed they're not aware of their talkpage, and have blocked, with an informative note in the log. That usually works. Bishonen | tålk 21:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC).

Editor behavior at Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

As many know, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is a vaccine skeptic and pusher of medical misinformation. This is sourced in RS. Over the past few days, discussion in Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr.#Incredibly biased article has gone off the rails. I have given final warnings to three individual editors in the hopes of avoiding an ANI thread, in which I've told them to AGF and focus on content, not contributors. One of the three has ceased, but the other two persist.

NewEditor101101001 joined the discussion by saying, in part "It's sad that the Admins here seem to prefer biased hit pieces", and further talk posts such as "you're clearly risking the credibility of wikipedia as a whole", "Wikipedia isn't a dictatorship of @Ser!. It's supposed a collaboration", "there seems to be a filibuster going on by people who were able to make biased changes early and then locked down the page in what seems to be a desperate attempt to help Biden", and after my final warning to focus on content, "It is interesting that some of the people arguing most adamantly against any change like @Ser!, @Hob Gadling, @M.boli, and @Valjean are the same ones who have been actively editing the article to be more negative over the last 45 days regardless of consensus views" and "there is stonewalling. How do you address that by ignoring stonewalling/stonewallers?"

Opok2021 said "The problem in this case is not the sources, it is the editors", "I cannot assume good faith for some of this article as it is clearly bias as stated above". After my warning, this user seemed to straighten out a bit, but then said that they still see "deliberate editor bias (unconfirmed)".

I tried to avoid bringing this here. At a minimum, I'd like someone uninvolved to close down this thread, which is going nowhere and mooted by the ongoing RfC anyway. As for NewEditor101101001 and Opok2021, they need to learn to assume good faith on the part other contributors and drop their sticks. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I hatted that hot mess of accusations against good editors. Wikipedia's credibility is indeed on the line, but not as those editors think.

Research shows that Wikipedia's credibility immediately increases when those types of editors leave the project, so don't hesitate to block and ban them now rather than later. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:16, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

That talk page has been a dumpster fire for a while, though thankfully now only due to a few editors thanks to TP semi-protection. Support warnings/temp blocks. It's in four CTOPs and, at least before semi-protection, saw frequent canvassing, so I really hope a few admins will add it to their watchlists and keep things cool. DFlhb (talk) 00:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Having been pinged here, I'd just like to reply to back up Muboshgu's report about these users engaging entirely in bad faith, particularly NewEditor101101001. As you'll see in the above post, NewEditor101101001 accused me of "actively editing the article to be more negative", which when you look at my actual edits to the page is demonstrably a lie as my edits consist only of copyedits. The user has also been soapboxing on the talk page, describing reliable sources as being "far-left" and accusing editors of having an "irrational dislike" for the subject and pushing "political propaganda" for just two examples. Between these posts in demonstrably bad faith and the litany of examples Muboshgu has provided above, it's increasingly clear that this user is WP:NOTHERE. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 00:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I’ve introduced NewEditor101101001 to the door, citing NOTHERE. I’ll add the article to my watchlist. Courcelles (talk) 00:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

• Some editors or readers may be upset, and why not? The article's short first paragraph, which is seen on Google and other search engines, mentions or hints at being anti-vaccine three times with very little else in sight (and if seen on Wikipedia by readers they also read the short summary "American attorney and anti-vaccine activist (born 1954)" - so make it four times). Kennedy has defended himself against these charges many times. The fact that he is running for president of the United States? Way down in the lead, many paragraphs away, as the last line. Wikipedia has often been accused of bias and slanting, but this is almost a textbook example that those accusers can point to as a direct form of this bias. Not a good look and it's hard, objectively, to argue with them. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  Kennedy's primary notability for decades has been for his anti-vaccine and general anti-science stances. That is what he has consistently been reported on in reliable sources. Running for a political position doesn't change that. In fact, almost all reliable sources reporting on him and his campaign will still mention his anti-science background, because that is where his notability lies. As I noted on the talk page there, would we be expected to sterilize Alex Jones lede if he ran for President as well just because the factual notable background is negative for the subject? Silverseren^C 01:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia can say it once, maybe twice, in the short lead paragraph which is seen and read on search engines, and maybe an argument for non-bias editing can be made. But four times? Randy Kryn (talk) 01:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't, actually. You're conflating different things. There is a single sentence in the first paragraph that mentions his long-standing anti-vaccine stances, his more recent focus on specifically Covid vaccine fearmongering, and his more general conspiracy stances on public health topics. It only discusses vaccines once, with a single additional specific mention of Covid vaccines. Conspiracy theories on public health may include vaccines, but that part in this case is referring to his broader anti-science claims on other issues, including his AIDS denialism. Silverseren^C 01:52, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Here is the short descriptor and lead paragraph: Short descriptor: "American attorney and anti-vaccine activist (born 1954)", then "...is an American environmental lawyer and author who is known for promoting anti-vaccine propaganda, debunked claims about COVID-19 vaccines, and public health–related conspiracy theories." Editors can judge that for themselves, and the constant commotion on the talk page shows that readers already are. I'll leave it at that. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

They can judge that those descriptors are entirely accurate? He is a lawyer and anti-vaccine propagandist. That is what his notability has been for decades. Without it, we likely wouldn't have an article on him even with his campaign happening. Silverseren^C 02:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

That seems like an accurate summary to me. Cullen328 (talk) 02:15, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, he's not known only for anti-vaccine propaganda, debunked claims about vaccines, and public health related conspiracy theories. He's also been in the news recently [227] for the racist direction his public health related conspiracy theories have taken. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Plus, of course, the polemic farting. EEng 07:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Ugh. I feel the need to point out the large amount of seemingly single-purpose accounts on that talk page. Perhaps a temporary blue lock is in order for the talk page. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I think that would be a logical step. It's also amusing how this dispute has blossomed on the same day that Kennedy suggests that COVID-19 may have been engineered to spare Jewish people from getting sick with it. BD2412 T 03:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what to say concerning that information. "Ah, tabarnak" comes to mind. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

A blue lock sounds like an excellent idea. Bon courage (talk) 08:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. Too much time being wasted. DFlhb (talk) 13:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf has also been a disruptive presence in these discussions, which includes making vague insinuations that his opponents are paid editors [228] something that I think can charitably be described as preposterous. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Because Jtbobways is an experienced editor, their behavior is much more egregious, so take the sanctions meted out to the others and apply it double for Jtbobways. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Jennifer Lumma's contributions

See the last sentence of user's talk page. I'm not sure how WP handles this. APK whisper in my ear 05:34, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

• I actually think this is just barely outside the boundaries of anything credible, but in an abundance of caution I've emailed emergency@wikimedia.org per WP:EMERGENCY. I don't think anything more is necessary on our end here at enwp. EEng 07:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you. APK whisper in my ear 08:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  For future reference, high-traffic boards are not a good place to talk about potential threats of harm or self-harm (though I really don't think this case qualifies as those). Again, see WP:EMERGENCY for what to do. I'd be archiving this thread immediately except that I think it's good for people to read what I just said. EEng 08:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

TPA revocation needed on an old sockmaster

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

---

Haiyenslna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This account has been blocked in 2017 for sockpuppetry, and woke up today to ping a bunch of people. Could anyone revoke their TPA? (Also, not sure where to send ANI notices in this case.) LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Done. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

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

Superlog47's WP:NOTHERE behavior

Superlog47 is being a persistent troublemaker by edit warring, removing reliable and relevant sources, and making all kinds of accusations of bad faith and unreliability toward anyone and any source they don't like.

Just hours after registering, they instigated their first edit war at Dyaus by removing an Oxford University Press citation, on the basis of their own original research (they have never cited a single source for their edits).

• [229]

@Chariotrider555: has politely and patiently asked Superlog47 for citations to defend their edits, as can be seen at [230]. Failing that, they have repeatedly insulted the intelligence of Chariotrider555 by implying they are an idiot or a propagandist. In one edit summary, they accuse Chariotrider555 of "mingling too much in Indian culture".

Their WP:OWN behavior extends to Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA), as well. As can be seen at the article's revision history, they remove citations from MIT Press and Manchester University Press, while accusing me of "attacking South Asia". The cited authors are Amrita Pande and Carles Lalueza-Fox.

In my opinion, @Superlog47: is WP:NOTHERE and may have issues with competence or behavioral adjustment that should limit their ability to participate in the project. - Hunan201p (talk) 12:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I would also point out the very similar behavior of @Leemaster2:, who registered just hours after Superlog47, possibly as a meatpuppet, and makes false allegations of "biased sources" and agendas at the Haplogroup R1a article. - Hunan201p (talk) 12:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

• Initially, I indeffed only Superlog47. However, after the block, Leemaster2 complained on their Talk page, and the writing, which is distinctive, was identical, so now both are blocked and tagged.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the rapid response, Bbb23. Wikipedia wouldn't last very long without admins like you. - Hunan201p (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Not that you need confirmation, but these two accounts are very much  Confirmed to each other. Good blocks. Courcelles (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Keeps on trolling as Butthurtmaker –Austronesier (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Blocked that one indef as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Block evasion, sockpuppetry by Sir Knson

Sir Knson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This account was indef blocked by @Courcelles: but persists in reappearing as multiple IPs. Not sure where to go with it, if this isn't the right place?

He's also just reappeared as Lord Knson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

• 2A02:C7C:A739:F700:F99B:374C:3DB0:9C71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2A02:C7C:A739:F700:5CD6:7B9F:13A1:224B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2A02:C7C:A739:F700:19B4:EF2:F528:2394 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2A02:C7C:A739:F700:29A0:E248:7F5F:D277 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2A02:C7C:A739:F700:FDD6:C35B:8D05:B4C5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Thanks, Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:52, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

• Sock indeffed and IP /64 range blocked for a month. Black Kite (talk) 13:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Thank you, much appreciated. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Lsadout52 and potentially falsified source

• Lsadout52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sadou Bah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I recently nominated Sadou Bah at AFD. The article's creator, Lsadout52, then added a citation in this edit. It was purportedly an article published in the French newspaper L'union, titled "La relève du cinéma guinéen a l'international: Sadou Bah". However, the citation's URL was simply a screenshot that was uploaded to ilovepdf.com, a PDF hosting website, rather than L'Union's own website. (Interestingly, the original link stopped working after I raised this on their talk page yesterday, but I preemptively archived it here; note that clicking the link will download the PDF to your computer.)

This all seemed weird to me, so I looked up the article below the one about Sadou Bah in the PDF. The second article was titled "Les experts satisfaits de la motivation des participants", and I did manage to find it on L'Union's actual website, here. Surprise, surprise: the top story is not about Sadou Bah, but rather about some football clubs.

So from my perspective, it looks like Lsadout52 photoshopped a fake article in a French newspaper, uploaded it to a PDF hosting site, added that fake source to an English Wikipedia article in an attempt to prevent the deletion of an article that they created, and tried to take down the evidence when asked about it. I don't think their response to my query on their talk page is satisfactory. Falsifying a source is antithetical to our goal of building an online encyclopedia, and anyone who does that should not be welcome here. DanCherek (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Yup, the supposed article on Bah in the pdf is clearly a forgery, and a particularly poor one at that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

So obvious, and so egregious. Indeffed. This is completely unacceptable. Courcelles (talk) 15:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Also surely COI (I added a talkpage notice, for future record), and xwiki-SPA (self-?)promoting this person. DMacks (talk) 16:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Well yes, but normally we give self-promotors the opportunity to at least read WP:COI, WP:RS, WP:N etc first, before we show them the door, on the slim chance that they might just hang around to do something useful. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Of course. This is something unrelated they would have to address if they ever re-appear. It's not why we're showing them the door at this time. DMacks (talk) 16:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Range block request

Apparent socks of blocked user H3sam91 (User:Iraniwiki234, User:Fakeintellectualbuster, and User:Truthseekernotgivingup) have recently caused significant disruption, in the form of abusive personal attacks, here and here. To avoid further disruption could someone (a CU, I assume) please impose some type of range-block upon the sock master's location? Thanks. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)