Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 108.31.92.88 (talk) at 10:13, 14 February 2023 (→Nonsense at HQ (video game): Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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

    Disruptive editing by Hawkers994

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

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

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

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

    With previous consensus[1] already taken place, this user has ignored all previous data and has chosen to make his own opinions, Without any external opinions. Ignoring updated sources [2] infoboxes should relate to current updated sources. WP:POV states opinions are not facts. Hawkers994 (talk)
    That is not the answer. There is no consensus on the page you indicated. (If you say it has been obtained, provide a timestamp.) And the source you have shown do not answer the above question. Freetrashbox (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    You have ignored all the sources in the articles and talk pages [3] [4] and have chosen to add your own opinion to these articles which goes against WP:POV As mentioned there has been previous discussions on this subject which you have chosen to ignore and dismiss sources which you claim are in favour of article subject.Hawkers994 (talk)

    As you can see from the Yagori revision history, most of the descriptions of the relationship between Yagori and Somaliland were written by me. The sources are also what I found. You are the one editing without indicating the source. Most of the time for writing an article is spent researching sources. Those who edit with a source cannot compete with those who edit without a source in terms of editing speed. Do not describe without sources. Freetrashbox (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am neither pro-Somalia nor anti-Somaliland. Tuulo Samakaab is a Sool's town near the Yagori, but the first edition was submitted by me and is presented as a town in Somaliland. I have also contributed Japanese articles on Edna Adan Ismail and Laas Geel to the Japanese Wikipedia as things in Somaliland. I am not in violation of the POV.
    The problems of this user are not only those listed above. At Sool, this user writes "Disruptive editing, use article talk page for disagreement", so when I pointed out this user's problem on the talk page, this user unilaterally ended the discussion and is still a problem they continues to edit.
    This user continues to make edits that do not indicate the source of the information. For example, as can be seen in the article in Buraan, the sources listed in this article are all about Somalia or Puntland. However, the user has deleted Puntland from Country because of "Corrected info." This user has no understanding of the basic principle that Correct is "information based on reliable sources" for Wikipedia.
    Even in the dialogue above, this user has not written an answer to indicate the date and time the consensus was made, or to explain why he changed the treatment of the two reliefweb.info sources. The user does not respond to any specifics. Is it possible to have a dialogue with such a user? Freetrashbox (talk) 11:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This user Freetrashbox ignored all sources in the mentioned article pages and only went by your own [5] and even deleting and changing the wording of sources that i have added [6] somalia government has no presence and authority in these regions yet your disruptive editing overlooks this and reverts all sources and edits to your version.Hawkers994 (talk) 22:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hawkers994: Please answer the above question.
    The point made by Hawkers994 relates to an addition by Hawkers994 on January 12, 2023:
    On the beginning of January 2023, the Minister of Interior for Somaliland Mohamed Kahin sat with the traditional elders and intellectuals of Las Anod today and discussed the present situation of the city where there have been protests against the frequent assassinations in Las Anod. [7]
    As we can see by comparing it with the source, this is almost a copy-paste of the source and is likely a copyright infringement. So I rewrote this as follows:
    Somaliland's Minister of Interior Mohamed Kahin Ahmed sat down with traditional elders and intellectuals from Las Anod to discuss the current situation in the city, where protests against the frequent assassinations in Las Anod are taking place.[1]
    I don't think my explanation changes Hawkers994's editorial intent, but what is the opinion of anyone other than Hawkers994? Does Hawkers994's addition not constitute copyright infringement on the English Wikipedia? Freetrashbox (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    :No source or dialogue seems to make this use Freetrashbox seem to understand that WP:POV is based of facts and not how he wants articles to be perceived from his opinions. He had been told numerous times there is already a dispute article for this region [8] with sources that articles are directed to and talk pages that somalia has no presence in this region.Hawkers994 (talk) 10:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    • This user deleted the same reliefweb.info information, leaving only what he liked.[9] - WP:POV violation.
    • This user had a different editorial attitude between Sool, and Badhan, Sanaag & Buraan. - WP:POV violation.
    • This user says "use article talk page for disagreement" in Sool, but when the argument goes against him, he unilaterally ignores the argument and continues to edit. [10] - WP:NEGOTIATE violation.
    • Almost copy-paste post from a news site. [11] - WP:COPYVIO.

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

    As mentioned before user Freetrashbox ignores the sources in the mentioned article pages [12] and even deleting wording of sources that i have added in these articles [13] numerous times the sources make it clear that somalia government has no presence and authority in these regions yet his disruptive editing ignores this and reverts all sources and edits to his opinion.Hawkers994 (talk) 10:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if you feel that there was a problem with my edit, it is no reason for you to violate Wikipedia's rules. Freetrashbox (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This user's problematic behavior is still ongoing. This user replaced Somalia with Somaliland in El Afweyn. I also believe that El Afweyn is Somaliland territory, so I have no problem with that edit itself. However, the references cited at the beginning of this article all clearly state that El Afweyn is Somalia's area. If this is to be rewritten as Somaliland, it is common sense to at least provide a source that El Afweyn belongs to Somaliland. - WP:CS violation.

    This user got into an editing war with another user, and when another user committed a 3RR violation, he reverted it. The 3RR is a problematic action, but it is usually also a problematic action when the discussant reevrts it. And this Revert is also 3RR. - WP:3RR violation.

    In addition, this user writed a 3RR violation warning on the talk page of the user who first committed the 3RR violation. For the first user who violated the 3RR, it would be difficult to understand why it is allowed and not allowed for his own actions, even though his discussion partner also violated the 3RR. - WP:BITE violation.

    --Freetrashbox (talk) 11:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This user Freetrashbox has completely ignored all the sources in these articles and only goes by his opnions, his disruptive editing and completing ignoring WP:POV stating his opinions as facts. As the source clearly stated the town is in Somaliland [14] he deleted it and wrote somalia which has no presence in this while regionn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkers994 (talk • contribs)
    @Hawkers994:The sources you indicated mention Yiroowe, but we have not discussed this town in the past. What does this source mean? Freetrashbox (talk) 09:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hawkers994: You don't seem to have responded, can I assume that you agree with my comments above? Freetrashbox (talk) 00:39, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]


    you have ignored all sourced and have chosen to go only by your opinion, as it was presented there is no Somalia government presence in the regions [15] and previous discussions which you have ignored [16] ignoring WP:POV stating your opinions is facts which is against Wikipedia rules,[17]


    you have ignored all sourced and have chosen to go only by your opinion, as it was presented there is no Somalia government presence in the regions [18] and previous discussions which you have ignored [19] ignoring WP:POV stating your opinions is facts which is against Wikipedia rules,[20]
    you have ignored all sources and have chosen to only by your opinion, as it was presented there is no Somalia government presence in these regions [21] and previous discussions which you have ignored [22] ignoring WP:POV stating your opinions is facts which is against Wikipedia rules,[23] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkers994 (talk • contribs)
    @Hawkers994: Does your comment above mean that you do not intend to discuss this further? Freetrashbox (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ignoring sources and stating your personal opinions after several discussions you have chosen not to discuss but to enforce your own viewsHawkers994 (talk) 01:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hawkers994, stop using WP:VANDALISM as an edit summary unless it's actual vandalism. As you can see from the link it has specific meaning here and the most recent two in your edit history, do not appear to meet it. Better to assume good faith when reverting and explain why. Slywriter (talk) 02:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Slywriter that user in multiple times removes information with no edit summary or for no other reason or discussion [24] [25] [26]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkers994 (talk • contribs)

    This user has removed the additions with sources by unrelated editors. I can understand his sentiment in deleting my description, but he should not delete the edits of an unrelated person. This implies that he is editing without much content review. Freetrashbox (talk) 10:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ "Somaliland Minister of Interior and traditional elders held meeting over Las Anod tension". somaliland.com. 2023-01-11. Retrieved 2023-01-12.

    User:BeanieFan11 and WP:BATTLEGROUND at NFL AFDs

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

    But, yeah, I think there needs to be a broader set of editor eyes on the proceedings going on here and the flagrant abuse of IAR claims. SilverserenC 02:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree that these are "flagrant abuse of IAR claims" – for a few of them (one in particular especially), IAR is a perfectly valid argument. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While the IAR claims are not substantially all that great due to interactions with WP:CONLEVEL, they're being made in good faith and appear to express a genuine desire to improve the encyclopedia. That being said, I do think that adding a note in the AfDs themselves regarding the fact that they were mentioned on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League would be warranted, and could look something like those deletion sorting messages. The notifications appears to be neutral in tone, but it might be warranted to slap {{notavote}} on each of the AfDs if we want to indicate that canvassing may have occurred. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Green, Silverseren advised that the closer actively ignore any Keep arguments made above that are based on claims of "number of games played", which is not a notability requirement. BeanieFan's response: No, they should not be discounted, as IAR is a policy. This is blatant WP:GAMING (specifically WP:STONEWALL) in an attempt to subvert notability requirements which were created after extensive discussion in 2022 and after the community scrapped many number-of-games-played-type notability standards. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm involved in the discussion and have made several of the IAR arguments. What specifically is the violation being considered here at ANI? Is it just some civility comments, or is it because editors are in disagreement on the weight of one argument vs another?--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd argue that you're the one that's going against the spirit of WP:BATTLEGROUND. It's relevant to the discussion that this issue started with Therapyisgood nominating 9 NFL player articles in a short period of time.
    Beanie cares, they're one of the best that I've seen at improving articles so that they survive AfD. There's been numerous times I've seen NFL topics nominated, look back at the page the next day, and the article has been significantly improved. They're frustrated that you've nominated a number of articles at the same time, as are others.
    They approached you on your talk page, asking you nicely to stop nominating NFL articles so that they could improve the ones that you nominated. You removed it 7 minutes after they reached out without responding to them.
    You were approached by an admin regarding the mass nominations, and you dismissed their recommendation.
    @Lepricavark commented on the thread on your talk page, recommending that you listen to what others are telling you. You removed it with an edit summary of Stay off my talk page.
    You also issued a template warning to BeanieFan11 and proceeded to accuse them of canvassing at a number of different AfD discussions. There was then a reply to you from an admin, posted on all of the discussions that you made the accusation on, recommending that you strike your accusation of canvassing.
    Frankly, I think you've been very hard headed and difficult to work with in this whole situation. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To the nominator's credit, the nom didn't bundle all of them, so each of the discussions can proceed on their individual merits. That being said, some of the noms were for athletes that were very quickly shown to have received SIGCOV, so I would urge the nom to conduct a stronger WP:BEFORE before nominating these sorts of articles. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • NFL Wikiproject members canvassed here I thought everyone should know that and why Paulmcdonald, Hey man im josh, and I'm sure others will likely soon be here arguing for IAR to overrule GNG notability requirements. SilverserenC 02:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I went through the AfDs listed above and recommended keeping four articles and deleting four articles. One appears heading to a snow close so I refrained from that. So, I am neutral on the underlying NFL player dispute. It seems several editors here are taking dogmatic stances that result in unnecessary confrontation and that includes editors on both sides. As for invoking IAR as if that wins disputes, gimme a break. Others can holler IAR as well. IAR should be used sparingly and only in unusual circumstances. As an administrator, I could cite IAR to block editors who rub me the wrong way, but I think I would be desysoppped pretty quickly if I persisted with that. Draw your own conclusions from that obvious fact. Trouts all around. Cullen328 (talk) 03:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you--more commenting from uninvolved editors is likely the best solution and would yield the best outcome than all the arguing in the world here. More input, involvement, and discussion is good, but I don't see any real reason for this to be at ANI and I suggest this be closed here.-- Paul McDonald (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uninvolved editor here. My impression is that Therapyisgood could have done more to try to resolve the dispute before taking it to ANI, but they have identified legitimate WP:CIVILITY issues. Silverseren is definitely correct that there is a much bigger issue here of users at WikiProject NFL attempting to WP:Game the system. The former might have been resolved with a simple discussion, the latter is not going away without serious community involvement. I would have been willing to believe that this was a misunderstanding, but the invocations of WP:IAR are quite damning. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The canvassing of an AN/I discussion is particularly troublesome. CMD (talk) 04:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Eh, I don’t think that’s the problem. This ANI was questioning some project members MO as using IAR as a trump card to do whatever they wanted, so them coming to the discussion probably would’ve happened anyway. The bald use of IAR is what troubles me. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      That is a separate problem. People probably coming to discussions is not an excuse for canvassing (it somewhat flies in the spirit of it). CMD (talk) 07:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      No, it is not canvassing to let editors know of an ANI discussion relating to them. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I concur that, in a matter involving their actions, they should specifically be required to be notified (in fact, it IS a requirement). It's also unseemly to discuss their actions without offering them a chance to speak for themselves. Buffs (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - It appears that we have a Gridiron Article Rescue Squadron creating controversy similar to the Article Rescue Squadron. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you saying that it is an issue that me and a few others try to save notable player articles from deletion? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • After reading through some of this, I would say that your rather antagonistic efforts are the issue here, yes. Just because you claim notability does not automatically cement that as fact. That is why we have deletion discussions, because the matter is up for debate. ValarianB (talk)
    • Comment - I thought, in the ArbCom case on behavior in deletion discussions, that one of the factors was that some editors behaved disruptively and stubbornly, both to support and to oppose deletion, and that Discretionary Sanctions should be imposed. I don't want to say "I told you so", and so I won't now, but .... Robert McClenon (talk) 07:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: While I'm in broad agreement with Silverseren about the notability of these players, and while I agree that a lot of people have been trying to subvert, ignore or defy the consensus deprecating participation criteria, and while I firmly believe that citing IAR in a deletion discussion is almost always the last refuge of editors without actual arguments to buttress their "I know what I like" stances, there's nothing sinister in Wikiprojects being notified of deletion discussions. It happens routinely across the board. Ravenswing 07:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, IAR is not a "last refuge of editors without actual arguments to buttress their 'I know what I like' stances." It is a Wikipedia policy that recognizes that the rules are not perfect for every case and that the spirit of the rules (i.e. building and maintaining an encyclopedia) is more important than following the exact rules in every case. Frank Anchor 15:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I stand by my statement: IAR is routinely -- and I daresay overwhelmingly -- used to defy any and all guidelines and policies, and any consensuses, in defense of the speakers' pet hobby horses. Take this dispute, for instance. Claiming that removing unimprovable sub-stubs concerning obscure nobodies who played a football game or two would "damage" the encyclopedia is just this side of certifiable. Ravenswing 17:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The exception is if the WikiProject is a biased audience; from reading this discussion, WikiProject NFL is a biased audience and shouldn't be notified. BilledMammal (talk) 10:46, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I think it's silly to say that the NFL WikiProject (or any relevant WikiProject) shouldn't be notified of articles that are up for deletion. There are users who genuinely improve articles to the point that they're worth keeping and I think that's something that should be encouraged. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      It should be encouraged, but in a way that complies with WP:CANVASS. The consensus system only works if the editors involved in a discussion are representative of the broader community; notifying biased groups subverts that. BilledMammal (talk) 13:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      So you're saying that NFL editors should not be notified when their articles get AFDd, and we should just silently delete all of them without anyone being aware? That's ridiculous. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      If the pages would all be deleted without the intervention of the NFL editors you're admitting that the brigading exists, is highly effective, and subverts the outcomes which would occur from traditional community discussions. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Thats not what I'm saying at all. And what's with your tagging my AFD comments as from an SPA? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Then what are you saying then? You make few edits outside of the sports topic area, someone who makes few or no edits outside of a particular space is known as a SPA. Its not an insult, its just a fact. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, transcluding a deletion sorting list at a project is totally fine; editors notifying the project of specific AfDs/discussions that they are involved in or have a clear opinion on should be disallowed if the project's stated or practical focus includes increasing wikipedia's coverage (=# of standalones) of their subject. This would be in contrast to those projects primarily concerned with moderating the quality of coverage under their purview. JoelleJay (talk) 01:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I suspect most WikiProjects are composed of editors "biased" in favor of the articles they maintain. If individual editors reject core policies and guidelines then that's a different matter, but you can't solve this by attempting to keep people at arm's length. Mackensen (talk) 13:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The rejection of consensus is a separate issue from the subversion of consensus through canvassing. I believe the first is more important, but the second is also a violation of policy and needs to be addressed. BilledMammal (talk) 13:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Intentionally not notifying the most relevant project because you claim it will bias the discussion is itself biasing the discussion. Frankly, it's not assuming good faith and is attempting to create an fait accompli. oknazevad (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Agree with Oknazevad. There is no reason to think that the NFL Project members are interested in anything but improving Wikipedia's coverage of NFL topics, or casting aspersions like being biased or rejecting consensus. And they are probably in the best position to find sources in AfDs related to NFL topics. In many of the AfDs in question here, the nominator claimed to do a thorough BEFORE, but it was members of the NFL Project who nonetheless found sources that seem to have convinced several non-NFL Project members that some of these subjects pass GNG. Intentionally not notifying the project of an AfD seems to be an attempt to bias the discussion in favor of deletion even if sources exist.Rlendog (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Finding addition sources is good, and the best pitcome of these AfD discussion. Voting stacking with arguments that have been rejected by a community wide RFC is problematic. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Oknazevad: that's nonsense, you're arguing that essentially canvassing and refusing to canvass are the same because both "bias" the outcome. You appear to be ignoring that canvassing is not allowed and wikiproject notification is not required. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Intentionally choosing to not notify specifically because you don't want the input of editors that might disagree is no different than intentionally seeking out editors who are likely to agree. It's the same damn thing. oknazevad (talk) 15:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Do you mean not notifying due to bias or a lack of widespread competence when it comes to notability? Nobody has talked about not notifying editors because they might disagree. Canvassing and not canvassing aren't the same thing, again wikiproject notification is not required... Its not even expected, it happens in a small minority of cases. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The National Football League and as a corollary, its players in that competition is, in short, a globally watched thing. In my opinion, any one of of those players linked above will now and will always continue to pass any number of tests for notability. That said, <Shirt58's odd sense of humour> I take a day off work each February to watch the Super Bowl, though I really don't understand why that American Football game starts about 10 am on a Monday </Shirt58's odd sense of humour>--User:Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reading the AfDs, I agree that some of these votes are disruptive. Editors are required to accept consensus, even if they disagree with it, and consistently voting in a manner that rejects consensus is disruptive. I agree with red-tailed hawk that these votes are being made in good faith and appear to express a genuine desire to improve the encyclopedia, but that is often the case with editors who reject consensus and doesn't justify it. I think a minor warning would be sufficient at this time, but further action would need to be taken if they continue to reject consensus. BilledMammal (talk) 10:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no need for a warning. Editors are entitled to invoke IAR if they believe that it is appropriate, and that is not in any way disruptive. If they do not have strong support for why IAR is appropriate, their position will be given little if any weight in closing the discussion. Rlendog (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I want to amplify something Cullen and Ravenswing said above. If you find yourself citing IAR during a deletion debate, you're almost certainly in the wrong and you should reconsider. It's the opposite of a strong argument. Mackensen (talk) 13:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. IAR is a Wikipedia policy that recognizes that the rules are not perfect for every case and that the spirit of the rules (i.e. building and maintaining an encyclopedia) is more important than following the exact rules in every case. Citing IAR most certainly does not mean the editor is in the wrong. Frank Anchor 15:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The fundamental problem is that IAR claims of this sort have no objective merit beyond "Well, I think I'm right and the community is wrong and they can shove it". So why can't I just say say we should ignore all rules and delete all sports bios without further discussion? What if I'm a racist so I think we should IAR and just be racist against others? What if I'm biased in favor of a political party and say IAR Wikipedia would be better if we treat my party favorably and not the others? The strength of such arguments are exactly the same as yours. I feel like this is analogous to Hitchens's razor: "That which can be defended by ignoring all rules can be dismissed by ignoring all rules." -Indy beetle (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    IAR is a terrible argument 99% of the time. The remaining 1% are situations where you can clearly demonstrate that ignoring the rule is better for the encyclopedia. And that will almost never apply to notability for a specific article subject. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Using IAR in a deletion discussion is usually violating the spirit of IAR. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 01:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The RfC used as a basis for these nominations is and was a shitstorm and needs to be redone in simple form, and I've never sworn on Wikipedia before excepting a couple times on a user's talk page. An RfC with 13 sections and sub-sections, each argued over and then decided in an extremely close "consensus", and now some editors are using that to delete articles about football and baseball players who are officially credited with playing professional games in their sport, some of them many games. Nonsense. The RfC needs redoing with just one question, for example, "If a professional ballplayer is officially credited with playing professionally at the highest-levels of their sport can they have an article on Wikipedia?" No sub-sections, no wiki-lawyering, no complicated question after question. Just yes or no, with some discussion. This is one of the most, as Beanie says, bullshit RfC results, responses, and deletion-excuses in Wikipedia history, and calls for a re-do before any further articles are deleted because of it. A hold on these nominations and future nominations should be applied until the question is actually fairly resolved. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • All the RfC determined is that presumed notability doesn't apply to sports biographies, as there's been too many cases where that presumed notability was questioned and no one was able to find proper source coverage. Because of that, all sports biographies taken to AfD must now meet the GNG, because their inherent notability is questioned. So, no, number of games doesn't apply here. If the subject is notable, then your presumption of notability from number of games should mean there's a bunch of sources with significant coverage on the person. All you have to do is supply those sources. SilverserenC 13:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Randy Kryn: If you would like to challenge the closure of the RfC as not reflecting the consensus attained at the discussion, please see WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Official stats provide enough evidence and reputable sources that an athlete has played at the top level of their profession. Not interested in challenging the close because the RfC, in-total, was far too complicated and too closely decided to wade through and comment on, in agreement with the IAR assertion that it thus does not, and did not, provide a fair accounting of community opinion on the simple question stated above. One which is now being used to delete perfectly fine pages and thus is hurting and does not maintain the encyclopedia, or maintain the encyclopedia anywhere in the vicinity of common sense application. The RfC as regards to this one question should be thrown out, with or without the bathwater, sort of like holding due to an appeal to the higher court, and a new and simplfied RfC should commence and apply. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the last sentence: WP:VPP is that-a-way. Curbon7 (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not interested in challenging the close because the RfC, in-total, was far too complicated and too closely decided to wade through and comment on, in agreement with the IAR assertion that it thus does not, and did not, provide a fair accounting of community opinion on the simple question stated above. This reads to me: "The RfC did not go the way I wanted, therefore I will assert it is illegitimate and unfair without actually trying to prove why except for the fact that I personally dislike the outcome." -Indy beetle (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Accept the RFC or challenge not at the appropriate location, anything else is disruptive. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There was one single proposal - the one I made - that said that game participation metrics should be stripped from NSPORTS, which got consensus. That's what seems to be triggering the AFDs on these articles and what those from the NFL wikiproject appear to be getting upset over. There were lots of other proposals, but that one was simple and easily seen through. Masem (t) 01:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Cbl's proposal requiring at least one GNG source be cited in athlete bios at all times also passed, with very strong support. JoelleJay (talk) 01:45, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't recommend the practice of editing just one topic area and treating newcomers with open hostility. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Horse Eye's Back, Neither would I. I also don't recommend straw-manish non-sequitur comments like this last one of yours. Entering into a new topic area with a flurry of AfDs is not advisable. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't really find the quotes in the OP to be all that uncivil; not ANI-worthy. The list of AFDs mentioned above are problematic, I agree they show a failure of WP:BEFORE insofar as some of them were obvious keeps. I snow-closed some keeps and voted to delete or redirect others. The set is a mixed bag, though, as some of the noms are meritorious IMO, and everyone is allowed to make some mistakes and nom some things that end in keep. I'd feel better about it if the nominator had withdrawn the bad noms upon others posting GNG sources, and if an editor were to repeatedly nom obvious keeps, then a sanction might be needed, but not for Therapyisgood for one round with a few misses.

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

      It is not canvassing to notify the primary WikiProject about AfDs pertaining to that content area. What a preposterous position to take. It seems bizarre to me that some editors seem bent on preventing editors from finding out about AfDs that pertain to their primary interests. But then us sports editors haven't had a level playing field for a while. Levi, like many others in this thread you also have failed to recognize the serious problems with an editor charging into a new content area, nominating a bunch of articles for deletion, and then refusing to collaborate at all with the editors who are actually trying to improve the articles. Therapyisgood has taken an adversarial position from the beginning, but so many editors are willing to overlook that because of the currently popular narrative that sports editors are bad. There is a reason why Beanie is so frustrated in those diffs. There is a reason why I stayed away for several days (and after being greeted with this upon my return, I think I'll log back out again). The community-at-large has abandoned us and only seems interested in threatening us vaguely with topic bans if we ever dare to step out of line with the sentiments of the day. The NSPORTS2022 RfC was a slap in the face to many of us, and in retrospect I should have left then. But I must say that I am especially sorry to see you, Levi, embracing this punitive philosophy. That is the only part of this that really surprises me. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Posting a note like this on a single editor's user talk page is not an effective way to notify the primary WikiProject about AFDs pertaining to that content area; that message was WP:CANVASSing. Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League#Article Alerts is how WP:NFL is notified of AFDs. Levivich (talk) 05:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, that editor asked me to send that message. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CANVASSing is wrong even if -- and I want to make this absolutely clear -- even if the other editor asks to be canvassed. After what happened in November, you (and Randy, Paul, and the others) need to stop trying to thwart WP:NSPORTS2022. If you want you can start a new RFC to see if consensus changed; until then, comply with global consensus. Levivich (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And I'm going to quote from that November discussion: I really prefer not to take Beanie (otherwise an excellent and collegial editor) to ANI over this. I still agree with that sentiment, but you're making it hard for us. All you have to do is give up these bottom-of-the-barrel, played-in-a-few-games, totally-unknown-except-brief-mentions-in-local-newspapers, biographies. Just accept that we aren't going to have a standalone page for every pro player of every sport in history. Focus on the important topics, the encyclopedic topics. Please. Levivich (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We have different ideas of what articles are "important" and "encyclopedic," and that's perfectly fine, as editors are free to disagree. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No. You can have whatever ideas you want, and you can disagree, but you need to comply with global consensus. For example, you can have whatever ideas you want about canvassing, but you need to comply with WP:CANVASS. You can have whatever ideas you want about notability, but you need to comply with WP:NSPORTS2022. If you ignore global consensus and just do what you want, you are being disruptive, and wasting our time. Your noncompliance isn't harmless because it wastes editor time. At User talk:BilledMammal#Could you not nominate a bunch of NFL players for deletion right now?, you wrote At least wait for the others to complete - its becoming too much work for me. Well, it'd be less work for all of us if you didn't canvass and cast discountable 'IAR' !votes. We would get through what's notable and what's not a lot faster if everyone complied with our policies and guidelines. All those noms listed above are properly snow keeps and snow deletes--none are close calls--but we have to go the long way because some editors want to insist that playing a few games in the NFL is inherently notable. Levivich (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that I look further, I see BM only nom'd one NFL player, and you asked them to slow down? That doesn't seem reasonable. Also disappointing to see you once again listing many routine brief mentions and calling it SIGCOV. Man, I don't want to have to read another 15 links just to figure out they're all routine game reports. This is a waste of editor time. Levivich (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the modus operandi of many athlete-inclusionist editors. It should be sanctionable. JoelleJay (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoelleJay: Don't I know it, that's why I stopped bothering with AFD years ago. It doesn't really matter that NSPORTS2022 passed. We could delete NSPORTS altogether, it wouldn't really make a difference. Editors will post a series of short game summaries and call it GNG, and closers will close it as a keep. There's no real way to stop that, but it also doesn't matter. There are hundreds of thousands of these sports bios and if someone nominates 10 at a time, or even 100, or even 1,000, and they're kept or deleted, it won't be noticed by anyone, it won't make a dent one way or another. I marginally care more about BLPs because at least those are affecting people (the subjects), but even then, there are over 100k sports BLPs--get rid of 100 or 1000 and it's still a drop in the bucket. Levivich (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    BLP would be a reason to keep articles short. Require that all short articles be made longer or deleted and it's inevitable there will be more BLP issues. Peter James (talk) 20:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think people notice, I've run into problems numerous times wikilinking to people and discovering they have to use a clunky disambiguating parenthesis due to some athlete with the same name occupying the title. Those articles also depress the proportional representation of women and minorities, give fodder to OTHERSTUFF arguments, and clutter up categories making it harder to discover the actually notable people (basically removing the utility of categories as browsing tools). JoelleJay (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The disambiguating parentheses can be removed for primary topics, it doesn't require deletion of another page, if they are not primary over an obscure athlete they are not particularly notable themselves, and on the few occasions where additional disambiguation is required it's probably useful to avoid confusion. They also don't "depress the proportional representation of women and minorities" - many of the deletions are of Olympic athletes from smaller or less developed countries or of cricketers from Asian countries, minorities are not particularly under-represented in professional football or similar sports, and this obsession with GNG (with the exception of Wikipedia:Notability (academics) - a possible indication of cultural bias or classism) has also changed the guidelines so that most schools in non-Western countries are being deleted. Peter James (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a big pain to move pages and change redirects just to preserve the existence of what is essentially a statistical database entry. People notice that. There are hundreds of years of professional/high level sports for British men for which there are no possible counterparts for women or minorities, and contemporary Western men's sports have loads more funding and therefore many more professional player spots that can be filled (look at the depth of English men's pro football...). This absolutely reduces biographical proportions (Lugnuts, who even prided himself in actively creating sports bios on women, was still responsible for substantial decreases in the WiR percentage due to how many pages he made on male athletes). Raising the standards for inclusion (and deleting pages that don't meet them) is literally the only way to approach the theoretical upper limit of real-world coverage proportions. JoelleJay (talk) 01:28, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hundreds is an exaggeration for most sports. For football it's 103 for leagues (130 for WP:FPL, but less in reality; the difference is men's football existed and was popular before professionalism was established for the sport). It's only for cricket that it's significantly more. "Counterparts for minorities" can only mean non-Western and/or non-English speaking countries and far more of them are likely to be deleted now (or will not be created) as a percentage. Peter James (talk) 09:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm wondering what the heck the point of WP:NSPORTS2022 was if the editors who don't like the outcome are just going to ignore it. Honestly, sports AfDs are just the Wild West.—S Marshall T/C 19:14, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @S Marshall I must note that I have seen some noticeable changes in at least the football/soccer AfD's following WP:NSPORTS2022. Not perfect, but alot better than it used to be. 13:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC) Alvaldi (talk) 13:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • If someone tried to pull "but IAR!" on, say, a 1RR restriction on a political article, they'd be sanctioned in a heartbeat. Users who are casting votes in deletion discussions that blatantly say "I am ignoring a Community RfC" should likely be removed from the topic area. Zaathras (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • BeanieFan11's "All of them" comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruel Redinger is a good example of their stonewalling and refusal to engage with other editors. Here we have a detailed source analysis by one editor who even pointed out that one source simply names the individual in a list. Instead of explaining specifically why they disagree, BF11 simply replied "all of them" to another editor's queston about which sources are not routine coverage. In fact BF11 voices their "disagreement" multiple times with no policy-based reasoning whatsoever, as if asserting the same thing multiple times will make it true. This is part of a larger pattern of editors continuing to cite number of games played or IAR as a reason to keep these stubs. Remember: You can ignore all rules, but you can't ignore consensus. –dlthewave ☎ 03:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Another issue is flooding/bludgeoning AfDs with useless sources which other editors must take the time to assess. For example, here at least the first four sources are mere passing mentions and therefore do not contribute to notability. This has happened across multiple AfDs and seems to also be misleading other editors who trust BF11's judgement and support these laundry lists of sources which often contain no significant coverage at all, even when combined together. We should expect an experienced editor to only provide SIGCOV sources. –dlthewave ☎ 04:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Completely agree. JoelleJay (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the very least, we could topic ban some editors from citing IAR in deletion discussions. It might be an oddly specific restriction, but it would address a specific problem and would refocus discussions around how an article subject meets notability criteria, which is what they're supposed to be about in the first place. This seems easier than trying to modify the IAR page itself. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment To be honest, if I saw an editor repeatedly quoting IAR in multiple AfDs because they believe they know better than a community consensus, I would probably just give them a Wikipedia space partial block to ensure they don't do it again. And that's coming from someone who agrees that NSPORTS2022 was not exactly Wikipedia's finest hour. Black Kite (talk) 11:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      So you'd block people from participating in discussion if they invoke IAR without so much as a warning or discussion? That seems more than a little harsh... Buffs (talk) 20:36, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      To be clear, I think ignoring IAR is just as valid when determining consensus. If you're going to invoke it, so can others if they disagree. It isn't a solid argument/no more than WP:ILIKEIT. Buffs (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support at least a Warning to BeanieFan11 not to use uncivil language, with the clear understanding that next time it's a block. IAR is meant to be invoked *EXCEPTIONALLY* and not simply as a blanket reason not to apply a rule - for that you need to overturn the original consensus. Don't make the same mistake made with Lugnuts and others in the past of just continually letting people slide without doing anything at all to stop them until the point it inevitably explodes on here again. FOARP (talk) 11:49, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I would support a warning for uncivil langauge, but I'm confused about any time when IAR is or is not "meant to be invoked" -- I can find no such guidance anywhere, certainly not at Wikipedia:Ignore all rules nor at Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      IAR is "ignore all rules" not "ignore consensus". It's a little stunning to see an admin cite IAR as a reason to ignore a recent RFC they participated in, and vote to keep an athlete bio based solely on how many games the subject played. In your years on Wikipedia, can you point to an example of someone IARing WP:CONSENSUS and it being considered proper by the community? Levivich (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      No, but until this case I've never seen anyone complain about it either. An improtant reason to have IAR is so that consensus can be determined for or against application of a policy or guideline. Before Consensus can be determined to apply IAR on a specific case to override other existing policies, guidelines, and/or rules then there must first be a discussion about it. And before there can be a discussion about it, somebody has to bring it up.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      There was a discussion, at WP:NSPORTS2022, where you made over 30 comments, and given how it closed, it's hard to understand AFD !votes like this. Levivich (talk) 05:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      That's because IAR is so simple and yet so nebulous that you can't, ironically, make rules for its use. However, it is clear that it is always the exception rather than the rule, and should be used in the rare case that breaking a policy or guideline clearly improves the encyclopedia. But using it - as in this case - to say on multiple AfDs "well, yes, this article doesn't meet WP:GNG, but I'm going to use IAR to say that it doesn't need to because I like these types of articles" isn't going to fly at all. A corollary would be me deleting a clearly notable BLP claiming IAR because I didn't like the person it was about. I think I'd get blocked - don't you? Black Kite (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The Five Pillars summation of The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording is a simple way to judge it. I know its not objective, but there's a world of difference between someone missing the mark slightly and someone arguing that nothing matters and we live in a Dada-ist installation. --(loopback) ping/whereis 14:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:IAR seems like when an employee chooses to ignore an illegal command form a boss. It is their right if they truly feel the order is illegal but they better be damn sure, otherwise there will be consequences for being wrong. Zaathras (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your suggesting that the next time I use "uncivil language" I get blocked? Can you even give examples of my "uncivil language" (the ones linked in the first comment are most certainly not – I've had editors attack me with much worse language than that and nothing happened)? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    BeanieFan11 - Swearing at other people, even veiled, is uncivil, particularly in the fraught atmosphere of AFD. The clear intention is to offend the person you are disagreeing with. That others have also been uncivil in the past is immaterial - it would only matter if you had been provoked or it was not part of a pattern of behavior. Am I right in saying that you intend to carry on doing it in future unless we make it clear that it is not acceptable now? Then there is every reason to do so now. FOARP (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Civility is important, but issuing a warning only for civility invites the type of "civil rule breaking" that makes up the bulk of the disruption. Any warning should address the deeper issues of ignoring consensus/guidelines via excessive appeals to IAR; presenting game summaries etc as SIGCOV (NSPORTS specifically covers this); and claiming that playing a certain number of games and/or at a certain level is evidence of notability. It might be best to make a list of editors using these arguments at multiple AfDs and issue a general warning after giving them a chance to explain themselves. –dlthewave ☎ 16:49, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    dlthewave - My issue with this is that people should be allowed to be wrong. The people who really ought to know better are the closing admins. FOARP (talk) 18:09, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To a point, if their interpretations of wikipedia's policies and guidelines are consistently wrong it becomes a WP:COMPETENCE issue. Its one thing to competently interpret them and disagree, its entirely another to interpret them incompetently. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that editors that participate in discussions should be allowed to be "wrong" (whatever that is) and that there is no WP:SENIORITY. It's entirely possible that the best idea and/or freshest viewpoint comes from someone new or not entrenched in the Wikipedia Way. I grant that closing discusisons should have a higher standard, but even then there is an appeal process for that. We shouldn't demand nor expect perfection from Wikipedians.: we should seek to work together and collaborate to make Wikipedia better.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't really about being "wrong" though. This is about editors continuing to disregard guidelines and community consensus even after it's been explained to them. That absolutely is not allowed and if an editor (new or old) continues to ignore the policy, they can expect to be warned and then sanctioned. We actually give new editors quite a bit more leeway since they might not be aware, and in this discussion I've seen at least one comment from someone who changed their assessment method after being made aware of NSPORTS2022. These aren't fresh ideas from new editors either; these are experienced editors continuing to follow old notability standards that have been superseded by newer guidelines. –dlthewave ☎ 02:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So it's not okay to disagree then?--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:01, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's okay to disagree with our guidelines, but AfD is not the place to voice that. –dlthewave ☎ 04:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's ok to disagree, but you need to respect consensus. If there is a high level discussion that forms a broad consensus, then you need to respect that consensus in lower level discussions where the consensus cannot change, even if you argue against it in discussions where it can change. To do otherwise is disruptive WP:IDHT behaviour. BilledMammal (talk) 05:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    BilledMammal - Before NSports 2022 lots of people disagreed with the state of affairs that existed then, and said so in AFDs (including me). I don't think we should have been blocked from saying so. There are still policies on Wikipedia that result in preposterous outcomes (particularly GEOLAND giving practically-automatic notability to any "legally-recognised populated place", whatever that is) and I do not think anyone should be blocked from pointing out that and !voting on that basis. The reason why is that the only way you can reasonably build a consensus for changing things is by slow discussion and advocacy. The point that needs discussing at ANI is civility and I don't see why we should go beyond that. FOARP (talk) 12:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    FOARP - I see a difference between the two cases. GEOLAND and NSPORTS pre-NSPORTS2022 only granted a presumption of notability, which allowed editors to have different interpretations of how strong that presumption was without rejecting a broader consensus and violating WP:IDHT. Here, editors are violating a broader consensus, explicitly presenting arguments that have been rejected by the broader community, and that is disruptive and violates IDHT.
    My position is that editors are free to disagree, but they must do so within the bounds of policy. If you have a belief that is outside the bounds of policy, then your only recourse is to seek to change policy - you cannot just ignore the policy you disagree with. BilledMammal (talk)
    I think where I'd agree BilledMammal is where editors are doing it purely to make a point, which is something we have a long-standing bar on. FOARP (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I'd like to see some acknowledgement from @Therapyisgood that they could have done better in this situation. A couple examples being to not immediately removing Beanie's comment on their talk page when they tried to communicate, or by closing a couple of the AfD discussions once it became obvious that they should not have been nominated. With that said, I think this discussion has been educational for a number of users. I myself have been forced to reconsider what I believe meets notability guidelines, and I've subsequently struck a few votes I made. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I am concerned about some of the comments above on Wikiproject notifications of AfDs in their subject matter area. I am a member of the association football Wikiproject, and there is a lot of AfD activity involving football biographies (several new nominations daily). In my experience, these football biography AfDs rarely generate enough discussion to reach consensus - plenty of AfDs result in no consensus or soft deletion - even with Wikiproject notification. Removing that notification is going to lead to less discussion, more re-listings, and overall more stress on an overloaded AfD process. If the concern is that a Wikiproject member is attempting to vote-stack, that should be addressed with them individually, as opposed to a blanket block on notifications. Jogurney (talk) 20:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • You guys are going up and down about how I'm a terrible editor and should be blocked for using IAR – but when you look at the AFDs, you will see there was only one where I said that and did not provide any sigcov sources – the Babcock discussion. This whole discussion is quite ridiculous in my opinion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      There are four issues here; civility, rejection of consensus (with you citing IAR in multiple discussions), canvassing of individuals, and canvassing of groups. If you can understand what mistakes you make and commit not to make them again we can end this discussion here - although the rejection of consensus is an issue that applies to multiple editors - but if you can't then this remains unresolved. BilledMammal (talk) 05:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Civility" – using "f-ing" once is not violating any policy (heck, I've had editors say my edits are just a bunch of junk and attack me saying that I'm incompetent and know nothing about football – but nothing for them). "Rejection of consensus by using IAR" – IAR is literally stated at both WP:NOTABILITY AND WP:NSPORT as a valid argument (at the very top for both: This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline: It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. "Canvassing of individuals" – for the last time, answering users' request to see AFDs is not canvassing. "Canvassing of groups" – letting the WikiProject know about discussions relating to it is not canvassing, as long as the notifications are neutral (which in this case, they are). BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Then unfortunately I believe a series of warnings need to be proposed. My initial thoughts are the following proposals:
    1. BeanieFan11 is warned against being incivil in AfD's
    2. BeanieFan11 is warned against disrupting Wikipedia by rejecting broader consensus in AfD discussions where the broader consensus cannot be changed
    3. BeanieFan11 is warned against canvassing partisan individuals to AfD's, even when the individual has requested to be canvassed
    4. BeanieFan11 is warned against canvassing partisan groups to AfD's, including groups organized as WikiProjects
    5. BeanieFan11 is warned against canvassing partisan groups to ANI, including groups organized as WikiProjects
    I'm not convinced I will support #1 or #5, but given the allegations have been made and have found some support I believe they need to be proposed. Does any editors have thoughts on the wording or the scope of any of these proposals? BilledMammal (talk) 01:30, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    BilledMammal, I would call this a good summary of the concerns that have been raised. My suggestion would be to let editors !vote for whichever proposals they support, avoiding the risk of an unpopular one spoiling the whole thing. –dlthewave ☎ 20:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I believe one may notifiy a related-WikiProject concerning an AFD, as long as the notification is worded neutrally. GoodDay (talk) 05:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:CANVASS has four requirements; the notification must be limited in scale, neutral, to a nonpartisan audience, and open. These also apply to WikiProjects; notifying every WikiProject would be a violation, notifying a WikiProject with a biased message would be a violation, notifying a paristan WikiProject would be a violation, and secretly notifying the members of a WikiProject would be a violation. BilledMammal (talk) 07:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The "Appropriate notification" section of the policy you just linked to specifically gives "The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects...which may have interest in the topic under discussion" and "Editors who have asked to be kept informed" as examples of things which are not canvassing. The assumption that certain WikiProjects are partisan would constitute a blatant failure to assume good faith. Hatman31 (talk) 07:32, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:APPNOTE is clear that those examples do not grant an exception to the requirements of WP:INAPPNOTE; it states Do not send notices that violate WP:INAPPNOTE, and do not send messages to users who have asked not to receive them.
      It also isn't a violation of WP:AGF to recognize that some editors and some groups of editors (including some groups of editors organized as a WikiProject) are partisan on some topics. BilledMammal (talk) 07:37, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      That's a complete BATTLEGROUND mentality. oknazevad (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      No, it's acknowledging reality. There are projects and groups of editors who are here to right great wrongs, and it is not BATTLEGROUND to call that out. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Again, none of the notifications BeanieFan sent were inappropriate. First, this was a neutrally worded, clear, and brief note on the page of a WikiProject which is related to the topic under discussion, of the type which is explicitly permitted under WP:APPNOTE. Second, Randy Kryn asked to be informed of the other discussions happening here and BeanieFan obliged - which, again, is explicitly permitted under WP:APPNOTE. Then, a group of editors attempted to get them sanctioned based in part on a reading of a policy which is diametrically opposed to what the policy actually says.
      If this thread achieves nothing else (which seems likely), reading it will have at least helped me understand why some people view this site as such a hostile environment. Hatman31 (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      As an editor who is highly experienced in turning 5kb keep discussions into 25kb no consensus shitshows, I hereby publicly declare my interest in contentious sportsperson AfDs and invite editors to link all such ongoing discussions on my talk page. Thank you. JoelleJay (talk) 01:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the idea of sanctioning users for making specific arguments you dislike in deletion discussions is patently ridiculous. Rather than trying to sanction them against invoking IAR, the more reasonable approach would be to explain why they are wrong in the deletion discussion. If they are so clearly in the wrong, this should be a fairly thing to do. Toa Nidhiki05 14:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      It's not really a question of dislike but rather an issue of bad faith. Imagine we had a BLP of a controversial politician, where one editor kept coming back to it again and again and again with the same arguments to put something in the lede about something super-controversial, but most other editors disagreed. When does the right to disagree cross the line into disruption? Zaathras (talk) 14:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Reviewing this discussion I think it is clear that WikiProject NFL's position on making arguments against broader consensus at AfD is out of line with the broader communities position. As a strawpoll, I count 23 editors as having expressed an opinion on this, with seven appearing to be in in favor or tolerant of such arguments (BeanieFan11, Red-tailed hawk, Paul McDonald, Frank Anchor, Rlendog, Randy Kryn, Toa Nidhiki05) and 15 appearing to be against or intolerant of such arguments (Silverseren, Indy beetle, Robert McClenon, Cullen328, Thebiguglyalien34, Ravenswing, BilledMammal, Mackensen, The Hand That Feeds You, Sungodtemple, Levivich, S Marshall, Zaathras, dlthewave, Black Kite). I was not able to assess the position of the 23rd, FOARP.
    Of the seven, four are listed as members of WikiProject NFL, a fifth is a frequent contributor to their talk page, and a sixth is an infrequent contributor. Of the 15, one is an infrequent contributor. This also supports the allegations of canvassing; WikiProject NFL is demonstratably partisan.
    If there are editors whose positions I missed, or misassessed, I apologise; please correct me. BilledMammal (talk) 15:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You can put me down as against/intolerant of that argument as well. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Feel free to count me as against it too BilledMammal. Trying to vote-stack in individual AFDs to get a local consensus to overturn much larger consensuses shouldn't be accepted as a real consensus by closing admins. FOARP (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Me too. JoelleJay (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @BilledMammal Eh, I said that using IAR in a deletion discussion was ridiculous, because it is. If I encounter that as a closing administrator I disregard it. I have confidence that other closers will too.
    You seem pretty worked up about your discovery that editors who self-identify as interested in NFL topics take a more expansive view of notability than third parties. I don't see that as important, surprising, nor actionable. Are you planning to bar WikiProject Members, as a class, from participating in deletion discussions about the articles that they write? I don't think that's compatible with the project's overall goals myself. Mackensen (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    All I propose is enforcing WP:CANVASS; preventing the notification of partisan groups of editors. I don't support barring members of a partisan group from participating in discussions if they discover the discussion on their own. BilledMammal (talk) 01:24, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Does that include getting rid of deletion sorting too?--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No BilledMammal (talk) 08:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've no opinion about IAR. But, I do know that we'd be setting a messy precedent, if we declare that anybody contacting a topic-related WikiProject concerning a AFD, is canvassing. PS - We should also not assume, that all members of a WikiProject think the same. Also, editors who aren't members of a WikiProject, can still have that WikiProject on their watchlist. GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The conclusion "WikiProject NFL is demonstratably partisan" is the result of using AN/I as a benchmark, but it just as likely that AN/I is partisan (and this thread in particular, from the list of participants). And there was no consensus at WP:NSPORTS2022. Peter James (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you sure about that? The linked closing statement at WP:NSPORTS2022 says that there was consensus on proposals 3, 5, and 6 with a partial consensus on proposal 8. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are too many general support/oppose comments to say there was consensus for anything. There could be a majority but that is no reason to mass delete/undelete every time there is more than 50% support for either position. Peter James (talk) 09:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you would like to challenge the close you can but the closer found there to be a consensus for many things. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What "general support/oppose comments"? The !votes were assessed in relation to the specific proposals. JoelleJay (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The comments at the top of the page. And the specific proposals, looking at proposal 3 it was majority but not consensus; an RFA with similar support (or 8% more) would be closed without bureaucrat discussion. It's probably too late to challenge the close now. Peter James (talk) 19:24, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Either challenge the close, reopen the issue, or abide the consensus. There isn't an "ignore consensus and do my own thing" option here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The close was already challenged (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive341#NSPORTS closure review). After the close challenge, the specific removal of what used to be WP:NGRIDIRON was discussed at WT:NSPORTS (Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 49#American football/Canadian football) -- the only person who !voted "keep" in that discussion was BeanieFan. That was last March. I removed NGRIDIRON last April. This past November, we had Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Enforcing SPORTBASIC's requirement of SIGCOV, which begins "I tried redirecting a number of American football sub-stubs today...The redirects were promptly reverted by User:BeanieFan11...". Now, when an editor takes them to AFD instead of boldly redirecting them, we get... "Keep, played X games...". This is nothing other than a small group of editors steadfastly trying to thwart a very-well-and-recently-established, tested-multiple-times, global consensus, because they disagree with it. This is not our way. Levivich (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is shameful. Can't even believe what I'm seeing. Agreed that this is not our way. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's likely that any discussion about it would close with no consensus. Peter James (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any comments at the top of the page, unless you're referring to the initial proposal of removing NSPORT wholesale, which was separate from all the subproposals. We don't use numerical thresholds for RfC consensuses, so I don't see how you can say there wasn't consensus, especially when considering the weight of the arguments. The amendment that has had the greatest impact on athlete AfDs was subproposal #5 (requiring all athlete articles cite a GNG source, in addition to the existing requirement that all athlete article subjects meet GNG), which had overwhelming support at ~72% of 82 participants. JoelleJay (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The weight of arguments just means whether they are valid and accurate and represent consensus on a wider scale as supported by policy or guidelines. When discussing what the policies and guidelines should be, there is no wider scale. And 72% is not overwhelming support; it's close enough for a bureaucrat discussion at RFA (although the last RFA closed as no consensus with more support was in 2015) and too low for RFB. Peter James (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    RfA is a strict !vote count, it is not comparable at all to AfD discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 03:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to kindly request you refrain from assigning me as some sort of partisan here. I only commented becuase I find the idea of sanctioning people for making arguments in deletion discussions to be ridiculous. I didn't participate in WP:NSPORTS2022, have not participated in the RfCs in question, have not engaged anyone on either side, and frankly have no real opinion on this matter other than that it is silly to try and sanctioning people for arguments in deletion discussions. Toa Nidhiki05 18:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The difference with canvassing

    I see a lot of the discussion above has turned to discussing the issue of canvassing people to AfDs and I felt that there's a point to be made in regards to why certain notifications would count as canvassing while others wouldn't. Many above are discussing intent and I think they have it well in hand there, but I think an even bigger aspect for these particular AfDs is outcome from said notifications. As a comparison, we over at WP:Women in Red do often notify about AfDs that are made about women's articles directly on the talk page. However, what we do in regards to that is distinctly different, we go in and improve the article in question, working together to find as many reliable sources of significant coverage as we can and adding them to the article, expanding it in the process.

    Comparatively, this case involves notification of a number of AfDs to the NFL wikiproject. I will give Beaniefan11 credit as they did give sources in several of the AfD discussions, though only for about half. And, regardless of them doing that, for all the AfDs, what was the response from the other members of the wikiproject? Not to go in and improve the articles in question. No, they went and voted in the AfDs, frequently with "Keep because IAR" or also often with some variation of "Keep because played four professional games", which isn't anything related to a notability requirement. And it is that outcome that betrays the notification as canvassing, whereas it might not be in other cases. If a group of editors is being informed about an AfD discussion solely to go in and vote Keep without actually doing anything to improve the article or demonstrate notability with sources, particularly in this case with all the non-policy based arguments, that's what makes it canvassing. That's the difference. SilverserenC 16:41, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I am a member of the NFL wikiproject and I don't believe I !voted "Keep because IAR" or also often with some variation of "Keep because played four professional games", at least without some reference to available sources on any of these. If you are suggesting otherwise please provide the diffs. Rlendog (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, though obviously some !votes might be swayed by it. I'd trust a closer would ignore mere "Keep because IAR" !votes, unless it also provided a compelling reason why IAR is helping WP. —Bagumba (talk) 07:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If I may piggy-back on that slightly: I'm a big fan of IAR. I listed it as my favorite policy at RfA, and just today wrote a bit of a love letter to IAR on my usertalk in the context of how sometimes rigidly following guidelines can make a situation worse. But the thing about IAR is, you do have to have a reason for it. You don't always need to give that reason at length up-front, but, if challenged, you should be able to say, clearly, "This is why I think deviating from policies and guidelines is in the best interest of the encyclopedia". I've seen some comments above about how IAR comes up rarely or only at extremes, and I don't think that's true. If it appears to be true it's only because people don't realize just how many damn policies we have and how often they're noncontroversially bent or broken. But the best IAR invocations are the ones where you don't have to explicitly say you're invoking IAR, because it's just obviously the right thing to do. And the second-best are the ones where you say very clearly which rule you're going against and why that's beneficial. "Keep because IAR" is neither, and in general an IAR keep is a very high standard, because many of the reasons one might cite (article quality, navigational benefit) are ones the community has affirmatively rejected as sufficient absent notability. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 08:03, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ...what we do in regards to that is distinctly different, we go in and improve the article in question, working together to find as many reliable sources of significant coverage as we can and adding them to the article, expanding it in the process. - So does the NFL WikiProject. I think most WikiProjects try to do this in cases where articles in their particular field of interest are nominated, and I think that's a very good thing. What's not a good thing is that you're insinuating that the group is acting in bad faith. Every project will have inherent bias but the NFL WikiProject is not always voting keep as a group. There are differing opinions on notability ever since WP:NGRIDIRON was removed, and yes I understand that votes should still be within policy. I'm very involved in the project so I recognize the editors involved, and I very often see some of them voting to delete or redirect. I don't think the label being applied to the group as a whole is fair. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Pragmatically speaking, if you want people who actually care about sports writing sports articles, you will have to give them some of what they want. At least treating them respectfully, and maybe you will have to factor in what they consider notable. You don't want me writing about sports - I hate sports. --Rschen7754 05:20, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd actually rather have someone less invested in sports writing about the topic, as they are less prone to gushing about it & trying to shoehorn an article about every last player into the encyclopedia.
    We have similar problems with popular media like movies, comic books, and television shows, where people try to make an article about every last character/setting detail, when those would be more appropriate for a project dedicated to that fandom. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Pragmatically speaking, people won't volunteer to improve articles about topics they aren't interested in. Volunteer productivity requires "fans", as it were. That's why our genius system of global WP:CONSENSUS says that the fans can work on the articles but they can't make the rules; the rules are made by everybody, fans and non-fans alike. Levivich (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a world of difference between simply being interested in something and being a fan. Hence the old saying that user page affiliation boxes ("this user likes the Bengals") are COI disclosures because anyone who cares enough about a subject to identify their personality with it has a COI. NFL is also an inherently weird topic area, how many other topic areas do we have for a single private company? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps WP:NFL should be merged into Wikipedia:WikiProject American football. I too, don't know if there's another WikiProject out there, devoted to a single sports league. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Off the top of my head, I can think of WP:NBA. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Any companies that aren't sports related though? A comparable would be WikiProject: Apple but that doesn't appear to exist. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WikiProject Apple exists. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I correct myself, Wikipedia:WikiProject Apple Inc. does in fact exist. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, WP:NBA should (perhaps) be re-named Wikipedia:WikiProject American Basketball. -- GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I highly doubt proposing to merge the NFL into American football and NBA into Basketball would be successful. For football, at least, you would then also have to merge all the nfl team projects, the college football project, the american football league project, the arena football league project, etc. to balance it out. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are projects for the individual teams? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Most are inactive at this point but some are still running, for example Wikipedia:WikiProject Green Bay Packers. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WikiProjects for individual teams? Those should be merged in to related broader WikiProjects. GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, so you say stuff like that across every subject area and I am not sure that you have a Wikipedia left. The Great Resignation was about people leaving their paid jobs because they were no longer interested or engaged in them. Good luck keeping volunteers with the attitude of "The deletions will continue until the morale improves". Again, I hate sports so I can't say who's right or wrong but apparently a significant portion of the NFL editors are upset with WP:NSPORTS2022. Maybe it's time for WP:NSPORTS2023 to fix this PR problem. --Rschen7754 01:52, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is so backwards... Its the wikiproject which has created the problem for the community, not the other way around. Why would we want to make an effort to keep disruptive editors or admins in the project? As for the threats to leave if the community doesn't bow to the will of a wikiproject you apparently left in Wikipedia December when your beloved roads wikiproject was forced into conformance with a community standard[28] but I haven't noticed a difference in your editing activity. TLDR if they leave its an improvement and they're probably just lying about leaving anyway. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, either we treat this as a system problem or we look to punish people. The first option helps alleviate the problems across all of Wikipedia by addressing inadequacies in our systems for dealing with this problem. The second is may placate your sense of vengeance, but does nothing to help Wikipedia grow and become better. I'd rather go with the first option. This appears to be a symptom of the fact that maybe the NSPORTS2022 result did not adequately solve the problem. Saying "Drive people out of Wikipedia until they get in line" is not a productive way to run an organization of this size and magnitude. --Jayron32 16:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you propose addressing the systemic problem? Getting rid of wikiprojects all together? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The flip side is that fan-Wikiprojects will group up against other editors, driving those editors away from Wikipedia. That's not helping the project grow either. Forcing us to go through another NSPORTS argument just to make the fans happy is likely just going to result in the rest of us walking off. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    HEB, I will point out that you have made this about roads, when really it is not about roads or sports or any subject. All I am doing is sharing my experiences working across this project and at many others across the Wikimedia ecosystem - and also my experiences working with people in real life in "real" organizations. If we don't care about people, then we should just have ChatGPT write the encyclopedia and call it a day. --Rschen7754 19:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a discussion about wikiprojects which have brigading and gatekeeping problems, I'm not making this about roads they just happen to fit the bill as you well know. We care about people, that's why we're addressing toxic and destructive behaviors like brigading and gatekeeping. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But on the flip side, we could say that this is a bunch of generalists (to put it mildly) that have gotten way too strict on enforcing guidelines (and sometimes going further than the guidelines) resulting in deleting too much content and chasing away editors. --Rschen7754 19:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Brigading and gatekeeping don't address that, in fact chasing away editors is a key aspect of gatekeeping. Is chasing editors away ok if they're generalists? Is brigading ok if it saves material that doesn't meet the consensus policies and guidelines? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:51, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's hilarious that you're arguing that requiring articles to meet the GNG is "too strict". SilverserenC 01:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What generally happens is that people reject sources for not meeting SIGCOV, regardless of whether it is true or not. Or declare them as primary when they are not. Also, ignoring WP:NEXIST. --Rschen7754 01:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    BeanieFan, Paul McDonald, and other NFL editors participated at WP:NSPORTS2022. What would be the purpose of holding WP:NSPORTS2023 aside from gambling on the hope that the community will simply undo the changes done before? Granted, holding a new RfC is a better strategy than "The rules don't apply to me because WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IAR". For the record, I would fully support another RfC if a good portion of the other 70+ participants in the last one are cool with that (or if there's some magic bloc of untapped editors who suddenly have an opinion on this) and if people actually agree to abide by the outcome, which they should already be doing now. But I doubt that will happen, since I see now evidence that the community's mind has suddenly changed, and repeatedly challenging the rules due to one's personal objections to them would become disruptive. "It's not consensus unless I agree with it" is not how this is supposed to work. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think anyone is saying that NSPORTS2022 should be thrown in the trash entirely. But in over 15 years of editing I have found that when one side wants A, and the other side wants B, there is usually a C option that more people can get on board with. Are there changes that can be proposed/made to improve relations and that will have a greater consensus? --Rschen7754 01:09, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think we should make changes to notability guidelines in order to improve relations between editors. Levivich (talk) 01:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The outcome of the RfC was a compromise! Editors in the sports projects objected to the proposal to scrap NSPORT altogether, so one of them (in fact, someone heavily involved in the American football projects) proposed a reasonable alternative that received a strong global consensus for support. That a major fraction of the sports project members most active in deletion discussions opposed it and continues to vocally object to and interfere with its implementation does not mean the outcome wasn't supported by the sports projects as a whole, and even if it was universally condemned by them it wouldn't matter because global consensus trumps LOCALCON every time. JoelleJay (talk) 03:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to echo this above. I certainly didn't get everything I wanted from the NSPORTS RfC, but I'm not throwing around poor rationales at AfD and then demanding NFL editors "compromise" with me. Why can only the NFL editors demand compromise? Why must the people who follow the rules, even if they aren't totally happy with them, bend to accommodate those who are unwilling or uncapable of doing so? And as a matter of principle, demanding "compromise" as a form of appeasement for every small group of contrarians is just extremely easy to abuse...should we compromise with COI and PAID editors, maybe let them write POV content half the time for the sake of making them happy? -Indy beetle (talk) 08:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So what I'm reading is that the group doesn't vote as a herd, and in fact, vote as individuals. Hey man im josh (talk) 04:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not about to do an audit but let's be real: there are multiple editors who voted the same way in every discussion that Beanie posted to WT:NFL, including this one. If it wasn't for that 'voting as a herd', I'd not have supported warnings. Levivich (talk) 04:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I said the sports project members most active in deletion discussions. The members who do not participate in AfDs have no relevance when discussing the behavior of members who do participate in AfDs. JoelleJay (talk) 05:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Proposal failed
    SNOW FAIL
    It's snowing against this proposal. While involved as the proposer, the outcome is obvious, and I'm closing this proposal as failed. Should anybody object to the snow close, please feel free to revert this closure unilaterally. (non-admin closure) — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • Per Robert McClenon, I'm increasingly thinking that having this be under a community DS would allow for more civilized discussions and would allow administrators to better ensure good behavior in this area more broadly. In that light, I would like to propose the following community-authorized discretionary sanctions regime for this perennially contentious topic area:
      • Any uninvolved administrator may, at their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
      • The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length, bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict, bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics, restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
      • If the enforcing administrator believes that an editor was not aware that they were editing within a general sanctions area when making inappropriate edits, no editor restrictions (other than a logged warning) should be imposed. Prior to any editor restrictions (other than a logged warning) being imposed, the editor must be made aware of the existence of these community general sanctions and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve their editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
      • Additionally, any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict page protection, revert restrictions, prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists), or any other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project. Administrators must add an editnotice and talk page notice on restricted pages. Editors who ignore or breach page restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator only if the editor was warned about this decision and an editnotice describing the page restriction was placed on the restricted page.
      • Sanctions imposed may be appealed to the imposing administrator, at the appropriate administrators' noticeboard, or at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.
      • Editors may make good-faith requests for an uninvolved administrator to enforce these general sanctions by posting their concerns to the administrator's noticeboard or to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.
    I believe that the existence of these sanctions would help to keep the area calmer and would be an improvement to the current situation in this topic area. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not opposing out of a "fear of sanctions," but because I think its truly ridiculous what this would allow. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it fear that individual administrators would misuse the existence of these general sanctions to win content disputes? There's a place to deal with that, as that would be desysoppable. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as an incomplete remedy. The underlying issue appears to be with wikiprojects brigading AfD not with sportspersons per say... Perhaps we need to be more clear about whether wikiprojects are meant to be fan clubs and begin taking action against those who are members of a wikiproject first and wikipedia second. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Would you be in favor, then, of general sanctions on notability and deletion, each broadly construed? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think I would be, the current system seems to do a good job of eliminating individual editors who create issues at AfD... Where it breaks down is in addressing groups of them (especially when the edits on their own are not sanctionable but the group conduct is). I would be in favor of a sanctions regime for fanboy wikiprojects (perhaps progressive page locks?) though. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I believe we should let Wikiepdians be free to be enthusiastic about any topic they desire.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      As long as they can remain impartial of course. The problem for many is that their enthusiasm throws their impartiality out the window and if they can't edit a topic area impartially they aren't allowed to edit it at all... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      One person's "partaility" is another person's "common sense" -- that's too big of a judgement for people to make at an online encyclopedia. If editors are being "partial" one way or another, other editors are free to metion that and the closing editor is free to take that into consderiation. We can do that now. We DO do that now.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you present some evidence that these sanctions are needed? My experience of AfD discussions is that the problem (if it exists) is too small, but my experience may not be typical, as I usually ignore discussions about sports. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose As unneeded bureaucracy, ValarianB (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose (I'm invovled in the discussions in quesiton) As long as it is WP:CIVIL, editors are free to WP:DISAGREE in discussions. Consensus can change, and the only way to change it is to discuss it. Editors are even free to speak against a policy if they like--even policies change.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      As long as it is WP:CIVIL and not WP:DISRUPTIVE. Repeatedly rejecting existing consensus in discussions where consensus cannot change is disruptive WP:IDHT behavior. BilledMammal (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I think I agreee. There is a right and wrong way to disagree. I don't read the link provided to mean that someone can never disagree, but to repeatedly disagree in the same discussion is certainly disruptive per essay WP:WABBITSEASON. Repeated disagreements can be a burden, but remember so can repeated agreements! However, to mention once something like "I disgreee because" and provide a short description isn't disruptive in my eyes. Is that in alignment of understanding or am I off base (which is ALWAYS a possiblity!): I would offer there is a difference between "I didn't hear that" and "I heard that but I think it's wrong." I observe numerous times where one editor presumes that Editor A is "not hearing" them but really Editor A "heard them" and just disagrees.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - utterly disproportionate to the problem and unnecessary bureaucracy. Rlendog (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. This feels like it would raise rather than lower the temperature. Mackensen (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Seems like a poor tool fit to this particular purpose. If the issue was that the prior RFC was too complex to be useful, then start a clarifying RFC on VPP or something and get clarity from the community. --Jayron32 16:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Unfortunately, the ArbCom case has failed to resolve the issue, and while this won't solve the problems of brigading and disruptive WP:IDHT behavior I believe it will reduce the scale of the issue and hopefully prevent a second ArbCom case from being required. BilledMammal (talk) 16:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose The issue more relates to the near-impossibility of reaching any consensus for changes to WP:NSPORT. Until that changes this sort of incident will continue. Nigej (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per arguments offered above regarding "unneeded bureaucracy", disproportionality, and potential to "raise rather than lower the temperature". Jweiss11 (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • ‘’’Oppose’’’. I disagree with Beanie on some of the afds where he argues to keep per IAR but I understand his passion. Beanie is one of the best editors we have working hard to expand football articles with actual reliable sources And encyclopedic content. I would say more in beanies defense but I am getting married in South America tomorrow morning so I will leave it at that. :) 23:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
    • Oppose I see nothing to justify this. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Contacting WikiProjects

    Will we need to (or should we) establish whether WikiProjects should or shouldn't be contacted about related AfDs, RMs, RFCs etc? As a member of WP:HOCKEY, I can promise you that we (the members of WP:HOCKEY) don't agree on everything concerning ice hockey. If contacted about an AfD, RM, RFC, etc? we WP:HOCKEY members do tend to not be in sync. GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    WikiProjects are routinely and uncontroversially notified about AfD discussion by adding the appropriate templates to the discussion. In this case, they are shown at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League#Article Alerts - interested editors can monitor that, and go to the discussion, no more should be needed. I wouldn't be particularly concerned about someone posting on a project's talk page asking for help in finding and adding sources that might establish notability, but if the talk page is being used to drum up a group of people who all do and !vote in similar ways that does strike me as inappropriate. Girth Summit (blether) 18:27, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would note that in most projects that is what happens. Its only in some projects that people post "This guy is deleting our articles! Please help!" and others let them get away with it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's presumptuous to think that all WikiProject members operate as a herd, merely because they are interested in a common topic. WP:AGF. —Bagumba (talk) 07:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I support WikiProjects being notified. WikiProjects will often improve articles that have been nominated to the point that they're worth keeping and I think that should be encouraged, though I can understand how that might look like canvassing. My experience with the NFL WikiProject is that I routinely see members of the project voting against other project members at the relevant AfDs, not acting as a herd. If editors are believed to be voting in bad faith then those can be addressed on an individual basis. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "WikiProjects are routinely and uncontroversially notified about AfD discussion by adding the appropriate templates to the discussion." That says pretty much what needs saying. There is nothing productive in coming up with some new rule because of allegations of abuse. Ravenswing 16:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So you're saying that we should ban notifications beyond the templates? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (blinks) ... and you read "There is nothing productive in coming up with some new rule" as meaning that we should come up with some new rule? That's ... kinda breathtaking. Ravenswing 17:03, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm confused then, this isn't a discussion about template notification. This is a discussion about personalized notification in addition to the standard template. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just another person chiming in to say that WikiProjects are routinely and uncontroversially notified of deletion discussions without any issues. The notion that there's some sort of unfair uniformity within WikiProject members is not accurate in my experience either. For example, in the music-related Wikiprojects, there's much disagreement between editors as to when songs get their own article or are simply covered in their respective album article. In the video game area, there's constant discord between members on when a video game character needs its own article. It already feels like AFD participation is down in recent years, so I'd really prefer not to make any changes to further impact that, especially in efforts to solve something that I have not observed be an issue in the first place. Sergecross73 msg me 17:22, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Members of wikiprojects may disagree on some types of AfDs, but if enough unite around particular internal standards that are at odds with global consensus and then implement them outside of projectspace, they are being disruptive. This would include casting anti-consensus arguments at AfDs, as we saw with the IAR arguments; the cricket project examples last spring (pinging @BilledMammal); and the approach various projects' members have used of refbombing with UNDUE/trivial/routine sources claiming NBASIC (and using them to "improve" the article), asserting minor awards meet ANYBIO, mischaracterizing the independence or secondariness of sources, rejecting NOT, and then !voting en masse based on those arguments. JoelleJay (talk) 04:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    To elaborate further. A message about an AFD at a related WikiProject is proper if worded - "Input is required at 'linked' AFD". A message that would be improper? - "Calling all members support, to stop the deletion of [linked] page". GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    GoodDay, Well said. — Jacona (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Rlendog (talk) 01:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is this discussion happening at ANI? ANI cannot create policy. --Rschen7754 04:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    AfDs should not be carried out in secrecy - if the objective of AfD discussions is to come to the correct result (rather than just "winning" the discussion and getting a preferred result), then wider community involvement is not only welcome but necessary - as AfDs usually boil down to sourcing, the participation of editors who understand the subject field and have access to sources beyond what can be found via Google is fundamental. While notifications should be neutral, we should not be using the fact that notifications have been made to try and disqualify people or their opinions from discussions.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: Beaniefan11 is warned

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

    This list compiled by BilledMammal covers a range of issues that have been raised here. Please respond with either Support followed by the specific numbered warnings that you support or Oppose to oppose any warning at this time. –dlthewave ☎ 16:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support 1,2,3,4,5 as nom. –dlthewave ☎ 16:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose all: Disclaimer: I'm involved with the NFL WikiProject and have worked with Beanie a great deal in the past. (#4) I don't believe it's been established that WikiProjects should not be notified of relevant AfDs in their area of interest. I maintain that notifying any relevant WikiProject of deletions in their area of interest is beneficial and likely to lead to improvements of the articles that have been nominated. (#5) Considering this ANI has been discussing the NFL WikiProject as a whole, and unfairly labelling the group as voting with a herd mentality, I think it's relevant to include the group in the discussion at ANI. (#1) The comments that are being labelled as "uncivil", in my opinion, don't rise a level to be worthy of a warning. (#2) I think this ANI has been enough of a warning to them and others involved (I myself have changed my view of football player notability based on this discussion, striking several of my votes). While there is still a question of whether using IAR at AfD is disruptive, I do not believe they'll be using that rationale moving forward based on their comments on this discussion and them striking their IAR rationale from the currently open AfDs at the American football deletion sorting. I'm also noticing that they're asking for articles to be draftified so that they can work on improving those articles to the point that the community accepts them as meeting GNG. (#3) I think this was done in good faith, given that the user asked for a link to said AfDs. I think it's clear that moving forward it'd be best to link to the relevant deletion sorting page in the future instead of the individual AfD pages. I believe the lashing that's been taken here is enough and we don't need to pile on further. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose all - Nothing BeanieFan11 has done merits a warning. (1) The comments at the start of this ANI thread are hardly of the sort that warrant a civility warning. (2) BeanieFan11 has not disrupted anything by rejected broader consensus. In most cases he has found sources for the subjects in question. If in a couple of cases he claimed IAR that hardly disrupts anything - it takes an admin literally a second to read an !vote claiming essentially "IAR because I like it" before dismissing the !vote. And in every case I can recall BeanieFan11's IAR claim has gone beyond what was explicitly rejected in the NSPORT RfC, i.e., notability claims just for playing a number of games, by adding the fact that they played in a pioneering league. We can agree or disagree that that is enough to warrant IAR but it is not simply rejecting the consensus. (3) An individual asked BeanieFan11 to let him know about AfDs needing rescuing. It is hardly canvassing to respond to that request. In any case, BeanieFan11 now can see that the action was controversial, at least the way he worded it, and can address future behavior without any formal warning. (4) and (5) There is nothing inherently wrong with notifying WikiProjects of a relevant AfD or (especially) ANI, and broadly calling this particular WikiProject a "partisan group" is frankly inappropriate. [Adding - After all, the WikiProject is the place where editors are best positioned to find sources to support keeping the article, which presumably no one is opposed to.] Rlendog (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you talking about? Most discussions are not closed by admins. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What is your point? Rlendog (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That you don't seem to understand what you're talking about. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What don't I understand? And how does that impact whether BeanieFan11 should be warned? Rlendog (talk) 19:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't even understand basics like how AfD's are closed, why are you competent to offer suggestions for how to address AfD issues? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've closed many AfDs myself and none has ever been reversed at DRV. And I am well aware that many AfDs are closed by non-admins (although of course close or controversial AfDs should not be - see WP:BADNAC). So again, what is your point and how does it relate to whether BeanieFan11 should be warned? Rlendog (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not appear that such arguments are dismissed out of hand by the closer, they would include that in their written reasoning if they were doing that and none of the examples we have here mention it (unless I'm missing something, if so please point it out). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you talking about? A closer does not necessarily refer to each !vote in the close. But of the recent AfDs that were NACed as keep: Willie Flattery was clearly based on GNG !votes, I didn't notice any IARs. Joe Williams had some IARs but also many GNGs and no delete !votes, so no need to address the IARs in the close. Ja'Quan McMillian was also clearly closed on the basis of many GNGs and no delete !votes. The other keeps appear to have been closed by admins. Which NACs are you referring to? Rlendog (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, but I agree 1, 2 and 3 are big no-nos. I think a lot of people are doing that, and all should already know that that’s not allowed, so I think an explicit warning to one person is not indicated. We have a chronic Wikipedia culture issue with behavior in AfDs and that should be addressed by responding consistently to that behavior. No need for a special sanctions policy, just better policing of AfD behavior. If getting a Wikiproject involved causes problems, then there’s an issue with that project that should be addressed, rather than banning Wikiproject notification. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Above, BeanieFan11 rejected that there was anything wrong with their actions in relation to 1, 2, and 3. This is why I believe a warning is needed; they should already know that that isn't allowed, but they don't. In addition, warning one editor sends a warning to other editors that this is not tolerated, while failing to issue a warning sends the opposite message. BilledMammal (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, if we come back here with another case involving BeanieFan11 or anyone else whose behavior is discussed in this case, we can act further. I think the discussion here has been clear enough without having to wave a yellow card. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 2, 3, and 4. Undecided on 1 and 5.
    For #2, In the NSPORTS2022 discussion there was a consensus that participation alone was insufficient to establish notability, but despite this BeanieFan11 votes to keep articles solely on the basis of participation, as can be seen at discussions like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Babcock. This is disruptive WP:IDHT behavior, and as BeanieFan11 is unwilling to recognize this and commit to not continuing to do so a warning is required.
    For #3, BeanieFan11 notified a partisan editor of a group of contentious AfD nominations. This is clearly canvassing, and the fact that the canvassed individual request to be canvassed doesn't change that, and if we allow this action to stand without a warning and without the canvassing editor acknowledging their mistake and committing not to do it again we place a loophole in WP:CANVASS that will be abused.
    For #4, WikiProject's aren't immune to being partisan any more than any other group of editor is. Above, I have demonstrated that WikiProject NFL is partisan on this topic and as such a warning for canvassing them is appropriate.
    BilledMammal (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of curiosity, because I haven't seen this addressed by people (or may have missed it), would you be opposed to users linking to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/American football if a user requested a list of related topics at AfD? Or do you think that a request like that should just be ignored altogether? I'm curious how users would view the situation had that been linked instead of directly linking the related discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not ignored, the person who asked to be canvassed should be rebuked by those they asked to canvass them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there would be an issue with linking to the deletion sorting list as informing an editor of a tool existing isn't a problem, but I also agree with Horse Eye's Back that they should be rebuked - softly, if they are a new editor and don't know better - for asking to be canvassed. BilledMammal (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support 5. Two notifications were issued by BeanieFan11 to WikiProject NFL; one prior to the WikiProject mentioned here, as part of a discussion, and one after, as a standalone notification.
    For the first, ActivelyDisinterested pointed out that this could be exasperation rather than trying to bring editors to this discussion, and I'm going to WP:AGF that it is. However, editors are expected to be competent, and that should include understanding that expressing exasperation with an ongoing discussion to like-minded editors is likely to bring those editors to the discussion and should not be done.
    As a one off mistake, this should be handled by the error being pointed out to the offending editor, and the offending editor recognizing the mistake and promising not to repeat it. However, BeanieFan11 has not done this, and so I believe a warning is required, to make it clear that they shouldn't repeat this mistake, and to make it generally clear that this cannot be used as a method to circumvent the restrictions of WP:CANVASS.
    For the second, the arguments against notifying a WikiProject in these circumstances are the same as the arguments on forbidding canvassing generally, and as such I don't believe mentioning a WikiProject, even in the context of claiming that the issues under discussion are common in that WikiProject, is justifiable. BilledMammal (talk) 05:22, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak oppose 1; I don't think BeanieFan chose the right places to vent, but I also don't think the language they chose is sanctionable, especially when complaints like this about more directly insulting language close with no action. Neutral on 2; they may not have chosen the best approach, but I agree with others above that they've already shown they're willing to adjust their votes and that they shouldn't be singled out for voting this way. Strong oppose 3, 4, & 5; no one should be sanctioned for doing anything that is explicitly permitted by a WP guideline (in this case WP:APPNOTE) unless and until the exceptions are noted within. Hatman31 (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The exception being discussed here is already included in APPNOTE: "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions..." If they're consistently only notifying one of the half dozen relevant wikiprojects that's a problem. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They weren't. Throughout this entire thread, you seem to be assuming that WikiProject NFL members have a uniform opinion on these discussions, which is untrue. Hatman31 (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They weren't what? I don't see any AfD notifications at WikiProject Biographies which is the primary WikiProject for all the pages under discussion here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Above, I proved that they did, and that this opinion was out of line with the opinion of the broader community making them a partisan group. BilledMammal (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's as straight forward and easy to claim we're a partisan group. Many members of the project abstained from voting and some of those that did vote were not included in your list, such as Hatman31 and Cbl62, both of whom voted to redirect or delete on some of the AfDs. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You've "proven" nothing of the sort. At best you've expressed an opinion that a majority of editors that commented on it agreed with to some extent. Rlendog (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the comparison to the EEng discussion is a bit misleading, since a major factor for that discussion was that EEng's incivility was in response to a frivolous MfD that implicitly attacked their character. The same outburst in the context of an actual article content dispute or procedurally-compliant AfD likely would have received a sanction. signed, Rosguill talk 17:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It was worth being dragged to MfD and ANI if it means I can act as a benchmark or lesson to my fellow editors. EEng 06:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:APPNOTE does not permit any form of canvassing; it provides examples of what can be appropriate notifications, but it explicitly states Do not send notices that violate WP:INAPPNOTE. In addition, by opposing #3 you are supporting creating a loophole to CANVASS; above JoelleJay made the satirical comment As an editor who is highly experienced in turning 5kb keep discussions into 25kb no consensus shitshows, I hereby publicly declare my interest in contentious sportsperson AfDs and invite editors to link all such ongoing discussions on my talk page. Thank you. that demonstrates the issues creating such a loophole would cause. BilledMammal (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Every editor of any experience, and Beanie has plenty of experience, in spite of one editor's uncivil SPA assertion, knows that incivility is improper, so I oppose proposal 1. We all know about number 2 as well, but Beanie has chosen to express their disagreement. They've done so strenuously, and has probably overstepped to the point of disruption, because we've come to this point, so yes, I support that warning. That doesn't mean that Beanie must totally be silent about their disagreement with the outcome of the RFC, but they need to express it in a way that admits that it is consensus and therefore holds sway, even if they believe the consensus should change. As to 3, 4, and 5, I believe that if we have wikiprojects, they should be used to pass on information about articles that relate to those wikiprojects, and therefore notification about deletion to the wikiprojects should happen, so I oppose 4, and oppose 5. As to 3, it boggles my mind that we have fallen to the elementary-school level where if Suzy talks to Joey Billy won't be her friend. I oppose 3 as being a childish and uncivil proposal. Jacona (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 2, as that's a no-brainer. Simple disruption. Black Kite (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question are we really having a lengthy discussion about whether or not a reasonably experienced editor should be warned?? I'm pretty sure the editor has already gotten the message... and I'm just as sure that any position of support or oppose that I take would not have (and should not have) any bearing on warning another editor. Do it, don't do it--your choice.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Oppose. Although maybe admins should give out WP:CIVIL warnings more liberally at AfD discussions.
    2. Oppose. The WikiProject National Football League should however accept that the RFC happened and if they wish to overturn it then AfD discussions are not the correct location, and continuing is disruptive.
    3. Support. Based on this edit. Giving a "always inform me" is just a way to try and create a loophole.
    4. Oppose. If this was unacceptable there would be another group to look at first.
    5. Comment. I must have missed this, if there is a diff for it then it seems unacceptable. Informing a project about AfDs is one thing, but asking them to join a discussion about a users behaviour seems problematic. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @ActivelyDisinterested: See here for the notification #5 is based on. BilledMammal (talk) 22:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @ActivelyDisinterested @BilledMammal not taking a position but for the sake of full picture, that was their second notification to the project about the ANI. The first is within: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League#NFL_deletion_discussions Star Mississippi 23:06, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, I missed those; for ease of reviewing, the two relevant diffs in that discussion are this and this. BilledMammal (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    thank you. As you well know from prior discussions we've had, I'm far better at content than I am at syntax, hence also the ugly underscores in my URL. One day! Thanks for making it more user friendly. Star Mississippi 23:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Eeh. It was within the ongoing discussion they were having, rather than anything explicit. If they had opened a new section to point towards the fact it would be different. This looks like "I'm exasperated" rather than "please pile on". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @ActivelyDisinterested: They did both; the post I linked is them opening a new section to point to the fact. The diff for that is here. BilledMammal (talk) 00:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The project had been mentioned in the thread by that point, this post was made ten minutes before the post to the WikiProject. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 01:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the bigger problem here is not one editor, but a project spamming AfDs due to an RFC they disagree with. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 01:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, but I'm not sure how to resolve that other than to issue warnings to the worst offenders and hope that other editors engaging in similar activity take notice that the project does not tolerate such activity. BilledMammal (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support 2 and 3 (and support warning Randy Kryn as well for soliciting the canvassing and repeated IDHT behavior); I think 4 needs to be explored on a general basis re: propriety of AfD notifications beyond transcluding deletion sorting and identifying what makes a wikiproject "partisan".
    On a grammar note, I would change "incivil" to "uncivil" and "AfD's" to "AfDs". JoelleJay (talk) 03:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose all The current wording of IAR does imply that editors can apply the principle any time they sincerely believe that doing so will improve Wikipedia. The IAR page should probably be modified to state that it can't override a community consensus, if that's the case.Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment on canvassing Given the concerns about WikiProject NFL being canvassed to this discussion, it is relevant to note how the WikiProject members and contributors have !voted here, compared to the broader community. 22 editors have !voted on these proposals; of them, 12 have supported at least one of the proposals, and 10 have not.
    Of the 12, one is an occasional contributor to WikiProject NFL's talk page. Of the 10, six are members of WikiProject NFL, and three others are frequent contributors to WikiProject NFL's talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 03:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am a member of WikiProject NFL but I came to this discussion because I saw it on my watchlist because I have ANI on my watchlist. I had no idea about the note on the project talk page until after I joined the discussion. No one "canvassed" me. Rlendog (talk) 14:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose all Beanie is the nexus of the problem, but is not the cause of it, and warning or sanctioning them is not going to fix the broader issue here. If it were not Beanie and NFL articles, it would be some other person or persons and some other topic. This is best fixed by being systems minded, not vengeance minded. Clearly, NSPORTS2022 did not adequately resolve the problem, so it is probably better to revisit the issue and establish a clearer consensus. --Jayron32 16:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Forgot that I had said above I would not comment further on BeanieFan11's behavior. Striking. --Jayron32 16:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • In what way was the issue not resolved and how should it be revisited? The fact that some people don't like our rules imposed by a large RfC doesn't magically mean the rules are the problem. "But your honor, I don't agree with our country's anti-theft laws. The laws are therefore the problem, not the fact that I like to break into people's houses and steal things." -Indy beetle (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Our fundamental principle on Wikipedia is consensus. And sometimes that involves compromise. --Rschen7754 19:50, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • "I disagree with the rule so I will not follow it" is not a compromise. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
              • Plainly refusing to use valid rationales in AfD is disruptive, and there's precedent for people getting topic banned as a result. These !votes at AfD are intended to sway the outcome in such a manner explicitly inconsistent with our guidelines—that is not following the rules. Notability standards don't only apply to XfD closers. Consider that if BeanieFan or others had lodged their discontent with the outcome of the 2022 NSPORTS RfC on project talk pages or their own pages we probably wouldn't be at ANI. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that the RFC left too much room for misinterpretation given its size and complexity means perhaps it's a problem at that end. If we, oh, I don't know, held another RFC with a simple 1-2 sentence proposal that left little room for misunderstanding, and THEN got that through the system, perhaps we wouldn't have a situation where people misinterpret it, or even better, we would have firmer footing to sanction people who deliberately breach it. Bad laws make hard cases. We have a bad law. We need to fix it, apparently.--Jayron32 12:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The close summaries of the RfC are quite clear: There is a rough consensus to eliminate participation-based criteria (except those based on olympic or similar participation). Participants refered to this is one of the main issues of the guideline, and this was also a point repeated in the main discussion. The argument is that a single professional match does not seem to guarantee that sufficient sources will exist to write a well-sourced article. and There is a rough consensus that sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject. Sports editors who were not initially sure about this were certainly made aware of it over the course of the year. The invocation of IAR is not an indication of confusion over what these mean. If anything, it's an indication of understanding exactly what these new guidelines mean for the articles at hand. IAR in these instances mean "I know that our the article is not notable under our current guidelines, but I want to keep the article so let's ignore the guidelines." -Indy beetle (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the objectives of discussions is to determine which rationale is more valid. That's not the problem, that's the point. Discussions can take some time and not everyone will agree.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Non-policy based rationales are not valid from the start. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:IAR is a policy.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it is. But it stands for Ignore All Rules, not Ignore All Consensuses. We as a community have decided that special considerations apply to biographies of living people, and we've decided that Wikiprojects don't get to set novel alternative guidelines for content within their spheres. A decision to ignore those consensuses is troubling and problematic, and would be even if the 2022 sports RFC had failed.—S Marshall T/C 19:16, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Consensus is also a rule and therefore is subject to IAR. It must be allowed to be discussed. Further, I sadly feel I need to point out WP:5P5 that "Wikipedia has no firm rules" further supporting the stance that its okay to discuss stuff.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If I went through renominating all these articles we're talking about, wherever there's been a "keep" outcome at AfD, because I don't agree with those keeps——and I don't!——what would you say? Would you say that was fine because the Five Pillars say it's OK to discuss stuff? Or would you say that repeating recent discussions is disruptive?—S Marshall T/C 23:49, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Continued discussion should be fine, as consensus can change; multiple discussions on different sections or pages would probably be disruptive. There's also a lot that is called consensus that is just a majority, particularly when discussing the guidelines on something as divisive as notability. Peter James (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Double-agree on Consensus v Majority.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, that old chestnut. If we define consensus with its dictionary definition then nothing in NSPORTS has never enjoyed community consensus, ever. NSPORTS actually got promoted to guideline in this discussion on a 23/18 majority. We have to have some way of making decisions and where consensus can't be achieved, we settle for our own idiosyncratic definition of rough consensus.—S Marshall T/C 18:36, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say (and my history shows) that if additional information or reasoning is brought forward a new discussion is fine and can help make Wikipedai better. If no new information or reasoning is brought forward and it's immediately following, then a deltion review would be the next step.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:57, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "We as a community have decided that special considerations apply to biographies of living people." Yes, but none of the articles in question are about living people. "We've decided that Wikiprojects don't get to set novel alternative guidelines for content within their spheres." That's not exactly true. For example, WP:NFF restricts articles on films even if they meet notability guidelines prior to principle photography starting. But even so, no one is setting "novel alternative guidelines" here. Some members of the NFL project are invoking IAR on participation, but that does not set an alternative guideline, they are just providing an ILIKEIT !vote that can be easily dismissed (in most cases; in some cases, such as the Joe Williams AfD there was more to the IAR !vote than that his notability should be assumed on a basis beyond mere participation - i.e., that he won a significant honor - and that would be appropriate for a closer to weigh in resolving the AfD. Rlendog (talk) 15:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Rlendog, it's true that Ruel Redinger, Larry Green, Willie Flattery and Joseph Williams are dead; Marv Smith, Stan Robb, John Comer and Sam Babcock are likely to be dead bearing in mind that they were actively playing American "football" in the 1920s, but Ja'Quan McMillian is alive and well and his article is a BLP.—S Marshall T/C 18:36, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose all I'm not going to endorse everything Beanie did but this is too much of a witch hunt. --Rschen7754 19:55, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose 345 on the grounds of "you've got to be kidding me." --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 2 only, strong oppose all others. Informing Wikiproject s of deletion discussions is a non-issue in my opinion because watching deletion sorting categories provides the same result. As far as the local consensus vs global consensus, IAR and COMMONSENSE are policies for a reason but can not be overused. In my opinion, Joe Williams (guard) (and only this one player) was an appropriate use of IAR due to unique circumstances surrounding that subject, but IAR is not an excuse for “this man must be notable because he played x games.” This goes beyond BeanieFan11 and a warning could probably be issued to many American football contributors including myself. Lastly, BeanieFan11 is very civil so proposal 1 is not necessary at all. Frank Anchor 04:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 1 and 2 - Incivility is a red-line behaviour so I support 1. I get what people are saying about Beanie already being experienced enough to know that, but then they were still uncivil and everyone can do with a pointer as to their behaviour now and again. There's a general right to be wrong, but behaving as though the broader consensus didn't exist is simply WP:POINTy, and hence disruptive, so I support 2. FOARP (talk) 08:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am surprised you view the statements that started this thread as worthy of a civility warning. If statements like "ridiculous" or "are you kidding?" are worthy of a civility warning then many regular participants on the drama boards would be receiving warnings multiple times. The statements that allude to a four letter word are a little stronger, but even there it is not as if he called an editor by a four letter word (which would be worthy of a warning); saying "I don't f---ing care" rather than perhaps simply "I don't care" is more a reflection of frustration than incivility. Rlendog (talk) 15:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Rlendog - As I said above, it's the swearing at people I find uncivil, even if veiled. Being frustrated is no excuse. Yes, I know that (in the distant past) there were admins who said that they should be allowed to tell people to "£$%&-off", but that was wrong the day they said it and has not gotten more true since. Ditto people on this board who apparently don't know how to behave. The need for this warning is highlighted particularly by the lack of any indication that Beanie won't simply carry on doing it without a warning - or indeed see it as a vindication of their behaviour. FOARP (talk) 16:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No argument there, but a proposal with a giant oppose/support/neutral discussion to send a warning is excessive. If anyone feels that an editor should be warned--just warn the editor.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt ignoring the behavioral policies helps the encyclopedia... BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Good lord, the irony. Zaathras (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ... And BeanieFan11 finally got the point. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CIVIL and WP:BLUDGEON apply as well. Buffs (talk) 05:06, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Status/results of AFDs in question

    I think it's worth it to pause, take a breath, and look at what started this extensive discussion and the results so far. Here's the AFDs mentioned at the top of this discussion where all this began. It's important to look at their current status:

    That's 5 keeps (55%), 3 redirects (33%), and 1 remains open (11%). The AFDs that are closed appear to be thoughtfully closed and do not seem to be contested either way. In the meantime, we have a giant disussion thread here with two proposal sections for varioius actions. Yet it looks to me like the system worked. What's the problem here? If these were mostly closed delete, that would be one thing... but that's not what happened.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The system worked because Silverseren notified ANI of the canvassing issue. Prior to that notification and the involvement of large numbers of editors from outside WikiProject NFL the results for the three redirects would likely have been an incorrect "Keep".
    Opening an ANI thread every time someone canvasses a partisan WikiProject is not a sustainable long-term solution. BilledMammal (talk) 14:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with that assessment. NFL AFD's are routinely well attended by editors who are not members of the wikiproject. The redirects were closed as redirects because they did not pass GNG and for that reason only. Many common NFL contributors voted delete/redirect independent of the accusations of canvassing. Frank Anchor 15:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    NFL AFD's are routinely well attended by editors who are not members of the wikiproject. Prior to the notifications there was a significant majority in favor of keeping the redirected articles with almost all of the editors contributing to that majority being from WikiProject NFL.
    The redirects were closed as redirects because they did not pass GNG and for that reason only. Ideally, but closers rarely go against significant majorities and face significant criticism when they do.
    Many common NFL contributors voted delete/redirect independent of the accusations of canvassing. The only delete/redirect vote from a member of WikiProject NFL at that time was at the Sam Babcock AfD, from Cbl62. BilledMammal (talk) 15:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there any deletion reviews on those AFDS that are in progress I'm not aware of?--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No active DRVs. There was one on Joe Williams (guard) after a very early NAC, but that AFD was quickly reopened by the closer. Frank Anchor 16:07, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Common NFL contributors and members of the wikiproject overlap somewhat, but the two groups are not one in the same. Frank Anchor 16:07, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which common NFL contributors !voted delete/redirect? BilledMammal (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There was two on Sam Babcock's AfD. Hatman31 is listed under Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League#Participants and voted redirect. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I only reviewed the !votes prior to the ANI notification , Hatman's !vote was after. Reviewing the broader discussion it is further evidence of WikiProject NFL being partisan; seven keep !votes, with five (one struck) out of those being from WikiProject NFL members or frequent contributors. This is compared to 18 delete/redirect !votes, with two being from members of WikiProject NFL or frequent contributors - 11% of the broader community supported keeping, compared to 71% of the WikiProject NFL community. BilledMammal (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amen. Too often Wikipedians have a tendency to eat their own. Picking on fellow editors over very minor things when a brief mention on a talk page usually fixes what needs to be looked at often becomes a timesink (such as this one). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • As none of the problematic keep voters seem to have learned anything from this, no, there's no reason to just sweep this under the rug. ValarianB (talk) 12:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jacona isn't saying sweep anything under a rug, but that okay, we've talked this out, time to shut it down and move on. Remember, this is much ado about nothing, as the only thing that happened is some idiot almost godforsaken editor (and yeah, let him take me to ANI, he's threatened to in the past) asked to be updated on which of a score of AfD's were close enough to have a look at. Many AfDs are lopsided and obviously decided, so some editors don't bother to comment on or even look at those. Another editor was kind enough to provide him a quick detailed listing, exactly what he asked for. Now both editors have been a'learned real good not to do that, which could have been explained with a talk page note. But neither should be sorry or apologize, because neither did anything drastically wrong enough to be kicked around at ANI for coming up to a novella's length of language, point, and counterpoint. To aim this at one of them alone, for no reason than doing a fellow Wikipedian a favor, and even bringing up sanctions, seems a bit like piling on, no? Randy Kryn (talk) 15:29, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Randy Kryn: Now both editors have been a'learned real good not to do that If they had, then we wouldn't be here, but they haven't. BeanieFan11 has made it clear that they believe there was nothing wrong with their actions, and has refused to commit to not doing it again. BilledMammal (talk) 01:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was actually nothing wrong in the good faith actions, one rather low-life-lazy editor asked for a rundown of numbers which were already publicly posted, and in good faith BeanieFan11 took the time to provide them. Seems like a normal ask-answer, and I can't see anything wrong with it except some in the community wanting one of them, the favor-doing BeanieFan11, to grovel and apologize or something. That's why closing this long discussion-over-nothing Seinfeld reboot needs Larry David to come up with an even better series. Or is this discussion about citing IAR as a reason to Keep an AfD, which is, as well, much ado, since IAR and/or common sense can be good faith introduced and argued anywhere at any time. That's the wonder of Wikipedia's IAR, if an editor truly believes that a rule has harmed Wikipedia, such as that ill-formed 13 sub-sectioned sports RfC, they seem to have a right to express their belief. I'd use IAR to pretend I was an uninvolved admin and close this discussion, but common sense tells me it wouldn't fly and would be the wrong use of it - but I'd have a right to at least say it, no? Randy Kryn (talk) 11:01, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • My two cents If someone wants to invoke IAR, I don't care. It's a weak argument. But if that's all you have and you think others are going to agree, let it fly. If a discussion doesn't conclude the way you want or the vague "consensus" isn't determined to be in your favor, appeal it, make your best case, and let the chips fall where they may. It is a complete waste of time to expect the community to referee a squabble like this. Consensus was decided and we're going with that standard (and, to be blunt, I don't even agree with the given standard). Put this to bed and let's move on with our lives. Buffs (talk) 20:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: Beaniefan11 and others are advised

    The only item that seems to have significant traction in the discussion above is warning BeanieFan11 about using IAR. Even that doesn't have tremendous support, and my personal view (expressed above) is that a warning in this case is too strong. But maybe we can get a consensus around:

    "Members of the NFL WikiProject are advised not to invoke IAR in AfD discussions based on mere participation in a few NFL games"

    Presumably this will allow members of the project to back away from the behavior that some editors find concerning without going as far as a formal warning, and thus not produce a chilling effect on invoking IAR when it may be appropriate. Rlendog (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, this way BeanieFan11 - who is probably the most active in finding sources - is not singled out, when others engaged in the same behavior. Rlendog (talk) 15:42, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Now if only BeanieFan11 would learn the difference between significant and routine coverage they would become an asset to the 'pedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:51, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That comment is targeted and uncalled for. There is much disagreement between what is "significant" and "routine" coverage.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This entire section is targeted "Proposal: Beaniefan11 and others are advised" and it is 100% relevant when it comes to BeanieFan11's conduct at AfD which is what this entire discussion is about. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So are you suggesting that currently I am not helpful to WP? BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you currently appear to be a net negative and community time sink. You have potential but you're going to need to start playing by the same rules everyone else does. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ...net negative and community time sink Well that's an ignorant and unnecessary comment. To say Beanie is a net negative to the project is just plain wrong. I could write up an essay explaining why it's wrong, but honestly, I think it would fall on deaf ears. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd read that essay, I'm sure it would be groundbreaking work. I would be particularly interested in you're analysis on how their editing effects wikipedia's gender balance. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I and a number of other editors agree that Beaniefan's invovlement is far from a net negative. Others have written that above in this overall discussion. Clearly there is a breadth of opinions and positions here, and further discussion will not likely be fruitful, at least for now. This entire discussion is not helping.--18:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC) Paul McDonald (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: I appreciate the neutral and concise phrasing of this proposal and I think it's a much more reasonable option compared to a formal warning. It's a reminder to the group that we should be voting based on more than just the number of games played. It also leaves the door open to bring people to ANI if they do vote strictly based on the number of games played. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question if I as a member of WP:NFL (which I am) were to mention WP:IAR at AFDs (which I have) and this proposal has been approved (which it hasn't yet)--what would the consequences be?--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think anybody is talking about mentioning IAR. But if editors !vote "keep, played X games", whether or not they cited IAR, I expect the consequence to be a proposal for a TBAN. Levivich (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Then I must oppose because editors need to be free to make good-faith arguments in discussions. The weight of that argument is then for the closer to sort out. If the closer sorted it wrong, it goes to deletion review. The process works and limiting arguments is unncessary and draconian. There is no reason to censor this kind of argument, especially since the closer can simply choose to ignore or other wise give it very little weight.--17:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC) Paul McDonald (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah, just like you should not have voted on the proposals above, you really shouldn't be voting in this one either. You're one of the editors who need this advisement, because you were one of the NFL editors who were canvassed and ended up voting to keep based on participation. Let me be clear, though: regardless of whether any of these proposals pass here, if there are more AFD votes in the future like this or this, it's highly likely I or someone else will start a TBAN proposal. If anybody wants to revisit WP:NSPORTS2022, they can do it the right way, with a new RFC. To ignore global consensus, and say that it's up to the closer to discount the vote, is WP:DISRUPTIVE, specifically it's WP:POINTy. Not acceptable. On the other hand, as long as this doesn't happen again, everything is fine. So oppose if you want to, but comply or face consequences. Levivich (talk) 17:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree that Paul McDonald is clearly included in "and others" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:16, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never denied that and have been up front in the beginning.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Imagine if that was the stance before the review of WP:NSPORTS, if everyone who was against it was sanctioned for even mentioning that it should be reviewed. You have proven my very point in as strong of a way as possible. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, not just the chosen few.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the discussion it does not appear that anyone was against it on IAR grounds. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably not, but the whole discussion was about overturning consensus. That's been my point all along--people can disagree. But these proposals have all been about preventing disagreement and censorship.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So how is that an equivalent situation? We aren't talking about someone having a discussion about overturning consensus, we're talking about someone editing against consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:08, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We're actually not talking about someoene editing against consensus. This is about discussions--in particular AFD discussions. No articles have been changed or editied on this basis (at least, that I am aware of). Please don't confuse discussions about the encyclopedia with editing of the encyclopedia--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, these are discussions about deletion... Not about overturning community consensus on notability. Just FYI this is an edit to the encyclopedia. Edits on noticeboards are still edits. Edits on talk pages are still edits. We edit within a discussion, our edits are not themselves discussions. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, but in addition to, and not instead of, the warnings in the previous proposal. If those don't pass, I still support this. Frankly I would also add more advisements, like, "don't canvass a WikiProject to an ANI thread about yourself". Levivich (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as a bare minimum. IAR should be inviked rarely and with a persuasive explanation, not as a skirmishing tactic at AfD. Cullen328 (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I don't think this proposal is the right way forward because I think the deal is that Wikiprojects don't get to set the rules in their specialist areas: that's in WP:CONLEVEL. This is true even if the Wikiproject people vote en bloc. There's a lot of useful thought about this in the history of the former guideline, WP:PORNBIO, that got deprecated in this discussion in 2019, and of course for years prior to that discussion, venues like Deletion Review were refusing to enforce WP:PORNBIO anyway. I think we're heading down the same path with the notability of sportspeople. I wonder if we should revive the WikiSports proposal with a view to transwiki-ing all these BLPs off our encyclopaedia with as little pain as possible.—S Marshall T/C 18:16, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I made a suggestion a while back (I think at Village Pump) to create a Wiki sports almanac and transfer the bulk of sports-related topics there. It fell on deaf ears.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - This entire discussion is beating a dead horse at this point. Toa Nidhiki05 18:59, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Concise, gets the point across, though I really don't think anyone should be using IAR in AfD. Calling this a "dead horse" is inaccurate, the horse is a live and well. Read above, we have some the editors concerned saying that IAR should be rolled out by anyone whenever they want to avoid having the rules apply to them. As a practical matter, IAR should not be used lightly and if it were used lightly and mundanely Wikipedia would break over night. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      It's dead horse that is split. If proposals continue to come up after others are either defeated or otherwise deadlocked and undecided, eventually a proposal will pass from sheer exhaustion of the participants. Rather than ending up going the way of the side with the best reasoning, it will go the way of the side with the most stamina. Also kind of feels like WP:FORUMSHOPPING in the same forum. Or mabye WP:WABBITSEASON.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      There is a difference between invoking IAR and making it stick. If IAR always stuck just because it was invoked then Wikipedia would break. For example, if admins could just ignore policies against wheel warring just by saying IAR, then we'd have a big problem. But the fact is that a wheel warring admin is free to say "IAR", but the rationale would need to really good (as it rarely is) to convince ArbCom not to desysop them. And, really, the same goes for AfD - saying IAR doesn't give your position much, if any, weight. Only if there is a good rationale accompanying IAR will it have weight (and even then, if the opposition arguments are strong it still may not carry the day). Rlendog (talk) 00:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per my comment above. Also, the distinction here between a formal warning and an informal advisement seems to be largely semantics, given comments like "comply or face consequences" above. Gnomingstuff (talk) 09:04, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Buaidh chronically blocking all attempts to promote a better name for Template:Yyend

    Seems to have petered out. (non-admin closure) Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 03:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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



    While I hate to report a discussion about a change that should be trivial, I could really use some admin help here. This slow-motion edit war has been going on for over two years. The bulk of the discussion is at Template talk:Yy § The opposite of "top" is "bottom". I feel I've made all of my points there, and thus, for brevity, will avoid repeating myself here. The fact of the matter is that we should be able to discuss this template move on our own, but I'm seeing some kind of weird circular logic, and a user who consistently ignores whatever policies or guidelines I cite. Here are some things that I'm hoping an admin can get through to Buaidh:

    • Splitting a discussion about a single topic: That user's reply is part of the ongoing discussion. It should not be split into another section on the talk page (as here and again here). I don't feel I was refactoring when I merged them here, yet also don't want to dig this hole any deeper before seeking admin help.
    • Cut-and-paste moves: This edit and this one need to be reverted ASAP, per WP:MOVE, regardless of the eventual outcome of the discussion linked above. Long ago, I previously reverted Buaidh's cut-and-paste edits, but can no longer do so myself because the template now has template protection. I have asked the user to self-revert and they have not. This editor's misuse of their Template Editor status to violate WP:MOVE and circumvent discussion or consensus is deeply concerning.
    • Ownership, and being open to other's input: It always strikes me as ownership when I see an editor insist on their status quo, even though there's no real argument for doing so. I have repeated explained why I think this template should be moved, and one other editor has concurred. I have yet to see a legitimate reason from Buaidh for leaving the template at the old name, yet there's an impossible burden on me to somehow prove something I feel that I already have. In other words, I'm seeing a lot of ownership behavior.

    For now, I will back off and await input from admins. Thank you. — voidxor 20:41, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Life would be so much easier if we all concentrated on articles rather than userboxes. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:50, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My favorite userbox template is Template:User eschews userboxes.
    This user eschews userboxes.
    Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 21:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Voidxor: From what I saw, there was maybe only one other editor besides you and the named editor in that discussion. We have an established procedure for moving pages and since the discussion seems at an impasse wouldn't it be better to just use that procedure rather than trying to establish another editor is showing ownership or chronically blocking improvements? I.E. Start a WP:RM. If your proposal is really clearly better as per our policies and guidelines, then hopefully others will offer feedback supporting this PoV and the RM closes with consensus in favour of the proposed move. If you're wrong about which name is more line with our policies and guidelines and so the RM closes with consensus against the move then whoops hopefully you learn something. If the RM fails as no consensus because editors participate but opinion is split on the best title well then again, this probably means you were wrong about Buaidh as apparently both your views on which title is best have favour among the community. If the RM fails as no consensus because few others or even no one else cares to comment then maybe that's also an important lesson as per Phil Bridger etc i.e. it doesn't matter. Nil Einne (talk) 12:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nil Einne: Yes, and I would normally follow the RM process to promote a controversial page move. In this case though, the template was moved and Buaidh cut and paste it back to where they wanted it—at {{Yyend}}. "Moving" a page via cut-and-paste is very much out of process, and should be reverted immediately. Buaidh used the Template Editor permission here so I cannot revert myself. I asked Buaidh to self-revert (citing the policy, as usual) and got the run around again.
    To be clear, I came to ANI because I need help with an editor who seems to be missing my explanations, and any policies or guidelines that I link. Whatever point I try to make, I'm met with red herrings. In fact, I see several owner behaviors here. Conversely, to be clear, I did not come to ANI simply to get more input on the content issue at hand (though input is always welcome, of course).
    So in summary, the cut-and-paste moves that I linked above need to be reverted please, regardless of the outcome of the move discussion. Also, to your point about Buaidh's views on title, I don't quite follow as Buaidh has not stated a reason that "end" is better than "bottom", other than that's the way Buaidh set it up in the first place, and there are existing transclusions (which, again, isn't a valid argument for not moving a template). — voidxor 00:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Voidxor: if you just wanted a cut and paste move reverted, that is all you should have mentioned rather than all the other crap. Also AFAIK, Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests is generally used when you need help fixing a cut and paste move anyway, if you're asking to revert to the original title i.e. Buaidh's preferred title, this should come as an uncontroversial request since the only one who is likely to object is you. And as it stands, you suggest you just want to revert a cut and paste move then talk a bunch of crap about alleged misbehaviour. If an editor doesn't understand you that're precisely why you should get others involved. And if two titles are equally valid, then preserving the original creator's choice is actually perfectly aligned with our policies and guidelines. If you aren't aware of that then please do not try to make moves without opening RMs ever again. Nil Einne (talk) 07:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. I have not looked into the details but if your claim of a cut and paste move is correct then you're right it's not something that should have ever happened. However unless you can demonstrate it's a consistent pattern it also isn't enough for anything but stern warning even the editor had an advanced permission. Therefore there's no point to bring it to ANI. Just get the the cut and paste move fixed and tell the editor never to do that crap again and don't waste time here. Nil Einne (talk) 07:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nil Einne: Apologies, I thought ANI was for more than just bans and blocks.
    if you just wanted a cut and paste move reverted
    No, I had more problems than that, such as the user borderline accusing me of refactoring, and wanted to come here before making it worse.
    If you aren't aware of that then please do not try to make moves without opening RMs ever again.
    That is patently false, I want to emphasize in my defense, especially for the small stuff. Otherwise, non-admins wouldn't even have the ability to move. I've made hundreds of moves for technical reasons ranging from WP:SINGULAR to WP:UBM to organizations that have undergone a name change. Per WP:MOVE, "...you may request a page move at Wikipedia:Requested moves if you are not yet autoconfirmed, if there is a technical barrier to the move, or if the retitling is expected to be controversial and you need to seek consensus for the name change." It goes on to list reasons for moving a page.
    ...it also isn't enough for anything but stern warning...
    Aside from reverting, that's about all that I was seeking.That was one of the things I was hoping an admin could help me convey.
    Just get the the cut and paste move fixed...
    Can't do on my own, but Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests is a good suggestion, thanks. I'll give that a try in 48 hours if Buaidh doesn't do the right thing and self revert, given your comments.
    ...and tell the editor never to do that crap again...
    Did that. Several times. Asked for an admin to help me convey.
    ...and don't waste time here.
    Sorry. I don't have a lot of experience at ANI and am slowly learning about other processes such as the Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests subpage. — voidxor 19:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have history merged what can be merged. No comment on the rest. Izno (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Breitbart Spam Blacklist

    Moved back from Mediawiki talk:Spam-blacklist
     – – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 20:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    History: On 25 September 2018 the closer of a Breitbart RfC Fish and karate said Breitbart News was deprecated and added "It can still be used as a source when attributing opinion/viewpoint/commentary."

    On 26 September 2018 the initiator of the RfC, JzG, added Breitbart News to XLinkBot.

    On 3 October 2018 a thread "Offensive edit summary" began (original heading was different), in which editors showed that new users were posting changes referring to Breitbart along with what were presumably bad words. Almost all the changes were effectively reverts of removals of Breitbart cites since 25 September 2018. zzuuzz explained "This is JarlaxleArtemis, hopping around on open proxies. A range block is not going to be effective."

    On 4 October 2018 JzG added Breitbart News to the spam blacklist with edit summary = "Adding \bbreitbart\.com\b per MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#breitbart.com. Using BlackList/ReverList Handler." -- actually I don't see that this measure was discussed on Spam-blacklist, but JzG perhaps was thinking of the WP:ANI thread, because JzG announced there "I have blacklisted breitbart.com for now, which should prevent further reverts." Others disagreed, or suggested an edit filter, or wondered how long it would last.

    On 5 October 2018 in response to an objection JzG wrote "This is on the blacklist to control massive spamming and disruption by JarlaxleArtemis socks."

    On 27 December 2022, The Blade of the Northern Lights wrote in a JarlaxleArtemis edit summary "He's not coming back soon ..." and confirmed on 5 February 2023 "Yes, in 2018 he was still active but as of now we have good reason to think he won't be anytime in the near future." but added "Still a good idea to have that on the blacklist though." I disagreed. I'm also involved in a dispute about use of a Breitbart cite on Breitbart News talk page thread Quotes and cites.

    Requests: (1) Remove Breitbart from the spam blacklist since the stated threat no longer exists. (2) Do not interpret this as about conduct of any of the users whom I have mentioned and pinged. I believe everyone except JarlaxleArtemis acted by the rules. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Not an admin but… I cannot think of a single reason an encyclopaedia would want, let alone need, to link to a poisonous den of liars like Breitbart. If any of the Nazis and Nazi enablers on that blog say anything that would be worthy of mention in an encyclopaedia, we should be quoting and linking to other sites that are quoting them. — Trey Maturin™ 20:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Followed here from the talk page. Generally speaking, if we directly quote someone/something, it seems like good practice to cite it directly, in addition to the sources which copy the quote. Breitbart should not be used as a source for anything but its own words, and its words carry no WP:WEIGHT on their own, but if there's consensus that a quote should be included via coverage in other sources, then yes. The same is true of, say, things written on someone's personal blog or social media. I just wonder how often it's actually necessary to use quotes from Breitbart at all, rather than paraphrase them. The case that led to this thread being opened is this line from the Breitbart News article:

    Breitbart News has published several articles accusing the English Wikipedia of having a left-wing and liberal bias, including headlines such as "Five of the best examples of left-wing bias on Wikipedia in 2017".

    In that case, the sample headline doesn't actually add anything to the article. "It has said wikipedia has a bias and has said 'wikipedia has a bias'", effectively. It should just be removed, and then no citation to Breitbart is necessary. If there are other quotes that actually add to the article, I don't think it's a problem to include a secondary cite to the original text, though. For those rare purposes, just use the whitelist. Not need to remove from the blacklist. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    When Breitbart says Wikipedia has a bias, it is not worthy of note. All of the conservative media bubble says we have a bias, we are a leading source of reality-based information on climate change, evolutionary biology, COVID-19, and a host of other things that billionaire libertarians have paid for the GOP to reject, as articles of faith. It would be notable if a right-wing website said we don't have a bias. And for any claim by Breitbart to be considered objectively significant, we'd need a reliable independent third party source that evaluates its accuracy, because Breitbart does not care if what it publishes is true or not.
    I'd also note that the article you highlight above is by a banned troll, The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has used the platform to continue his harassment of, and personal attacks on, Wikipedians - he proudly admits it at the foot. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be removed from the blacklist because you can't be bothered to request whitelisting the use of it? Which strongly implies there's not a good case for inclusion. Oppose strongly as the blacklist keeps well-meaning editors out of trouble and there is no good of the encyclopedia benefit to allowing bretbart to be linked in articles or talk discussions. Slywriter (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no good reason to allow links to Breitbart, and I am not aware of any good-faith attempt to use it as a source other than in a tiny handful of WP:ABOUTSELF instances. Any link added to an article as a source would obviously have to be removed, allowing people to use it on talk pages just encourages rabbit-holes of conspiracist nonsense, at least one banned troll editorialises there against individual Wikipedians, including use of real world identities that are not, as far as I know, all publicly declared. Nothing about that cesspit would add value to Wikipedia, all it would add (and all it ever added) is drama and additional work for people who care about sourcing standards. If it's removed from the blacklist it would need to go into an edit filter - and the blacklist is more efficient. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:24, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you dispute any of the history description? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't work. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, because that's not the correct way to handle individual uses of blacklisted sites. Instead, use the spam whitelist. That works. --Jayron32 19:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't work. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You didn't get the response you wanted. That does not mean it "doesn't work," just that you didn't get what you wanted. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't make that request. And there was no response. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:16, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The request to allow breitbart.com links is apparently for the reason given in the OP at Talk:Breitbart News#Quotes and cites. The stated reason relies on generic procedures that would generally be appropriate but which do not apply in every case, and in particular, do not apply in this case. The reference is for an independent source (haaretz.com) and that is perfect in an article about an abusively unreliable subject. I do not see a reason to remove the quote which was picked by the independent source but it could be removed if there were an editorial reason to do so. Johnuniq (talk) 04:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    JzG removed the quote, but that thread isn't what this is about. The thread that matters is the WP:ANI one. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no good reason to use Breitbart's own reporting on their (entirely justified) blacklisting by the Wikipedia. Other reliable sources independent of the subject are preferable. ValarianB (talk) 14:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, who are we blocking and for what reason? The entire discussion above seems to be about the spam blacklist, and whether or not something should be on it. This is not the purview of this noticeboard; it should more properly be discussed at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. Unless someone can tell me what they want an admin to do for them concisely, and not include a bunch of irrelevant information about managing the Spam blacklist, that'd be great. --Jayron32 16:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The history shows that it was here on WP:ANI that the matter was brought up, here on WP:ANI that the observation about JarlaxleArtemis was discussed, here on WP:ANI that a single administrator announced the blacklisting. And the concise request is: "(1) Remove Breitbart from the spam blacklist since the stated threat no longer exists." Since it's shown that an administrator can do it, it's appropriate here and now. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. If you want to discuss it here, my opinion is that Breitbart News doesn't need to be removed from the black list. While the problems with JA were the proximate cause for it being added to the blacklist, several people above have cited good reasons why it should stay on the black list, and I am inclined to agree with them. If it does need to be linked to from within Wikipedia, several workarounds have been proposed, but otherwise, I can come up with no reasonable reason why to take it off the blacklist. It seems to not be causing any problems being there, and it is likely solving many by remaining there. --Jayron32 19:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it is not. Read the top of the page:
    This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.
    This section is off-topic for ANI. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you're trying to cite something (that isn't about Breitbart itself), and you find that the only source you can find to support that edit is Breitbart, you might want to go back and consider carefully whether what you're adding is a good idea. Black Kite (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You asked in the "Offensive edit summary" WP:ANI thread "Could we switch it to being on XLinkBot's disallowed list?" which wasn't answered directly but I think there were technical obstacles. Nobody said there were technical obstacles for an edit filter, maybe I should have proposed that as an alternative to my remove-from-blacklist request, but too late now. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep on blacklist - Breitbart is not now, never has been, and never will be a reliable source, and there is no justifiable reason to link to it. If a link is needed, a third part source should be more than sufficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I second everything you said. I fail to see any reason to remove a website from the blacklist that is inherently only going to be used to cause chaos and start fights. If the information can be sourced on a reliable source, then it should be done that way. If it can't, then any information to be found on Breitbart is guaranteed to be false. Rhayailaina (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question If I understand the issue correctly, Brietbart has been put on a spam list. Is Brietbart a source of spam? If no why is it on the list? Brietbart is deprecated and that isn't likely to change. Are we saying that deprecation isn't sufficient to deal with Brietbart references? We shouldn't, as a matter of consistency if nothing else, apply remedies meant for one issue (spam) to a source that is problematic for totally different issues (very low quality reporting). Springee (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Reading what the spam blacklist's purpose is would answer that question. The blacklist isn't just for bot promo spam but as a way to auto-block any attempted edit to add info originating from that site. Rhayailaina (talk) 23:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Isn't that already the case when someone uses a deprecated source? Do we have issues with people adding Breitbart (or any other deprecated source)? Springee (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Some deprecated sources are blacklisted, some are auto-revert by Xlinkbot, and some just trip and edit filter. See the handy table at WP:DEPSOURCES. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:16, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      That doesn't really explain why it was blacklisted. Again, is there an actual problem this is solving? Springee (talk) 05:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I was responding to "Isn't that already the case when someone uses a deprecated source?" No, since not all deprecated sources are on the blacklist. Technically it also answers your second question "Do we have issues with people adding Breitbart (or any other deprecated source)?" No, since the source is blacklisted, and no one can add it unless they request an exception. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Tendentious history by user Random League Fan

    Random League Fan has been blocked indefinitely by ToBeFree. (non-admin closure) Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 03:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

    New user WP:PROXYING

    Seems to have gone down the straight and narrow upon being directed there. (non-admin closure) Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 03:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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



    Maddyruthg19 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

    Please see their contributions log. Reading WP:PROXYING suggests to me that this editor is at least in grave danger of breaking the rules on Proxying. They are a self declared member of a UK PR firm, and are soliciting edits on various user talk pages.

    It seems to me that their actions, regardless of whether they are in strict breach of the proxying rules or not, are for their benefit, broadly construed. I'd appreciate their actions being considered by the admin team.

    I have now notified all editors who have been approached in addition to the named editor. Very pleasing that no-one has accepted the requests. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:11, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi,
    I have amended my page to be more clear. I apologise for any potential breaches, but I was not aware that contacting editors to make factual edits or contributions was in breach of Wikipedia rules. I'd appreciate any further insight on how best to approach this.
    Thanks. Maddyruthg19 (talk) 09:09, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Maddyruthg19 This is disingenuous. You joined Wikipedia solely to tout for edits for organisations. Your employer receives payment for actions in behalf of those clients (0.9 probability). You know enough about the rules here to declare paid editing and that you will not edit any articles here. Your purpose is obvious PR because you work for a PR agency.
    Thus there is sufficient here to ask for administrative scrutiny. While there is a route, via WP:AFC, for paid editors to contribute, something you are likely but not certain to have discovered in your researches, you have not used that route. With an established article you may request edits, , something else you are likely but not certain to have discovered in your researches. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies, I have clearly misunderstood the policies around contacting editors. I have made my page clear to show my paid affiliations. Thank you for letting me know the correct route. Maddyruthg19 (talk) 09:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm inclined to assume this has been a misunderstanding. Nothing seems to have been underhanded. The behavior is something we here typically see as obnoxious (going to user talk pages rather than posting to the article talk), but with 16 edits I don't find anything clearly disingenuous that couldn't be explained by simple ignorance.
    @Maddyruthg19, for future reference, the way to request an edit is via the article's talk page. Contacting an editor on their own user talk is, as you've seen, viewed with hostility. For one thing you're asking someone to do for free something that puts money directly into your/your employer's pocket. For another it can be seen as an offer of payment, which nearly all editors here would be offended by. Making similar request on multiple people's talks mean you've now done that to multiple people, possibly wasting multiple people's time. When you instead post a general request on the article talk, you're leaving that open to anyone casually passing by who is willing to help without putting anyone on the spot or wasting anyone's time.
    Important: Please also understand that in order to request a change to an article you will need to provide a citation to a reliable independent source for that change. See the instructions at WP:Requested edits. Make the request as easy as possible for us (again:we're doing it for free) by opening a new section and posting "Please change 'Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet' to 'Lorem ipsum dolor sit elit' per this New York Times article: (URL), which says "quote from article which supports your requested edit". Valereee (talk) 14:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. It was a genuine misunderstanding - really appreciate you pointing me in the right direction for future edits. Maddyruthg19 (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:エアボーン

    エアボーン (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has some serious CIR issues, a sample of their edits are below so you can see for yourself. Just multiply this by 50 times and you get the full scale of their "helpfulness". The edits are mostly just rearranging words in a sentence and switching them for synonyms, usually in a way that (if lucky) barely preserves the original meaning, but often mangles it.

    Some of these errors are so obvious that only an editor with major issues with competency could make them, and it's best that, if they have such issues, they should edit elsewhere. I have tried to tell them so on three occasions, but they seem to have some communication issues. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:01, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Mako, I dunno...you've reverted everything they've ever done? This edit to me looks like an improvement? Am I missing something? (Agreed on the expanding fish, though, that's pretty hilarious.)
    This editor has only had an account for like 17 hours. They probably haven't even discovered their talk page yet. Valereee (talk) 14:14, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Valereee: Yes, I did, though I do consider it justified. I took a decent sample of their edits, and it became obvious that virtually all edits were inconsequential at best, and then all the way to expanding fish. If one or two out of 200+ were an improvement, then someone would have made the change eventually, most pages they edited see a relatively constant stream of newcomer edits.
    If they haven't been able to discover their talkpage despite that many messages, it isn't really a good idea to leave them to expand fish all over Wikipedia, however good their intentions may be, as Communication is required. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 10:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, regarding the example you have provided, if one bashes on a typewriter uses google translate long enough one will at some point produce the whole works of Shakespeare a sentence which is actually an improvement. Or, in other words, that result was pure chance. I am yet to find any other edits which actually improved the prior text, despite checking quite a few manually. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    the fish do be expanding. I would simply inform them of the unproductiveness of their behavior and assume good faith LegalSmeagolian (talk) 15:43, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect they might be using Google Translate from Japanese to make edits given their Japanese username (No I don't know what it translates to) and the strange English of their edits. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (It's a katakana rendition of "airborne". It's usually rendered in kanji not as an imported English in katakana, but it sees occasional use. Though it's a username it doesn't have to represent common usage.) Canterbury Tail talk 16:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm uninvolved, but my personal opinion is that it might be someone trying to practice english.
    109 especially looks like japanese translated into english. I don't think this is an instance of vandalism and just someone with not the best english trying to practice and contribute at the same time. DarmaniLink (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately I don't think Wikipedia is the best thing to use for learning English if you are actively trying to contribute while doing so. I've left them a message stating they may be better off contributing to jaWiki until their English is a bit better and doesn't seem machine translated. I can tell it's most likely Japanese translated into English is because of the phrasing used which seems to basically be taking the meaning of the words from Japanese and roughly translating them into English (sometimes a bit too literally) which results in things such as "It expands to a length" which is correct when you take the meaning of both words, however isn't technically correct due to the different definition used. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:14, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I agree, i realize reading back at what i wrote that it could be interpreted as a justification.
    His english to put it bluntly does suck and he really shouldn't be changing around grammar DarmaniLink (talk) 02:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's just some good old-fashioned Engrish. Poor, sure, but nothing about it seems to be in bad faith, so I think I'd personally lean towards WP:DONTBITE, at least for the time being. DecafPotato (talk) 03:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Setting aside the language issues, all of which appear to be good faith attempts to clarify/simplify elements of these articles, Eicher Motors had an impenetrable History section both before and after their attempts. I've flagged it for cleanup because I can't make easy sense of it. So their work has done some good. I've also simplified the expanding fish, removing the original tautology.
    The challenge is that, despite polite messages on their talk page, and despite their being invited here, they appear to refuse to engage, and to continue to use their individual style of English in small segments of many articles. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Special:CentralAuth/エアボーン shows their home to be the Japanese Wikipedia, but no edits there at all. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I perhaps should've made it clearer from the start that I do think that they are trying to contribute in good faith, but "a mess made in a sincere effort to help is still a mess".
    Their edits since the ANI thread was opened include this semi-random sample:
    The first edit I checked was an inconsequential rearrangement of words and changing words and phrases for synonyms.
    The second was this edit which uses the somewhat unusual phraseology of "created" in place of "leading to".
    The third included a complete mangling of normal English syntax.
    The fourth edit was a strange rearrangement of words into something which was definitely less comprehensible than it was before.
    They've stopped for now, at around the sort of time that one would expect them to be going to bed in Japan. They haven't resumed, so fingers crossed that the messages on their talkpage have got the message across that their efforts, though well intended, have not been very helpful. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have also left a message on their jaWiki talk page asking them to consider their actions, and started the formal warning process on their talk page for "subtle vandalism" 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Timtrent and @Mako001, if the editor continues to edit but doesn't come into their talk page in a few days, ping me. I'd be willing to block from article space with instructions to go to their talk and address concerns. Valereee (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Valereee Good call. It may not be required since that have not (yet) edited today, neither here nor jaWiki. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw User:ゾバ ゾ make an edit to a new article I created [34] which was wrong but appears to have been good-faith. They seem to have been targeting newly-created articles. Their behavior matches the other account here, and both started editing on the 8th. This needs further investigation. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:45, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Trainsandotherthings: How exactly was that edit wrong? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 02:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The term "the New Haven" is overwhelmingly used to describe the company. Consider [35] as just one of many examples. The edit made was incorrect. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:54, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh ok. Thanks! That context was helpful cause "the New Haven" just sounds wrong to me. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 02:56, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Trainsandotherthings: Looks to be Red X Unrelated. There was a while where both were editing at the same time, and at the speed that User:エアボーン ("Airborne") was going, I don't think they would've been able to keep another account (i.e. User:ゾバ ゾ) running at the same time (even on a separate device). Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 03:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    two katakana names with similar activity over a similar time period seems like a pattern
    It might be a group of students doing this. DarmaniLink (talk) 11:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, all. I have noticed this user in Japanese and English on their user talk pages. Lemonaka (talk) 11:33, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah that was me, I was trying to communicate with them because they weren't responding and thought they might not understand english. Sorry if I wasn't supposed to. DarmaniLink (talk) 12:55, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Never mind, i thought you meant you saw english and japanese on their talk page. Wasnt sure what you meant by noticed. DarmaniLink (talk) 13:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @DarmaniLink I tried to notice there's a topic about them here in Japanese. If they are familiar with Japanese Wikipedia policy and patterns, they may also respond here. Lemonaka (talk) 18:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Canvassing at an AfD

    Could I please get more eyes on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States tornadoes in May 2008 where I raised concerns of WP:CANVASS violations by the participants there. There also appears to be an overt assumption that individuals who are not members of the related Wikiproject should not hold opinions as to content and leave it to the project. This has now spiralled to ChessEric stating "if he even THINKS of trying anything and coming after me, I WILL SKIN HIM ALIVE" regarding the nominator. I nearly blocked for that comment, but consider myself involved due to my initial comment regarding canvasssing on the AfD. -- Ponyobons mots 19:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment – I have similarly being included within this list of editors that have stumbled upon a WP:CANVASS violation for my summoning by ChessEric within the disccusion thread in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States tornadoes in May 2008 page. I've got to say, I had little to no idea that the summoning of editors for the enforcing of a determined consensus within an article talk was canvassing. As soon as many of us see our notifications and are summoned to opine on something, we simply give our opinions, which more often than not are the same as the person making the pinging or asking for consensus. I do not enter a discussion in order to side with the editor who pinged me, and I do present objections were objections are due. However, that article has become a battlefield, and in my interventions, I tried my best to maintain cordiality and did not express any kind of profanity towards the AfD nominator, Fram, aside from being a little desceptive at first. However, I have since undergone a review of the pinging process reach a consensus, and I do believe we have a case for canvassing behaviour. I again, reiterate that my intention was not to "tip the scale" towards a consensus that seems arbitrary to people outside the Project. I also do not condone ChessEric's comments towards the AfD nominator, while maintaining him in high regard for his contributions. Mjeims (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How does one summon editors for the enforcing of a determined consensus? That seems antithetical to the very idea of consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Like Elijahandskip, I do not want to do with this AN/I and AfD when all I did was give my opinion when asked, and just so happens that many more people like me agreed. If ChessEric's intention was for us to enforce a determined consensus I cannot confirm, but I personally just gave my opinion without the intent to landslide a desicion. Mjeims (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm so confused, what is the determined consensus? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The consensus, in this case, was that monthly tornado articles must include every single tornado listed by NWS offices and its contemporaries, regardless of intensity, notability, or damage/death caused. We have created all monthly tornado outbreak articles under this, and all tornadoes for which we have found appropiate sourcing are included. The original AfD nominator was the one to oppose this and nominate the May 2008 article for deletion, because they felt the tornadoes that were not notable enough and were included in the article rendered it "useless". That was the reason ChessEric underwent his alleged canvassing process, pinging the rest of us. Mjeims (talk) 21:28, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How does brigading an AfD discussion enforce a consensus that monthly tornado articles must include every single tornado listed by NWS offices and its contemporaries, regardless of intensity, notability, or damage/death caused? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, I was simply summoned to give my opinion, which aligned to ChessEric's, about the subject. It is simply how every single monthly tornado article is made, not just the May 2008 one. If we were to inmediately accept Fram's objection to the "irrelevant" tornadoes' inclusion, it would mean going back on many hours of researching and formatting the tornadoes in all these articles. That is why we were against eliminating the article and possibly the others, rather than siding with ChessEric specifically. Mjeims (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So this has nothing to do with enforcing a consensus, this is about WP:ILIKEIT and has no basis in policy or guideline except perhaps WP:IAR. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I do not even know how to answer to that. My opinion was not stated simply because I enjoy it or I am unable to accept change. Having every single tornado may seem trivial to some, but it can be important to those who study tornado patterns or meteorological records, so having every single tornado is harmless and useful for some people. Plus, all the other editors that frequent the Project regularly must have a similar thinking process to accept having all the tornadoes. That is why I agree with them staying. That's it. Mjeims (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So "why I agree with them staying" has literally no basis in our policies and guidelines? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If Wikipedia has policies and guidelines for tornado articles we must follow, then that would be understandable. What about the tornadoes being available for the public goes against Wikipedia guidelines? Am I not allowed to agree with something if Wikipedia does not say especifically I should? Mjeims (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you know what notability is? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You know what? I'm done. I've only got into this about three years ago. You've got the upper hand. You know a lot more about this than I do, and there is no point in arguing. I just simply love meteorology and tornadoes, and enjoyed making these articles. I thought Wikipedia was an publicly written encyclopedia, where any kind of information goes, as long as it is valid. But I guess not. I do understand what notability is, and seen how it works for ITN nominations. Mjeims (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh... WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I just want to be left out of this. ChessEric’s notification on my talk page was a good faith head’s up since they forgot to ping me. WP:Weather members ping each other all the time for discussions. What is the difference in ChessEric doing a mass WP:Weather pinging edit in the AfD vs doing a WikiProject talk page notification, which is allowed. I’m trying to stay out of this since I have previous history with the AfD nominator, so it is best if myself and the AfD nominator do not interact, as I have been directed by two separate admins to not interact with them. My comment is done and I’m going to stop participating in this AN/I and the AfD and if I didn’t already seem to make it clear, I do not wish to interact whatsoever with the AfD nominator. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A neutral notification to a Wikiproject is fine. Pinging specific individuals to discussions, knowing that they will support you, is an issue. Going to a specific individual's talk page and adding a header Link to this stupid article deletion attempt, is canvassing.-- Ponyobons mots 19:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A neutral notification to a non-partisan WikiProject is fine. I'm not convinced that WikiProject Weather is non-partisan. BilledMammal (talk) 09:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Giving someone carte blanche to canvass you doesn't mean that is not canvassing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just trying to confirm something since I don’t want to participate in the AN/I debate or the AfD. Did I break a policy/guideline when I participated in the AfD after being alerted to it on my talk page? In case I did, I went ahead and struck it and I have struck the comments on my talk page. I legit don’t care about participating in the debates and just want to continue trying to work on the set of drafts that I was alerted were about to be deleted as well as the List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes since I found out this morning a new one was upgraded to F5 and I need to find more sources for it. Now I’m done participating in the AN/I and AfD. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked ChessEric for 31 hours for personal attacks and harassment. I agree with Ponyo that this is unacceptable canvassing - Wikiprojects are notified about deletion discussions by adding a template to the discussion itself - interested editors can review articles up for deletion by monitoring Wikipedia:WikiProject_Weather#Article alerts. Hand-picking members of a project to notify them of a discussion is unacceptable in and of itself; doing it with an accompanying message along the lines of 'help me out, this idiot has nominated one of our articles' is far beyond the pale. I'll add that United States Man should provide some evidence to support their assertion that the nomination was made in bad faith, or they should retract it - unevidenced accusations of bad faith editing are themselves personal attacks. I see no reason to assume anything but good faith in the nomination, which explains the OP's rationale quite clearly. That looks like a content dispute that should be resolved in a calm and civil manner without throwing accusations about. Girth Summit (blether) 19:51, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The nomination was done after an explanation given by another user as to why these lists exist and evidence that this isn't a rogue list. The entire set of lists does have relevance, despite what the nominator thinks. Also, I don't take kindly to being accused of NPA, especially by an administrator no less. You really can't make a case to delete this list when many others exist, and a proposal to delete any more lists will not go over too well. United States Man (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not accused you of making personal attacks; I have informed you, in case you were not aware, that accusing someone of acting in bad faith without evidence is covered by NPA. You have provided no such evidence - please do so, in the form of diffs, or retract your accusation. Girth Summit (blether) 20:00, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If thats not a personal attack, what about this edit where you directly state to Fram that they obviously aren't acting in good faith and seem to have ulterior motives? GabberFlasted (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)This points to the fact that the user was informed of normal procedures, but instead chose to fight with an ill-fated AfD anyway. I'm not sure what the user thought to accomplish by starting an AfD that was doomed to fail. A simple look at numerous other years should have discouraged the user from partaking in this AfD, but yet, they persisted. That is my evidence, in a diff. You may not like my evidence, or you may try to discredit it, but I have provided evidence, per the policy that you outlined. Thank you and good day. United States Man (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit summary of "I'm not sure what you are not understanding. This is standard practice. Go look at other articles if you don't believe me. Also, stop getting rid of the other days" is essentially saying "trust me bro". That's not informing someone of normal procedures. Fram, from what I've seen, is willing to discuss policies and notability. Why did no one try to talk about it on a talk page instead of using edit summaries if it was such a big deal? That'd be the place to show what proper procedure is or examples of similar articles surviving at AfD. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As evidence goes, that is very thin gruel. A brief discussion via edit summaries, and you leap to assuming bad faith because the nominator was not persuaded? You jump to assuming bad faith based on someone disagreeing? I again urge you to retract your accusation, unless you have anything stronger than this. Girth Summit (blether) 20:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • There continues to be a serious misunderstanding of what constitutes canvassing and the power individual projects have in determining consensus being demonstrated at that AfD. I suppose it's a step forward that the canvassing/coordination is happening in the open. Note that I have no opinion as to whether the nominated list should be kept or deleted, but that AfD is a mess.-- Ponyobons mots 20:10, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Since that diff is of an edit made by them, I've notified Mjeims of this thread. It's my understanding that that is a sufficient reason to necessitate notification but let me know if that's untrue. GabberFlasted (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes sense; thank you GabberFlasted.-- Ponyobons mots 20:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see anybody pointing to it yet, but there's also this comment on the AfD. ChessEric pings 10 users that are associated with the WikiProject, stating Someone please reason with this moron who isn't part of the project and is being annoying. I have better things to do than argue all day. Might be the most blatant canvassing I've seen in a while, with some incivility thrown in. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Ponyo and HMIJ both beat me to it but there is so much to unpack on the AFD that its hard to read. There's a lot of ownership, battleground behavior, and a general level of disrespect and immaturity lack of understanding of Wikipedia on a fundamental level that I haven't seen anywhere else, let alone somewhere other than a user talk page. GabberFlasted (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah that AfD is a mess between the incivility, insults towards Fram from multiple users, and the canvassing. I do not envy the admin(s) that will be sorting through it. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The RFC at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/AfD at scale is effectively dead. There appears no option now bar ANI handing out bans for the massive behavioural problems at AfD. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      At time of writing, there are two gargantuan threads currently on this page with a wikiproject at the core of it. Add this one that is rapidly expanding towards that size and I'm starting to sense a pattern. GabberFlasted (talk) 20:41, 8 February 2023 (UTC) [reply]
      Three; WikiProject NFL, WikiProject Years, and WikiProject Weather. BilledMammal (talk) 09:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      While the RfC might be dead the ArbCom case remains there. So the community is certainly welcome to handle it, but a follow-up case request (for either Afd or WPTC) is an option, as would a request at WP:ARCA, or WP:AE (if it's someone who was named in the decision). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Respectfully, we should not need an ArbCom case to tell people not to canvass. This isn't complicated stuff. Just don't ping individual editors to an AfD, barring extraordinary circumstances. I strongly suspect the ones engaging in canvassing here know better. And if they're unwilling or unable to learn, they can be blocked. Problem solved, and one less thing for ArbCom to deal with. I know it's kind of a meme that WPTC and WP Weather have a lot of young editors, but honestly I see a lot of immaturity and that may explain some of what's going on here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The comment was that there was no option except to do ANI topic bans. That is not true and so I pointed out otherwise. I was explicitly not suggesting it was the best option but merely an option. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 08:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      We shouldn't, but looking at the !votes at #Proposal: Beaniefan11 is warned, including the !votes against #3 where the proposal is to warn Beaniefan11 for canvassing an editor who asked to be canvassed, I don't know how we can deal with this. BilledMammal (talk) 09:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The first step is educating and making it clear that it's not okay. We need to give people room to make mistakes sometimes and I think the group as a whole is learning a lot from this discussion. While some of them almost definitely did know better, I do believe that some of those involved actually did not. There's a balance I think we need to strike for those acting in good faith, giving the benefit of the doubt to those who may not have known better. Moving forward there will be no excuse. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      If people don't want to respect warnings about canvassing, they can be blocked by any administrator without getting ArbCom involved. ArbCom is meant to be a last resort - have we reached that point yet? Personally, I do not think so. But I'm not involved in WP Weather (that is not really one of the "other things"), so take that with a grain of salt. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't know about WikiProject Weather, but we may have reached that point more broadly. Above, members of WikiProject NFL are flocking to the discussion to vote down proposals to merely warn one of "their" editors against canvassing, and if we can't even get a consensus to issue a warning because of the dominence of certain partisan WikiProject's I don't think this issue will resolve itself through normal processes. BilledMammal (talk) 03:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @BilledMammal: I honestly think at this point all three projects mentioned on this page currently need to be taken to Arb Com and have the canvassing, ownership of content, and/or forcing their will down upon the community addressed. This is a serious issue that has persisted for far too long and is quite large in scope. As a WPWX member, I can that these behaviors are present in the weather project. It isn't isolated to WP NFL. NoahTalk 03:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Membership guidelines - Attempted gatekeeping to prevent people from joining the project from 2021. Now we have a notability essay that was discriminatory based on location (I believe I removed all those provisions). I can't tell you how many times drafts or articles have been redirected without discussion. Sometimes there have even been discussions started to prevent an article from being created. The ownership over the past SEVERAL YEARS has likely driven away an uncountable number of new editors. NoahTalk 04:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Barkeep49: Tbh I think another arbcom case may be warranted given the history of the project and the fact that this kind of canvassing has also been going on for some time. I think other things would also need to be addressed such as the OWNership of content and forcing the project's will down upon the community. Both of those are longstanding issues that have some relation to the canvassing on wiki. NoahTalk 02:36, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I concur that this was canvassing and also feel that ChessEric, even as a non-serious threat, was lucky to get away with a 31 hour block. As to wikiproject dominance - eh, it's cetainly possible, but I normally require a broader base of issues to see if it's the actual project vs that of just one editor knowing who would likely support them. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nosebagbear I hope you can answer a question I have because I’m slightly lost on policy/guidelines. Since my alert to the AfD was canvassed, was my participation (my !vote) in the AfD a violation of policy? I’m trying to figure out if an !vote in the discussion, that was canvassed, would be classified null/irrelevant. If it wouldn’t would I just note it was canvassed or how would that work? After the ArbCom case, I’m trying to get a better understanding of the policy/guidelines and how they work so I don’t break one. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Elijahandskip it would be highly anomalous for an editor bought to the discussion in such a fashion to be viewed as themselves in breach of policy for a good faith post. If it's not abundantly obvious in the AfD itself, note at the start how you were bought to the discussion in unsure. The closing admin can then make the judgement (likely informed by the outcome of this discussion) on how to weigh the !votes involved. If the suspicion that you've been canvassed gets too big you can strike (or not make) the !vote yourself - I note that you've struck the !vote here, which obviously resolves it in that path, but noted for the future. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank makes sense. Thank you for that! Elijahandskip (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as you personally are honest and transparent (as you seem to have been here) you should have nothing to worry about. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nosebagbear the same would apply to me. While I did evidence some misconceptions about what cavassing constituted, I was simply summoned by ChessEric without the intent of "tipping the scale", as I tried to explain above. I'm also trying to avoid breaking any violation or policy. Mjeims (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You, Mjeims, have evidenced no misconceptions about what constitutes canvassing - you were a willing party to the canvassing, you just didn't understand that what you were doing was problematic. I chalk this up to inexperience on your part, but you need to recognise your own part in the problematic behaviour.
    Elijahandskip: the same goes for you. You said that "I normally get pinged in weather-related discussions (many discussions to back that up)": that needs to stop, now. You need to be telling people not to notify you in that manner, because it is wholly inappropriate and it reflects badly on you. Y'all cannot be pinging each other to discussions in hopes of brigading support. Girth Summit (blether) 23:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood. I'll be using RfC a lot more from now on. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Same. I apologize for the inconveniences, and thank you for the experience nonetheless. Will be relying on RfC a lot more from now on. Mjeims (talk) 00:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Elijahandskip, Mjeims, I hope that it's clear that these rules apply to all discussions, including RfCs? You may not ping like-minded parties to any discussion - just make your policy-grounded point, and hope that others agree with you. Girth Summit (blether) 00:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it. Mjeims (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Girth Summit: How should I proceed in regards to an RfC that was canvassed by people mentioned here? I am involved in the discussion but feel it may be appropriate to just close it as disputed as a result of canvassing due to majority of the participants having been canvassed. NoahTalk 04:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you link to the RfC in question? Girth Summit (blether) 12:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Girth Summit: here is the link. NoahTalk 13:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Elijahandskip - in case it's not clear, the pinging you did at that RfC is also unacceptable canvassing. That was last month, so I'm not going to take any action, but it is the kind of thing you could be blocked for. As for what to do with the RfC now - you can't uncanvas it now. I don't have any better suggestions than abandoning it as disputed; certainly, no valid consensus can emerge now. Girth Summit (blether) 13:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I found this discussion through Fram's talk page, and all I wanna say is this; I did not know canvassing existed. Not everyone is a Mighty Eagle know-all, and that includes me. Poodle23 (talk) 14:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I get why, but now I am slightly confused and have a new question. So obviously I made the mistake of pinging people who had not already commented in the discussions. However, would it have been wrong to ping every editor (whether they agree or not) if they had worked in the discussions? Good example is Caleb Routt, who basically got snowballed in a discussion which I requested content dispute to help monitor and close (so it would be valid without question as there was dispute). I pinged that editor in the RfC, even though I disagreed with them and even warned them on their talk page previously. In a circumstance like that, would it not be wise to ping every editor who participated in the article and/or discussion being talked about in the RfC since there would be a good chance to have those editors participate in the RfC along with others? If that is against the rules, then I could foresee an RfC be used to circumvent talk page discussions. Looking below to Gusfriend‘s comment: The talk page discussion involved 0 pings and went down as a non-pinging head’s up that an article was created dispute consensus amount the editors that one should not be created. So the AfD occurred, which deleted it without pings via the snowball effect. Is that against the rules? If yes, is gaining talk page consensus even necessary since the moment a dispute comes up, an editor (using that one as an example) can use an RfC to circumvent the consensus, without the RfC even knowing about it. Like one could relatively place the RfC on like Talk:List of United States tornadoes from January to February 2023 rather than Talk:Tornadoes of 2023, gain a consensus without letting any other person who edited the page know, create that outbreak article, then probably pass an AfD since there would be community consensus to keep the article, but at the same time, community consensus against making it in the first place. My question is more where the rule itself actually falls in terms of pinging vs not pinging. When does Wikipedia:Silence and consensus kick in, per se? I hope you can answer those so problems do not arise in the future. Thanks in advance and like before, I do not wish to participate further in this AN/I; I am only responding to a ping. Elijahandskip (talk) 13:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The best option is to just let a new discussion run its natural course without bringing people into it. People are supposed to watchlist project notifications and any pages they want updates on and look at their watchlist. If someone doesn't come across it by neutral means, then they simply don't. That's how it's supposed to work. NoahTalk 13:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My concern in making the comment below was about levels of consensus (see WP:CONLEVEL). In particular using a consensus gained at the WikiProject or the page Talk:Tornadoes of 2023 to argue that a page should be deleted. Gusfriend (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you say this is a wikiproject-level WP:OWN issue or at least amongst several people? NoahTalk 22:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you all for raising this here and dealing with it. The AfD is probably tainted beyond repair, but we'll see how it develops. Perhaps someone can explain to ChessEric that comments like this are equally unacceptable WP:OWN attempts to control the creation or existence of articles and drafts. As for the bad faith comments, I just don't see why we need to list each and every one of the 1,000+ yearly tornadoes, even the many low intensity ones which didn't do any damage. We are duplicating a database, and at the same time creating multiple articles with mostly the exact same information. We wouldn't accept exhaustive lists of all deadly car crashes by month and country, as these are sadly commonplace: but those at least would have a clear, negative impact on some people. Listing tornadoes which exist ephemerally in some field and do no damage just for the sake of completeness is something I don't get, but which the people of the weather project apparently are very passionate about. An AfD was an attempt to see how the wider community feels about these, but the canvassing has overwhelmed it with people repeating their local consensus over and over. Oh well... Fram (talk) 08:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    As an aside, I was just looking at the page WP:Articles for deletion/Tornado outbreak of January 24-25, 2023 which involved some of the same users and was started on 26 January with:
    • "This article goes against the general criteria for outbreak articles followed by the wikiproject, and other users had previously decided against an article at Talk:Tornadoes of 2023."
    It included the comments:
    • "Multiple users in WP:Weather already was having a discussion about not creating an article."
    • "Making an article about it was decided against Talk:Tornadoes of 2023#Possible Jan. 24 outbreak." (edited to display wiki link).
    • "Already had a discussion about being against the idea of creating an article about this tornado outbreak."
    Gusfriend (talk) 09:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fram, this is a longstanding problem that has been going on for a while. It isn't isolated to just a couple discussions. I have seen people get pinged in time and time again. I am frankly disappointed that people didn't learn anything after having witnessed the Arb Com case last year that involved canvassing. It's just really sad. NoahTalk 13:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This might be suited for a broader discussion about tornado-related articles or list articles (perhaps on a VP rather than the WikiProject talk page) where people can focus on what guidance/precedents exist and how they should be modified (and/or the extent to which they aren't being followed). Like with e.g. military history, Wikipedia has attracted a lot of people with a laser focus on this topic and a lot of passion. This is in general a very good thing, but everything outside the highest profile events probably doesn't get much, ahem, sunlight, so turn into passion projects of a dedicated few. When scrutiny is applied to those kinds of projects (which can go on for a long time without a hitch, operating within gray areas of policy), I can understand folks getting a bit defensive. But some of the comments and canvassing here have been truly egregious, such that a 31h block seems pretty lenient. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not only was there an ArbCom case in 2022, but a lot of warnings to the WikiProject in 2021 due to canvassing and other policy violations. If two of the best and most prolific editors in the WikiProject (MarioProtIV and LightandDark2000) got topic banned, topic banning United States Man, ChessEric, Elijahandskip and Mjems seems like a no-brainer. After all, they have engaged in canvassing and hostile behavior through other methods. However, Elijahandskip and Mjems seem to show a willingness to change their behavior. That might be their saving grace. Another mitigating factor is for them to be forced to turn off pings. 69.118.237.29 (talk) 20:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not trying to be disrespectful, but respectfully, who are you? Someone who has edited exactly three days (November 9, 2022, February 1, 2023, and February 9 (aka this edit)) probably wouldn't know about the ArbCom case, let alone propose topic bans for four editors. Not trying to be disrespectful, and I am not accusing you of anything, but have you edited under a username or a different anonymous address before? I'm just trying to figure out more of the how/why you are proposing the topic bans. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, until very recently, like Poodle23, I noticed that us users that participate in the Project being pinged to express out opinions were doing comething wrong, in this case, canvassing. I was explained that I was being subject to a misconception about what canvassing consists of, in a section of this massive thread above. I did not engage in such conversations with the intent of being hostile (though I do admit my original reply to the AfD nominator Fram was a little rude), and I never did. I did, however, accept the wrongdoing and will not be partaking in such breach of policy again. But I can't really turn of pings, as I do get pinged in discussions that I have identified to not constitute canvassing at all, just opinion. Mjeims (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Note: To all reading this, the above IP is a likely sock of Andrew5, given the consistent edit history and WHOIS location of many other confirmed IP addresses. The user has an obvious vendetta against members of this project for reporting him to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andrew5, which has been evident in the hateful comments toward us from different IPs until those were ultimately blocked. United States Man (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the very least the language in the essay WP:NWEATHER that discriminates between tornado outbreaks in the United States and those in other countries should not be followed. I think we need to take a close look at whether this Wikiproject is following similar standards to those elsewhere on the English Wikipedia. This seems to be a much more pressing issue than any sports Wikiproject, which are being discussed at the moment. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Phil Bridger: That essay was never approved by the project. If you look at Wikipedia talk:Notability (weather), you can see that the discussion was headed towards oppose before Elijahandskip withdrew the nomination for approval. I would argue that essay mostly reflects the thoughts of its primary author, Elijahandskip, and not the entire project at large. I can attest that nonetheless, there has been past resistance to following certain pieces of the MOS. NoahTalk 22:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I do hate being talked about and not being pinged. Either way, I shall respond. I would neutrally agree with that, except to the Tropical cyclone section, which was written almost entirely by other editors like Chlod and Jason Rees (not pinging them since that detail isn't important for this AN/I). That said, it wasn't without a lack of trying: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather/Archive 1#Notability Essay for Weather & Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather/Archive 1#Wikipedia:Notability (weather) has an RFC. Since other editors were willing to edit and fix up the Tropical cyclone guidelines, a valid silence is consensus meaning could be added. Two WikiProject talk page messages (one about an RfC even), which did attract editors. So unless you got a better guideline proposal, the silence and consensus guideline sort of implies it is the idea of the WikiProject. If you got a better idea, propose it. But I personally believe your belief that it is the thoughts of my ideas is not that valid, despite me being the primary author and that it "wasn't approved by the project" is also borderline accurate but inaccurate. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Exta comment I just thought of. Not being rude, but this AN/I did confirm one point, which I do believe is valid. Since editors should not ping others, if there was a valid opportunity for discussion/creative work, and nothing happened, the silence is consensus would be 100% valid. Basically, in plain English: Not my problem you didn't work on it. You know about it and didn't. So don't complain. Just start a new process to fix it. So yeah, whether or not you think WP:NWeather is valid is irrelevant since it was open for improving/fixing and it wasn't. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pretty sure that, if I understood and took in properly what canvassing means, it is not wrong for editors to ping each other, unless it is to snowball a desicion into fruition in an arbitrary manner. One, I believe, can ask for opinions in discussions, as long as the original statement that is being asked upon is policy-abiding. Mjeims (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is a violation of the third prong "audience" of WP:INAPPNOTE. In a wikiproject has come to an internal (that is, not actually community backed) interpretation of a notability policy, pinging other members of that wikiproject is going to inherently sway the discussion - even if the actual message is perfectly neutral. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:18, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also like to point out that there isn't a bias against tornadoes outside the United States. In fact, if anyone ever wants to create more content about tornado events internationally, that would be a very welcome topic to expand on. United States Man (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Okay, I've only read through about half of the comments here, so I apologize if this is redundant, but as an editor who looks through most of our open AFDs on a daily basis, I wanted to state that it is not rare for editors to be pinged during a discussion. Most often, editors who had previously participated in an earlier AFD on an article are pinged, no matter what their opinion was, but it is not that uncommon for pinging to happen. This example being discussed here was unusual in the number of editors who were pinged (I'd say that it is typically between 1-4 editors who are pinged) but I just wanted to note that it is far from the only recent example of editors being pinged to a discussion. I think this most often happens because there is such low participation in most AFD discussions and it is helpful to have more editors involved who have a knowledge about sometimes very obscure subjects. So, while this example is egregious, especially in the tone used towards the nomination and nominator, it is far from being the only incident of editors being pinged to an AFD discussion. If pinging any editors is now considered "canvassing", then we have to get the word out because it is not uncommon in the AFD world. Liz Read! Talk! 19:54, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • To my mind, the most important words in WP:CANVASS are "neutrally worded". This requirement for an appropriate notice ought to be in the lede of the page so that more attention is drawn to it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:34, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Mobile editor who doesn't respond to talk page messages

    Comprehensive5 has been here for two days and has accumulated quite a few warnings in the process of what appears to be good-faith copy editing. I assume as Android app editor they unaware of the response to their editing. They are also making errors in changing sourced material and are not aware of ENGVAR. They have started editing medical articles and made a misinterpretation of medical terminology in this change to to Pulmonary embolism. Perhaps a brief block would bring them to the talk page. StarryGrandma (talk) 06:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like WP:TCHY -- btw maybe we should update that page with some guidance about what the current best practice is for getting an editor's attention in a TCHY situation, e.g. edit filter, pblock from mainspace, full block, what duration, standard friendly explanatory notice language, etc. Levivich (talk) 06:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The cold but true fact of the matter is that the fully functional "desktop" site works perfectly fine on Android smart phones. I know because I have made roughly 75,000 edits on the misnamed "desktop" site using Android smartphones. I became a highly active administrator on the "desktop" site using my Android smartphone and have made many tens of thousands of complex edits since then on my phone, including taking George Meany through the Good article process, and writing many dozens of new articles, significantly expanding hundreds of articles, helping at the Teahouse, the Help Desk, AfD , ANI and multiple other venues. Why on earth should the WMF automatically direct mobile users to non-functional apps and sites, when the fully functional "desktop site" is available for free if only some WMF functionary would just admit failure and flip a switch? I have been asking this question for many years and have never received a good answer. People claim that it is "just too hard" to edit that way, but I edit that way quite readily, and I am 70 years old with bad eyesight and minimal technical expertise. The whole "mobile sites and apps" project seems to be a monumental and failed make-work project for highly paid coders who are not capable of writing fully functional software equivalent to what has already existed for at least 11 years, and maybe longer. I am sure that most of them are driving expensive cars, supporting "fine dining" restaurants and building their retirement plans. But nobody at the WMF pays more than fleeting attention to what I have to say, because they are completely dedicated to a failed narrative. Can anybody even try to estimate how many tens of millions of dollars have been wasted in failing to meet the most basic software objectives? Cullen328 (talk) 06:51, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Over a billion dollars in donations over 20 years has yielded the software we are currently using. I do not think we got a good price. Levivich (talk) 07:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that disruptive editors need to be blocked if they cannot easily communicate or collaborate, but we really need to be sad and also angry when the failure to communicate is due entirely to WMF software waste and incompetence. This goes back well over a decade. Remember this when the WMF accuses us later this year of impeding their fundraising because we actually insist that fundraising should be based on telling the truth instead of lying to donors. Cullen328 (talk) 07:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    fully functional "desktop site" is available for free if only some WMF functionary would just admit failure and flip a switch? I have been asking this question for many years and have never received a good answer. I mean you have that answer right there. They don't care because from their POV, they have delivered a product. Star Mississippi 18:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Would a 24-hr block, get their attention? GoodDay (talk) 06:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It might, but Cullen328's absolutely right. This situation comes up again and again and again at ANI (and how often is it happening across Wikipedia where it doesn't come here?), and as more and more users abandon towers and laptops for smartphones and tablets, it will come up more often yet. I'm in complete agreement that the WMF has much to answer for in driving away many mobile editors through their astonishing negligence in so much as acknowledging that there's a problem, never mind lifting their well-funded fingers to seek to do something about it. Ravenswing 07:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The solution is essentially free or of negligible expense, Ravenswing, and would start saving massive amounts of money almost instantly. Software that impedes collaboration needs to be eliminated. Write a simple, friendly landing page informing all mobile users that they will now be using what used to be incorrectly called the "desktop" site, but will now be called the "fully functional universal" site. Then, flip the switch. After that, either lay off or reassign all the programmers who are wasting donor dollars on less than fully functional sites and apps. This is a collaborative project. All software that impedes collaboration should be phased out promptly since we already have reliable software that allows any good faith newcomer to collaborate. My edit history for over a decade is the proof of that. Cullen328 (talk) 07:34, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To be perfectly clear, I am all in favor of generous compensation and fringe benefit packages for programmers who demonstrably get things accomplished but I do not extend that courtesy to programmers who utterly fail to meet, let alone exceed, the functionality of already existing software that is over 15 years old. It is as if you hired a team of eager 20 year olds to build a better mousetrap, and now those "innovators" are all about 35 years old, and all of their mousetrap designs are less effective at catching mice than the designs of 15 years previously. How long are reasonable people expected to keep the failed mousetrap design team on the payroll? Forever? The WMF approach seems to be to keep them on the payroll until retirement age, but maybe somebody can explain how I am wrong. Cullen328 (talk) 07:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I wonder if it's possible software-side to force mobile users to use the desktop version to avoid WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU problems in the first place. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 08:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I would vehemently oppose making readers use a vastly inferior UI just because of negative effects of some editors using the mobile web and apps. I would also vehemently oppose forcing editors to use an interface which is often significantly inferior for editing too. The fact that Cullen328 prefers the desktop site and makes a lot of edits is neither here nor there. Good for them, it doesn't mean their experiences would hold for most people. The 'it works for me so I'm sure it would work for others' is a terrible mentality and for all the flaws of the WMF, at least they tend to actually research and try to find out what works what than just assume because something works for them it would work for others. To use a simple example, a lot of people prefer CLIs for many things and they do have advantages and people sometimes do waste time by doing stuff which tends to take more work on GUIs because they don't know how to use CLIs. But no one is seriously suggesting banning Windows or OS X and there is a reason they are way more popular than CLIs. (Some people would suggest more education on the use of CLIs and likewise there might be a point that people could be encourage to try and see if they prefer the desktop interface on mobile devices, especially as editors.) As I've also pointed out before the Android app has a very large number of positive reviews, there is surely a reason for this and no it isn't universal for Android apps. It also has features simply not available on the desktop web such as offline articles however much some editors may think it's just inferior. If you think such features don't matter well the fact that some people think everyone lives like them with fast devices with large screens and good always on internet connections etc is an unfortunate fact of Wikipedia. However it's not something we should encourage. This doesn't excuse the problems the WMF has allowed with communicating with editors using mobile devices. Nil Einne (talk) 09:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I prefer the desktop site on mobile but agree with Nil Einne; the only solution is to convince or compel the WMF to fix WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. BilledMammal (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm curious how much $ was spent last year on fixing mobile comm bugs. And how much on discussion tools. And how much on V22. How much on VE, etc. I bet the budget is not well allocated, based on having used the software. Levivich (talk) 14:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone has to ask. What is a CLI? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WHAAOI ColinFine (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I find it very hard to take seriously anyone who uses such techno-babble. I bet that if the WMF did some research into who understands such abbreviations they would come up with a very small number of "ordinary" people. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Port of Zeebrugge rename issue

    Hi

    It looks like Le Fou (talk · contribs) moved Port of Zeebrugge to Seaport of Bruges on the 29/Jan, seemingly without discussion. I noticed a couple of days later and left a message on his talk discussing it. But it looks like he hasn't been back since. So I thought maybe this was the best venue to discuss the issue.

    The current location looks wrong to me. It doesn't comply with WP:COMMONNAME and there have been a number of failed moves/previous discussions in the article history and on the talk page. There may well be a valid case for a move given that Antwerp and Zeebrugge last year launched a new re-branded identity as the Port of Antwerp Bruges. So perhaps the 2 port articles could be merged and moved to a new location respecting the rebranding. I'm not sure the rebrand is "sticking" just yet, so it might fail WP:COMMONNAME.

    But for now can someone move the article back to Port of Zeebrugge, as there is no evidence the move is correct and it is most definitely controversial given the previous move discussions. We can then have a discussion about where it should really sit, if we want to. Thanks Fob.schools (talk) 12:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Notified [36] Fob.schools (talk) 12:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I moved it back, as this needs a discussion at the least. I don't think it would be good to merge the articles on the ports of Antwerp and Zeebrugge though, as they have cmpletely separate histories, location, ... A new short article about the combined brand may be useful perhaps, but not as a replacement of the two other ones. Fram (talk) 12:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Fob.schools (talk) 12:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Have the discussion and see where that takes you. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Like Fram said, a merge of the articles won't be a good idea, as both ports still have an own identity, location and history. Both port companies - Port of Antwerp and MBZ (Maatschappij van de Brugse Zeehaven, translated as Company of Bruges Seaport) - merged to one port company named Port of Antwerp-Bruges. The name 'Port of Zeebrugge' is officially not used anymore. Also, Zeebrugge, which is part of the city of Bruges, is - and has always been - the seaport of Bruges.
    A separate short article about the port company Port of Antwerp-Bruges might be a good idea indeed. Now, the article about the port of Antwerp has been renamed to Port of Antwerp-Bruges, although the article only handles about the port of Antwerp. That doesn't seem correct either... Le Fou (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Block evasion

    88.230.104.114 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was blocked a few hours ago for DE. They have switched to 5.176.188.115 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and are continuing to spam See also links. See contributions.  // Timothy :: talk  12:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Blocked for evasion per WP:DUCK. --Jayron32 13:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The block on 88.230.104.114 has expired, and they continued the same editing pattern that they were blocked for.  // Timothy :: talk  22:10, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for two weeks this time. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 22:15, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked that one.-- Ponyobons mots 01:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The block on 5.176.185.154 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has expired and they are continuing the edits from that IP.  // Timothy :: talk  18:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    5.176.176.0/20 blocked 1 week.-- Ponyobons mots 19:16, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Another 176.30.232.114  // Timothy :: talk  00:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked 176.30.224.0/20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for one week as well. Also rolled back everything from that range. --Jayron32 15:23, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    176.220.98.210 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is continuing.  // Timothy :: talk  01:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And now, Special:Contributions/94.235.120.86. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 01:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked the two above IPs for 2 weeks. Johnuniq (talk) 06:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Severe WP:POLEMIC and WP:SOAPBOX violations on userpages

    User:Commandur returned after a nearly decade hiatus to argue about the neutrality of Gab (social network), objecting to several sources statements. After failing to gain consensus for his arguments on both the talk page and NPOV/N (and a few civility violations), he posted a long rant on both his userpage and talkpage about how Wikipedia has gone "woke" and is full of leftist bias.

    He hasn't edited since so blocking is likely unnecessary, but the rant is ynacceptable and should be delt with. 00:26, 11 February 2023 (UTC) 50.214.130.225 (talk) 00:26, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, this is concerning. Is it possible that the account was compromised? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 00:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    hasn't edited in almost a week. If they return with the same conduct, a DE block is likely merited Star Mississippi 01:20, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    people have political opinions, based off of the users edit history it is not shocking for them to be displaying such views. at least the user is not vandalizing pages they disagree with. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:27, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that having a userpage complaining about supposed "leftist bias" on Wikipedia is unambiguously a violation of WP:SOAPBOX, since it is directly relevant to WP. The edit summary "Quit admin abusing you're ruining Wikipedia" is very concerning though. Partofthemachine (talk) 02:35, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Technically it could be a complaint complaining about NPOV but if you think the userbase, after using consensus, produces articles with "leftist bias" when the userbase sees it as neutral, well then that's more of a personal qualm and soapboxing. stuff should be targeted more on specific articles moreso than general gripes. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:01, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that @Jimfbleak has deleted the Talk page, I think this is resolved unless they return. Star Mississippi 18:04, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Star Mississippi: Welp, I'd like to restore the talk page and redact the polemics. Pertinent stuff was deleted with the polemics. But I agree, unless they cause more trouble, this is pretty well set. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:26, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No objection on my end. I see they were welcomed and unwelcomed so now I'm really confused. CC @Serial Number 51429 Star Mississippi 02:23, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    SN saw thr blank user talk and thought them new -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:25, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ima restore baby and dispose of bath water after asking JimF. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:25, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This editor is adding a link to a phishing site on the Meridian Energy article and the Te Uku Wind Farm pages. As their only edits consist of adding links to phishing sites targeting people trying to find the Meridian Energy website, I believe they are WP:NOTHERE and that an indefinite block is appropriate.

    Relevant diffs are here: [37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46]. Note that this list of diffs consists of the entirety of their edits. Michael60634 (talk) 02:33, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems like a stale report, but then again, it is a serious issue. I'm not against an indef for the user purely based on the phishing websites, and this might need revdel in addition to that. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 04:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't argue it's a stale report. They seem to be editing on and off since late October, and their last edit was a few days ago. I wouldn't have reported their behaviour here if this was just a one off incident that had a low chance of happening again. I do agree that a revdel might be necessary. Michael60634 (talk) 04:26, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have indefinitely blocked Neal Barclay. Cullen328 (talk) 04:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright. Would the edits be revdel-able? After all, it is phishing... LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 05:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Done. Cullen328 (talk) 05:15, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The majority of this users edits have still not been revdel'd. Partofthemachine (talk) 05:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cullen328 Can you revdel the rest of the edits? Michael60634 (talk) 11:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Upon further investigation, it's not only phishing, but a scam. The creator of the phishing website tries to get Meridian customers to go to an "investment" page on the website that links to various "investment" tiers. And that page then links to a phishing account on Telegram. With that said, I've reported the website to Meridian and the Telegram account to Telegram. Although I don't have faith that Telegram will do anything. Michael60634 (talk) 06:17, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I revdel'd all the phishing. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, looks like you got everything. Michael60634 (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    70.164.212.36 at Burning of Smyrna, DRN and others

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


    Resolved

    Per this:

    I stand by my comments about this editor's contributions and have nothing more to say at the moment. If anyone has any questions for me, I will do my best to answer them, but I my California bedtime is imminent. Cullen328 (talk) 08:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The unregistered editor filed a request for dispute resolution at DRN. I made a preliminary statement that I would probably moderate, and the IP editor made the statement quoted above. I then stated that I would not moderate, and the IP editor asked for another moderator, and was admonished by Cullen328. I concur with the comments by the Original Poster and by Cullen328. I think that a block is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:34, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Heavy Chaos

    User persists with [48] personal attacks after a prior ANI thread and repeated warnings, as well as groundless accusations of hounding and harassment. Andre🚐 07:59, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    You are harassing me at this point. Everywhere I go, you're acting on it (replies, reverts, etc) within minutes. Filling up my user talk page. SLAPPing me with ANIs. Since day one. Heavy Chaos (talk) 08:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You proposed a redirect that has existed since 2003 to be deleted[49], when you didn't have support for that, you went around to [50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57] remove all links to the redirect and do an end run around the process. When I asked you to stop you accused me of hounding you. Meanwhile you're WP:FORUMSHOPing your proposal to every page. [58][59] and you accuse me of sealioning[60] Andre🚐 08:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is the full discussion, for people who don't like cherries. I'm disengaging from you now, Andrevan. If you don't have anything new or meaningful to add to my talk page, or in reply to my messages, I'd rather not hear it. Heavy Chaos (talk) 08:28, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You can act like the victim but you are the one making personal attacks, ignoring the process for obtaining consensus for your large-scale edits, and making outlandish accusations when asked to slow down and discuss and take it step by step. Your attitude is incompatible with collaboration and you have presented no remorse or contrition, and no evidence for your accusations. Andre🚐 08:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Daniel Case - and his application of bans

    SPEAK NO EVIL
    (non-admin closure) Dentren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked indefinitely for refusing to get the point and continuining the same disruptive behaviour they were blocked for 3 months for. A reminder that any complaint here can backfire on you, and simply arguing that the thread is about someone does nothing to change that. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 13:28, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I want to summit this complain about user:Daniel Case's ban on me he issued on November 5, 2022 [61].

    In this context I had been creating a criticism section for Chilean politician Camila Vallejo while removing provocative remarks of her as not being "intelligent enough". User:Bedivere reverts my edits three times [62]. He did it so under the pretext of "WP:NOTNEWS", a resource he has repeatedly used to remove criticism of politicians of the ruling coalition in Chile (eg. talk:Gabriel Boric).

    Did Daniel Case right on banning only me?

    I remind people that the focus of the discussion here is Daniel Case. Dentren | Talk 08:01, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Nothing to comment with deniel Case, but remember WP:BOOMERANG due to your last sentence on this topic. Lemonaka (talk) 11:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Lemonaka, while I have no opinion on this case and I'm just scrolling around, I will point out that their last sentence was likely inserted there to indicate that the thread they started is not a continuation of their earlier dispute with another editor. They have started this thread to deal with their concerns related to Daniel Case's handling of their earlier edit war. Please assume good faith. Regards, — Nythar (💬-❄️) 11:35, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nythar, while I was just scrolling around. I didn't know the context of this ANI thread. Sorry for misunderstanding to @Dentren and you. Lemonaka (talk) 11:36, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dentren: you failed to notify Daniel Case about this thread, I've done that for you. WindTempos (talk • contribs) 11:04, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Dentren did post a notification immediately after starting this thread, but posted it at the top of Daniel Case's user talk page [63]. Dentren, you were blocked (not banned) for edit warring; it was your fourth block for edit warring in just over four months. The block was prompted by this report, and there's nothing inappropriate about it. --bonadea contributions talk 11:32, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Lags of blocks of an SPI case.

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


    Hi all, after the case of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/УагаПесар tagged by Spicy as Clerk assistance is requested, it has been lagging for several days. This is a duck case and will anyone block the obvious socks already listed?
    Previous discussion is on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1116#Japanese-language_legal_threats_about_a_real-world_event Lemonaka (talk) 11:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocks done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Russian/Ukranian tit-for-tat shenanigans?

    I have seen others do similar in the past few weeks. Perhaps this rather childish behaviour is understandable given what is happening in the world-outside-of-Wikipedia, but it's not helpuful and I'm sure most of us could do withouth fighting such petty vandalism. Is there a chance that one of the good bots of Wikipedia could be programmed to spot such edits and auto-revert? T.I.A. --10mmsocket (talk) 11:27, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @10mmsocket Please relink you link, it looks like a mess. Looks better now, thank you. Lemonaka (talk) 11:28, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Heads up appreciated, thank you. 10mmsocket (talk) 11:41, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I blocked the two accounts, no brainer. The IPs were already blocked. This happens quite a lot in the topic area, the blocked accounts might be some of our older pseudo-Ukrainian friends who have been disrupting the topic area for years.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:04, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. So is there an easy bot solution? 10mmsocket (talk) 13:04, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I am afraid not. We can make an edit filter prohibiting this change, but then think about media coverage like "Wikipedia defends interests of the terrorist country and its colonial stand by refusing to change Russian to Ukrainian nationality", so I would better have humans dealing with this type of disruption. Ymblanter (talk) 13:10, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Userbala

    User keeps making unsourced updates to 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake. I dropped a message on their talk page requesting them to provide new sources when updating the death toll which they still are not following. User isn't willing to discuss with me either. This was the most recent edit. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 13:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked them from that article for a week. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:17, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    BLOCKED
    Vampire entombed for 6 months by 331dot. (non-admin closure) GabberFlasted (talk) 12:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Admittedly, I don’t know why Robert Spencer hasn’t sued Wikipedia and its writers for libel, but when I become a famous critic of Islam, I assure you I will! has the feel of a three year old's threats about what she'll do when she becomes a vampire, but nonetheless this should be flagged and Special:Contributions/98.166.60.126 discouraged from repeating such statements, I reckon. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked. 331dot (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Help with bigotry & xenophobia.

    Rosenborg BK Fan blocked for 48 hours with talk page access revoked. Should their behavior resume after their block, additional sanctions are an option, but for now, this is resolved. Additionally, Dhyana b warned both here and on their talk page for WP:NPA issues. Let's avoid a WP:BOOMERANG situation here, shall we? --Kinu t/c 01:26, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hello,

    Unfortunately I've come across an old Wikipedia editor that seems to speak in a very bigoted & xenophobic manner about diff groups of people. To be specific, talking about Romania he wrote "...the south where evil has always regained and poured in to other civilised regions of this country... I'd really like to see when Ferentari [i.e. a marginalized neighborhood in the capital of Romania] will become the European Capital of Culture... oh, wait, most likely never, of course!)" in an edit summary. When I confronted him about such behavior, warning that I'll report him & it's unacceptable on Wikipedia (I'm also Romanian), his reply was: (Eng translation)


    "Xenophobes are you (plural) and if you want Hungary [I told him he can join Viktor Orban, but not to do that on Wikipedia], you can go there yourself (although they are more civilized than you (plural), so I don't know what to say)! I have no reason to go to Hungary. Also, what problems are you going to cause me, hehehehe?! What xenophobic remark? I am so tired of some of these disgraceful things (ro. mârlănii) and you (plural) are the Aces of that in Europe, that is certain. This is what I and millions of Romanians in this country, real Romanians, can say, nota bene (ita. "take note")! I don't have to continue anything, it's not like I'm from Bucharest (i.e. uncivilized), and as far as Romania goes, know dear lady that, even if you like it or not, it was and still is a multicultural country and I say this as an ethnic Romanian, very good Romanian speaker (much better than you, that is clear). I know the history of my country very well, unlike others! ...."


    And on and on they go, proceeding to insult me & make all sorts of bigoted comments like: "I know more languages than you have school years. I don't know how old you are, but I'm not going to allow you to address me in a 'per tu' manner (fr. informally), because we don't come from the same region" or "That is not incitement to hate and you are not truly Romanian (I am, and this can be proven by a genetic test as well, any given time)[...] I've had with you and your kind and, above all, I wrote the truth. Your kind has no respect whatsoever when visiting other regions of this country and I know this very, very well. Besides, I can teach you plenty of accurate history in many languages, you have no idea. But the precise history, including, most notably, of your home country! [i.e diff than Romania -- probably alluding to India, as people who talk this way usually call Southern Romanians "Gypsies", as a trope] So shame on you!"


    As one of the millions of people living in the areas this man is talking about, I really ask someone on Wikipedia to give at least a warning to such individuals, for such discourse. It is unacceptable, especially from an established editor...

    Thank you. Dhyana b (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Nota bene is not from Italian, duh, it's from Latin... I am not alluding to India. I am saying Romania, per se. I will be more specific next time. I respect Indians and Indian culture a lot, including Gypsies, also in my hometown, for which I always gave money. You have no idea who you are referring to and what you are referring to, but you seem very quick to judgements indeed. I am also a big fan of Indian mythology and spirituality and I also lived with Indians abroad, getting very well together, surprise! More specifically from Goa, a former Portuguese colony (I had to add this in a historical context, we also discussed a lot about Indian history and mythology), but also southern India. We were flatmates while I was studying abroad. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Needless to say, I also read the works of Mircea Eliade, obtaining good grades in the process as well while at was at school. No problem whatsoever. Southern Romanians are not Gypsies and Gypsies are not southern Romanians, as simply put as that. It is crystal clear and very easy to understand. Southern Romanians are even more xenophobic towards Gypsies than other people in my home country and your home country as well which is exactly the same, i.e. not India, but Romania. I know this very well from personal experience. Have you ever given anything free of a charge to a Rromani? By the way, Gypsy is not the correct denomination. The correct denomination is Rromani or Rroma. So much for xenophobia on behalf of someone's side, right? But, hey, you are truly right about a specific thing, namely the fact that I am a well-established editor here on Wikipedia (more than on the English version). Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I am a big fan of Mahavishnu Orchestra, now that's a great Indian mythology-based reference to show you how much I am both into Indian mythology and progressive rock at the very same time. Nota bene is from Latin, once more. I know Latin very well. I even had Latin teachers, at university level, in my family. I also know Italian. And Romanian. And the many similarities and, as paradoxically as it might seem at first glance, differences between Italian and Romanian, on a lexical level and grammar-based level as well. Come to really think of it, I am willing to contribute more here on the matter as soon as possible.
    P.S.: I am a very well-established editor for years, auto-extended technically, by the way. Just for the reference. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Yikes! You mean Romani people? "Gypsy" is considered equally offensive, and defending yourself with 'I have Indian friends' and 'I listen to Indian music' is a very poor defense, indeed. And Dhyana's excerpts are appalling and rightfully offensive to them, as if you're speaking as a white savior. And just tossing Latin at someone looking for plain English guidance comes off as uppity, indeed. Knock it off Rosenborg, and use simpler and less offensive language, because you come off here as dense and incommunicative to rightful concerns from the OP. Nate • (chatter) 20:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Rromani people are hard working and they have a long standing history of music and craftsmanship across Europe. I know their history very well. Mahavishnu Orchestra is not Indian music, mantras are, oh... Mahavishnu Orchestra is a progressive rock super group consisting of American and English musicians. I am using very simple English and really harmless. No cuss words at all, for real. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, it's Rosenborg BK Fan, not just Rosenborg. Am I even allowed to be kidding here a bit? Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it is my inference that he meant "Gypsies" (which yes, is how some bigoted people, usually from Transylvania, call the Romanians in other regions of the country, usually the South -- to try and distance themselves from the joke/trope that people from other countries have about the whole of Romania, aka "Land of the Gypsies", pejoratively). What Rosenberg said is just "your kind" repeatedly. He denies meaning the Roma people. Dhyana b (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly; whatever the case, it's offensive and does need to stop (and the G word needs to stop on his part now). Also I'm not writing that entire username. Nate • (chatter) 20:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    By that I meant Bucharest-based, not alluding to Gypsies at all. Specifically Bucharest-based. You should perhaps understand more to read between the lines and definitely understand some subtle nuances here and there, all the more stemming from very harsh personal life experience which has absolutely nothing to do with either bigotry or xenophobia. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I also need to explain myself when I am accused about something factually incorrect, hence the G word stops on my behalf from this point forth. I needed to make this remark as well. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]


    "By that I meant Bucharest-based" -- Who is the ethnic majority in Ferentari, that poor neighborhood you bashed in your Edit summary? :) Dhyana b (talk) 20:27, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly speaking, I don't know for certain 100%, because I cannot find any census information on that. But the Rromani are still in minority there, I suppose. The majority is still formed by Romanians, as it is everywhere in Romania. The Rromani, are after all, a minority everywhere, including in Bucharest in general. These are facts. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 20:35, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    )) All of a sudden "You know nothing Jon Snow". Ok, let me educate you - one of the main things that neighborhood is known for is the prominent Roma population. Dhyana b (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't bashing anyone or anything, I was making a cynical joke. Since when does a cynical joke can be regarded as bashing? I'd really like to know. For real... It's truly not my fault or my bad will that some people cannot understand some nuances or do not know several things very well in context and then they point the finger at you claiming that you are a xenophobe. Xenophobia is a direct attack against someone based on language and ethnicity (also on confession). A cynical joke is still humour. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not the place to cynically dismiss anyone. That is what you need to understand. Dhyana b (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, it's Rosenborg, not Rosenberg. My username is a reference to how big of a football fan (for real), I am. Rosenberg is something entirely different and very scary at the same time in some contexts. The football club is Rosenborg BK, the best in Norway, and that is not opinion, it's fact. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And you are going to be banned if you continue this way. It is not me who calls the Roma "Gypsies", it is people like you - which is why I put it in quotation marks. You know very well what you meant, you're just trying to save yourself now -- but even without that, the amount of animosity & insults you continuously hurled at me, is enough to get you a strike. Or whatever they give here, so I suggest you calm down. Dhyana b (talk) 20:04, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's Rromani or Rroma (Gypsy is a derogatory term used but it is even sometimes used by some of these Indo-European ethnics to refer to themselves). I am calm, confident, knowledgeable, and collected. Once again, you just do not seem to know who you are talking to, but you seem very quick to judgements. Let's not be hasty. I am not trying to save myself at all. On the contrary, if I rightfully committed so utterly negative, please go ahead and ban me, for real. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They write it with one "R"... Dhyana b (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I respectfully disagree with you, they also write it with double 'rr' and even with an 'y' at the end. Please see Romani people here for a start. Thank you! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 20:20, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want, we can easily discuss in a very polite and historically accurate manner about Romani/Rromani history and culture, no problem whatsoever. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 20:21, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Notice how that page-title only has 1 R? Dhyana b (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The page title yes, but alternatively, I mentioned the fact that they can be referred as with double r as well. It is not incorrect. They do not only write it with one 'R'. That was specifically my point. Do we really need to debate so much about such things in plain sight, for real? Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 20:27, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You corrected me for writing Roma with 1 R, saying "It's Rromani or Rroma". Yes, I do have to mention such "small things" bc you continuously make very pretentious claims about me, you & everybody else. While you don't actually have any substance, and then try to flip it into another direction when you get called out. Dhyana b (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Everybody else who? It is an additional information on how to alternatively correctly write the name of an ethnicity. And please, write because, not bc. I do have substance (in many regards), hence while we are at writing good in English, and I do not try 'to flip it into another direction when I'm getting called out' (whatever that means). I really do not understand what you are trying to say, for real. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, if you'd like we can discuss more about how intrigued and fascinated I am on Hinduism, for real, I am not even kidding about it, at all! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Stop now! You're not helping your cause, and those edit summaries are offensive and do not actually talk about article changes. If you want to commentate on things, do it on Twitter, not in edit summaries. Nate • (chatter) 20:08, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not pleading for any cause. I just came here to discuss, for real. If you truly want to ban me, go ahead. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 20:11, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is good to know as well. But believe me, normally I do not commentate that much in edit summaries. For years I haven't had a single problem like that. And you are absolutely free to examine all my edits on all Wikipedias, please. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 20:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rosenborg BK Fan, wtf is this edit? It looks like a racist rant that warrants a block EvergreenFir (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Then do whatever you want. You have the right to do it. But also, is wtf really a good term to use if you want to ban someone beforehand? Looking like something is not exactly as something per se. There are differences between what seems to be racist rant and what isn't racist rant. But wtf is not a good acronym to use before blocking someone. It is, after all, an acronym for a cuss syntagm. But if you want to block me, go ahead, please. But please also use better language in the future when you will incorrectly ban someone else when trying to be in self-defence, just saying. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 20:46, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wasn't she racist when she sent me to Hungary? She was a saint right? I am the evil wrongdoer who uses cuss words or acronyms for it, right? Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, it's on a personal discussion page, not in public on an article. But go ahead ban me. And let her get away with sending me to Hungary and alluding to kiss a dictator somewhere. That's not racist. That's so well written, politice, and civilized. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are more offended by the use of "wtf" than your own vitriol, then that is your problem and no one else's. A block seems appropriate here. --Kinu t/c 20:53, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    She "sent you to Hungary"? I don't understand what that means.
    Rosenborg BK Fan is blocked for 48 hours for this racist personal attack. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it complicates things that some of the two editors' conversations at User talk:Rosenborg BK Fan are not in English. Both Rosenborg BK Fan and @Dhyana b: should remember WP:ENGLISHPLEASE, including on talk pages. Schazjmd (talk) 20:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I felt I needed to address him personally before doing anything else. The inbuilt Google Translate function does a pretty good job though. My initial talk-post to him writes:
    "Ferentari is a neighborhood (title)
    It has no way of becoming the cultural capital of anything. And if you don't stop with the xenophobic remarks, I will make sure to report you and cause as many problems as I can. All regions of the country contribute equally to its development, and none is above the other. You can move somewhere else, get another citizenship if you don't like your fellow citizens presently, or go kiss Orban for me. But not on Wikipedia."

    This is what he meant by me "sending him to Hungary". And I said it bc Viktor Orban came to Transylvania in the summer of last year, making racist statements like: "We are not a mixed race, we don't want to be multicultural & mix with non-Europeans" (paraphrasing, but very closely). Dhyana b (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Full translation of the discussion can be found at [65].
    Rosenborg BK Fan continues ranting on their user talk page for any other admins interested in reviewing this block. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:21, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) Now that the user has been blocked, there's really nothing further to be gained by anyone posting on their user talk page other than an administrator reviewing an unblock request. If inappropriate comments continue to made, increase the block, take away tpa and let them deal with UTRS. If the block expires and the problem starts back up again, re-block for whatever time period is deemed appropriate. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, good block. Once they got mad at me about merely shortening their username above and then the misogynistic attacks in their appeal, I knew reason wasn't going to win the day for them. Nate • (chatter) 21:39, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Good block, obviously. I just left Dhyana b a first-and-only warning because no matter how demented the other person is, saying "You can move somewhere else, get another citizenship if you don't like the present fellow citizens, or kiss Orban for me" is outrageous and their excuse here for this get-out-of-my-country racism is entirely weak. CityOfSilver 22:26, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I absolutely contest this, please remove it from my page. That Rosenberg user literally said that half of Romania is beneath him and his specific region -- literally other-ing the people there (in the South of the country), me, as sub-citizens/ backwards citizens that will never be of European level -- and I told him to stop, that it's not true & he can move to another place if he doesn't like his fellow citizens. There's absolutely nothing racist about this, it's a legitimate (ironic) suggestion.
    And I stand by that idea -- you don't get to humiliate half the citizens of the country you live in, instead of just moving out if you have such a disgust for them. What does this have to do with him supporting Hungary, or Hungary being the reason I'm upset? I told him to kiss Orban, bc Viktor Orban is as big of a xenophobic individual as this user, in my opinion -- as he's proven in his speeches, when he visited precisely Rosenberg's area in Romania (and prob the reason why ppl like Rosenberg have increased in numbers). So why exactly am I warned, when I was actually being elegant in my response? How did I say anything racist if I told him to go pair-up with a political figure, ironically?
    This doesn't seem fair & I had to respond to this, so I can contest it.
    Dhyana b (talk) 00:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Carolina Mahadewi Malin continuing to move articles without explanation

    This user was blocked the first time this was brought up in late January. I brought it up a second time shortly after that but the discussion was archived before any action was taken, so I'm bringing it up again after their most recent edits, in which they yet again moved an article (Burmali Minare Mosque (Amasya)) without discussion to a clearly worse or dubious title. (They've often followed a pattern of renaming mosque articles by sticking the name of the city/location between the two parts of the building's name, which has no basis in English sources, native language names, or other common practice.)

    Their volume of edits has decreased since the last discussion started, but otherwise they've given no indication of any change in their behaviour, including their total lack of communication through edit summaries or talk pages. In my opinion, their occasional non-disruptive edits don't make up for the persistent disruptive ones, and they've been given every kind of warning already. I hope we can put an end to this.

    As a courtesy, also pinging Johnbod, Iskandar323, and Extraordinary Writ, who had commented in the last ANI discussion on this. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I get the impression they don't speak English to a very useful degree. Johnbod (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked them for a week. Please feel free to undo if you think it unwarranted. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:44, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Great. I just saw this. Earlier while going through the move log I noticed that Burmali Minare Mosque was a redirect to Burmali Minare Mosque (Amasya) so as per the edit summary I moved it. It's pretty standard to have articles at the undisambiguated name and no different to what I'd been doing. Deepfriedokra. While I haven't looked at what Carolina Mahadewi Malin had been doing in the past (and so I'm not changing their block) I do think in this case they were right. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 06:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Sheesh, now you tell me. We will see how/if they respond. Though I think the "wrong" part is the way they went about it without discussion or response. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with CambridgeBayWeather's follow-up move there; as we noted in the previous ANI discussion, there's a lot of clean-up needed in those small Turkish mosque articles. But Carolina Mahadewi Malin definitely wasn't right to move it to "Burmalı Amasya Mosque", a name which makes no sense, so they're just making things worse. Their editing history of course shows they've been making various problematic moves since 12 January.
    PS: I saw that they edit a lot at the Indonesian Wikipedia ([66]). It seems that on their talk page there ([67]) they also received and acknowledged comments from other editors, weeks ago, about moving articles without discussion. But they've continued to do it here since. R Prazeres (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Canceling British Black people

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


    Resolved
     – Blocked for a week Daniel Case (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Someone in London keeps removing relevant information about Black people in Britain. A frequent tactic is to remove images showing Black Britons.[68][69] Let's put a stop to this hater. Binksternet (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for a week. Daniel Case (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive edits from Heyperry

    Reported user has been blocked for a month. (non-admin closure) CityOfSilver 00:48, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Heyperry (talk · contribs) has made 13 edits to Wikipedia and 12 of them are unexplained removals of references from articles. They have been warned on their talk page multiple times but haven't stopped. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @WaddlesJP13: The last two instances of this came after a final warning so shouldn't this go to WP:AIV? CityOfSilver 00:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Given intermittent nature of edits, blocked for one month. Might not even notice a shorter block -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:10, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Subdeacon reported by TheLionHasSeen

    Subdeacon has continually sought to implement the reversal of SVG files superseding that for a religious organization's article with a JPEG file (United Episcopal Church of North America). Though explaining that SVG files when created supersede JPEGs, they continue to seek to revert the good faith contributions to the betterment of Wikipedia's article quality. I reverted them for a third time, but beyond that I refuse to revert them again for the sake of an edit war because "it's not the logo on their website." - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 00:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @TheLionHasSeen: Where did you explain your case to them? CityOfSilver 01:50, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    CityOfSilver we both read each others' edit summaries and employed that as our methods of communicaton. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 02:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @TheLionHasSeen: That means the only way you each can add to the discussion has to come from reverting the other person. And from the looks of things, the communication via edit summary hasn't gone anywhere productive. Instead, would you mind starting a new thread on the article's talk page per WP:REVTALK? CityOfSilver 02:43, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    CityOfSilver sure thing! - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 02:46, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @TheLionHasSeen: Thank you for this. I won't be surprised if you're back here with the same issue eventually but so it goes. CityOfSilver 03:05, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    All in due process. I try my best to abide by the proper methods. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 03:17, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:HabibKhosti's tendentious editing

    On Torkham article an IP editor 39.41.6.68 probably the reported editor made contentious changes without explaination and usurped the article from a border crossing between Pakistan and Afghanistan to a town in Afghanistan. [70] When he was reverted he started an edit war first as IP which was blocked and then with above account almost 6 times, 5 of them in just two days while 4 of them in last 24 hours with no regards to dispute resolution process or trying to build consensus for these contentious changes. [71] [72] [73] [74] [75]

    Not only that he even removed notice of Requested Move started by another editor [76] and second time even went on to move it bulldozing the discussion process. [77] And when I started the discussion on talkpage, he didn't even bother to come and explain and straight-away went on to revert again.

    He has repeated the same feat at Wesh-Chaman border crossing by moving the article twice without any discussion. [78] [79] While making contentious changes [80] [81] and edit warring. [82] [83]

    He's just pushing Afghan nationalist and irredentist POV and his behaviour clearly states that he's here with battleground mentality and not here to build encyclopedia. 37.111.137.135 (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Banned edit-warrior (ShahabKhanJadoon1 (talk · contribs)) is behind the above IP (37.111.137.135). He's not allowed to edit any page or make any report, and if required I can list all his other names that haven't been blocked and tagged. As for me, I came to organize a few very messy pages which nobody oppose except this one-and-only banned edit-warrior based in the Islamabad, Pakistan, area who is network-switching [84] and creating multiple user names to evade his ban. I know all this simply by reviewing history of pages. It's the same exact character and thinker. He generally hates Indians, Afghans and Persians.--HabibKhosti (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I use Wikipedia simply via my mobile network's shared IP addresses and because my operator is based in Islamabad so its IPs are assigned that location. I have no knowledge about the editor you're linking me with, you have did this with other editors too previously for which you have no proof and just because they are reverting your tendentious editing in Af-Pak area on Wikipedia. [85] [86] [87]
    The same IP and account of yours is involved in similar editing on Torkham, Pakistan. [88] So this is clearly a pattern that you first make IP edits and then come from account to back them. You're currently evading your IP block too which has been blocked for edit-warring. 37.111.128.42 (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not you? What about this? [89] Bro, the entire world knows that you're abusing Wikipedia by making countless spare user names and using them to edit Pakistan pages. Your character and specific thinking gives you away. 99.9999% Islambad people think and act very different than you do. It's all about the way you behave and write. Are you one of those deported Pakistanis from America?--HabibKhosti (talk) 19:37, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And your assumption about me is totally wrong. I don't revert others, just fix a page and go, but when you were spotted I had to expose your misbehaving. If you're not banned why don't you use one of your many spare names? An intelligent person like you shouldn't be doing these things.--HabibKhosti (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Every banned editor on Wikipedia from Shahab to Siddiqi and Ali banu sistani is me, happy? No proofs, nothing in rebuttal, just casting aspersions and being sockphobic. That's not how you defend yourself. I have presented the case with all the diffs about your WP:NOTHERE behaviour. Admins will better decide over it, I have no time to pay heed to your histrionics. 37.111.128.166 (talk) 14:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's Siddiqui. [90] Don't these banned names write 99.99% like him? [91], [92], [93] And contrary to how he behaves, Islamabad people in general are humble and very respectful to others. Another give away is his unique fondness for Turkey (and anything Turkic). He's known for being arrogant and making frivolous statements. What's wrong with changing an article's name twice? The first was based on Afghan news reports and the second based on alphabetical order (C comes before S). Why would someone find this contentious or requiring a discussion? About using my Wiki name, didn't he write this to the other IP: "Instead of allegions and article hijacking why doesn't you login with your account and come here...." [94] Admins, notice how an educated person like him wrote "allegions" and "doesn't" there. This demonstrates that it was error for the admin to block the IP that reverted a banned editor. Admins, the entire educated world knows that Pakistan was historically India and Afghanistan. I think he wants to propose that we stop mentioning this in Wikipedia, and that we stop accusing him of being a banned editor.--HabibKhosti (talk) 17:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a shred of evidence presented here that can relate me to those accounts in anyway. I have started IP editing on Wikipedia barely a year or two and I'm being linked to Wikipedians as old as 17 years while interestingly you are only 3 months old account knowing so many old Wikipedians which means you yourself could be someone's sock.
    • First of all you are in an open block evasion of the IP 39.41.6.68 as you're defending it.
    • Secondly my IP range is different from the one you are linking me with and there's a clear difference in our prose. I have given the reason for my IP ranges location, interestingly that IP of yours involved in nationalistic editing is also based in Rawalpindi, Pakistan but I haven't called you refugee because that's least of Wikipedia's concern.
    • Thirdly even after this report you're continuing with your tendentious editing by removing sourced content from article. [95]
    • Fourthly renaming of Wesh-Chaman border crossing was reverted by User:AafiOnMobile (Torkham renaming was reverted by User:Paine Ellsworth who gave fair justification for their undo.
    All these points further adds to the case against you and your mention of Pakistan as Afghanistan and India further tells about your nationalist and irredentist mindset against Pakistan. I will wait for admins to assess this report. 37.111.189.27 (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Any person who taps on "View history" sees who did edits. I have children and even they do that sometimes. It's the year 2023 if you didn't know. When one taps on editor's name it is blocked and/or banned. I did it and quickly learned they [96] [97] [98] [99] had your characteristic. [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] What if 39.41.6.68 is another person? And honestly, I had no idea it was blocked until you said it here. What's "nationalistic editing"? Fake news from 2007 about Pakistan building rail line in Afghanistan has no place in Wikipedia and I gave my reason. [105] Discuss that there, not here. You easily give yourself away. You writing under IP here is basically admission that you're banned. More importantly, you writing comments like a person who grew up in America, acting arrogant, and giving a poor country like Pakistan the image of a rich developed country in Wikipedia simply makes you a one of a kind. No other editor based in Pakistan does that.--HabibKhosti (talk) 02:34, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dpernar

    Indeffed by NinjaRobotPirate (non-admin closure) echidnaLives - talk - edits 03:03, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Obvious spammer ham-fistedly inserting their own works into articles; would have major WP:CIR problems anyway since they’re marking these fairly large, slapdash edits as “minor”. I don’t think there’s anything to do here except block. Dronebogus (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked. If it's really obvious, you can report spammers to WP:AIV. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    IP acting similar to blocked IP

    Blocked for 14 days by NinjaRobotPirate (non-admin closure) echidnaLives - talk - edits 03:04, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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


    176.30.232.114 (talk · contribs) has been editing today adding links to bilateral articles with a very similar style to banned IP editor 88.230.104.114 (talk · contribs) . I'm quite certain it's the same person WP:DUCK. LibStar (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, it seems fairly obvious. Blocked for the same amount of time as the last IP. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Childish prank or cry for help?

    ADDRESSED
    Issue forwarded to appropriate channels. Always remember to take WP:URGENT matters seriously and consider it before posting to a public location. (non-admin closure) GabberFlasted (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Is this user's first edit (diff) something that needs attention or is it simply a childish bit of vandalism. I don't feel qualified to judge. User not notified. --10mmsocket (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    If it isn't childish vandalism, is it WP:URGENT? Tails Wx 17:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Interesting to see that there is an actual policy. Hopefully someone will pick it up and judge the best thing to do. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll err on the side of caution. Edit rev del'd and reaching out to Emergency to be safe. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you 10mmsocket (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    148.252.68.112

    148.252.68.112 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - static IP, lots of good edits but also a long history of adding unsourced content to BLPs, which they have been blocked for before, and which they continue to do. A nightmare to clean up after. Help/thoughts welcome. GiantSnowman 19:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I partial blocked from article space for one month and instructed user to discuss these concerns here. Any admin should feel free to remove or adjust the block as they see fit. Best, -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Removal of permissions

    Bradford (talk · contribs): globally banned user, compromised account. Ruy (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ruy please read WP:BANNEDRIGHTS Lightoil (talk) 01:24, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wes sideman

    Over the last few weeks User:Wes sideman has repeatedly accused me of either lying[106],[107],making changes cause of alleged bias, sometimes before a discussion had even begun,[108], [109], [110], or personal attacks/condescension [111], [112],[113]. They have also accused me of WP:SYNTHESIS [114], or WP:COATRACK [115]. When I responded to explain my view, they would ignore it and repeat the claim later. I asked repeatedly for them not to make assumptions about our disagreement, accuse me of lying, or to be civil. I posted a message asking this on their talk page and it was deleted with no response. [116](UTC)01:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)--3Kingdoms (talk) 01:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, Wes sideman is not the most gracious of editors here on Wikipedia. I've experienced some of the same kind of treatment from him, but I tend to shake it off. I'm surprised, however, that 3Kingdoms didn't mention the most annoying (from my perspective) thing he's done in his interactions with 3Kingdoms. More or less immediately after removing an edit by 3Kingdoms on The Helms Amendment which contained a quote from former Congressman Jeff Fortenberry, sideman went to Fortenberry's bio and changed the opening sentence to begin "Jeff Fortenberry is a convicted felon..." He just couldn't wait for the reader to have to slog through the first two sentences to get to that information (Fortenberry lied about $30,000 in campaign contributions and resigned from the House). Fortunately, someone other than 3Kingdoms or I reverted his edit with a solid explanation and sideways only offered a token objection. Goodtablemanners (talk) 05:34, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Page deletion

    hi there – – I apologize for my experience with communicating on Wikipedia, however each time I ask a question, I don’t seem to be able to find any response, and only see a speedy deletion of the page created. A few years ago a page that has been up for almost a decade was removed. The kind administrators said that it was because there were not enough books with ISBN in support of the artist in question. Now several years later The artist in question has many books to their name, they host a radio show on KPFK Los Angeles, and they have won many international prizes. They are well-established now and I think that they deserve a Wikipedia page. However, when I put up a brand new page for them yesterday, it was nominated for speedy deletion and cited that it was a persons page had been deleted before and that the contact was copied from the page that has been deleted. This is not true, and the page was completely brand new, with all new references. Could someone please tell me what to do in this case, when a person perhaps was not notable before, but has become quite notable, but because their name page was deleted once they’re being immediately nominated for speedy deletion again. The artist in question is Linda Ravenswood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesuitsally (talk • contribs)

    You can create Draft:Linda Ravenswood and put it up for review. Fram (talk) 08:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Email received from User:Longestnovelforlife

    Email access revoked for the sock and sockmaster. (non-admin closure) LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 08:39, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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


    I have received the following email from the indef-blocked sockpuppet User:Longestnovelforlife:

    The reason that I am contacting it is that Marcel Ray Duriez has had an investigation opened on him as a writer on Wikipedia, we do not like this, Marcel Duriez has an academic background and has published my novels, saying that his project is unknottable unacceptable; also having editors slamming Duriez for being an author is wrong, were they have stated that the entire series of my novels it was garbage or words like that, by editors of Wikipedia since you are one of the top editors on Wikipedia.

    I will give you the information for yourself- to mend this and make the page that others were not able to do using my name and mudding it, I would like to have this investigation closed, I would like a page made about Duriez and his novels and music.

    We would like to have my article placed on Wikipedia, for life, as it should be because it is notable when you have books in most extended literature like the Worm that have listed fewer cited links than Duriez, that have less credibility than my book titled "Nevaeh Saga."

    Duriez never intended to be a stunt writer or stunt Musician; Duriez has written works of literature, and musical competitions as an artist for 10 years of his life, not made copied and pasted fragments and 'nonsenses.' as was said in this report. saying:

    The 'sock drawing is back' used in place of his good name, is tasteless, and 'no nothing is also wrong, is deplorable use of words.'

    Writers of my documents have attached what is needed here within than what is needed to make an article on this site, Duriez team writers are asking for your help out in this, and I hope you will.

    Duriez is not trying to stunt his work for fame, yet it should be hoarded on Wikipedia.

    https://medium.com/@duriez19/the-history-of-marcel-ray-duriez-220b0fd74597
    https://marcel331869472.wordpress.com/2023/02/13/nevaeh-saga/
    http://duriez19.wix.com/marcelrayduriez
    https://marcelrayduriez.bandcamp.com/album/duriez

    I am posting this here as it is my general preference not to receive solicitations of this sort without the knowledge of the community. Cheers! BD2412 T 02:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Beeblebrox revoked my extended confirmed privilege and isn't giving it back after 2 years

    The boomerang has found its target Salvio giuliano 06:45, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Hi,

    User:Beeblebrox revoked my extended confirmed privilege 2 years ago for only welcoming users, which wasn't mentioned anywhere in the official Wikipedia documentation that didn't count, so it was very arbitrary for it to be removed in the first place. In addition since then, I have made at least more than 500 additional valuable edits that's not welcoming users. He still doesn't give me back my right. When I post on his talk page "Tell me explicitly what do I need to do to get extended confirmed, I will do it. " he just says "go away". I think his administrator privileges should be revoked, I don't think he, with such arbitrary actions deserves to be an admin in Wikipedia. Also if an another administrator has the right to can that admin give back my right since Beeblebrox is not giving it back.

    Link to recent interaction: User_talk:Beeblebrox#Give_me_extended_confirmed

    Uni3993 (talk) 05:07, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    What you posted on their talkpage that elicited Beeblebrox's response started with "You are an important person, I respect your authority and cower in fear from it". Based on that, and the attempted misrepresentation of their reply here, I don't think anyone will be particularly inclined to think granting your account further user privileges will benefit the encyclopaedia. CMD (talk) 05:25, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Look I wasn't trying to provoke a reaction I asked him earlier he wouldn't give me explanations as to how I would get back the privilege. Some people have narcissistic personality, one of the symptoms of such a personality disorder is to have as much authority (such as being an Wikipedia Administrator--not saying all wikipedia admins are narcissitic) as possible and his previous interactions made me to believe this person suffers from it. That's why I wrote that. Uni3993 (talk) 05:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Uni3993, you were warned not to attack other editors after you called Beeblebrox a "narcissist"; here, you are again calling him a narcissist. So why did you repeat that? Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 06:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a disorder that some people suffer from it that's what I think he is suffering from. Which is completely fine with me, I never wanted to personally attack anyone. Uni3993 (talk) 06:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Uni3993 You did not notify Beeblebrox of this discussion, I have done so for you. Yoshi24517 Chat Online 05:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought my mention would be enough for him to be notified. Uni3993 (talk) 05:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Uni3993 If you would have read the giant notice on the top of the page here, and while editing, it would have told you to go to his talk page and leave a notice. Either way, I have done it for you. Yoshi24517 (mobile) (talk) 06:23, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "I respect your authority and cower in fear from it." sounds like trolling to me. No wonder you were told off. --RockstoneSend me a message! 05:35, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't mean to troll Uni3993 (talk) 05:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And beyond the other comments, look. You say that the official documentation didn't explicitly forbid gaming the system by only welcoming new users. Should it have to do so? We expect that editors are going to use common sense, and not only not need to be handed bright-line rules in order to act responsibly and avoid trolling, but not whine after the fact about the fast ones they try to pull not getting them what they want. (Never mind, good freaking grief, "some people have narcissistic personality?!" Do you genuinely think that crack is going to win friends and influence people?) Ravenswing 06:04, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I think User:Beeblebrox was very lenient in only removing the extended confirmed.

    After reading this thread, then thread at User_talk:Beeblebrox#Give_me_extended_confirmed, then at the user's contribs both recent and their earliest, and also seeing what to me seems a lot of gaming the system by someone who appears to be wiki-literate from the start - I was close to doing an indef block per the above and WP:NOTHERE.

    To be clear, User:Uni3993, please consider this a warning - if you look down, there's a line in front of your toes. If you step over it, any uninvolved admin may block you at this point. I suggest that you consider your next steps carefully. - jc37 06:16, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I, on the other hand, will block the account in a moment, although I will only block for a month for trolling and making personal attacks (repeated personal attacks, despite being warned not to do so). Any admin is welcome to up my block to indefinite, if they think I was too lenient. Salvio giuliano 06:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Salvio giuliano I was just about to indef given the two previous blocks, a lack of quality edits, and this response, but a month is fine... Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 06:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh I see Jc37 has indef blocked them. That is that then.... Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 06:34, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, well, Uni3993 was asking for a block very loudly, so it's no wonder many different admins decided to oblige... Salvio giuliano 06:37, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (several edit conflicts later...)
    I upped it to indef after seeing this posted right after the warning.
    I'm not a fan of blocking typically, but...
    Anyway, I'll go do the talk page notice about the block in a minute.
    And of course the typical note: Any admin is welcome to "take over blocking responsibilities" for any reason. Including unblock, presuming they accept that responsibility. - jc37 06:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just adding that Uni3993 also raised this at WP:RFP/EC and was turned down by user:Stwalkerster following a personal attacked aimed at User:Beeblebrox [117]. So, the admin who removed the permission declined to restore it. The permission was requested at RFP/EC and a different admin declined to grant it. And now we're at ANI? Time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. 06:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meters (talk • contribs)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Nonsense at HQ (video game)

    HQ (video game) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    AlmNack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    108.31.92.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    2600:4040:21D9:C700:29FA:6807:238E:C420 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    So there has been at least two IPs and one registered editor has been attempting to add unreliable content about a player takeover of HQ (example revision here), sourced to Twitter and - you're not gonna believe me - screenshots. Could an admin check what's going on with this?

    Pinging @Adakiko since he's the one who brought this up to me. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 08:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Just reverted an edit by 2600:4040:21D9:C700:29C4:3D04:A630:CE15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Screen shots that were uploaded minutes before the content and citation were added BTW. Adakiko (talk) 08:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, AlmNack took the screenshots of the conversation to provide as sources, as you both had said there was no sources. He was trying to provide sources to validate our claims. I was told in an edit that I had done that those sources were unreliable and very unreliable, so I removed them based on your request. I don't understand what type of sources you want us to use to validate our claims. This isn't a subject many people know about, as only 8 people were part of the takeover, so only 8 people would have access to seeing the whole conversation. In order to prove that, we'd have to use screenshots. That's why I don't see how you want us to provide proof. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 08:24, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See, having nothing is better than having something bad. In this case, if there are no reliable sources (say, a newspaper talking about it), don't bother putting it in. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 08:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So you're saying we need an article talking about the takeover? Not sure any of those were written. Would Reddit posts work? There were some Reddit posts talking about it. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 08:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RSPS has all the answers on what to use and not use when it comes to sources. Spoiler alert: Reddit posts are in the "not" camp. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 08:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The takeover didn't get much fanfare from the media. There are plenty of stuff bout the documentary though. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 08:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If there's not much information out there to be used as a source that implies to me that this isn't a particularly notable incident, and so it might not be justified to be included. — Czello 09:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a person taking a control of a popular trivia game. That alone I think is fairly unusual, and noteworthy, as most apps would have measures to even prevent that from happening. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 09:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps, but then the question is why hasn't it been more adequately covered by reliable sources? Notability has to come from these sources, rather than us as editors deciding ourselves something is noteworthy. — Czello 09:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I can attest to this. I indeed did take a screenshot of the message from "UntrustableRus" which read "HQ server now I own the HQ website !!!!". Said screenshot in question came from a direct conversation with him on the Discord application which can be viewed here https://ibb.co/cCKZmLq AlmNack (talk) 09:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @AlmNack Screenshots are not reliable sources. Now, tell the class, what is your association with those IPs? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 09:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What is this, school? 108.31.92.88 (talk) 09:21, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess it is`now. Did you bring your math homework? U-Uh, I mean, are you connected with @AlmNack in any way? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 09:25, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As stated in a previously removed revision of the article, both of us were part of the team that was apart of the player takeover. Other than that, we're just friends. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 09:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be meatpuppetry, then. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 09:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We're friends. We've meet on discord from our shared interest in HQ. We both enjoyed the hosts, and the game formats it's had. I don't really see what the problem is with having friends, it's pretty natural if you ask me. It's something that nearly everyone has weather they like their friends or not AlmNack (talk) 10:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you 108.31.92.88 (talk) 10:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The show Glitch: The Rise and Fall of HQ Trivia is scheduled for release March 5 on CNN and April 6 on HBO Max. Possibly what is behind the editing? Adakiko (talk) 08:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, that is a part of it, as no info was provided about that previously in the article. Due to the fact that the documentary hasn't released yet though, the main reason was to tell readers how the player takever went down. If their is more to share after it's release though, then I'm sure we would wanna add to the article with that info as well though. At this point all we have is articles and a trailer talking about it. I can add some of that in if you want. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 08:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is not a place to break stories. If regular mainstream media haven't reported on a story, neither do we. Tweets, screenshots of Reddit conversations and the like - these are things that a journalist might use to write a story. Once they do that, and it gets published by a reliable source, we can then write something about it. We follow the sources, we don't anticipate them. If the edit warring continues, blocks will likely be forthcoming, and/or the page will be protected. Girth Summit (blether) 09:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Thankfully, the edits have stopped, but with the supposed meatpuppetry going on (both of us were part of the team that was apart of the player takeover. Other than that, we're just friends. as written above), I would argue that blocks would be needed anyways. I ain't an admin, though, so it's not my call (and I would be too involved to block if I were an admin anyways). LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 09:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      user:108.31.92.88 describes their collaboration with AlmNack here: Talk:HQ_(video_game)#HQ Trivia Player, and Website Takeover Adakiko (talk) 10:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Just to clarify, are you saying an article has to be written about the takeover, then if we use that article as a source, it'll be accepted? 108.31.92.88 (talk) 10:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And now the IPv4 has attempted to report me to AIV, complete with bad formatting. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 10:06, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, what you call being an asshole to another editor? You're comment about tell the class your assoisiation was totally being an asshole, and certinaly uncalled for. Thought we're supposed to be polite here, not rude. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 10:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Weird socking

    So I found the first one putting weird templates and edits at User talk:Salvio giuliano. Addressed that, and when looking at their edit history, found more issues, and then found the second account, doing similar things at Folklore (Taylor Swift album).

    I also found Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Taylor Swift, which looks like a complete fabrication.

    This is starting to look like it's possibly a larger issue, so I thought more eyes on this would be better. Any help would be most welcome. - jc37 09:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I have seen him around. He's a prolific sock puppeteer, who has fun trying to impersonate administrators and other established users. I have taken a very quick look using my magic 8-ball, but the ranges the accounts I checked were editing on are too large to run a cumulative check on. I am afraid we will have to play whack-a-mole Salvio giuliano 09:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    DatVandaİ was blocked by - who else? - DatGuy. I swear I know who that is... @Salvio giuliano, could it be Awolf58? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 09:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You want to make me confess I have a lousy memory, eh? Can't remember the original master, but I know I have seen him around... I have even blocked a few of his previous incarnations. Salvio giuliano 09:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, it's hard for me to remember too, but I remember reverting some of their socks even though that should've been a lost memory like the 25k other edits I did. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 09:19, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1139289079"