Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 192.76.8.82 (talk) at 18:14, 13 July 2023 (→‎Consistent low-quality edits from 2804:1054:3015:EE90::/64: 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.

    You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

    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

    User:Jacquesparker0 and User:Nofoolie

    I am disappointed whist reviewing and accepting a draft by Jacquesparker0 that I have to bring notice to ANI in regards to incivility by Nofoolie. On 19th June 2022, Jacquesparker0 had a draft for Graham Baldwin accepted and on 29th July self-accepted a draft for Ian Haworth. Only (just over) 3 months ago, Nofoolie comes along on Jacques talk page requesting information in regards to a potential COI, the discussion being here. Jacques, as part of this discussion asked Nofoolie in what way they thought that Jacques had a COI which Nofoolie all but avoided answering and just asked more questions of Jacques, which to their credit, was answered in full. Towards the end of the thread, Jacques again asked Nofoolie for 'evidence do you have that I have a CoI' to which Nofoolie replied, again totally avoiding Jacques requests 'You are being avoidant; have refused to answer the questions and I am taking this further', a comment with ZERO teeth as no actions were taken by NoFoolie, no WP:COIN thread was opened, nothing.

    Fast forward to a few days ago, 17th June 2023, Nofoolie has taken it upon themselves to totally cut down the Graham Baldwin article and also remove a good chunk of Ian Haworth. At this point I believe Nofoolie to be WP:HOUNDING, not being WP:NICE in their replies and actions (or lack thereof) and not Assuming Good Faith towards Jacques who has put in some excellent article creation work and absolutely has a WP:CLUE

    This is not the first time that Nofoolie has made empty threats of escalation after this warning from Nick on 19th April 2022.

    I would like Nofoolie to explain themselves as to how they came to the conclusion that Jacquesparker0 had a COI, and how they came to decide that the sources were 'Unreliable' on the Graham Baldwin article

    - RichT|C|E-Mail 23:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    After reviewing the links you provided... wow. Just wow. Nofoolie better have a pretty good explanation for this behavior. He has completely disregarded WP:AGF, and WP:CIVILITY. While I understand his criticism of Jacque's citation, him insisting there must be a CoI, and the way he acted was unacceptable. Professor Penguino (talk) 01:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nofoolie: I am going to ask you a very straightforward question, and I expect you to be clear and factual with your answer. Do not try and duck around the question, as it will make your situation worse. Can you provide evidence showing that Jacquesparker0 is a paid editor? JML1148 (talk | contribs) 06:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve swept contribs for both, but to keep it relevant to the wonder of if WP:HOUNDING is in play, Toollabs checks on Foolie return 11 ‘User Talk’ edits on Jacques’ Talk Page. Jacques’ TP is the most visited one by Foolie, besides his own. This is as opposed to Jacques’ 24, where he hasn’t touched Foolie at all. Big difference on 24 (with no; shall we say, controversial? edits) versus 67 (with 11 of same controversial-possibly, edits), no? MM (Communicate?) (Operations) 08:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that isn't really evidence of hounding. All 11 of those edits were made within a single thread in a two-day span [1]. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Okie Dokie. Mistake noted. No problem with being Minnowed if so felt. MM (Give me info.) (Victories) 10:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Meh. We all make mistakes from time to time and I've never felt that trouts/minnows serve a useful purpose (in the Wikipedia context, that is; I'm not anti-fish). LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Since we seem to have a case of ANI flu, I've put a noarchive template on this section for 7 days. @Nofoolie:, you really need to answer the questions posed here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    ANI flu, I like it, just hope it's not contagious. Appreciate the noarchive - RichT|C|E-Mail 19:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a well-known ailment; there's an essay, WP:ANIFLU. Narky Blert (talk) 05:58, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A piece of advice for @Nofoolie : If you dont reply here, it will not make this go away. Your actions will be reviewed in absetia where you will lose the opportunity to explain yourself, apologise, or otherwise seek to improve the result of this discussion. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed citations to the subjects own youtube channel and non-reliable sources.
    I also removed citations for reliable-sources where no article can actually be found where there is a maintained news-archive.
    I removed assertions not affirmed by the citations.
    It appears these poorly constructed articles have been restored.
    Is it Wikipedia's place to assert someone is a therapist when there are no known qualifications and no known professional-body membership?
    I have also requested that page numbers be offered for offline sources which has been refused. There must be some effort when citations are offered to show the contributor has read the offline-source. I am astounded that this request has been refused. Nofoolie (talk) 09:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally the subject has a history of self-promotion, using his "clients" to publicly declare their "expertise". I have consulted with "fellows" of this expert and none assert it. You will note the comment in the article made a long time ago of the litigious behaviour of the subject. Additionally one might ask reasonable questions as to the debacle that happened on 2007.
    There is much more I can contribute on this subject. Nofoolie (talk) 09:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Good that you have chosen to reply now @Nofoolie. I must now direct you to answer this question posed earlier:

    I am going to ask you a very straightforward question, and I expect you to be clear and factual with your answer. Do not try and duck around the question, as it will make your situation worse. Can you provide evidence showing that Jacquesparker0 is a paid editor? JML1148 (talk contribs)  06:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

    Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not going to post evidence here on Wikipedia.
    See the long time comment in the source of the subject's article.
    I do not take your condescending tone to be constructive or appropriate.
    I seek for the page numbers of offline-sources to be provided -- has the contributor read the books? How are others contributors to confirm these sources?
    Additionally, the page is littered with self-promotion.
    I have no interest in a worsening situation that you are suggesting. Nofoolie (talk) 10:52, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are mailing lists for off-wiki evidence to be dropped to. WP:OVERSIGHT and CU mailing lists immediately spring to mind. All members of both lists have an agreement signed for handling sensitive info appropriately. MM (Give me info.) (Victories) 14:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    AFD and judges appointed by Joe Biden

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

    I am just following WP:USCJN for the judge articles I am proposing for deletion, which notes that "Nominees whose nomination has not yet come to a vote are not inherently notable." In addition, nominees which failed to receive a vote are also not notable on its own per WP:USCJN. If you looked more closely, you will see I am simply trying to assist in the AfD of biographies for judicial which were often created WP:TOOSOON or politicians which failed WP:POLITICIAN. I have no agenda besides wanting to improve the standards of wikipedia, particularly for judges and politicians. Let'srun (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your track record with the community is not good. AFAICT, not one of your AfDs resulted in deletion (I'm going by the fact that you have no deleted edits, which you would had any article been deleted).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But... none of them have been closed, though. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, thanks, I didn't realize all of them were started in the last few days.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This user made 11 sporadic edits in 2022, then stopped editing. Then they reappeared yesterday, making 132 edits since then, mostly relating to PRODs and AFDs. In other words, this seems to be a new user who's jumping straight into article deletion. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just as a note on the original concern about possible POV pushing: the fact the AfD'd judgeship nominees are all Biden nominees is probably just coincident to the fact probably all current nominees are Biden nominees. Valereee (talk) 10:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I am aware of WP:GNG, and it fails in the articles I have proposed to delete. Many of them have little in the way of secondary sources as well. Let'srun (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you aware of the difference between an unendorsed wikiproject standard like WP:USCJN and a notability guideline like Wikipedia:Notability (people)? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. I've pointed out that many of the articles fail notability and have been created WP:TOOSOON, before the subject has been notable or because the subject was anticipated to become notable based on WP:CRYSTAL. Let'srun (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And can you tell me what WP:TOOSOON is? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Creating articles before subjects are actually notable. This is not a crystal ball, and the assumption that stuff will eventually happen doesn't mean it will. Let'srun (talk) 22:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Haven't looked to see if there's POV afoot, but just some advice that applies in any case: Let'srun, in case you haven't noticed, mass-nominating for deletion, mass-creation, mass-anything attracts a lot of scrutiny around here. :) Especially if it's not an area you have a lot of experience in, it's usually a good idea to do a couple and see how it goes before doing more. Not a hard rule -- just best practice. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I hear you! Let'srun (talk) 22:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That, and the fact that most (but not all) of what you have put up for deletion contains this wording, "President Joe Biden announced his intent to nominate ... " — Maile (talk) 23:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no political agenda, if that is what you are trying to say. I've nominated Trump and Obama nominees for deletion due to failing in the same areas. Let'srun (talk) 23:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • There has been a lot of disruption around judges. The history/Talk of Tiffany Cartwright and related deletion discussions are one that was on my watchlist. Judges are partisan appointments and people passionate about judges are well, passionate, which sometimes leads to issues following N:POL,USCJN, etc. If someone who isn't elected isn't necessary notable,the parallel that a judge whose appointment wasn't confirmed wasn't either. Like everything else the last decade or so, it's an ideological war, not a policy one. I don't know what the answer is, but a mass nom isn't it, unfortunately, but nor is copy pasting the same IAR rationale without explaining why it's a valid IAR at AfD and every judge related discussion. Get the policy changed if you find it wrong. That's not happening on one specific article/AfD, but folks don't want to go that path either. Star Mississippi 23:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree 100%. That is why I only nominated those I felt were WP:TOOSOON based on the Tiffany Cartwright precedent. Let'srun (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I do regret not making it more clear the individual cases but in many of them they are pretty much the same with few to no secondary sources and little to meet WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 23:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Your first edits were related to article deletions. This is unusual. Did you previously edit as an IP or did you have a previous account you’ve discarded? 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:597:65ED:46F6:5C4A (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I have made edits before with a couple of IPs. Let'srun (talk) 02:21, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The Tiffany Cartwright fiasco was due to the activism of one editor, namely yourself, over the opposition of virtually everyone who has ever edited a law-related article. It shouldn't be used as precedent for anything. Iowalaw2 (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Cloture (yes, not a RS but no one is debating this fact) has been invoked. Moving it back to draft, which you know I have supported in the past, is process wonkery when it will toll literally this week and she would be moved. That's why I didn't move it back or start another AfD. By the time either was resolved, she'd be confirmed. Hell she probably would have been confirmed if not for the mess around Dianne Feinstein and judiciary, I think we all know that. Cartwright is an example of current handling of nominees despite several editors thinking that isn't the case, or that it's political. You were offered the path to having that reviewed and you opted not to pursue it. I think unfortunately that means this is going to be a game of whack a mole for judges in limbo. Star Mississippi 00:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking over some of those AfDs (and self-disclosing as an unrepentant liberal), I'm more concerned about those waves of bullshit cut-and-paste Keep votes, often on shaky or no legitimate grounds, than I am about the noms. Let's take MIAJudges's favorite: "Nominees for lifetime appointments to the federal bench & announced on the White House official home page are notable for that reason alone." Perhaps I am having a senior moment, and have missed the guideline which explicitly states so; MIAJudges, if you would be kind enough to post a link to it, please? Then we have User:Snickers2686 repeatedly using "Keep per WP:Some stuff exists for a reason" (an essay, to save people from clicking) as the sum total of repeated cut-and-paste responses.

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

      So let me get this straight, the nominator can use the same criteria for multiple/mass nominations and that's okay, but I can't use the same response for 'Keep'? How does that make sense? Snickers2686 (talk) 03:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      When your !vote has no basis in policy, no you can't - to argue WP:IAR as you are functionally doing you need to provide a justification for why the rules don't and can't apply here, and a copy-paste vote of "Keep per WP:Some stuff exists for a reason" does not meet that standard. I would even consider such copy-paste votes to be disruptive. BilledMammal (talk) 03:42, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      So let me get this straight, Snickers2686, because demonstrably you exercised as little thought in this response as in your cut-and-paste flurry: did you notice that in the sixteen AfDs in question, Let'srun had identical wording in exactly two of them? No. I don't suppose you did notice. Beyond that, in each and every one of those sixteen, they expounded a policy-based rationale for the nomination. Each and every time you responded to one of them, you didn't. You are showing us as much contempt with responses like those as you did in the AfDs. Ravenswing 05:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Based on your talk page, it looks like quite a few have contempt for you as it is so... Snickers2686 (talk) 05:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Replies like these are neither acceptable nor productive; please strike it. BilledMammal (talk) 12:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Star Mississippi
      At no point in the Tiffany Cartwright deletion discussion last year was cloture being invoked ever used as a metric to make her notable. As a matter of fact, the fact that she has had her page moved back before she is confirmed only further shows my initial point last year when I said she was notable. It seems we are moving the goal post (Not you per say, just in general) to justify the present-day actions. When the initial deletion request occurred, we tried to explain she had a lengthy career even before the president nominated her. Her page has numerous references from the media & we were told that wasn't enough. I personally added three more & was told the three wasn't specifically about her so that didn't count. Then I was told only her confirmation will make her notable. The senate is out on recess next week & there are three other nominees that have cloture invoked before her, so she won't be confirmed until near the end of the week after next but somehow now a cloture vote makes her more notable than the president of the United States nominating her in the first place.
      As for I was "offered the path to having that reviewed and you opted not to pursue it", that simply is not true. I tried to prevent her page from being moved & after it was, I put in another request to have the decision reversed. It was unsuccessful because once again I was told she had to be confirmed. It seems as though that was not the case now. I was told she could withdraw, the president can rescind his nomination, or she could die before being confirmed so we must wait. Can those things still not happen between today & two weeks from now when she is ultimately confirmed?
      Let's be honest, her page should have never been allowed to be moved in the first place. Wikipedia needs to have some clearer guidance so users like @Let'srun can't come along & use Wikipedia lingo to pull pages down that thousands of people come to Wikipedia for. The idea that a lawyer who has had a career's worth of media articles written about them, then nominated by the president & then have a senate judiciary committee hearing not being notable is almost as unbelievable as Tiffany Cartwright is somehow notable today but wasn't last week when the only thing that has change is a cloture motion has been sent to the senate floor desk. And that is on top of out of over 100 Biden nominees at that time last year, she was the ONLY one who somehow wasn't notable. Once again, I know you were on my side of thinking last year so not frustrated at you. I'm frustrated we have to spend time yet again defending something that should be obvious because one user wants to make a point.
      MIAJudges (talk) 03:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @MIAJudges: While I can't speak for Star Mississippi, it seems fairly obvious to me someone who is not an American so frankly doesn't know that much about how the process works, that what they are saying is that the article was only moved back to main space about two days ago without any form of discussion and based on a statement that goes directly against the guidelines and AFD [2] by User:Frenzie23. However despite this, because the judge has reached a stage of the process where their nomination is going to be confirmed very very soon, there is no point fighting this. Any attempt to reverse it other than simply moving it back without discussion is likely to take longer to resolve than the for this nomination to be confirmed. Again I don't know that much about US federal judgeship nominations and politics but from what I do know this seems an entirely reasonable assessment of the situation. It reflects the fact that Star Mississippi, unlike the editor who moved the article back to main space, understands that Wikipedia operates by consensus and discussion and so an editor cannot simply force their way through unilaterally. As for Frenzie23, while their actions are not good, as a single instance no one is going to support sanction against them based on this single misstep so we are where we are. It's better to discuss the general problem rather than concentrate on one specific action by one editor. Nil Einne (talk) 05:20, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh no problem. We welcome users from all across the globe… Lol
      So to shed more light, a cloture motion being sent to the senate desk means these are the next items the senate will work on. There were three other nominees schemed before her & A vote hasn’t even been scheduled for Tiffany Cartwright, plus that’s on top of the senate being on vacation for two weeks. It took less than two weeks to get her page taken down in the first place. So the idea that somebody doesn’t have enough time to take her page down now isn’t really a sufficient argument if you’re of the mindset that she isn’t notable until she’s confirmed. And that’s on top of even when she finally gets a cloture vote, she will need another confirmation vote to actually be confirmed & theres no guarantee either will happen.
      Don’t get me wrong, I am in any way arguing that her page should be taken down again. I am just pointing out the inconsistencies with her page being taken down to show how unjust these results are now.
      Myself as well as many other users are VERY passionate about the judiciary here. We don’t want to see some user come along & use a loophole to start getting pages taken down, especially when the reasoning is neither in line with Wikipedia precedent or the general consensus.
      MIAJudges (talk) 05:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @MIAJudges: if you think Star Mississippi is wrong and it's likely to take more than 2 weeks for the confirmation to happen then you're welcome to start the process to reverse the move. And there is no loophole. These articles should not exist unless there is evidence they meet GNG or some other guideline. If you don't accept that then you need to refrain from creating them, or participating in any AFD etc. If you don't accept than then we will topic ban you and any more productive contributions you can make to improve our coverage of the judiciary in areas where notability is clear will be lost. It's your choice Nil Einne (talk) 06:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Wait a minute. You’re threatening to ban me? On what basis? I am a prolific Wikipedia user that is participating in the conversation. Each time I participate I am including precedent & factual information to back up what I am saying. I have not used any foul language, I have assumed good faith in all users even when they have a difference of opinion & I have listened to every view point. And the result is that is a threat to ban me???
      MIAJudges (talk) 06:28, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @MIAJudges, you seem to be arguing policy you don't fully understand, and you seem to believe your understanding of it is the correct understanding, and you keep insisting so. At some point that becomes disruptive all by itself.
      Here for instance you argued there is "no precedent" for deletion. What policy do you believe you are referring to?
      When multiple other editors who are much more experienced than you are telling you you are misunderstanding policy, which is what's happening here, you should go investigate further. You say you are listening, but you aren't. The fact you're being civil isn't enough. Valereee (talk) 10:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      It is not that I am not understanding what is being said, it is that I don’t agree with what some are saying. I don’t agree because of both precedent & inconsistencies in the arguments being made. I didn’t know simply articulating a different view point is being “ disruptive all by itself”. As for other users being “ much more experienced than” me, does that mean I am not entitled to an opinion? I thought that’s what the AFD was for. I appreciate the advice that I “should go investigate further”. I have, which is why I am even more confused as to how there seems to be a change in policy & approach to this subject. As for me or listening, that is exactly what I have done. The fact that I still do not agree with a persons opinion because of both inconsistencies in the argument & precedent shouldn’t mean you state I am not listening. If I were to agree with you does that now mean I am all of a sudden listening now?
      But this AFD is not about me so I don’t want to take up all of the oxygen in the conversation. I just want those users who apparently are much more experienced than me to know I appreciate all views even if some do not reciprocate.
      Thank you all MIAJudges (talk) 12:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      It's fine to disagree. But arguing your opinion over and over again when it's clear your opinion is not the consensus opinion can be considered disruptive. Valereee (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, @Nil Einne that's 90% of my motivation. The other 10% is this article/Talk page/deletion discussions have been exhausting. Folks want to create pages on judges in contravention of current practice/guidelines, but when the article is deleted and that deletion is endorsed, it's either sexism or politics. @Frenzie23 moved it over protection and consensus, but I felt it was no longer worth the argument since, apparently, I misunderstood what cloture would mean for her nomination. It's moot as @Curbon7 has already done so, but I'm not sure I'd have moved it back this morning if they hadn't as it's exhausting. @MIAJudges I stand by what I have said throughout out conversations on Cartwright, she is not currently notable. If those of you working on judge's articles want to change the guidelines, start the process. Don't assume bad faith on those of us applying consensus. Star Mississippi 12:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you for the start the process suggestion. I will look into that. For the record, I have never accused any users of sexism or politics. Other users have & I do not believe any have been threatened to be locked out if the AFD like apparently I have been by another user, but that’s ok. I don’t believe in making accusations unless it is warranted. I assume good faith “I literally wrote that in one of my replies above”.
      Thanks again & have a great day
      MIAJudges (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      oops missed this on first load. @MIAJudges we've had nothing but respectful conversations, for which I thank you, and I expect we will even though I think you have a flawed understanding of process. I'm frustrated we have to spend time yet again defending something that should be obvious because one user wants to make a point. No one is making a point. Cartwright was decided by consensus not to be notable, and you & @Snickers2686 opted not to follow the route to get the guidelines considered for revision. That's well within you're right as we're all volunteers. I closed the decision that reflected consensus which is why I was "allowed" to move it. You seemed to be OK with that because you didn't report me here or elsewhere for doing something I wasn't "allowed" to. Multiple folks have weighed in at the AfD/DRV and on the Talk. I don't know them all but it's fair to say we're all looking at it from the guidelines, not because we have a personal opinion on Cartwright's merits. Speaking of last fall when we were discussing, not this current batch of noms, if others should also have been draftified, AfD was there for you or anyone else as a tool. It's the one @Let'srun pursued now.
      These nominees could exist in draft space and be moved on confirmation. While draft space isn't mandatory for anyone but those with fewer than ten edits, it's a worthwhile tool to work on an article for whom notability isn't established but you expect will be in a near future. Star Mississippi 12:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Ravenswing
      @Let'srun is simply copy & pasting the same rationale for is multiple mass deletion request. I am responding in kind. As for your quiz, I will be happy to answer that. No, vague essays would not be acceptable for notability. But a career lawyer who has been nominated by the leader of the executive branch for a lifetime appointment to a co-equal branch is not a vague essay. Each nominee is covered in multiple media publications across the country the same day they are nominated so they become notable even if they weren't previously.
      MIAJudges (talk) 03:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Alright, let me be less oblique about it. To wit: being a career lawyer meets no notability criteria on Wikipedia, and being nominated by the President to a government post meets no notability criteria on Wikipedia, and being nominated for a judgeship meets no notability criteria on Wikipedia ... and either you know that already and are being disingenuous in your votes, or you didn't know that, in which case you really don't have any business participating in AfDs at all. Deletion discussions revolve around whether a subject does, or does not, meet the extant notability criteria, not the ones that individual editors make up in their own heads. Ravenswing 05:47, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      You’re wrong using any Wikipedia precedent. Each & every single nominee to be a federal judge has never had their Wikipedia page taken down or moved except one. And that one is Tiffany Cartwright who has not been confirmed yet but even her page has been reinstated. There is literally no history, no precedent or no consensus to back up what you are advocating. And I believe I have every right to be participating in AfDs. I do not agree with what you are advocating but would never question your ability to participate in the discussion.
      MIAJudges (talk) 06:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      "Precedent" changes all the time on Wikipedia; you don't see WP:PORNBIO still up, after all, or participation standards for sports figures, or an automatic presumption that high schools are notable. This is why we deliberately do not cite "precedent" as a valid ground to keep. Beyond that, I'm curious: you have been on Wikipedia for a little over a year, and as far as I can see you have participated in precisely two AfDs before yesterday: one last month, and the original Cartwright AfD last year. What is your basis for your assertion that no nominee for a judgeship has ever had an article deleted? I've been on Wikipedia for nineteen years and have participated in many hundreds of AfDs, and I wouldn't dare to make such a claim one way or another. Ravenswing 07:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you for your 19 years of service. This is not my only Wikipedia account. I use this one specifically for the judiciary. I’ve been on Wikipedia many more years prior but I would never throw my Wikipedia seniority around from my other account to try & justify that makes my point any more or less valid than other users. We have a difference of opinion, it happens. The only difference is I have never threatened to ban, block or discredit another users opinion like some on this thread apparently does. I have cited my reasoning for my opinion. It must have some validity to it because I see the Tiffany Cartwright page has been pulled down again which indicates me using that as justification to not pulling the other pages down struck a cord.
      Look, as I wrote above this thread is not about me. I certainly didn’t want it to turn into people going to my page to see how long I’ve been on Wikipedia or how many ADF’s I have participated in (Especially when the investigation leads to incorrect data & you could have just asked me in the first place). I respect everybody’s opinion. I gave me reasoning (Once) here as to why I think the pages should remain up. I was name checked in replies so I replied with my opinion. I was threatened I would be banned. I was accused of not thinking other users were giving their opinions in good faith when I literally wrote a few hours earlier I believe all users, even those I don’t agree with are working in good faith. I was accused of saying other users were engaging in sexism, racism & political bias for their opinions but when you simply scroll up, you can see I never said that, it was other users (None of which were threatened with a ban by the way). Now I have other users throwing their Wikipedia seniority around at me without even having accurate data on myself.
      I have given my opinion. I didn’t plan on having a back & fourth with anyone until my name was specifically mentioned by other users. Again I will repeat THIS IS NOT ABOUT ME. I look forward to reading others opinion on the matter now.
      Thank you & have a nice day all
      MIAJudges (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      That's quite a few words not to answer my question: what is your basis for your assertion that no nominee for a judgeship has ever had an article deleted? If you cannot support it, then it ought to be considered retracted. Ravenswing 18:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You...you what? You've edited here under multiple accounts? Are you familiar with our sockpuppetry policy? Are you also aware of or willing to comply with our guideline for declaring legitimate socks? at WP:ALTACCN? Iseult Δx parlez moi 21:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, this is the last time I am going to repeat this. THIS IS NOT ABOUT ME. To answer your question before we end the conversation about me & go back to the issue at hand, I did not say I am editing under multiple accounts. @Ravenswing stated he went into my profile to look at how long I have been on Wikipedia (I still don't know why he did or why that would be relevant to this conversations). I explained to him I had another account. HAD, past tense. I do not use that account anymore, I use MIAJudges now which is why if he wanted to know anything about me he simply could have just asked. I have been on Wikipedia longer than this profile shows because I had another account I no longer use. Ok, once again enough about me. I look forward to the rest of the conversation regarding the issue at hand.
    MIAJudges (talk) 02:43, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't help but notice that you chose to respond to this good-faith question regarding sockpuppetry (which is a serious issue in my eyes, but that's neither here nor there. I see guidelines here to identifying past accounts unless the new account is for a WP:CLEANSTART) as opposed to Ravenswing's many questions regarding policy-based rationales against deletion both here in this ANI thread and in AfDs like these: 1 2 3 4. Will you respond to those? I have made my position here at the bottom of the thread and in many AfDs. Iseult Δx parlez moi 04:12, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, this is the last time I am going to repeat this. THIS IS NOT ABOUT ME
    As a point of order, anyone involved in this incident is subject to scrutiny. That includes you. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As for my rational, I have written it numerous times, here, on the individual nominees deletion request pages (To be honest there are so many that I’ve lost count) & I wrote at length on the Tiffany Cartwright deletion request page last year. I do not want to repeat my argument once again so I will stand by what I have written already.
    As for “ anyone involved in this incident is subject to scrutiny”, anything I have written you are more than welcome to discuss & ask about. Any past account that I had years ago is frankly nobody’s business on this thread. There are numerous reasons somebody ends a Wikipedia account (Stalking, problem with a spouse or partner that has access to their account, ect.) that can lead to that person ending the account they have. I am not in trial here. I am a Wikipedia volunteer user. I will be more than happy to discuss the issue at hand but I will NOT continue discussing myself as I am not the subject of this conversation.
    Thank you all
    MIAJudges (talk) 23:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    MIAJudges: if there is 'simply no way' then NPOL really should be changed. The whole point of NPOL is it's supposed to list cases when we can be sure by the circumstances that the person is notable. Nil Einne (talk) 02:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Should clarify if it's not NPOL being changed then at least some other guideline or project page like WP:USCJN should reflect this special circumstance for US federal judge nominees which would potentially be linked to from NPOL. Nil Einne (talk) 05:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

    Folks don't seem to realize that we don't need an article started as soon as a nomination is announced. Because they were "in the news" for being nominated doesn't mean "there must be an article today". If they weren't of note to be worth writing about the day before, being nominated doesn't make it urgent.
    Courtesy @Snickers2686 since I'm citing their comment, but they're not the only one to make the case. Star Mississippi 03:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, but if you're autopatrolled, then it's okay, right? Snickers2686 (talk) 03:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry not sure what you mean by that. Articles that don't meet current criteria are an issue regardless of whether an editor is autopatrolled. Star Mississippi 03:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Meaning that if you're autopatrolled then they don't get screened and that editor gets a pass. But if you're not, then you're put under more scrutiny. Snickers2686 (talk) 03:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't get the relevance of this to the the existing discussion. This thread started off about articles which were nominated by Let'srun. I see no evidence they've only targeted articles from editors who are not autopatrolled. The thread has moved on somewhat to several editors expressing concern about comments by others who seem to be claiming something which isn't supported by the notability guidelines and using this to support the creation or keeping articles. I'm not even convinced many editors in this discussion even knows who started these articles (I haven't looked myself), or definitely that they care. However now that you bring it up, from my PoV, an editor who is autopatrolled and starting these articles under the rationale that any nomination for federal judgeship is enough to confer notability is far more concerning to me than an editor who is not autopatrolled precisely because we're assume editors who are autopatrolled understand such basics when they apparently don't. Can you list and notify any editor who is autopatrolled and is so poorly informed on our notability guidelines about federal judgeship nominations so that we can get an idea of the problem? I feel we need to seriously consider taking the autopatrolled flag away from any such editors. If the editor believes that but has not started any articles it's still somewhat concerning however since there is no effective misuse of the autopatrolled flag, it's probably something we can let slide with a reminder to the editor that they need to brush up on our notability guidelines. Nil Einne (talk) 05:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Should mention I partially confused Ravenswing and Star Mississippi, however I'm in agreement with both. Nil Einne (talk) 05:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure there are ravens in Misssissippi so it works ;-) @Nil Einne @Ravenswing Star Mississippi 14:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (cackles) I expect so! Ravenswing 17:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, articles exist on all (or nearly all) nominees. If Wikipedia goes ahead with this change, it will almost certainly be picked up by the legal industry press. Judicial nominations are probably the most single important topic in judicial politics. New nomination articles are usually instantly the #1 headlines on legal news websites like Law360. That's why these threads have a ton of lawyers baffled at Wikipedia bureaucrats questioning whether nominations are notable. Iowalaw2 (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iowalaw2, Wikipedia doesn't actually care very much about being picked up by the legal industry press. We hope people will be interested in figuring out why we do what we do, but we're much more interested in getting things right in the long run. Valereee (talk) 20:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, as we all know, providing useful articles on subjects of broad public interest pales in comparison with insider trench warfare. Iowalaw2 (talk) 04:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no opinion about the broader issue here, but if we're going to assign one of "what appears on Wikipedia" and "what appears on Law360" to the category "broad public interest" and the other to the category "insider [anything]", I think it's pretty clear you've got it backwards. --JBL (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: As a primary contributor to WP:USCJN, I see no actionable issue with these nominations. AfD nominations of pending judges will always, of course, be restricted to the president currently in office, since any judicial nominations by past presidents would have expired upon that president leaving office. This is really not a tremendous number of nominations, and can be disposed of through regular AfD processes. I would tend to agree that a deep dive will find evidence of notability for anyone who ends up getting nominated for a federal judgeship, but that does not translate to automatically keeping articles in mainspace where that deep dive has not been made. BD2412 T 02:44, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment (potentially involved?): I see that I voted to draftify on the Tiffany Cartwright AfD last year, and it's an unpleasant surprise to see that popping up on this board. I will say essentially what I said then, though; the guideline for articles here has almost always been WP:GNG. WP:USCJN provides an exception to that when judicial nominees are confirmed, but not before. If, though, a nominee is notable or has garnered significant coverage in reliable secondary sources (e.g. Dale Ho before confirmation and really before his nomination too), that plainly qualifies the subject for an article. I see a lot of WP:BLUDGEONing here, for which I see that MIAJudges has been advised to avoid. The main thrust of the arguments against draftification then in the AfD and DRV and now are inconsistencies with other extant nominees' pages; here, these inconsistencies seem to be remedied through discussion. Even that runs counter to site deletion policy wherein extant consensus and guidelines, not inconsistencies in application thereof, hold sway. Iseult Δx parlez moi 06:39, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've got a considerably more disturbing bit to report. We've already seen that @MIAJudges is deeply resistant to answering questions about what actual notability criteria are represented in their keep advocacy, and deeply resistant to providing evidence of their assertion that no article on a judicial nominee has ever been deleted, and is now digging in heels over their revelation that they are operating under an alternate account. With that. See, a SPA has arrived to toss in Keeps on some of the AfDs in question, and while looking those over, the SPA had tagged one of the nominee AfDs I hadn't looked at before. So before chiming in on the discussion, I looked over the sources to see if they met the GNG (without exception, they hadn't.)

      The final source was added by MIAJudges, a New York Times article with the headline "Garnett was instrumental in exonerating five people". Okay, thought I, that sounds like it's going to be significant coverage. Not only was it nothing of the sort ("But the findings by Mr. O’Malley, who worked closely with a senior prosecutor, Margaret M. Garnett, would seem to raise serious questions about the convictions in Ms. Raymond’s killing because the Bronx prosecutor’s office relied on the same key witnesses and said the two murders were related." is the sum total of what pertained to the subject), but the headline MIAJudges attributed to the article was spurious. Here's the diff in question: [3]. Now MIAJudges has been very steadfast in not answering direct questions, but I think we can neither any longer tolerate that, nor assume MIAJudges' good faith. MIAJudges has some serious explaining to do, and to do at once. Ravenswing 06:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      Ok, I am not sure what your issue is. I have done nothing but answer your questions on MULTIPLE different deletion requests. I literally just answered you on the “Deepak Gupta (Attorney)” deletion request & you responded. I have my suspicions about you & your motivations but I have kept them to myself. You have on multiple occasions tried to convince administrators & other users to ban, ignore & bypass users opinions who are different from yours. You even used vulgarities on the Jennifer L. Hall deletion request. I wasn’t planning on replying any longer so that other users can give their opinions but for some reason you continue to name drop me. I am going to ask you again, please keep the conversation about the issue at hand. That is, should nominees for federal judges be considered notable.
      We have a difference of opinion in which the administrator will decide. I have given my opinion on this page & about a handful others on this subject over the last few days. Frankly I’ve spent too much time on this subject & certainly too much time replying to you. I am looking forward to the opinions of other users & decision by the administrator but please cease including me in your replies. Honestly I think your opinion like mine is well known at this point so I for one am not interested in continuing any further back & fourth with you.
      MIAJudges (talk) 06:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      You have repeatedly refused to answer the question as to what actual notability criteria you are referring to in your Keep advocacy. You have repeatedly refused to answer the question as to what evidence you have for your assertion that no judicial nominee's article has ever been deleted on Wikipedia. You've refused to answer questions about operating from an alternate account. And you are now ducking the question about you having added a spurious headline to a news source to make it appear as if the subject was notable. You damn well know what my issue is, at this stage ... but I quite understand, at this point, why you are not interested in further responses. Ravenswing 06:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I haven't filed on that new account as I can't find the master, but I've seen the these pages are regularly created on the announcement text verbatim somewhere. Who knew judges were such a passionate topic.
      @MIAJudges all editors' conduct is looked at in a discussion. You're not immune simply because the original discussion wasn't opened about you. While I found you to be editing in good faith in our prior interactions, this isn't a good look Star Mississippi 11:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I am a volunteer editor here on Wikipedia. I, like everybody else do not get paid for the time & work put into it. My editing is in good faith. I see a subject (Almost exclusively editing on judicial related items), update & reference accordingly. We are assumably all adults here. When I see another user make a mistake I usually correct it myself quietly. That’s how I view Wikipedia, an outlet for the world to read an online encyclopedia about various subjects.
      As I’ve said I have no problem at all with anybody responding to any opinion I have on this or any subject. This has seem to turn into something I have no interest in being included in. Treats to ban, vulgarities being used, people accusing others of political motives & racism & the intentions of others being questioned is nothing I’ve rarely if ever have seen on Wikipedia. I only intended on writing once or twice about this subject giving my opinion on the matter & waiting for others to give their opinion so the administrator can make a decision. Somehow every time I log on to Wikipedia now, I see my name being tagged either on this or another deletion request. I have made my opinion known. I’ve asked repeatedly for all users to give their opinion without including my name in it unless it’s to reply about an opinion I’ve given.
      I am a busy man who has a life outside of Wikipedia. I’ve spent entirely too much time replying to other users about this subject. I am hoping this will be the last time I log in & see my name referenced or tagged on this manner. Once again I have no interest in adding further to this subject. I have written my opinion on it as far back as the Tiffany Cartwright deletion request last year. I am hoping this will be the last time I need to reply to any user.
      Thank you
      MIAJudges (talk) 12:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "but they seem to be bios of people (mostly judges) appointed by Joe Biden" So, newish BLP articles, about people who were not particularly notable prior to the 2020 elections. These type of articles are not inherently notable, nor is there a guarantee that reliable sources will pay attention to these appointments. Let "Let'srun" deal will all this political Fancruft to his/her heart's content. No big loss to get these articles scrutinized. Dimadick (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't know. I think that there might be a pretty serious behavioral issue brewing here, especially given a dayslong avoidance of policy-based justifications for keeps coupled with stuff like this misrepresentation of a title of a source to help bolster the keep case at the article's AfD. I haven't seen a satisfying explanation for that, if there is an explanation at all. @MIAJudges: might you pop in? Iseult Δx parlez moi 06:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Once again I am going to assume good faith & you missed my reply yesterday, the day before that & the day before that. So I will repeat myself. I have given my opinion on the notability of the nominees in question on this AFD as well as the deletion request for about a half dozen others. My opinion has not changed therefore I have no additional comments. As I have said repeatedly, other users surely have opinions so I will not continue commenting over & over saying the same thing. Everyone is welcome to give their opinions & the administrator can make a determination.
      I had no intentions on commenting further but I open my email & see my name tagged yet again so I am only replying because of that. Me not logging into Wikipedia for a day is not a behavioral issue. I have a life outside of Wikipedia. Had I not gotten an email saying somebody tagged my name it probably would have been a days or maybe week long absence because as I have repeatedly said I have given my opinion & I stand by it. I will await other users opinions & final decision by the administrator.
      Thank you
      MIAJudges (talk) 06:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @MIAJudges: that's funny; I went through your recent contributions again and still can't find an explanation for the misrepresentation of the article or a justification for keeps rooted in policy. Would you mind linking to diffs? Otherwise, @Ravenswing:, yeah, I've half a mind to propose a TBAN. Iseult Δx parlez moi 14:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Be my guest. I'd certainly support it. Ravenswing 14:05, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Iseult, they've requested not to be pinged here multiple times now. Valereee (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoop, I must have missed that. MIAJudges, my apologies. @Ravenswing: if you start it up (I have a job etc. to take care of), I'd be interested in seeing your proposed resolution. Iseult Δx parlez moi 15:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's spitting into the wind at this point; MIAJudges very resolutely refuses to answer the questions about his several misrepresentations and his outright falsification of a source. Especially given his staunch refusal to explain himself, I'd think the latter worthy of a topic ban, myself. Ravenswing 10:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      WOW, four straight days of requesting you to keep my name out of your mouth yet I wake up & the first thing I see is an email from Wikipedia with you tagging me yet AGAIN. If I were a lesser man I would say this was borderline harassment but I’ve dealt with much worse so I won’t even bother.
      AGAIN, this is an AFD about should judicial nominees be considered notable. I have an opinion on that subject & have given it repeatedly. If you have an opinion on that feel free to comment. At this point there seems to be 2 or 3 users taking over this AFD engaging in everything from accusing people of making accusations they did not make, throwing their Wikipedia seniority around trying to belittle other users who may have less time contributing, using vulgarities, trying to get people banned to now outright harassment.
      I hope the administrator who will determine the subject at hand completely blocks all of the nonsense out. I know it’s hard but once again this is about the notability of judicial nominees & them being allowed to have a page created or not, no matter if a few users try to turn this into anything but that. I hope the administrator takes a good look at who has tried to stick to the subject & respect others views even in disagreement & who has turned this discussion into a mud slinging affair.
      I have for four days straight asked for the discussion to stick to the topic at hand & let other users comments since mine as well as a few others views are well known by this time. I hope the administrator sees I have been repeatedly tagged in replies from a few users after four straight days of asking them to stop. The funniest thing about the few users who continue to try & ban users from this discussion is if they would just stop tagging them repeatedly in their comments, they would de facto get their wish because I for one have said I have given my opinion & will now await the opinions of others & then the decision by the administrator.
      MIAJudges (talk) 14:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Were you going to let any of us at this discussion know you had posted this [[4]]? Let'srun (talk) 13:42, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Why? Do you object to an editor in good standing making a proposal at the Village Pump for something they think would improve Wikipedia? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Beyond My Ken, I have no objection to MIAJudges making the proposal, but it would be nice if they had pinged more than just the people he or she thought would support it. Let'srun (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Eh, there's nothing wrong with such a proposal; I've suggested a couple times myself that the avenue towards getting their POV across was to make one. Discounting anon IPs who just happened to discover it (hrm), it's going down to near-unanimous opposition in any event. Ravenswing 23:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Suggestion for judge nominee articles

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

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

    I kind of feel like this is a good choice. These nominees are basically all going to become notable, either because they are confirmed, which makes them notable, or because they aren't confirmed, which makes them notable. Maybe we could simply create drafts instead of articles, and once there's some conclusion, move to article space? Valereee (talk) 04:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A significant proportion of the AfDs in question have draftification under discussion. I don't think there's any policy argument that judge nominee articles belong in mainspace. There's certainly no one doing that in this section. I've said above that drafts are the way to go, either by starting them out as drafts or by draftification pending confirmation. Iseult Δx parlez moi 05:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I certainly have no objection to any (or all) of these articles being moved to draft space. There's just far less certitude that these nominations are going to be confirmed than any of you might think. My apologies for diving into the snakepit that's US politics, but the unfortunate fact is that with the Democrats holding just a razor thin Senate majority, confirmation of hundreds of Senate-required positions have been held up, and two and a half years into Biden's term, there are still many hundreds of posts that are being filled by acting officials or caretakers. WP:CRYSTAL really does apply here: some of these nominations are likely to fail confirmation. Ravenswing 13:41, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but if they aren't confirmed, that is quite likely to make them notable, too. Valereee (talk) 15:12, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Moving the articles to draft space means that if a reader wants to know something about a pending, and potentially controversial, nominee, he or she will not be able to find that information on Wikipedia. For that reason the idea of merging background information on the nominees to an article on that subject strikes me as a clearly better alternative.
    This noticeboard may not be the best place to advance my proposal, though, as it doesn't relate to a conduct issue. Is there one central or primary pending AfD where I should mention it? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If the nominee passes WP:GNG, I agree that they should have an article. It is why I didn't submit an Afd for Charnelle Bjelkengren or several other more currently controversial nominees, as they do pass GNG by having WP:SIGCOV written about them. Let'srun (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Problem is that you're starting to fall into the trap of some of the fuzzy keep proponents at the AfDs. We do not have articles about "potentially" controversial subjects; as a lot of people are fond of saying, Wikipedia is not for breaking news. Our notability guidelines accord notability to subjects that have gained media attention. An omnibus article doesn't pass CRYSTAL either if there aren't reliable sources giving that subject coverage in "sufficient detail." 0+0+0+0+0=0. Draft space is the perfect place for articles on subjects that do not yet have the significant coverage we require in biographical articles -- let alone BLPs -- but where there's a reasonable chance that there might be down the road. Ravenswing 21:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's probably a reasonable point that moving to draft space means readers can't find the information. But merging into Nominees for US judgeships means creating an article that would need to be updated constantly forever, wouldn't it? Valereee (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Some nominees will simply not even receive a vote, and not be renominated. Let'srun (talk) 17:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, we are falling into the trap of WP:CRYSTAL. We can't assume that someone will be notable before they are, and certain editors are creating mainspace articles WP:TOOSOON. Let'srun (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Failed judicial nominations are so rare that they are in and of themselves notable. Respectfully, the idea that a significant number of judicial nominees are not confirmed demonstrates a lack of familiarity with the subject under discussion. Whatever the probability is for confirmations in the executive branch, the overwhelming majority of judicial nominees are confirmed. Iowalaw2 (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iowalaw2, if you look at WP:USCJN, you'll see that WP knows that many failed nominations are likely to result in notability even if the person wasn't notable before. The problems is that it hasn't happened. There's a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Presidential_judicial_nominees_automatically_notable on whether that fact means we should just go ahead and create the articles. Valereee (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah it makes complete sense to upend Wikipedia's universal practice of covering judicial nominees even when (1) there is a strong case to be made that the nomination itself is notable, (2) many or most nominees are notable regardless of the nomination, and (3) everyone agrees that virtually all will be notable in a few months. What is the actual policy benefit of this, in English? Beyond a couple of editors getting angry at MIAJudges and trying to antagonize him by deleting his articles, in the process spiting the rest of legal Wikipedia? Iowalaw2 (talk) 04:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't actually even have a strong opinion on the policy itself. The concern for me is more that we've got one, and without a good reason not to, we follow it or we get consensus to change it. But we don't just say, "I disagree with that policy so I'm going to work outside it." Valereee (talk) 12:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not saying you are at fault, but certain editors have the tendency to create articles for judicial nominees WP:TOOSOON. I would be fine with the compromise of having the articles in draftspace if that would end the discussion (unless they pass WP:GNG otherwise), but many of these nominees (and former nominees, for that matter) aren't notable people. Let'srun (talk) 18:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Newyorkbrad Person-by-person notability debates, about articles most of which will inevitably be created and kept in any event on the upcoming weeks or months, are not necessarily the best use of contributors' and community's time. that's part of why I advocated for @MIAJudges et al on the Cartwright Talk to try and get the guideline re-explored rather than continuing to litigate there (no pun intended). It's current consensus, but doesn't necessarily mean it's future consensus. Hell there's an article I started whose subject I'm pretty sure fails N:POL as written, but I felt confident in a GNG case should someone bring it to AfD that I decided to work on her article.
    @Iseult I think Draft space is perfect for these. Interested editors can begin to work on them there so that if/when they are confirmed, there's probably at least a start quality article which is more useful to the reader than rushing to create stubs. Star Mississippi 21:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    How do you figure that? The legislators who MAKE the law ARE notable, don't know where you read that they weren't. In any case the two examples (candidate versus presidential nominee) are not in any way equivalent, it's a false analogy, and not helpful in any way. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:59, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A nominee for federal judicial office is no more inherently notable than than a nominated candidate for congress. The mere nomination does not by itself confer notability. Kablammo (talk) 01:40, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I get that you believe that, but, in fact, they are totally different things and cannot be compared with any justification. The person nominating the judges is the President of the United States of American, properly elected by the people of the United States. The persons nominating a candidate for the House are local politicians of one political party who represent only that party and nobody else. Their gravitas is negligible. No comparison. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I get you believe that, but -- in fact -- your POV is nowhere reflected in any notability criteria on Wikipedia. For the purposes of WP:JUDGE, the nominator is irrelevant. (It's also irrelevant to ANI, this being a dispute that belongs on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people).) Ravenswing 19:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A judicial nomination is not even plausibly analogous to a party nomination for elected office. And anyway the idea that Wikipedia should refuse to provide articles for major-party nominees is very questionable (see all of the coverage of the war over the Theresa Greenfield article). Iowalaw2 (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: temporary TBAN

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

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

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

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

    • Oppose - This appears to me to be motivated by politics, and not policy-based. Nominations by the President of the United State for high office are (or should be) automatically Wikinotable, regardless of whether they have been confirmed or not, especially when the president involved is dealing with a Senate controlled by the opposite party, which is apparently deliberately holding up confirmations for poltical reasons having nothing to do with the quality of the nominees, similar to what happened to Merrick Garland's Supreme Court nomination near the end of the Obama administration. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tool of any political party, and we should avoid becoming a de facto tool in this case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd also like consideration to be given to the rather abysmal behavior in this thread of the proposer and the support voter just above to the nominee. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I presume by the proposer you mean me? I welcome and appreciate your feedback and scrutiny. I do have a few questions, though; I went through my comments in this thread and, asides from this proposal and my initial note, which was a reiteration of my position on these articles, is unadulterated shock at a naked confession of sockpuppetry. The comments following are requests for clarification regarding that and also asks for policy-based keep rationales so that I might change my position if warranted, as any editor should do (w.r.t. the latter). When I pinged MIA one too many times (I confess here that I did not and do not see any requests from them not to ping), I immediately apologized without reservation or qualification. What should I have done instead? What makes this abysmal?
      As for politics, I resent any implication of political malfeasance. Asides from a general assumption of less-than-good faith, I think that my actions in the relevant AfDs vindicate me. I have taken each article on its own merits and have concurred or broken with (to !vote keep) Letsrun whenever appropriate based on my own judgement.
      Lastly, I'm sorry to hear of your family situation. I've seen you around the project for many years now and have garnered great respect for you and your work. I hope it is resolved well and soon. Iseult Δx parlez moi 06:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah this looks like a vendetta to me. (Full disclosure that I'm also generally more sympathetic to @MIAJudges than @Ravenswing or @Iseult on the merits, and I do not think either @MIAJudges or @Ravenswing have conducted themselves very well.) Iowalaw2 (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Counter-proposal: TBAN for Let'srun

    SNOW close as a clear non-starter. There is firm agreement that a proposal to sanction a user who is in compliance with (current) nomination policy (at least in terms of topics being nominated, if not all process aspects) would be either unfair or unsuitable. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • For nominating a large number of Biden-nominated judge articles for deletion, based, apparently, on their personal political PoV, Let'srun is topic banned from nominating such articles, and any other articles about Biden's nominees, for six months.
    • Support - as proposer. Nominations by the President of the United State for high office are (or should be) automatically Wikinotable, regardless of whether they have been confirmed or not, especially when the president involved is dealing with a Senate controlled by the opposite party, which is apparently deliberately holding up confirmations for poltical reasons having nothing to do with the quality of the nominees, similar to what happened to Merrick Garland's Supreme Court nomination near the end of the Obama administration. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tool of any political party, and we should avoid becoming a de facto tool in this case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Let's recognize that basically all current nominations are by the current administration. That's just the process: whoever is in the white house is making the nominations. I do believe most high-level judgeship nominations are likely to be or become notable, even if not confirmed, but that doesn't make these AfDs political. Valereee (talk) 21:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Unfortunately it does, considering the tenor of the nominations, which (if you haven't already), you should read. Obviously notable people are presented as not passing GNG, for instance. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      That's your opinion, anyway. Of the AfDs in question, four have closed as Delete, one as moving to draft space, and two have closed as Keep. It would seem that in the majority of these cases so far, the other editors disagree with your contention that this is "obvious." (With that, you were challenged on more than one of those AfDs to back up your assertion that the articles did indeed pass GNG with the sources you felt qualified. In every such instance, you remained silent.) Ravenswing 01:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I "remained silent" because of a medical crisis in my family IRL, which left me with very little time for Wikipedia (check my logs, you'll see my time here has been well below the average since a week ago Friday, except for today (Sunday) and a little yesterday). All is not as it seems, sometimes - but the politics being played here is very much for real, and Wikipedia is being sullied by it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Beyond My Ken First off let me say I hope the medical situation with you & your family has been resolved. I wish whoever it was good health & God speed.
      As for the ban, I will stay out of it because I have made my opinions about him & @Ravenswing crystal clear. I honestly have no intentions of communicating with either of those users ever again. I just wanted to let you know I made a proposal for Wikipedia to consider so feel free to take a look & comment on the link below titled Presidential judicial nominees automatically notable.
      But once again the health of you & your family is most important so please take care of that before dedicating any more time to Wikipedia. Have a good day & take care.
      MIAJudges (talk) 20:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) MIAJudges (talk) 20:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      BMK, I've read the bottom six (userfy, keep, delete, delete, delete, not closed yet) and I don't see what you mean by "the tenor of the nominations"? In each case the nom rationale is "does not meet notability under WP:NPOL and is WP:TOOSOON since nominee has not been confirmed as a [whatever] judge" Can you clarify what you mean by the tenor being political? Valereee (talk) 09:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Oppose: The nom seems to be playing the same game as MIAJudges is: claiming a standard which is not actually reflected in any notability guideline, and making a blanket statement without presenting one single shred of evidence to back it up. If Beyond My Ken wants WP:JUDGE to read differently, then they're free to make a proposal on the Notability talk page. In the meantime, we gauge notability on the standards that are already in place, not the standards we wish were in place if we were the ones writing the rules, and WP:JUDGE doesn't have any carve-out clauses reading "... except in cases where we really really think the opposition party is being naughty." This is a spurious counter-proposal reeking of bad faith, and it's saddening that Beyond My Ken can only conceive of political bias as a rationale for nominating such articles for deletion. Ravenswing 02:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I am not "playing a game", I am attempting to see that Wikipedia isn't used for political purposes, and that its content is the best in can be. If you insist on a policy-based justification for that, I suggest you re-read WP:IAR. That we would allow outside political manipulations to affect our content is totally abhorrent to me - and I would absolutely say that if the parties were reversed. As for the results at AfD, I note that your votes and those of Iseult helped bring about those conclusions, so your citing of them leaves me cold. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Since you don't like the results, I suppose they do leave you cold. They remain facts, all the same. "I would absolutely say that if the parties were reversed." Perhaps you would forgive this lifelong Democrat, and one-time elected Democratic officeholder, for believing that this vindictive, plainly partisan proposal of yours indicates quite the opposite. Ravenswing 15:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, and it strikes me as unfair to Letsrun that this was even proposed. The only thing they've (arguably) done wrong in this area is bundle some AFD nominations which didn't belong together, which only hurt their own aims, and there hasn't been any evidence presented that the nominations were done for political reasons (unless I missed something important upthread). If there's a problem here, it's inexperience, and Letsrun has been willing to acknowledge that in this discussion; this sanction wouldn't help them improve! Hatman31 (talk) 04:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong oppose, as others have said, there's no evidence Let'srun has done anything substantially wrong. This was the case even at the beginning of this thread and has become clearer as their AfDs have been closed. They might have made some BEFORE mistakes or otherwise failed to properly consider certain issues but their track record isn't that bad. In particular, there's no evidence of any inappropriate political motivation other than this happening at a time when Biden happens to be president. In fact the only concern about inappropriate political motivations seems to relate to the proposer Beyond My Ken's actions who by their own admission is making this proposal for political reasons. Per WP:RGW, Beyond My Ken is welcome to vote in the US (as many commentators have demonstrated, this often includes more local positions who can affect such things in various indirect fashions), lobby their senator or other senators or whatever else they want in the real world to fix whatever wrongs they see; what they shouldn't be doing is trying to topic ban people because our current guidelines and policies create outcomes they don't like because of what is going on in the real world. They are of course entitled to try to get these guidelines changed but an experienced editor would know that would involved making a proposal somewhere suitable (which is unlikely to be at ANI, although I don't mind User:Newyorkbrad etc starting discussion here) for the adoptions of these new guidelines or rarely simply by taking part in the AFDs and successfully making the argument (i.e. convincing others) that while yes current guidelines suggest a deletion, it would be better to instead to keep for reasons of X, Y and Z. Changing the guidelines definitely does not start with topic banning someone just because they are helping to enforce our current guidelines. Nil Einne (talk) 09:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Further to my comment on changing how we handle articles on such appointments, since that seems to be a key part of Beyond My Ken's argument even if as I said, irrelevant until they've actually changed the guidelines. As someone who is probably significant more left-wing than the average American or Biden in many areas but is not American, I'd note that I was leaning oppose towards any such proposal for a change in guidelines at the start of this thread. Comments by Newyorkbrad and some others have given me pause for thought, but comments from most of those arguing for these changes often have done the opposite and this is especially the case for the way Beyond My Ken has approached this. Indeed one of the arguments for keeping these has been that most of them are likely to be notable sometime 'soon' because their appointments will be confirmed, or if they are rejected this would be significant enough to warrant an article. Yet ironically Beyond My Ken has came here to effectively even if I guess unintentionally argue the opposite. Because the mess in US politics many of these may simply never come up for vote, meaning that while there may be an article on that mess, there may be no articles on most of the individual minor level judge appointments affected by the mess who aren't notable individually for it. While the mess in US politics concerns me since it does have significant real world negative ramifications even for me in NZ, I'm not going to support us ignoring our normally notability standards just because this mess has created an unhappy situation. Wikipedia shouldn't be used for political purposes even when we agree with the politics. Again for Americans there are multiple avenues they can try to improve the situation. For non Americans there may be far less. But either way it doesn't mean we should do dumb stuff which will harm Wikipedia out of some misguided purpose. Nil Einne (talk) 09:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Repeated Bludgeoning by .Raven after P-Block

    (non-admin closure) Raven was indefinitely blocked by El_C
    • Combefere 16:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

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

    User .Raven was p-blocked on June 21st as a result of this ANI (which I filed) for repeatedly bludgeoning the talk page on Killing of Jordan Neely. A block appeal by .Raven was denied by the same admin on their talk page.

    Relevant talk page link 1
    Relevant talk page link 2

    On June 30th, a few days after the block was lifted, .Raven returned to the talk page, repeating the same talking point that they had bludgeoned in the weeks prior. They are now continuing to bludgeon the point on the page; not engaging constructively with editors, but simply replying to every comment insisting that other editors take their view. Here's just one example of such an exchange.

    dif 1
    dif 2
    dif 3
    dif 4
    dif 5

    Multiple editors on that talk page again warned .Raven that this pattern of behavior was disruptive, but .Raven has continued. In general, it seems their attitude is to respond to every comment that expresses disagreement with their positions (and frankly many of these positions are so ludicrous that they stretch one's ability to AGF, so virtually every comment on the issue is in disagreement) in an attempt to wikilawyer [5] [6] their perceived opponents into submission, or at least get the last word.

    Clearly the p-block issued on June 21st has not changed this editor's behavior. Instead of recognizing the issue, agreeing to change their behavior, and making a good-faith unblock request, .Raven got into extensive heated arguments with nine other editors on their own talk page defending their behavior, deflected and attacked other editors' behaviors, waited for the block to expire, hatted and archived the discussions on their talk page, and quickly returned to repeat the same disruptive behavior on the same page they were originally blocked from. Combefere ★ Talk 20:08, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This incessant argumentativeness has also characterized Raven's recent conduct here at ANI (see [7] and [8]). At one point, in light of their limited experience, I tried to encourage them to step away from ANI and spend more time familiarizing themselves with community norms [9]. This suggestion was rebuffed [10]. Honestly, in light of the impressive rapacity with which Raven has acquired a reputation for battleground editing, I'm not sure we owe them much more patience. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for including those cites, Lepricavark. Your first link takes us to the case about Randy Kryn, where one of my comments said "Now this is a plain content dispute, not even edit-warring" — and others said the same, and the case was closed accordingly. Your second link takes us to the matter of Freoh and Gwillhickers, where again I argued against sanctioning Freoh, and the closure did not sanction him. Another editor called your comment to me "pulling rank" (conveniently outside the snippets your links show), and on yet another editor's also using that phrase, I noted the impression I had received. But I hadn't argued with or "rebuffed" you for that comment. Odd that these are what you cite as my "battleground editing". It had seemed to me that others were using AN/I as a way to throw those they disagreed with in content disputes off Wikipedia, and I was one of those saying 'slow down'. Perhaps it shouldn't be surprising that I soon thereafter was targeted in the same way. – .Raven  .talk 22:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, Raven, taking issue with someone else's perception of argumentativeness is a bit of a self-refuting strategy, but to each his or her own. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Dumuzid is one of the people who came to my talkpage. That my replying to Dumuzid's and others' comments on my own talkpage is being charged against me as a conduct offense seems to me to be the odd thing. – .Raven  .talk 22:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry to disappoint you, Raven, but I have no interest in becoming ensnared in one of your patented protracted, pointless, pedantic debates. I trust that the admins who frequent this board will be quite capable of evaluating my evidence accurately despite your ill-disguised and amusing attempt at interfering. Have a lovely day, LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    > "attempt at interfering"? — Responding to accusations against me is an attempt at interfering? – .Raven  .talk 22:58, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    > "...simply replying to every comment insisting that other editors take their view." -and- "their attitude is to respond to every comment that expresses disagreement with their positions" — Such exaggerations, "every". As though I hadn't also agreed with other people; answered questions; encouraged AGF all around; replied to comments pinging me by name (e.g. here and here); and finally withdrew from such a conversation when the repetition of already-answered questions appeared to be sea-lioning.
    > ".Raven got into extensive heated arguments with nine other editors on their own talk page defending their behavior" — my goodness, they came to my talk page to argue with me. I didn't ping or otherwise ask them to do so. Replying to them is an offense? Disruptive? Of what, on as the OP says, my own talk page? If nine people had each posted one lone comment to me, just by replying to each once I would be posting nine times and they could say I was a nine-times-more-frequent commenter. Of course their average was higher than one each, which only increased my replies. Now one of those arguers wants to make that an offense.
    > "hatted and archived the discussions on their talk page" — In order to stop the arguments. That's an offense now too?
    This is lawfare, WP:SANCTIONGAMING. It's been used by the same person before. – .Raven  .talk 21:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If nine editors comment on your talk page asking you to reflect upon and change your behavior, it may be constructive to view that as an opportunity to reflect upon and change your behavior. Viewing it as an obligation to start nine new arguments may be rather unconstructive. Combefere ★ Talk 03:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oddly enough, I am not the one who lawfared / sanctiongamed our content disagreement to try silencing you, Combefere; a behavioral note. – .Raven  .talk 04:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Always happy to consider the feedback! If there's a community consensus or an admin ruling that my actions were lawfaring or gaming, then I'll be sure to think more carefully about filing similar ANIs in the future. Cheers! Combefere ★ Talk 05:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    When an editor continues behavior that previously got them blocked, it is not inappropriate to bring this to administrator attention. Please don't allow yourself to be bullied into thinking that you did something wrong. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 06:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) While I'm unbothered by your feeble attempts to refute my evidence, someone needs to speak up against this troubling new development. It seems that Combefere's point was so airtight, you've decided to lob aspersions instead of conceding that maybe it's true that you don't need to argue with everyone who asks you to change your behavior. This unwarranted attack on Combefere's integrity is unacceptable and blockworthy in its own right, everyone if we ignore the fact that your entire approach to editing is incompatible with a collaborative project. But I don't expect you to start listening now. Everyone who disagrees with you is wrong, and some of us are apparently conspiring to silence you by driving you off the site. The criticisms in this thread stem purely from malice on our part and have nothing to do with your tendency to take over conversations, argue implacably over minutiae, and feign moral outrage over comments that you never even tried to understand. Please, tell us more about how you're the victim and we're the big mean baddies. Do you really think we're going to just put up with your behavior indefinitely? Or is it more likely that something else of an indefinite nature is in your future? The charitable side of me wants to urge you to reign yourself in before it's too late, but the very slim part of me that cares about Wikipedia thinks you might save us all a lot of future drama if you just keep talking your way into a permablock in this thread. Besides, I already tried the charitable approach and for my trouble you accused me of pulling rank. I've no patience for your continued silliness, and any further insults directed at Combefere will result in a formal proposal for an indef block. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 05:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and just to make it abundantly clear, I continue to refuse to waste my time trying to reason with someone who will not listen to reason. So don't expect me to engage with whatever version of reality you invent for your next salvo. Again, I'm not particularly concerned with how badly you pretzelize my words. I've endured far worse treatment than that. But the cheap shots at Combefere were your big mistake and they are to stop now. Believe it or not, there are some people on the internet who are willing to stand up to a bully. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 06:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    > "willing to stand up to a bully." — That's good. How about people who take content disputes to AN/I to try throwing those who disagree with them off Wikipedia? – .Raven  .talk 06:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no indication from OP's comments that they are trying to get you thrown off the site. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not merely a content dispute. This is about how we communicate with one another. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 04:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    > "you've decided to lob aspersions" -and- "insults directed at Combefere" — What aspersions or insults?
    Per WP:ASPERSIONS, "It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch his or her reputation." -and- "It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause. Legitimate concerns of fellow editors' conduct should be raised either directly with the editor in question, in a civil fashion, or if necessary on an appropriate noticeboard or dispute-resolution page. Although broad leeway is granted to allow editors to express themselves in their interactions with one another, particularly in dispute resolution, a consistent pattern of making objectively unsupported or exaggerated claims of misconduct can necessitate sanctions or restrictions even if the editor subjectively believes that they are true." [emphasis added]
    Cf. making exaggerated claims of misconduct like "...simply replying to every comment insisting that other editors take their view." -and- "... their attitude is to respond to every comment that expresses disagreement with their positions (and frankly many of these positions are so ludicrous that they stretch one's ability to AGF...)" [emphasis added] — those "ludicrous positions" being that such policy as WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPPUBLIC should be followed. – .Raven  .talk 06:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Y'know, L., I was done posting at WP:VPP and Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely, but here your accusations are dragging me back into the morass. I'm done with you too. – .Raven  .talk 06:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can't figure out that you are casting aspersions by inventing the claim that the OP is trying to throw you off the site, then I can't help you. You seem determined to be the victim here even though you're the one creating disruption almost everywhere you go. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If a community consensus or admin ruling determines that I have violated WP:ASPERSIONS, I will gladly face the consequences and adjust my behavior accordingly. As of yet, I just don't see such a consensus. I do stand by the comments you quoted. I don't think either of them are unsupported or exaggerated, but I am always happy to hear other opinions on the matter. I have indeed already noted yours, .Raven and there will be no need to restate it. Cheers. Combefere ★ Talk 07:55, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, maybe a walk away from the Neely page is a good idea .Raven. You are right in that Penny's name should not be used if the title of the page includes the word 'Killing' instead of 'Homicide', but remember that this is Wikipedia where anyone can have an opinion (and anyone does) so at times the "wrong" opinion gets traction. Wikipedia certainly should not lose you as an editor, so again pushing the incorrect to a point of ANI discussion gives more fuel to those who disagree with your commonsense. Too many bring ANI concerns too quickly, but again, many hands make this cake so give them some slack so other articles become better because of your knowledge. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks, Randy. I just would prefer that our being incorrect in print be about minor issues, or even major-but-innocuous issues like getting wrong the diameter of the Earth or the population of nation N, rather than jumping the  gun  court verdict in declaring X-killed-Y as "fact" in Wikipedia's voice — too many bad things could result, and it sets a terrible precedent for future cases, in addition to flatly contradicting policy. But I think I've made my point clearly enough, despite the hatting there; so I'm done. – .Raven  .talk 00:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Taking this complaint seriously and looking at my comment from June 30 on, at Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely (the page and date range Combefere references), I replied twice to !votes / left-edge (non-outdented) comments:
    • Here, beginning "Thank you Chrisahn.", in reply to a cite-heavy comment I was happy to see, and adding a policy snippet (quoted verbatim) in furtherance of its point. Clearly neither a "heated argument" nor "bludgeoning" — because I certainly was not trying to change his mind nor to dissuade him from commenting.
    • Here, on a different thread ("City and country in lede?"), saying in full "Agreed, Yes, on main point. On parenthesized point: perhaps  'the F train of the subway'  — since 'the F train' by itself might not communicate 'subway' to people unfamiliar with NYC; not 'universal knowledge', as you put it." Again clearly neither "heated argument" nor "bludgeoning", for the same reason.
    For replies inside already ongoing discussions, i.e. indented more than once, I take note of Loki's comment below:
    "The classic form of [bludgeoning]  is responding to every !vote to try to convince the editor in question to change it. Raven is not doing that, and I'm very clearly not doing that: most of my replies are deep in a thread and several of them are to people I !voted the same way as."
    – .Raven  .talk 05:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Since Raven mentioned me, I'd like to clarify: "in furtherance of its point" – that's incorrect. Raven apparently misunderstood my point. I very much disagree with the claim in Raven's reply (about "alleged"), and it didn't have much to do with my point. — Chrisahn (talk) 20:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Broader bludgeoning issue?

    I've only interacted with this editor once but I've seen bludgeoning by them there to, at a VPP discussion where they have made 78 comments - more than twice as many as the next most prolific commenter - including eight after I made a comment asking editors to generally avoid bludgeoning. BilledMammal (talk) 03:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Including multiple comments to ping previous RfCs' participants to participate, as a fix for another editor's attempt which fell afoul of the 50-pings-per-comment limit. Oddly enough, after my first such ping-group (for #51-to-end), BilledMammal advised me that the first 50 listed names hadn't received pings either, so I posted more pings (in 2 comments) to finish the set; then answered a question for one of the responders.
    And in response to ScottishFinnishRadish's small note about the dash Wikipedia often requests (ndash) not being on our keyboards, I suggested a browser add-on ("AddAccent") which simplifies typing non-keyboard characters.
    Provided links and reference quotes of the MOS, the UCoC regarding respect, and the previous RfC's closure; even tried to encourage an editor who'd asked "Can I just point out...?" with "You certainly can...." (and not because I agreed).
    'Bludgeoning', hm. That term conveys a more discouraging attitude, e.g. telling people they mustn't comment. Like this section. – .Raven  .talk 04:40, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody is saying that you shouldn't comment, but when the number of comments you have made are getting close to triple digits - and the next most prolific commenter has made less than half the number you have - you should seriously consider stepping back from the discussion.
    'Bludgeoning', hm. That term conveys a more discouraging attitude, e.g. telling people they mustn't comment. Like this section. I am concerned by this comment; it suggests you don't see an issue with bludgeoning and thus will continue doing it, despite community consensus that it is disruptive. BilledMammal (talk) 05:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that WP:BLUDGEON isn't measured sheerly by quantity of posts: "In Wikipedia terms, bludgeoning is where someone attempts to force their point of view..." — of which pinging more participants from prior RfCs to discuss the topic, and encouraging new commenters, is rather the opposite — and to do which "sheer volume of comments" is not the only possible method. For instance, silencing dissenters by trying to get them blocked or banned is another technique. – .Raven  .talk 06:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right; in theory, it is possible to make 78 comments to an RfC and not be bludgeoning. In practice, though? I've never seen it. I'll note that it's a little inaccurate to suggest that most, or even just many, of your comments there were procedural and not arguing your position.
    I'm also concerned that rather than taking the concerns other editors have raised here about your behavior onboard you have instead assumed bad faith and suggested that three separate editors are trying to silence you; Lepricavark, Combefere, and now myself. This suggests a problematic level of tendentiousness and battleground behavior. BilledMammal (talk) 06:55, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Raven's comments here give the impression that he he hasn't just failed to realize how much he's commenting, but rather refuses to accept that bludgeoning is a form of disruptive editing. He is instead trying to wikilawyer what "bludgeoning" means. In the Newimpartial AN/I thread in February, I proposed the following sanction, which was subsequently enacted: no more than two comments per discussion per day, except replies (of reasonable length) to questions or very brief clarifications of their own comments. Perhaps the same should be imposed here. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 07:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Someone posted in DGG's obituary that he had cultivated the practice of holding himself to two comments per thread, trusting himself to make his points with clarity and persuasiveness. If he expressed himself well and had a cogent argument, other people would agree and back him up. If not, it's Wikipedia. Consensus isn't always on our side. Ever since reading that I've always thought an enforced DGG% thread cap would be a good novel restriction. No comment on the particulars here, just support for the idea behind the restriction in the general case. Folly Mox (talk) 11:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      What?? DGG died? Oh, good god, this is getting to be an intolerable sequence of losses the last couple of years. :( SnowRise let's rap 05:58, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Pretty close.
      On one of the two discussions at issue, WP:VPP#RfC: Proposed addition to MOS:GENDERID - when to include deadnames: During July 3 (UTC), I posted 3 comments in reply to comments not directed at me, and 5 in reply to comments directed at me. During July 2, zero. During July 1, zero. During June 30, zero, During June 29, zero.
      On the other discussion at issue, Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely#What to include from assailant's video statement: During July 3, I posted 1 comment (in reply to a comment not directed at me). During July 2, zero of those and 7 (in reply to comments directed at me), respectively. During July 1, zero and 4, respectively. During June 30, 1 and 1, respectively. During June 29, zero. (The period of the P-Ban was the week of June 21-28.)
      Clearly I've been failing to match the expectations made for me above. – .Raven  .talk 11:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    [11] - I am one of the editors who engaged with .Raven on their talk page regarding bludgeoning at WP:VPP after the partial block. There was a resultant argument, of course. I went to the talk page to try to ensure that this ANI report would not occur. I did not succeed. starship.paint (exalt) 12:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just jumping in here to say as someone who's following that VPP thread closely that I don't actually think that Raven has a problem with bludgeoning generally (commenting a lot is not the same as bludgeoning), that this is pretty obvious from reading that VPP thread, and that I find it very suspicious that the person who brought up this issue is also someone who has repeatedly had their ideas shot down, and not just by Raven, at said VPP thread. Or in other words, I suspect the point here is to eliminate an opponent and is not a real concern over wrongdoing. Loki (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm growing tired of these aspersions against the OP. There's no evidence that they are asking for Raven to be eliminated, whereas there is abundant evidence (including the very recent p-block) that Raven's behavior has been deemed problematic by uninvolved editors. Really your reading of the situation is extraordinary. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @LokiTheLiar: I have no idea what is meant by this comment: "I find it very suspicious that the person who brought up this issue is also someone who has repeatedly had their ideas shot down, and not just by Raven, at said VPP thread." I was not involved in the VPP thread. Combefere ★ Talk 16:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Not you, BilledMammal. Loki (talk) 16:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Still a personal attack that you make without evidence, and one that ignores that I'm not the only editor seeing a problem with Raven's behavior. Please strike it; if you need evidence against your allegation to do so, please consider that when I first called out this behavior I was careful to avoid mentioning any editor directly, in the hope that we could avoid any drama or ill-feeling. BilledMammal (talk) 17:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      You're right that it was unfair to target you specifically, so I've struck the parts of the comment about you specifically. However, I still think that Raven is obviously not bludgeoning in that thread and that the idea they are is indicative of ulterior motives. Loki (talk) 17:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Mmm, "there is an element of bludgeoning going on, with the most prolific contributor having made 70 comments" sure seems to say that the one who had made 70 comments is "bludgeoning". – .Raven  .talk 17:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - My initial instinct was to oppose sanctions, but seeing Raven's conduct here, I can't do that in good faith, so I am resolutely neutral. But Raven, a thought or two, if you will indulge me. I fear you'll keep getting dragged here unless you can deal with one of two editing tendencies. The first is to assume, axiomatically, your own correctness. We all believe we are right, of course, but at least at the Neely article, you seemed to scoff at the idea that there could be any other reasonable interpretation. That would be a bit irksome, by itself, but when combined with the second factor, is more problematic--and that factor is somewhere between a distaste for disengaging and WP:LASTWORD. In the linked diffs above, I think it was pretty clear that I was trying to say "okay, nothing more to be done here" but you kept hammering away at essentially the same point. Part of being WP:CIVIL is learning to disagree and disengage. Again, either trait is suboptimal (as are we all in this sublunary world), but it's the synthesis between the two that seems to me keeps dragging you back here. Finally, you really need to take on board the idea that if multiple editors comment to you about your behavior, you need to do some self-reflection. That doesn't mean you need to agree, but something you are doing is problematic in some regard. I would never have asked for sanctions here myself, but I absolutely understand why this section exists. I have tried to deal with you both collegially and in good faith, and I hope I have done so. Whatever happens, sincerely, all the best, and because I don't want to contribute to the problem, I won't be responding further here. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      > "you seemed to scoff at the idea that there could be any other reasonable interpretation."
      In our exchange (starting with your comment, ff.), I pointed out that what you called my "interpretation both of the substance of the relevant statements and the application of policy thereto" was my linked verbatim quotes of both, and invited you to find where I'd misquoted either... which you declined to do. So I think this is yet another example of misrepresenting what I wrote. – .Raven  .talk 05:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I opposed the sanction idea below, upon further review it's kind of clear this editor isn't learning anything. The TALK page where editors have attempted to steer the editor in the right direction has been greeted with excuse making and finger pointing. There's really no acknowledgement that their might be a problem. When an editor is seemingly incapable of listening to others something should probably be done. I would support an indefinite or temp block. It would nice if the editor could acknowledge the issue and attempt to modify their behavior. Nemov (talk) 23:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: daily page comments restriction

    Proposal 1/Tamzin's proposal: "no more than two comments per discussion per day, except replies (of reasonable length) to questions or very brief clarifications of their own comments"
    Proposal 2/JBL's proposal: no more than two comments per page per day
    Added alternative proposals to top for ease of reference BilledMammal (talk) 06:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • I still prefer my wording, because admins are perfectly capable of blocking users who wikilawyer around sanctions, but JBL's is acceptable to me. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 23:10, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, nobody as active as .Raven deserves such a restriction. Two comments per talk page a day? That could be used up as a post and a reply, and then if one more comment is posted people who will be keeping gleeful track of their comments will jump up and down and demand a block. Two comments a day in a discussion is almost absurdly limiting towards an active editor. If the goal is to block .Raven then this would do it, and that should not be anyone's goal on Wikipedia - a "got ya" trap set and approved at ANI. Just let everyone involved here edit freely and give each other the latitude to fully express themselves. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      There are definitely certain circumstances in which two edits per discussion per day is very limiting, like the common "what should we do about this issue?" → "ok I'm going to do a thing" → "ok I did the thing everything look good?". The general case is to compose with more thought, reread and rewrite your post, and resist the urge to respond to edits containing claims you feel like refuting. Even if there are a bunch of errors, you can save them up for your next comment and address them in a batch, AE-style. I'm definitely guilty of not thinking through my initial edit to a thread sufficiently thoroughly, but it's possible with self-restraint and patience.
      And again here I'm arguing for the principle of the restriction. I haven't looked into all the discussions linked from this one and have no desire to weigh in on whether this sanction should be applied in this case. Folly Mox (talk) 04:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support either Tamzin's or JBL's proposal. Raven's comments above demonstrate that they aren't willing to avoid bludgeoning discussions, and indeed reject that such behavior is disruptive. Both of these proposals will allow them to continue contributing to the site while also preventing this disruptive behavior.
    I would also support adding two common sense exceptions; comments made on their talk page and comments made in noticeboard discussions about them don't count towards the limit. BilledMammal (talk) 00:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    > "Raven's comments above demonstrate that they aren't willing to avoid bludgeoning discussions.... / ... comments made in noticeboard discussions about them don't count towards the limit."
    This *is* a noticeboard discussion about me; yet you say my "comments above demonstrate"... — on what basis? The numbers you just said don't count? What did this comment demonstrate? – .Raven  .talk 01:17, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm referring to comments like 'Bludgeoning', hm. That term conveys a more discouraging attitude, e.g. telling people they mustn't comment. Like this section. BilledMammal (talk) 01:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which was in a post above linking to comments that had been counted toward "bludgeoning", yet did not "attempt to force [any] point of view", e.g. pinging more participants from prior RfCs to discuss the topic, and encouraging new commenters. I don't consider those to be "bludgeoning" at all, and I think WP:BLUDGEON's definition excludes them too. Which makes using raw comment-counts (without examining content) not particularly useful as a guide. The hostility or absence of it matters too. We're supposed to welcome differing viewpoints — which those comments did — rather than the reverse. Yet now that's counted as "bludgeoning"? – .Raven  .talk 02:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose sanctions, as I again see no evidence that Raven is bludgeoning discussions generally. Loki (talk) 00:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support any and all sanctions. This is probably the worst case of serial bludgeoning I've encountered in all my years on Wikipedia. It has to stop somewhere, although for whatever reason some editors inconceivably refuse to see the problem even when it is this blindingly obvious. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:04, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Are actual numbers blinding? – .Raven  .talk 01:19, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      What's blinding is how obvious it is that you frequently bludgeon threads and turn them into battlegrounds. Your style of communicating is inconsistent with a community that values listening. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      > "frequently", now? Are the two threads brought up here a fair example of this "frequent" behavior? – .Raven  .talk 02:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I could respond further, but I see no point since you're never going to let up no matter what evidence is presented. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      What "evidence" of "frequently" has been presented? Two discussions were brought up; you've refused to respond to (and possibly even to read) the actual comment-counts from those discussions after the P-BAN ended.
      Per WP:ASPERSIONS: "Although broad leeway is granted to allow editors to express themselves in their interactions with one another, particularly in dispute resolution, a consistent pattern of making objectively unsupported or exaggerated claims of misconduct can necessitate sanctions or restrictions even if the editor subjectively believes that they are true." [emphasis added] – .Raven  .talk 05:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Raven, you're literally bludgeoning a thread about how you bludgeon threads. I strongly suggest you just stop typing for a while. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      It is, in my opinion, literally impossible to bludgeon an ANI report of yourself. You're expected to respond to many or most comments in an ANI about your own behavior, because you have both a right and a duty to defend yourself. Loki (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I have seen AN/I reportees criticized for insufficient response to the discussion. – .Raven  .talk 17:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I've definitely seen people sanctioned for over-replying to ANI, because it veers from defending themselves to browbeating everyone who speaks up. It's possible to respond collectively to concerns, rather than every damn last comment made in the ANI thread. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh come now. What does duty have to do with anything? We're writing an online encyclopedia; this isn't a war or something. Besides, nobody has the duty to defend themselves against every form of criticism however mild it may be. It is quite possible to bludgeon an ANI report about one's self, and it is untrue that there is some expectation that the editors will respond to many or most comments in such a thread. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      > "defend themselves against every form of criticism however mild it may be"
      When the accusations are severe enough to move for sanctions, that's not "mild". – .Raven  .talk 04:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Of course not. But the reason we got to this point is because you argued with the mild criticisms too. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 12:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Accusations of "bludgeoning", aka "incessant argumentativeness" or "patented protracted, pointless, pedantic debates", are mild criticisms? If not, then what? – .Raven  .talk 21:09, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Editors need to be able to engage in dialogue with each other to discuss questions that may arise with mainspace edits. If one participant is limited in the frequency of their edits, this hampers them from participating fully as a mainspace contributor. I appreciate the intent of the proposal, but I feel the desired goal of inducing greater concision and less repetition should be achieved with a different method. isaacl (talk) 05:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Note I am not saying that no restriction is warranted. Although I can imagine situations where a mainspace talk page restriction might be workable, in most cases I think if an editor is unable to be productive in discussing their mainspace edits, they may as well be restricted from editing articles rather than just limiting their mainspace talk page edits. isaacl (talk) 16:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Someone who prefers discussion to edit-wars will tend to comment more than someone with the opposite preference. If comments are stopped but article-editing is not, doesn't that encourage the B and the R without the D? – .Raven  .talk 17:19, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not sure how your response relates to my comment, as I explicitly said that editors need to be able to discuss their mainspace edits. To me, this is an off-topic response which illustrates the issue of posting more responses than necessary. isaacl (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I was not *disagreeing* with you, but suggesting a point in *favor* of your "they may as well be restricted from editing articles rather than just limiting their mainspace talk page edits." — thus, "If comments are stopped but article-editing is `not, doesn't that encourage the B and the R without the D?"
      Is that still off-topic, or does it relate mow? – .Raven  .talk 04:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The first sentence in your initial reply is unconnected. The second sentence is phrased as a question, which thus appears to ask me if I agree with something I already stated as my viewpoint. Both of these are detrimental to the topic of discussion I feel you should be focused on: illustrating that you can be concise and avoid posting more often than necessary. isaacl (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Not so much to ask you, as to pose a rhetorical question to the readers we share. – .Raven  .talk 21:05, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      When you ask a question in response to my post, it sounds like you're asking me a question, rhetorical or not. Since you're ostensibly agreeing with me, it's not clear why you're asking this question. If you're trying to initiate a dialogue with other, unspecified people, it would be more effective for you to set the appropriate context, and often it is better to do so in a separate thread. (Note I'm not asking you for any further response or explanation; I'm just explaining the effect of your initial reply.) isaacl (talk) 03:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      User:Isaacl - I agree on both counts. Editors need to be able to fully contribute to a consensual discussion, because it is fully intertwined with boldly editing. One does not work without the other being fully available. - jc37 23:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose JBL's proposal – 2 edits per talk page a day, without being able to make corrections or reply to questions posed to you, is too restrictive in any case in my opinion. No comment on Tamzin's proposal – I haven't looked in depth into this case. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 06:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Randy Kryn that this extreme limit is just setting the editor (or any active editor it's put upon) to up to get gamed and blocked ('look, it's only been 23 hours since the person's previous two!'), and having just seen another editor in this topic area get similarly gamed and blocked, I'd rather we not add to the pile... especially since it is noticeable that there is a specific pile; I've seen a lot of suboptimal editing in this topic area, and can't avoid noticing that in the last few months four of the editors who are trans or are 'nonhostile' to trans people have been dragged here, banned, blocked, or restricted by crowds consisting of many of the same people, while wp:nothere SPAs who do nothing but wikilawyer or troll in the other direction continue to operate : as Black Kite said even when it was just two, it ain't been subtle. OTOH, Raven's replies to this very thread make clear some kind of warning is necessary. On a balance I oppose either two-edit restriction (although Tamzin's is better than JBL's), but Raven, as Dumuzid said, you will get dragged here again — eventually the editors who are angling to get you blocked, no matter how incorrect or invalid you think their actions are, will succeed — unless you take to heart that commenting this much is indeed viewed negatively and learn to rein it in; you don't have to have the wp:lastword, you can say your piece and leave it at that, and just because another editor keeps repeating their own point doesn't mean you have to keep engaging. -sche (talk) 15:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support either proposal editor is bludgeoning a thread about how they're bludgeoning threads by demanding someone provide evidence of them bludgeoning threads. I wonder what completely novel information they'll respond to this !vote with. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I was surprised to see that LokiTheLiar wrote: no evidence that Raven is bludgeoning discussions generally. Perhaps no one has presented evidence. I shall present a comparison in the green boxes below - to Loki, who also participated in the RFC. starship.paint (exalt) 16:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    70 posts by .Raven in the WP:VPP RFC, initiating replies against 19 editors, while only 3 editors initiated replies against .Raven without .Raven initiating them first.
    • [initiating replies against 19 editors] - Cunado, Only in death does duty end, Mitch Ames, North8000, BilledMammal, Iffy, Locke Cole, Kusma, FOARP, Graeme Bartlett, Folly Mox, JoelleJay, Ravenswing, Blueboar, Huggums537, Adoring nanny, Cavarrone, Visviva, SmallJarsWithGreenLabels - bolded later re-engaged .Raven in later discussions
    • [3 editors initiated without .Raven initiating] - SMcCandlish, Jerome Frank Disciple, EddieHugh

    Survey section

    Discussion thread 1: Initiates reply to Cunado

    Thread 2: Initiates reply to Only in death does duty end

    Thread 3: Votes (no one replies)

    Thread 4: Initiates reply to Mitch Ames

    Thread 5: Initiates reply to North8000

    Thread 6a: Initiates reply to BilledMammal

    Thread 7: Initiates reply to Iffy

    Thread 6b: Responds to reply by Iffy

    Thread 8a: Initiates reply to Locke Cole

    Thread 9: Initiates reply to Kusma

    Thread 10: Initiates reply to FOARP

    Thread 11a: Initiates reply to Graeme Bartlett

    Thread 11b: Responds to reply by Cunado

    Thread 12: Initiates reply to Folly Mox

    Thread 13: Initiates reply to JoelleJay

    Thread 14a: Initiates reply to Ravenswing

    Thread 14b: Responds to reply by Mitch Ames

    Thread 14c: Responds to reply to Locke Cole

    Thread 8b: Responds to reply by SMcCandlish

    Thread 8c: Responds to reply by Jerome Frank Disciple

    Thread 15: Initiates reply to Folly Mox

    Thread 16: Initiates reply to Blueboar

    Thread 17: Initiates reply to Huggums537

    Thread 18: Initiates reply to Adoring nanny

    Thread 19a: Initiates reply to Cavarrone

    Thread 19b: Responds to reply by EddieHugh

    Thread 20a: Initiates reply to FOARP

    Thread 20b: Responds to reply by Huggums537

    Thread 20c: Responds to reply by Blueboar

    Thread 20d: Responds to reply by FOARP

    Thread 20e: Responds to reply by Locke Cole

    Outside of the survey section

    Thread A, part 1: Initiates reply to Visviva

    Thread A, part 2: Responds to reply by SMcCandlish

    Thread A, part 3: Responds to reply by BilledMammal

    Thread B: Initiates reply to Huggums537

    Thread C: Initiates reply to SmallJarsWithGreenLabels

    13 posts by Loki in the same RFC, initiating replies against 10 editors, while only 1 editor initiated replies against Loki without Loki initiating them first.

    There are diffs, but, well, trust me on this. starship.paint (exalt) 16:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Survey section

    1. Votes
    2. Initiates reply to -sche, once
    3. Initiates reply to Sideswipe9th, once
    4. Initiates reply to Huggums537, once
    5. Initiates reply to North8000, once
    6. Initiates reply to Spycicle, once
    7. Responds to reply by Locke Cole, once
    8. Initiates reply to JoelleJay, once
    9. Initiates reply to Blueboar, once

    Discussion section

    1. Initiates reply to SMcCandlish, once
    2. Initiates reply to Sideswipe9th, once
    3. Initates reply to SnowRise, once
    4. Initiates reply to Adam Cuerden, once
    • Perhaps, editors can make a decision whether either Loki or .Raven, neither, or both bludgeoned. Skarmory may wish to take a look. Note that .Raven had three bursts of activity (12-16 June, 22-24 June, 3-5 July). The second burst stopped after warnings by myself and Dumuzid. starship.paint (exalt) 16:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The list is inflated by including replies to comments directed at me. Nifty. – .Raven  .talk 17:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • See, this is the whole issue I have with this report in a nutshell. Replying to comments by itself is not bludgeoning. Replying to comments a lot is not bludgeoning. You cannot prove anything with just pure frequency of replies, you need some kind of reference to the content and the structure of the replies.
    WP:BLUDGEONing is not just commenting a lot, it's trying to overwhelm the discussion by sheer volume of comments. The classic form of it is responding to every !vote to try to convince the editor in question to change it. Raven is not doing that, and I'm very clearly not doing that: most of my replies are deep in a thread and several of them are to people I !voted the same way as.
    In general, if Editor A asks an open question and Raven responds, that's not bludgeoning. If Editor A says something, Editor B disagrees, and Raven responds agreeing with Editor A, that's also (generally) not bludgeoning. Raven sure is commenting a lot on that discussion but only relatively rarely with the sort of combativeness that is necessary to be considered bludgeoning. Loki (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that replying a lot is not necessarily bludgeoning. But .Raven has been bludgeoning. Per WP:BLUDGEON, "In Wikipedia terms, bludgeoning is where someone attempts to force their point of view by the sheer volume of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own. Typically, this means making the same argument over and over, to different people."
    In my experience, .Raven certainly has a tendency to contradict every viewpoint different from their own, and to make the same argument over and over to different people. Furthermore, I typically find their comments to be combative, unconstructively dismissive (see WP:IDONTHEARYOU), and overly reliant on proof by assertion. This leads them into a lot of situations where they respond to comments just to say 'nuh-uh!'
    On the Neely talk page, they came back from their block with the rather silly argument that all statements from RSs are no more than allegations (based on the wikitxt definition of the word "allegation"), and therefore we cannot include information in the article without the qualifier "alleged." They made this identical argument to four editors in four separate threads. When all of the editors disagreed with .Raven's interpretation and offered clear and succinct explanations as to why, .Raven persisted by simply repeating the argument over and over, by asking condescending questions, by linking to diffs of their own comments when they needed a fresh way to repeat them, by claiming that other editors agreed with them when they did not, by accusing other editors of trolling, and generally by having a "debate me!" attitude.
    And this was in the course of only two days, after they were already blocked on the same page for bludgeoning discussion. Their behavior which led to the first block was similar, but lasted for weeks and weeks, spanning dozens of discussions. It was this previous block that led me to file the second ANI so quickly – repeat offenders do not have the same leeway as other users. Combefere ★ Talk 17:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I cited policy, WP:BLPPUBLIC, which I had no part in writing, to several people who were either unaware of it or unwilling to follow it. That gives the "Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should state only that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred. / If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too." Several other people's comments have stressed the "alleged", e.g. "A 'crime'/felony IS alleged by e.g. the DA, and thus e.g. BLPCRIME policy applies and the allegation matters now" -and- "... Serious BLP concerns. It is still alleged." -and- "... there's a distinction between describing an event as a killing and naming an alleged killer." — so to say that "all of the editors disagreed with .Raven's interpretation" is incorrect, unless you mean those four. Here's the start of one circling thread in which an editor insists I cite and quote from recent high-quality reliable sources that use such explicit language, specifically that ""Penny allegedly killed Neely"" etc.... apparently unaware that one needn't use the word "allege" in order to allege something. For that editor I provided links to both definitions and synonyms, showing that the newspapers stating X-killed-Y were alleging it. On such a matter, WP:BLP has us wait for a court verdict, not the newspaper headlines ahead of trial. This much should have been uncontroversial. We're not supposed to rush to judgment like newspapers; we're WP:NOTNEWS. – .Raven  .talk 19:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    When I said "all other editors" I did mean all four other editors engaged in that discussion about BLPPUBLIC. I assure you that we, all four of us, were fully aware of the policy, fully understood your interpretation of the policy, and were fully aware that one needn't use the word allege in order to allege something when we responded to you. But I do appreciate you taking the time to demonstrate both how eager you are to continue repeating yourself, as well as your unshakeable belief that anybody who disagrees with you must not have heard you the first six or seven times. Combefere ★ Talk 19:38, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    > "all four of us... were fully aware that one needn't use the word allege in order to allege something"
    Requiring "explicit language, specifically that 'Penny allegedly killed Neely'", indicates otherwise. – .Raven  .talk 21:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps a less condescending explanation is that we all simply disagreed with your interpretation of BLPPUBLIC. My humble advice is to consider that this type of explanation is often more constructive than the explanation that four other editors didn't hear you the first seven times, and that you must repeat yourself an eighth time. But if you'd prefer to ignore that advice and repeat yourself for a ninth time, then by all means keep digging. Combefere ★ Talk 23:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My goodness, "condescending"? *I* haven't told anyone they shouldn't comment (or !vote) at all if they weren't commenting the way *I* wanted them to. – .Raven  .talk 03:25, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've only interacted with Raven on the Neely talk page. Unfortunately, Combefere's description of Raven's behavior on that page matches my experience very closely. I think Raven should take to heart the following sentence from WP:BLUDGEON: The more often you express the same ideas in a discussion, the less persuasive you become. — Chrisahn (talk) 19:13, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support either. Tamzins version leaves more space for constructive editing, while JBL's version prevents the exploitation of loopholes with more wikilawyering. From the evidence submitted I was already leaning towards support, but the amount of spammed replies with little meaningful additions of content in this very thread sealed the deal for me. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose on principle. - Ok, So I haven't looked at the diffs. And I don't think I've ever encountered the editor in question. But I'm reading through a "discussion" with huge blocks of text (noting that I can write huge blocks of text with the best of them : ) - where there are more than a few cases of people talking past each other, all while accusing someone else of "bludgeoning" a discussion. Anyway, all that aside, picking some arbitrary number is just another form of edit-counting, and I oppose editcountitis out of principle. If there really is an issue with bludgeoning here, then perhaps someone can come up with some other creative idea to reduce the disruption. But I don't think this is it. - jc37 19:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      It is certainly possible for reasonable people to disagree about whether the proposed restrictions are necessary or appropriate (or, obviously, on the precise details) but this comment is just incoherent -- what is {[tq|picking some arbitrary number is just another form of edit-counting, and I oppose editcountitis out of principle}} even supposed to mean? Maybe you could make some attempt to investigate the specifics of the situation under discussion before opining? --JBL (talk) 19:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      "If there really is an issue with bludgeoning here, then perhaps someone can come up with some other creative idea to reduce the disruption. But I don't think this is it" I don't think this suggestion is really constructive. As Tamzin pointed out, this proposal has precedent; it was used in the ANI for Newimpartial earlier this year. A similar proposal was unanimously supported to sanction user Bus Stop at an ANI thread in 2021, and was only overruled because editors on that thread ultimately decided a site ban was more appropriate.
      If you have a better proposal, then by all means, put it forward. As is, your comment seems to oppose on principle the idea of sanctioning disruptive users at all. Combefere ★ Talk 20:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Arbcom is not bound to precedent, and neither are we. Just because someone else did something does not make it the correct thing to do in every situation.
      As for a different proposal? there are more than a few, but it depends on the situation. There are plenty of creative minds here who I presume are more informed about whatever the disruption is, than I presume to be.
      But whatever is decided, editcounitis is for the birds. Edit quantity over edit quality is almost always a waste of community time.. And if you have read WP:BLUDGEON (and I presume that you have) you'd know that it has little to do with the quantity of the edits, but what the edits consist of. Hence: editcountitis is for the birds. - jc37 20:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      it depends on the situation. Yes. There are plenty of creative minds here who ... are more informed about whatever the disruption is, than I presume to be. Also yes. Perhaps you could restrict your commenting to situations about which you are informed. --JBL (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      It's interesting to see you attempt to cherry-pick out part of my comments while seemingly intentionally ignoring what I was actually saying, and then trying to use that as an attack, and then to try to push me away. There's an interesting irony here.
      Anyway, you're welcome to disagree or not like what I'm saying, but you not understanding what I'm saying (by your admission above) does not mean you should use your lack of understanding to attack me.
      Speaking of things that this discussion would appear not ot be, I think I'll add "Collegiately Civil"... - jc37 22:04, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I already expressed above that I find your point obscure; your decision not to explain yourself clearly (either initially or in response) is a decision you've made, not a personal failing of mine -- you are welcome to explain. Separately, I do not think the principle "don't make votes on ANI threads without investigating the actual situation" is particularly difficult to understand, and I'm also not sure why you think it's a good idea to disregard it. (Unlike the first point, I don't want you to explain this bad choice, I just want you to either stop commenting on a situation you aren't familiar with or to familiarize yourself with it and adjust your comments appropriately.) --JBL (talk) 22:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I believe the word you used was "wikt:incoherent". Which, based upon your words, means that you could not make sense out of my comments.
      And I absolutely can "opine" (as you put it) that I think that this "solution" is inappropriate to address a situation of bludgeoning. My comments are pointed at the suggested solution. Whether the editor is guilty of bludgeoning is immaterial to whether setting an arbitrary number for allowed edits should be deemed appropriate for any editor, especially since that's not the intent of WP:Bludgeon, and not what it states. As I stated above. You can continue to try to ignore my words, but it doesn't change their applicability to this request for comment.
      Again, you apparently keep attempting to dismiss what you don't understand. I'm happy to try to continue to clarify, but please, go ahead and repeat your comments again stating the same thing you've now said twice. As I said, it's an interesting irony... - jc37 22:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I'll just say that I agree with JBL that your comment is rather incoherent, and unconstructive. It strikes me as asking others to do your homework for you. If you think there's a better sanction for bludgeoning, then propose one. If you think there should be no sanction for bludgeoning at all, then admit it outright. But if you simply want to chime in just to chime in, other editors are bound to wonder what the point is. Either add something constructive to your comment, or stop commenting; no need to go around this circle again. Combefere ★ Talk 22:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I have "done my homework". I've read WP:BLUDGEON. Above, I had presumed that you had too, but perhaps I was mistaken. But I will agree that the two of you seem to want to "go around this circle". Your focus seems to be so much on sanctioning the editor's behaviour, that you are apparently not looking at the pages you are linking to, to see if the proposed sanction is appropriate for the deemed offence. To wit: If the issue is bludgeoning, a restriction of quantity of edits is inappropriate. It's not rocket science. But it does require you to read the page you're referring to. - jc37 22:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Wouldn't doing your homework include looking at the diffs? Look, maybe you haven't encountered this editor before, but I have. And I have consistently found that their bludgeoning, battleground approach is disruptive. There are several other editors with similar experiences in this thread. But you've brushed aside those specifics, without substantive acknowledgement, to oppose this sanction 'on principle' as if the details don't matter. You can hardly blame us for being annoyed.
      As far as the editcountitis aspect is concerned, I'll happily concur that bludgeoning is about more than mere quantity (personally, I'm concerned less about Raven's quantity and more about his tendency to pick out one or two things in a comment to disagree with, disregard everything else, and then argue ad nauseum about the one or two points). But this sanction will still be a serious step forward toward reducing the ongoing disruption, so it is a clear step in the right direction. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      "...looking at the difs?" - sometimes. And I have spent a lot of my days poring through page histories and edit histories. But sometimes, it isn't necessary in order to see that there's an issue - which, in my estimation, was the case here.
      Look, the situation may very well require sanctioning. I don't know, because I have not looked. I have been honest about that. And I appreciate that you would like what you see as an issue, resolved. But, at the moment, I'm fine with leaving that specific behavioural assessment to another admin, and am merely addressing the policy/guidelines issue that I was looking at.
      But, I will admit, that the seemingly intentionally obtuse responses above were definitely nudging me to take a look at everyone's edits. But I tell you what. How about this: The editor "thanked" me for some of my comments above. I'm going to take that opportunity to go drop a note on their talk page. Maybe it'll help with what you're concerned about, and maybe not. But I suppose we'll see. - jc37 23:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      For what it's worth: while bludgeoning is not about edit count, it is about persistently replying to someone who's not interested in arguing with you. Which seems to me like exactly what the three of you are doing on this very thread. Loki (talk) 00:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Hence my comments about "irony" above... - jc37 00:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Although I support either proposal above, I do find this comment rather perceptive. Two wrongs don't make a right, and all that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      This is the catch-22 of trying to raise a complaint against a serial bludgeoner. Invariably, the bludgeoner will talk you to death. Indeed, your definition of bludgeoning clearly applies to Raven's action in this thread. Meanwhile, the bludgeoner's defenders will show up, as will a couple of well-intentioned editors who want to err on the side of no sanctions but don't really understand the disruption that prompted the report. If you leave these comments alone, other neutral observers will conclude that you have no rebuttal. But if you try to counterargue, inevitably someone will try to turn the bludgeoning accusation back around on you. It's an exhausting situation to deal with, and the implications of bad faith are a delightful icing on the cake. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • no Oppose sanctions. The numbers do not convince me that .Raven's behavior is particularly disruptive,[1] and the argumentative comments that I have seen look more like a typical content dispute rather than a real conduct issue (though I have not looked at every single one, as this conversation has gotten quite long). Sanctioning a particular editor because it is difficult to reach a consensus gives the impression of a sham consensus, which is far more disruptive (in my view) than any of Raven's behavior. Perhaps the solution is to take this to WP:DR/N so that everyone is subject to the same commenting restrictions.  — Freoh 10:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:BLUDGEON is a blunt instrument that misses the point. It's very easy for Wikipedia discussions, especially RFCs, to turn into a series of dialogs, different editors each engaging with the same one editor. It's not strange – real-life meetings do it too – and when each dialog's sustained by both people in it, it can seem hard to blame anyone. But it means we don't get an open discussion among several editors, and the RFC or whatever is the worse for it. One "side" is largely represented by one editor, the dialogs delve ever deeper but we don't get fresh perspectives from that side, and it all becomes less productive, less rewarding and more frustrating – so we wind up here. Opening up discussions and letting other voices in needs self-restraint and acceptance from all that sometimes it's better to step away, without anyone being persuaded to change their mind or concede something. .Raven, will you do that? And if you say you're already doing it, will you do it a lot more? NebY (talk) 12:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Goodness, I thought I'd documented what I had and had not done in the original discussion during the time period mentioned. Now even my comments here are being counted against me as "bludgeoning", which would include this reply to you. Should I not reply at all? That would be "stepping away more", but in my opinion rude. Which would you prefer? – .Raven  .talk 21:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @NebY: What do you think, is that a yes or a no? --JBL (talk) 22:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I meant it more the way "How high?" relates to "Jump!" – .Raven  .talk 23:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - Raven is on thin ice and clearly attempts by well meaning editors has fallen on deaf ears which is why this has escalated. However, the OP here was also beating that Neely article like a dead horse. It's time for all involved parties to go in their seperate directions. Finally, Raven... if you're brought here again with similar issues I suspect the community will support stronger sanctions. I wise man once said nothing. Nemov (talk) 00:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose JBL's proposal on principle largely per isaacl and jc37. In general, these kind of sanctions fail to address what bludgeoning is, which is the mere repeating of the same argument over and over again. Sure, limiting Raven to two posts per page per day would prevent bludgeoning, but it would only do so in the same way that blocking him would, by simply preventing him from participating at all. Per isaacl, we need to allow people to defend and discuss their edits, and they can only do this by participating on the talk page without bludgeoning. Limiting Raven's talk page editing would stop the bludegeoning but also the participation, which has effects on their ability to constructively edit the article. Looking over the edits, I see definite bludgeoning by Raven, and I would support sanctions targeting this behavior rather than raw edit count. Tamzin's proposal comes much closer, but it's still fundamentally based on edit count, and I fear it will lead to unnecessary gaming/lawyering by one or both sides due to the difficulty of defining reasonable length comments and brief clarifications. Pinguinn 🐧 11:28, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support JBL's proposal. Every single discussion I've encountered .Raven in he has had the most, or at least the densest, comments (and that's saying something coming from me!). But more problematic than the bludgeoning itself is that the points he is bludgeoning are often so unsupportable and/or accusatory and/or aggressively captious that, as Lepricavark somewhat alludes to, they inevitably derail the thread after other editors fall in the trap of attempting to explain a PAG or clarify a misinterpretation or defend themselves from snide comments (see the interminable riveting discussion collapsed in the diff above). This happens even when responding to editors who broadly agree with him. .Raven made a combined nearly 100 comments at the Randy Kryn ANI and the associated page in contention, many of them arguing from an off-topic, fatuously-contrarian position. I see that he has repeated this behavior at multiple other pages since then and collected numerous warnings from it, with no apparent restraint even after a p-block. A comment limit is the minimum sanction needed at this point, but I wouldn't be surprised if a NOTHERE block was brought to the table in the future. JoelleJay (talk) 01:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      > "... 100 comments at the Randy Kryn ANI and the associated page...." [emphasis added]
      Ah. Now the scale is not by discussion, but by the entire page, with all its discussions? Noted.
      > "... contrarian position." — Thank you for clarifying that my offense was holding minority opinions in those discussions, sufficient cause to complain... especially since I was quoting/citing WP policy, established by wider consensus, majority opinion which many in those discussions wished to disregard. – .Raven  .talk 06:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Literally all your edits to that page are in the one discussion.
      And your severe miscomprehension and misapplication of P&Gs is well-documented by now. JoelleJay (talk) 03:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      > "Literally all your edits to that page are in the one discussion." — Which one discussion?
    > "your severe miscomprehension and misapplication of P&Gs" — My direct verbatim quotes with cites/links?
    > "is well-documented by now." So it's documented that I misquoted or miscited them? Where? Links, please. – .Raven  .talk 07:36, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. It's a bit a beyond the scope your typical editing restriction, but I'm convinced it's warranted: .Raven's conduct across policy spaces in particular over the last couple of months has been deeply (if unintentionally) tendentious and disruptive. Prior to that timeframe I had never encountered them (that I can recall) anywhere on the project, but the sheer volume and tenacity of bludgeoning has really left an impression. They seem to have a compulsive need to respond to every single person they perceive to be arguing against precisely their preferred take on an issue, typically adding more content to a discussion than the next few most vocal participants combined. These issues are additionally compounded by a non-standard formatting/response scheme--which is not a brightline violation of policy per se, and would not be as big an issue with a less loquacious contributor, but combined with the bludgeoning, it does tend make standard discussion tracking all the more strained.
    Further, the bludgeoning is not just by virtue of the number of responses, but also results from tonal issues: every subpart of every dispute must be disputed to the hilt, and no quarter given--even those agreeing with 90% of what .Raven has to say in a given instance can still find themselves on the receiving end of vociferous deconstructions of how wrong they are about the other 10%. And rather than indicators of a strong developing consensus resulting in their taking their foot off the gas, it typically just seems to encourage .Raven to double down at exponentially accelerating rates. It's a deeply non-collaborative discussion style which .Raven has been approached about repeatedly here (and apparently on their talk page) over recent weeks, with little to no evidence that much of this feedback is ever taken on board by them as indication that there might genuinely be something wrong with their approach.
    All that said, I do believe .Raven is trying their best to follow and promote respect for policy as they interpret it. But whatever value they might potentially bring to discussions is currently being undermined by a severe deficit of restraint, as well as poor perspective on what a reasonable ratio of contribution to a discussion is, relative to everyone else participating. I know it might sound like lip service, and they might reasonably feel it is patronizing, but I honestly think some sort of participation restriction is highly in their best longterm interests here--as well as the shorterm value of their arguments, for that matter. SnowRise let's rap 05:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    > "a non-standard formatting/response scheme" — Do you mean adding quote marks, italics, and the >?
    Not everyone has color screens (even my wife's handheld is monochrome), and some of those who do have some form of color-blindness — green is one of the colors often affected; it doesn't stand out well for me at my age. I'm trying to provide multiple cues about quotations for such situations. The > is a traditional quotation-line mark in Usenet, and like bullets at the left helps mark a new item in the response. Please disregard whatever cues you don't need. – .Raven  .talk 07:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Killing%20of%20Jordan%20Neely
    • Strong oppose JBL’s proposal replying to comments is generally not bludgeoning, nor is pinging participants in past RFC’s on similar topics, as long as it is done in a neutral manner. I could potentially support Tamzin's proposal if the exceptions were objectively stated, as there is a lot of gray area as to why a reply of “reasonable length” or “very brief” comments are. I would suggest an objective limit of five sentences per response (or more) as most genuine responses are shorter than that and most walls of text are far, far longer. Removing the exceptions rather than clarifying them is a non-starter in my opinion. But as written I oppose Tamzin's proposal as well. Frank Anchor 12:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a comment limit, with objective boundaries and no room for loopholes or wikilawyering around community sanctions. .Raven does not appear to hear what other editors are saying, about how excessive commenting dominates a conversation, and how that can be disruptive to a productive and collaborative atmosphere. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 05:37, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Marines RfC, and two-week site block proposal

    While I don't particularly like doing this, I feel it must be done. While this ANI thread is still ongoing, I see that .Raven has returned to participate in an RfC they earlier started advocating for the capitalisation of Marine. Again, .Raven is the dominant participant, I count 22 comments by them (ignoring 4 irrelevant comments), much more than other editors: Parsecboy (8 comments), Intothedarkness (6 comments), SMcCandlish (5 comments) and Cinderella157 (4 comments).

    Now, this isn't even the biggest issue here. What I want to raise is that at a time when there were 4 supports and 13 opposes (and yes, I am aware WP:NOTAVOTE), indicating a high likelihood that the result would be against .Raven with no capitalised "Marine", .Raven inserted a placeholder for a new RfC (diff) on whether titles for specific nations' armed forces members should follow their own nations' practices, essentially planning to re-litigate if "Marine" should be capitalised since the American Marines do so.

    Is this a problem? I will refer you to this argument made by .Raven in June in another RfC, where .Raven argued in favour of excluding dissenting views by stating that (diff) only comments/!votes within the parameters of the prior RfC's closure should be accepted [...] does not invite revisiting options already declined there, then emphasising that (diff) proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive." per WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE.

    That .Raven would do this while their conduct is being examined at ANI is perplexing. Since the above proposal on daily comment restrictions is garnering opposition for not being viable, I instead propose a two-week site block for .Raven for disruptive editing, for them to re-evaluate their approach to discussions. The idea of a temporary block was floated by Nemov above, who said: "While I opposed the sanction idea below, upon further review it's kind of clear this editor isn't learning anything ... When an editor is seemingly incapable of listening to others something should probably be done." starship.paint (exalt) 07:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support something. Clearly this is untenable; .Raven has demonstrated a problematic level of tendentiousness with their bludgeoning, with it being strongly on display in the linked Marines discussion, and it appears this extends to RfC's as well; when an RfC goes against you the correct response is not to plan to open another RfC on an almost-identical topic as soon as the first RfC is closed.
    I don't know if that "something" is a block, but something needs to be done - .Raven is not interested in listening to the concerns of the broader community and perhaps a short block will teach them that they need to if they wish to prevent a longer block being applied.
    By the way the pings didn't work properly; they took me to the top of the page, not this discussion section. (Uncollapsing the pings appear to have fixed it. 08:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC))BilledMammal (talk) 08:14, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    > ".Raven is not interested in listening to the concerns of the broader community" — My goodness, one opens an RfC specifically to request comments from the community. I did that rather than "boldly" make changes myself to all the various pages with uncapitalized "marine". Once again, my choosing to D[iscuss] rather than BRRRR/edit-war is held against me. – .Raven  .talk 08:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue isn't choosing to discuss marine capitalization rather the edit warring. The issue is not stopping discussion when it is clear that consensus is against you. BilledMammal (talk) 08:27, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The RfC is still underway, and at Randy Kryn's suggestion, on July 6 I notified two pages more thematically related to the topic than WT:MOSCAPS. It's far too soon to guess the outcome. – .Raven  .talk 08:45, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "my choosing to discuss rather than edit-war" – You seem to think that you only have two options: 1. edit war, 2. intense discussion. That's a false dichotomy. You have many, many other options. — Chrisahn (talk) 08:33, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Stay away entirely is another option. But I'm here to improve an encyclopedia. – .Raven  .talk 08:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You now seem to think that you only have three options: 1. edit war, 2. intense discussion, 3. stay away entirely. That's progress, but still a false dilemma. You have many, many other options. — Chrisahn (talk) 09:12, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @.Raven: If you are here to improve Wikipedia, then please try and listen more, and be attentive to what many members of the community are trying to say to you, about how you can do it better! 72.14.126.22 (talk) 05:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been following that RfC and am familiar with the arguments of both sides, but I haven't contributed. When I saw the placeholder RfC, I didn't see wikilawyering, but rather a kind of mental organization tactic, like "I see where this is going, there is the possibility of a slightly different approach that could lead to consensus and I want to address it, but more discussion needs to happen and I don't want to forget". It's true that it was unorthodox, possibly inappropriate, and surely annoying to many of the participants, yet adhering to WP:AGF I saw it as a thing that seemed forgivable at the time. I would hesitate to use this as an example of a pattern of misbehavior. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 07:05, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In the original RfC (just concerning U.S. Marines), several people brought up, in effect, 'what about other nations' forces?' — to which I had replied: "If referring generically to 'seafaring infantry' not of any particular nation, then the generic term 'marine[s]' could apply. For specific nations' forces, we should use their format, e.g. 'A Spanish marine, left, explains how her weapon works to a U.S. Marine....' — and in fact I'm willing to start a separate RfC for that generalization (rather than change this one mid-!voting)."
    Then I created the placeholder for such an RfC, not yet open for discussion: "Should the capitalization of titles for specific nations' armed forces members follow their own nations' practices, e.g. 'Spanish marine' but '[U.S.] Marine' and (U.K.) 'Royal Marine' for individuals?" This is a wider topic, which the present RfC does not address.
    What should be done with the original RfC? Close it at once summarily, after people have been !voting for a while? Change its question, again after people have already voted on the original question? Or let it continue until closure one way or the other, and then raise the broader question? I'll happily take advice. You're the first person to object to there being the broader RfC at all. – .Raven  .talk 08:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As to comment-count: those comments include the original short question to open the RfC, my longer exposition, and then several comments containing linked references — plus replies to comments directed at me, e.g. here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here, not a complete list but greater than "4". – .Raven  .talk 08:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the original short question to open the RfC was not counted. starship.paint (exalt) 08:44, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's one. – .Raven  .talk 08:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ... and all but one of the above comments were directed at you in response to you directing comments on other people. starship.paint (exalt) 08:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Does that negate comments like "This seems an odd placement for an RfC on the topic, could have been done at the U.S. Marine page. Have that talk page and the talk pages of military WikiProjects been notified? Thanks." (not in reply to my commenting on him) — to which I replied, "Now done. Thanks for the suggestion!"? -or- this comment by Indefatigable, replying to my comment not directed at him — to which I replied in turn? -or- this comment by Parsecboy, replying to my comment not directed at him — to which i replied in turn? ... and another four exchanges after that? Etc. – .Raven  .talk 09:01, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I discounted the Randy Kryn one from the "in response" before you commented. It's crystal clear, you don't see the problem, even though your comment levels are much higher than anyone else. The numbers speak for themselves. Plus this is the 3rd RfC with issues... starship.paint (exalt) 09:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    > "The numbers speak for themselves." — That's what Jc37 called "editcountitis", above, saying, "Edit quantity over edit quality is almost always a waste of community time.. And if you have read WP:BLUDGEON (and I presume that you have) you'd know that it has little to do with the quantity of the edits, but what the edits consist of. Hence: editcountitis is for the birds."
    Plus this is the third discussion for which the mere quantity of the edits has been made an issue.
    If the essay (not policy or guideline) WP:BLUDGEON is going to be a basis for complaint, could we at least pay attention to what it actually says?
    Replying to many questions that are directed to you is perfectly fine. ... You have the right to give your opinion in any open discussion, so long as you aren't doing it in a way that limits others from doing the same.
    Where and how have I attempted to limit anyone else's full participation? – .Raven  .talk 09:45, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm, maybe by dominating a number of conversations? 72.14.126.22 (talk) 05:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So whoever posts the most comments [e.g. adding evidence] has inherently limited others' full participation, because there's a cap on the number of comments that can be posted?? I don't think that's quite what WP:BLUDGEON says. Trying to silence other editors would be an issue, but answering "Can I point out...?" with "You certainly can point out whatever you think any page 'really ought to only be about'. Your opinion, taken with others, goes into the mix from which consensus (or 'no consensus') is derived." – is clearly not an attempt to silence, or limit the participation of another, nor is pinging some 73 participants of prior RfCs to join in a new one (I had no idea what positions any of them would take), nor is (at another participant's suggestion) sending invitations to topically related groups. I have repeatedly tried to increase the participation of others. – .Raven  .talk 14:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support some action being taken, as described by BilledMammal. I am casting this !vote with some degree of difficulty, as all the interactions I've directly had with Raven have frankly been very positive - many of them intense and detailed, but positive for that exact reason. I think, by and large, that it is a good thing to have editors who argue adamantly, because having people with strongly held positions (that aren't manifestly absurd or otherwise problematic) is necessary to get less involved participants to see what the options are, even if they refuse to change what they believe to be true.
    That being said, there needs to be a point where we pack it in or at least dial it back, even if we believe - or know - ourselves to be right and the emerging consensus to be wrong. I recognize the desire to guide a nascent consensus, but we need to trust that we have articulated ourselves properly and that others will come and be convinced of our positions, or at least that some time in the future, people will show up and form a different consensus.
    Secondly, the inefficacy of being too aggressive when arguing is the nature of the beast in a community where consensus is the primary decision making method. It only serves to upset and distract people to answer EVERY or even most/many of the dissenting viewpoints, even when done politely. Just because you aren't necessarily doing exactly what WP:BLUDGEON describes doesn't mean that people don't feel like your behavior is disruptive, and when consensus is necessary, what the community feels is most important. We aren't here to engage in structured debate, in which logic dominates and you can precisely dismantle people's arguments in order to win, we are here to express our opinions and move toward compromise (or acceptance) when the consensus is not emergent.
    The bottom line is that right or wrong, a lot of people are taking issue with how you are conducting yourself. That in and of itself is disruptive, regardless of any particular policy regarding a specific type of DE. Nobody is telling you to shut up, just to let stuff go, even if you believe it to be wrong. PriusGod (talk) 09:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So noted. As a point of information, have I not  "dialed it back" at the two discussions originally complained of here, Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely#Name Inclusion, reopened, and WP:VPP#RfC: Proposed addition to MOS:GENDERID - when to include deadnames? What's my edit-count there for the past week? – .Raven  .talk 09:58, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not too keen on the edit counting aspect of this discussion but FWIW I agree that you've moved firmly into the realm of having dialed it back on the Neely discussion. That being said, I would clock some of your behavior there prior to the aforementioned dialing as bludgeon-y - by which I mean that it substantiates some of the above complaints while also demonstrating that the issue at hand is not unsolvable. Hence, that I think some sanction may presently be warranted, but also may pan out not to be necessary. PriusGod (talk) 10:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, this seems an ANI get-them-blocked-somehow-or-anyway. Has .Raven improved since the complaints? Seem to have, which is the step in the right direction asked for (and by the way, Marines should be uppercased, .Raven has proven it, but lowercasers will likely "win" the RfC by showing up). Everyone has their own way of editing (it's often a process, like art or music) and leeway obtained by "assume good faith" will handle a lot of perceived faults. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Randy Kryn, how has their conduct improved since the start of the complaint? They've literally bludgeoned a thread about how they're bludgeoning threads by adding numerous replies with unclear meaning and little to no meaningful insight. Display name 99 (talk) 13:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Display name 99. This is ANI, so defending oneself against perceived misinformation and inaccurate descriptors of intent and function seems okay. On other threads the user should hold back a little, which they are doing as far as I can tell (the RfC on Marines, started by .Raven, would seem like bludgeoning until realizing that much of .Raven's response has been providing more good evidence for their position). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be seen as good evidence by Raven, but even substantive replies can become bludgeoning just by their sheer volume. I'll admit that I haven't looked at that thread, but Raven's tone in numerous other discussions has been combative and tendentious. As for ANI, defending oneself is okay, but posting sarcastic replies with unclear meaning that don't add anything to the discussion is not, and they've done that repeatedly throughout this thread. Display name 99 (talk) 13:33, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support something, but preferrably a restriction that still allows them to reasonably partake in discussions. Given they havent taken responsibility, I am compelled to agree with those who seek sanctions; However, I do not think that they do so in bad faith, and as such would want to see sanctions that would not be unnecessarily restrictive to the extent of forcing them from not being able to take part in discussions. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose all sanctions. I fundamentally do not see any of Raven's behavior as problematic and frankly see starship.paint's apparent strong desire to get an editor sanctioned as suspect itself. Loki (talk) 11:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That comment on my desire being suspect is laughable. I went to .Raven’s talk page twice before proposing this. If I were acting in bad faith, it wouldn’t have been Combefere coming to ANI. It would have been me taking .Raven to ANI even without visiting .Raven’s talk page. Also, my desire to get .Raven sanctioned is so strong that I did not even vote to support the daily comment restriction proposal. Amazing! starship.paint (exalt) 11:42, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You did promote this ANI thread and ban request at the Marines RfC, which looks a bit like trying to attract the mostly opposed editors who have posted there. Hopefully editors posting here will read that thread as well, which contains many comments by .Raven which present further and, to me, increasingly conclusive evidence that the name Marine, when used in the military context, should be uppercased. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:27, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether or not Raven's position is correct is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Being right does not justify a combative and uncollaborative editing approach. Display name 99 (talk) 13:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Randy Kryn, I did promote this thread there, but if I was that desperate for a sanction, don’t you think I would have simply directly pinged all of those mostly opposed Marine RfC participants here? Wouldn’t that be a better way of attracting them, instead of risking them missing my message? I’ve already demonstrated the ability to ping, so why didn’t I do it? starship.paint (exalt) 13:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I know this is a good faith thread, as are your intentions Starship.paint. Promotion at the RfC is a bit much, but not out-of-bounds. You have communicated more with .Raven on this topic than most, and seem both committed and genuinely interested in educating them how not to bludgeon. I think it's taking, maybe they just need to be less wordy. Two weeks seems like a long ban for a short pier, a trout or two may suffice? Randy Kryn (talk) 14:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Good faith editors can disagree on the length and type of sanction merited. Two weeks is not short, and not long either, but .Raven is guaranteed the ability to return. I personally disagree that .Raven is too wordy, I think the issue is knowing when to stop discussing and step back. I've told .Raven before - when you're the #1 commenter in a large discussion, when you've replied to more editors than anyone else, when you've commented more than other 'frequent commenters' put together - have we not heard your position enough? (Note - I am not referring to defending oneself at ANI). starship.paint (exalt) 14:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If this was a first warning, a trout would suffice, but it isn't. They bludgeoned this ANI thread and were warned there. They've already been paged blocked for a week for similar behavior and refused to listen when editors approached them on the talk page to encourage them to change their behavior, even hatting the discussions. This is a serial bludgeoner who will not listen to polite warnings. Display name 99 (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support-Clearly unacceptable behavior has continued for a long time despite repeated warnings. This alternative will remove concerns about wikilawyering that several editors voiced in response to previous proposals. Display name 99 (talk) 13:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support – a full two dozen editors have asked Raven to change their behavior. It is clear at this point that Raven has fully committed to the decision to not listen. We’ve given Raven enough WP:ROPE. Broad community resistance to their behavior spanning multiple discussions has proven ineffective. It’s time for an admin to step in and do something. Combefere ★ Talk 16:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support it is utterly incomprehensible that anyone, besides Raven of course, still does not see the problem. Raven meets even the slightest disagreement with a battleground approach and displays little to no capacity for self-reflection and course-correction. At this point, how many people have tried to reason with them to no avail? How many more will it take? They are undoubtedly headed for an indefinite block, but we can at least go through the motions of hoping that a two-week block might possibly somehow get their attention. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - There have been extensive attempts to encourage Raven to participate in a net positive manner, including the one-week p-block from the previous ANI, and a variety of editors offering advice and feedback, but Raven does not appear to be listening. From my view, a two-week block prevents ongoing disruption, can deter future disruptive conduct, and will hopefully encourage "a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms" by discouraging what appears to be a well-documented battleground approach to editing and related discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 16:55, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      > "prevents ongoing disruption" — Query: what "ongoing disruption"? Where?
      > "deter" — Ah... WP:PUNITIVE. – .Raven  .talk 18:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The 'prevents' wikilink is to WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE, which includes, deterrence is based upon the likelihood of repetition. From my view, a persistent combative approach in response to extensive good-faith attempts to encourage more effective participation in encyclopedia-building is a distinct form of not listening, and indicates a likelihood of repetition, particularly in the context of ongoing disruptive conduct noted in this section, and the overall pattern of disruption, including in contentious topics, documented throughout this discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      > "a persistent combative approach in response to extensive good-faith attempts to encourage more effective participation" — I have thanked (via button) numerous good-faith comments, without commenting to do so (because my commenting at all increases a count held against me); how is that "combative", let alone persistently so?
      > "in the context of ongoing disruptive conduct" — Again, what "ongoing disruption"? Where?
      See PriusGod's "... FWIW I agree that you've moved firmly into the realm of having dialed it back...." – .Raven  .talk 00:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      That's a red herring. Nobody has claimed that it is combative for you to use the 'thanks' button. But those few examples of non-combative responses hardly negate the numerous instances (incl. many of your responses in this thread) where you have repeatedly demonstrated a chronic inability to stop, reflect, and adjust in spite of dozens of editors expressing their concerns. Do you seriously believe that you are right and that almost everyone else is wrong? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I look at PriusGod's "... FWIW I agree that you've moved firmly into the realm of having dialed it back...."
      I look at Lepricavark's "you have repeatedly demonstrated a chronic inability to stop, reflect, and adjust"
      And I don't see how they're referring to the same thing.
      Below Lepricavark says: "your ongoing disruption this thread ... self-defense must be conducted within prescribed norms"
      Hm. So where (link please) is it prescribed that I mustn't respond to accusations or misstatements? – .Raven  .talk 00:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      You've cherry-picked a small part of PriusGod's comment that was favorable to you and ignored the rest of it, which was somewhat less favorable. If you did dial back at the Neely article, it is presumably because you have been expending your battleground energies at other pages instead. Your closing question is yet another red herring, and I feel no obligation to answer it given that you ignored my questions. There are dozens of us telling you that there is a problem. Figure it out. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:42, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      > "it is presumably because you have been expending your battleground energies at other pages instead." [emphasis added]
      Hm. Presumption of guilt, no actual pages linked to show this purported behavior.
      L >>> "self-defense must be conducted within prescribed norms"
      R >> "So where (link please) is it prescribed that I mustn't respond to accusations or misstatements?"
      L > "Your closing question is yet another red herring, and I feel no obligation to answer it...."
      So. Prescribed nowhere, then. (As the saying goes, 'Links, or it didn't happen.')
      You're trying to get me blocked for breaking a rule you won't (or can't) point to. – .Raven  .talk 00:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The pages have already been linked by other editors. I would agree that there is no policy prohibiting you from responding to accusations. But then, I never said that there was, did I? You misunderstood me, just as you did in your latest reply to me below. You misunderstand me a lot. I suspect that's because you read my comments not with a desire to understand but with a desire to disagree. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      > "The pages have already been linked by other editors."
      So. Not the Neely talkpage (since you said "other pages" than that). The RfC I started? You've not answered either how my posting evidence to it was "disruptive" nor why I would "disrupt" an RfC I started, having just invited two more groups to participate. WP:VPP#Survey (GENDERID addition)? Last comment over three days ago; is this what you mean by "ongoing"?
      > "I would agree that there is no policy prohibiting you from responding to accusations. But then, I never said that there was, did I?"
    ["Prescribed norms" you have explicitly refused to cite/link.]
    This begins to look like WP:GASLIGHTING. – .Raven  .talk 01:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    .Raven, from my view, norms that apply to discussions include policies that relate to the Wikipedia community, such as Wikipedia is not an anarchy or a forum for free speech; Wikipedia is not a democracy; Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy; and Wikipedia is not a battleground. As to my use of the word "ongoing," I am referring to how from my view, it appears there has been disruptive conduct, and that the disruptive conduct has continued after warnings and a p-block, and that there is a likelihood of disruptive conduct continuing based on the pattern of conduct that has been documented in this discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    > "the disruptive conduct has continued" — Where?
    If a high volume is (in itself) disruptive, how is a low volume also disruptive?
    – .Raven  .talk 16:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, we're all aware that blocks are supposed to be preventative rather than punitive. The concept of deterrence pertains to prevention; eg. the block will hopefully deter you from future problematic behavior. This grasping at straws does you no credit, and hopefully even your most obstinate defenders can see how silly this is becoming. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      A block would stop ongoing disruption. Where is the ongoing disruption? If only in response to past comments over a week ago, how is that "preventative" rather than "punitive"? If referring to my comments here in response to accusations or misstatements by others, is that not "deterring" (punishing) self-defense in a hearing? If referring to an RfC I started... I'm now supposed to have "disrupted" the process *I* began? By posting evidence in it? – .Raven  .talk 00:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, aside from your ongoing disruption this thread (even in a formal legal hearing – which this is not – self-defense must be conducted within prescribed norms), there's that MOS thread that you've been disrupting (which you've also failed to explain away). Then there's the fact that a two-week block will prevent you from disrupting any more threads for a couple of weeks. And then there's the foolish hope that the block will get your attention and cause you to curtail your disruptive tendencies in the future. So yeah, preventative. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Do you mean WT:MOSCAPS#Capitalization of "Marine", the RfC I started, and to which I've been posting evidentiary links about off-wiki usage? How is that "disruptive"? Why would I want to "disrupt" a thread I've been inviting people to comment upon? And the "disrupting" of which would meant I'd wasted my own time?
      > "a two-week block will prevent you from disrupting any more threads for a couple of weeks." — Including the thread of which PriusGod said "... FWIW I agree that you've moved firmly into the realm of having dialed it back...." and the RfC I started and to which I'd been posting evidence. Hm. Again, where's the "ongoing disruption" needing "prevention"? – .Raven  .talk 00:43, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Get back to me when you've meaningfully engaged with the rest of PriusGod's comment. Or any of the dozens of other comments pointing out why your behavior is disruptive. One person said one mildly nice thing, and you've decided to seize on that and ignore all the haters, as you undoubtedly think of us. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Kindly speak for your own emotions and opinions, not mine. That's strawman argumentation.
      Meanwhile you've neglected to point out any "ongoing disruption". – .Raven  .talk 00:51, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh, I'd love to, but I refuse to give you the satisfaction. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Of NOT strawmanning? – .Raven  .talk 00:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - the individual has a battleground mentality, and as far as I can tell from the brief interaction I've had with them in this discussion, behaves tendentiously. Parsecboy (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support with the hopes that the block will cause Raven to consider that their tendentious bludgeoning and battleground mentality is considered disruptive by the vast majority of the community. Although honestly this seems a vain hope, since it is blindingly obvious from their responses in this thread that they see absolutely nothing wrong with their behavior. Almost every response in this thread has been to argue that everyone else's viewpoint is wrong. There has not been a single response that indicates any self-awareness or understanding that their behavior is the problem. So ultimately an indef block seems inevitable, but a two week block at least gives them a opportunity to reflect on their behavior and hopefully to change. CodeTalker (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      > "battleground mentality" — Honestly, I was providing quotes and cite/links with the friendliest intention of helping to improve the encyclopedia, by D[iscussion] rather than BRRRR/edit-warring. To be verbally attacked and accused for that has come as a surprise; to have edits-per-page offered instead of comments-per-discussion (thereby inflating my contributions two different ways) does not seem to me how people have scored others or would like themselves scored. It really seems to me that "battleground mentality" better describes this mobbing of what was minority opinion in some discussions — even though I advocated abiding by policy which the wider community's consensus had established. – .Raven  .talk 23:57, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. We have independent discussions in a wide variety of topics where .Raven's bludgeoning, battleground, time-wasting, IDHT behavior has been noted:

    For an example of the thread derailment .Raven introduces, see this discussion on the notability of/how to describe a particular pseudoscience topic, where he starts out by attacking the FRINGE guideline itself with misreadings of it and nonsensical comparisons and anecdotes, eventually making anti-consensus edits in mainspace to advance his position. JoelleJay (talk) 23:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow, now we're counting "edits", including fixes to existing comments — again to inflate my purported offense.
    > "making anti-consensus edits in mainspace" — where I was invited on the talkpage to edit: one content edit restoring deleted text and fixing it to address some complaints about it by others (putting refs where {{cn}} had been, etc.), plus right afterward one fix to my own edit. Immediately reverted by others who apparently had not seen the invitation. After that, invited to edit in sandbox, made the same restore-and-fix, and was ***thanked*** for it. But now an offense to be reported here? – .Raven  .talk 23:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You wholesale restored material that there was strong consensus to remove, added references to sources that were deemed unreliable or otherwise unsuitable, and added a paragraph of SYNTH(/fabrication?) totally unsupported by the source you cited. You were invited to draft content that complied with WP:V, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:FRINGE, not dump the same junk back into mainspace. JoelleJay (talk) 03:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Unsourced material (filled with {{cn}}s) had been removed; I filled in refs; you then removed it again anyway.
    2. The published sources explaining the model were "deemed unreliable or otherwise unsuitable" precisely because they did so, as your group had declared it "fringe", unworthy of coverage. Therefore ditto the sources covering it (labeled "adherents"), which meant the material inherently could not be referenced, thus must be deleted as unsourced. A perfect circle of reasoning, except that WP:FRINGE's section WP:PARITY itself allows articles on "fringe" (not mainstream) subjects to include the views of their "adherents":
      Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia. [...] Likewise, views of adherents should not be excluded from an article on creation science solely on the basis that their work lacks peer review. [...] Fringe views are properly excluded from articles on mainstream subjects to the extent that they are rarely if ever included by reliable sources on those subjects.
    3. "... added a paragraph of SYNTH(/fabrication?) totally unsupported by the source you cited." — What I added was the sentence "That blend has sparked criticism from some as 'fringe' science or worse.[9]", with the footnote:
      Cultural historian John Higgs argues that Leary's idea of the mindmap exemplified by his book Neurologic is "arguably Leary's most important work", but was greatly diminished by newspaper accounts of his prison escape and related travails. Journalist John Bryan said that Leary sounded "like a Raving Madman from Outer Space. It was at this point that many of his former followers decided that Tim had overdosed—both on acid and on life." (Higgs 2006, p. 209.)
      Yet for some reason I was accused of being WP:PROFRINGE, go figure.
    4. Might you possibly be referring to the rest of the paragraph before that sentence? —
      This model doesn't restrict its sources to just mainstream psychology or neurology, but uses concepts or metaphors from diverse modern sciences, transpersonal psychology, and Eastern spiritual traditions which perceive all objects and phenomena as various interrelated aspects of a single supreme reality.
      Perhaps you hadn't noticed that this merely adapted (but removed fluff from) the pre-existing text, not by me:
      Bringing the Eastern spiritual traditions, which perceive all objects and phenomena as various interrelated aspects of a single supreme reality, transpersonal psychology and modern sciences together, contemporary philosophers are able to design and develop a new approach to a human that will bridge the gap between different interpretations of a human being.
      The references were in the detailed sections where these components were brought up separately.
    5. "You were invited to draft content that complied with WP:V, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:FRINGE,"
      And moved the article in that direction — my "first attempt", as I commented — but you folks weren't paying attention to little details like that. You wanted the whole article gone, no matter what.
    And this content dispute you report to AN/I. – .Raven  .talk 05:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as second choice if the restriction in the previous subsection does not gain consensus. --JBL (talk) 00:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - It bums me out that it has come to this, but several editors really tried to avoid this and steer .Raven in a more productive direction. Even the slightest amount of effort to listen and this could have been avoided. I support whatever the community decides. Nemov (talk) 03:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Do you think I didn't listen to the comments I thanked their authors for? Or was it necessary for me to post comments replying to them to indicate that? After I've been repeatedly criticized for replying even as often as I have? And having "moved firmly into the realm of having dialed it back" doesn't indicate "listening" either? Wow! – .Raven  .talk 06:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      You clearly aren't getting the point. It's sad. I hope you figure it out. Nemov (talk) 13:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral. I haven’t read the diffs, or the RFC, just the ANI thread (hey, my train’s only an hour and 15 today, cut me some slack) However, I am seeing folks above, saying that .Raven is working on it. Now I may be being suckered (some people can be convincing, when they want to be), but if .Raven didn’t get the boot already, then he’s clearly being a net positive somewhere on the encyclopaedia, right? We don’t toss someone just because of their attitude, if their contribs are good. BrownHairedGirl’s recent thread? EEng’s humour? Fram, to an extent (yeah, ArbCom DeSys’d him, but no block / ban) Give .Raven enough time to prove that he can knock his old behaviour on the head. If not? As somebody else said, he’ll be back at ANI, and the community might not be so divided. I, for one, will support sanctions, if .Raven is back here for the same problems. MM (Give me info.) (Victories) 10:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Third attempt to add this.) Support. Seems I’ve got a mini consensus to switch, and Consensus is how we work around here. Looks like I misread Randy aswell, and that he was trying to drag .Raven out from under a pile-on, rather than actually back him as ‘he’s improving’ (correct me if I’m still not getting it.) I guess .Raven’s out of ROPE, and AGF to be spared for him, from what I’ve had swing into my replies, and I wouldn’t wanna be in the shoes of anyone where the AGF and ROPE have run out. I’m probably still not getting it, with the main score here being that .Raven was dragged here because he bludgeons, and doesn’t know when to quit, but, 6 and two 3s. Don’t bludgeon my reply, guys. ;) MM (Give me info.) (Victories) 09:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Matticusmadness, if you actually think that Raven is improving, I don't even think that you've even read the ANI thread. Basically every single response by Raven has been combative and argumentative. As has been pointed out above, they've continued to bludgeon a thread elsewhere even while this thread has been taking place. Just because something has not yet happened does not mean that they are a net positive. Raven has already been page blocked for a week and warned numerous times, but hasn't changed anything. Display name 99 (talk) 13:08, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ll have a reread, and come back to this, but I knew I saw someone saying .Raven was improving, and sure enough, Has .Raven improved since the complaints? Seem to have, from Randy Kryn, so not entirely baseless. You’re probably right on the other two, hence why I’ll come back to this sometime, when I can dive deeper. I only really drop in around here, when I’ve nothing else going on. MM (Give me info.) (Victories) 13:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @MM, two points I'll ask you to consider as you review.
    • .Raven has not once admitted that they want to "knock their old behavior on the head." They are still very much in a mindset of "I did nothing wrong, and these other 27 editors (and counting) who asked me to change are all out to get me!" This is the biggest problem, as we can't trust .Raven to improve their behavior if they don't at the very least admit that there is something to improve about their behavior.
    • For the reason above, I would characterize Randy Kryn's assessment that 'Raven seems to have improved' as completely disconnected from reality. In general, I have found Randy's participation on this matter to be suspect. He has shown up on multiple disparate threads to vociferously defend .Raven's behavior (in contrast to the broad community consensus that there's really a problem), accuse editors who take issue with .Raven's behavior of bad faith (perhaps you have not seen this diff), and coincidentally support .Raven's extremely unorthodox minority positions on content. Perhaps not coincidentally, Randy Kryn was brought to ANI a few weeks ago and .Raven was his most vocal defender. To be clear, I am not accusing them of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry; rather it seems like they first encountered each other as supporters of a fringe minority view on Eight-circuit model of consciousness back in May, and have been following each other around other pages supporting each other's fringe views and defending each other's disruptive behaviors on other pages ever since. All that to say: take Randy's comment with a grain of salt. There is a reason that 27 editors have asked .Raven to change their behavior, and Randy's refusal to see it doesn't invalidate those editors' concerns. Combefere ★ Talk 16:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Combefere, maybe a ping would be in order when going on an accusatory rant about someone, you think? I'm glad you take my comments with a grain of salt (keep hydrated!). Nonsense above in your comment about me, and the ANI about me also began with and continued to fall into nonsense. I support a lot of editors when pile-ons occur, that's just my style and concern for fairness. Here's my answer again to a comment above asking me to explain, please read it: "This is ANI, so defending oneself against perceived misinformation and inaccurate descriptors of intent and function seems okay. On other threads the user should hold back a little, which they are doing as far as I can tell (the RfC on Marines, started by .Raven, would seem like bludgeoning until realizing that much of .Raven's response has been providing more good evidence for their position)." For this, and for pointing out some of the value .Raven has given Wikipedia, I get your backhanded non-compliments above. I haven't said .Raven is perfect, but improving, and even incremental improvements should be encouraged. This gets long, so nough is nough, as is your comment. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And Combefere, please consider striking out some of your rant. You know, I am the worse almost-meatpuppet ever. On .Raven's main issue, the Neely article, I did not comment, nor do I intend to comment. There goes my Meatpuppet Guild membership, and it takes a hell of a long time to earn that back (thanks a lot, their meetings are legendary). On the other issue people are focusing on, the Marine RfC, I missed it while following .Raven around (which you state as a fact). I read about it from my watchlist. It seemed a good RfC to comment on, not because of a meatpuppet pact with .Raven, but because he is right. Marine stands as a proper name and should be uppercased. He kept proving it in the discussion with new sources and information, which I guess others define as bludgeoning. I commented there in support of the RfC. You seem to see "there" when there's no there there. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Changes above. MM (Give me info.) (Victories) 09:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - no articular opinion on the general issues, because I haven't looked into them yet, but most certainly if .Raven doesn't stop WP:BLUDGEONing the Marine RfC, he should be partially blocked from that talk page. I suspect that if the problems seen from this user on other pages are similar to that, I'll be back here supporting some sort of sanction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, with regret. As above, I don't feel the behaviour of many editors in this section have been great, but it is just very clear .Raven they don't understand that "defending themselves" works against them and their argument. They refuse to understand that no, it is not their responsibility to defend themselves—if they have any faith at all in the fundamental decision-making processes of Wikipedia, they should let their (numerous, but proportionately dwindling—I wonder why?) supporters do the talking for them. The fact that they are unable to grasp this here, when their ability to edit is at stake, does not give me any confidence in their ability to reach consensus constructively on other talk pages. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      > "... it is not their responsibility to defend themselves...."
      If prior AN/I defendants had not been criticized for "failure to respond", I could more easily believe that.
      > ... if they have any faith at all in the fundamental decision-making processes....
      It would surely help to see fewer exaggerations or blunt misstatements of fact posted here, then cited by others as reasons. – .Raven  .talk 23:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      And it would absolutley help if there were no more responses from you in this thread. Please read WP:BLUDGEON and follow it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Without comment on how effectively Raven in particular happens to be doing it right now, it is absolutely and unambiguously the responsibility of someone brought to ANI to defend themselves. Loki (talk) 00:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Loki, I would just slightly quibble to say while there is certainly an obligation to respond, it need not be a defense. Though rare, "sorry, I did something dumb" is perfectly valid and often times more successful than being combative. Just a stray Sunday thought. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:27, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      It's definetly true that those whose conduct is brought to ANI are typically expected to respond, and refusing to do so at all can definetly reflect badly on them. And I'd go even farther to say that reasonable community members understand why someone put in this position would want to respond at a higher than normal rate to multiple users in defense of their conduct. There's certainly no brightline rule saying that those being scrutinzed here can't go to the mat to do so. However, as a purely practical matter, in terms of shaping community perception (especially of someone who is here for the specific issue of bludgeoning discussions), there are limits--a point of diminishing returns where repeating the same points and refusing to drop the stick well after the community response has clearly indicated a perception of unambigous issues is (purely from the perspective of what is in the best interests for the party whose conduct is being considered) just a really dumb tactic to keep doubling down on.
    Put aside for the moment the question of whether .Raven disputing every criticism of their conduct with almost every community respondent here is disruptive or unreasonable: it is just frankly counter-productive and self-defeating. .Raven has given every reasonable caveat they can to explain why they have made the choices they have made, in the context they made them and, blunty, the community's response is really very clear: many of these were bad choices--and even the good ones have been lost in the massive volume of IDHT in which they reside. The block is almost certain at this point: .Raven had substantial room to dodge it here because of the amount of WP:ROPE that many editors were initially willing to extend; .Raven honestly snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in that respect. And was somewhat enabled in that by one or two people giving them poor feedback, if I am going to be perfectly honest. Sometimes coming out in full-throated defense of someone is really the last thing they need at ANI. Supporters of .Raven here would have done much better to mute the level of their support and urge them towards some restraint. That ship has now sailed, I am afraid. .Raven now has to decide how they are going to react to this likely sanction, so questioning how much they are entitled to respond here is no longer a useful inquiry: they have more relevant things to be contemplating moving forward. SnowRise let's rap 02:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support something Raising the marine RfC without any prior discussion on what could be considered a perennial question could be construed as disruptive. Their commenting there is excessive and IMO rises to bludgeoning. Perhaps more to the point, the arguments used can be characterised as red-herrings, strawmen and false examples. In turn, these can be broadly charaterised as pettifogging. This is either a conscious argument style or one of insufficient competence. Furthermore, they repeat essentially the same unsuccessful arguments with multiple users. Then, when it has become clear that there is no appetite for their proposal, they foreshadow yet another RfC on essentially the same question - albeit worded slightly differently. I see a fair bit of IDHT and a refusal to drop the stick. My limited interaction with them at the RfC is probably of itself insufficient for any significant remedy; however, this ANI would show a pattern of behaviour and an apparent unwillingness to modify that behaviour after an earlier remedy was applied. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:19, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I can understand why the previous proposal was not as uniformly supported: the limit of two posts was pretty severe, and I meant to say as much in my first comment above. That said, it's pretty clear that action needs to be taken here: the disruption is substantial and the refusal to hear the community in this and previous discussions near-absolute. If i'm perfectly honest, the sheer depth and vigour of .Raven's refusal to accept broad community feedback the issues here and need to turn every support !vote into an individualized battle of wills has me very doubtful that they will come back reformed and prepared to work within our usual standards for editor conduct. I fear this may just be a build up to a full CBAN, based on their choice to embrace indignation and instransigence rather than the tiny shred of humility necesary to contemplate the possibility that if dozens of other editors (each with much more experience) are telling them there are issues with their approach, that those other parties may be right.
    Or more precisely, .Raven is now suggesting they are enjoying robust support for the notion that they have vastly improved, by cherry-picking one or two more muted comments and repeating them ad nauseum. .Raven, I'm afraid this is still a display of massive confirmation bias: the consensus here is clearly that your issues are ongoing and have not been substantially (or even notably) improved so far. If you really want to turn thigns around here, you have got to find in yourself to see that the issues are not trivial, and a much, much more substantial change in your approach is needed, becuase this is beginning to feel like a WP:CIR issue, bluntly speaking. Nobody is asking you to fall on your knees and beg a reprieve. A simple acknowledgment of the issues would go a long, long way. As I've said previously, if the energy you bring to the table in these discussions could be channelled into something more productive, you might be a real assett to this project. But right now you represent all the wasted potential of an inflated but unmanned firehouse, with about as much pleasantness for the people in proximity. And patience is clearly wearing thin. SnowRise let's rap 01:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I feel the responsibility to comment that my statement about having dialed it back in the Neely discussion was to mean that it would be a good idea to continue dialing it back in other places, including here. That sanctions would "pan out not to be necessary" should have been written more clearly to indicate that reducing reply volume and possibly altering tone would be the thing that causes the sanctions to pan out to be unnecessary, not further argumentation.
    I think it's tough for me to make statements that are too heavy handed because I'm concerned about the proverbial hammer coming down having something of a chilling effect on people being bold/adamant in their argumentation in the early stages of discussions - while it is problematic for it to wear on, a strong tempo in the beginning of any discussion is, I think, a good thing. Obviously the discussions that are under examination here are quite mature, and the same level of aggression that creates healthy comment output near the beginning only incites annoyance at this stage. PriusGod (talk) 04:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Replying to many questions that are directed to you is perfectly fine. ... You have the right to give your opinion in any open discussion, so long as you aren't doing it in a way that limits others from doing the same.
    — is a dead letter if I cite it in turn? – .Raven  .talk 14:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're going to end up getting blocked forever based on your inability to read the room. Nemov (talk) 14:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    High school bullies started out trying to attack me one on one; eventually they escalated to six-on-one. The principle of bullying hadn't changed. The threat, "Stop defending yourself, or we'll hurt you worse", hadn't changed. Nor has it now. Only one side is trying to silence the other. – .Raven  .talk 15:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize for violating my own promise, but I simply can't resist asking: Raven, would you call me one of the bullies? Genuinely curious. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You've generally been a reasonable discusser, Dumuzid. I've said that before. – .Raven  .talk 15:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I hope you will take this in the good faith in which it is offered. I see no bullying here, and no one who is actually arguing about your substantive opinions, only your manner of presenting them. The only issue apparent to me is your sense of constant pugilism. As I have said before, all that is required here is occasionally let discretion be the better part of valor and forego responding sometimes. "Agree to disagree" is a powerful statement and something that will stand you well on Wikipedia. You are certainly entitled to make your points, and to present objective defenses. But when many people tell you something, it's worth considering. As ever, all the best and I look forward to seeing you around. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    > "Agree to disagree" is a powerful statement and something that will stand you well on Wikipedia. — As in this comment, for instance? – .Raven  .talk 19:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes indeed, just like that. I only wish you would apply it a bit more often. Cheers, and I'll go back to my non-reply stance. Dumuzid (talk) 19:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Very well. Per Dumuzid and per LokiTheLiar's comment below: I intend to watch my own comments very carefully for anything even approaching WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior (e.g. holding grudges, importing personal conflicts, carrying on ideological battles, or nurturing prejudice, hatred, or fear ... insulting, harassing, or intimidating those with whom I have a disagreement) and will pay prompt corrective attention to any alerts that I have begun such misbehavior. My goal is, as it has been, to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation ... approach [disagreements] intelligently and engage in polite discussion. On which side of content disputes is "correct" or "right", I reserve the option to "agree to disagree", as I intend neither to bully anyone out of their own opinion (if that were even possible), nor to be bullied out of mine. – .Raven  .talk 19:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean sides? We shared the same opinion on a topic and I asked you to stop WP:BLUDGEONING the discussion because you weren't helping the discussion. You've basically ignored every attempt I've made to course correct. You aren't being bullied. You're refusing to listen and this is temperament problem that's not usually compatible with productive Wikipedia editors. You're not a victim here. Nemov (talk) 15:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Do we share the same opinion on whether quantity=bludgeoning — including replies to comments directed at me, posting evidence, pinging invitations, and agreeing with people — i.e. no matter the actual content of the comments? – .Raven  .talk 15:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This post of mine is an example, .Raven. You reply to me and you ask me a question, but I choose not to answer it. starship.paint (exalt) 15:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet you "reply" even while refusing to answer a relevant question. – .Raven  .talk 15:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    . starship.paint (exalt) 15:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @.Raven: You picked a few sentences from WP:BLUDGEON that sound like your behavior is perfectly ok. But please also read the rest of the essay and really think about which of its descriptions and examples match your activities in some discussions. — Chrisahn (talk) 16:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)ive.[reply]
    For what it's worth, while Raven's behavior on this ANI thread has been rather WP:BATTLEGROUNDy (and honestly, probably counterproductive), I honestly don't blame him because I feel like his sense of being bullied is fully accurate. WP:BATTLEGROUND goes both ways and the behavior of several of Raven's accusers is egregiously aggressive.
    Many people making the same false accusation doesn't make it true. You can't substantiate an accusation of WP:BLUDGEONing with statistics, and you can't substantiate an accusation at ANI with the fact that they are trying to defend themselves against that accusation. (Also, WP:BLUDGEON is an essay; the actual enforceable thing it refers to is a type of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior.) Loki (talk) 18:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Although it would be too voluminous to quote WP:BATTLEGROUND in full, a few excerpts might fit and be fitting: Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear. ... do not try to advance your position in disagreements by making unilateral changes to policies. ... Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite discussion.
    Would someone please point out to me what part[s] of this I have violated?
    As distinct from the intimidation directed at me? – .Raven  .talk 19:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Also, WP:BLUDGEON is an essay; the actual enforceable thing it refers to is a type of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior." This is not entirely accurate for two reasons. First, while WP:BLUDGEON is an essay, it has been used as a basis for sanctions in the past (in .Raven's first ANI for example). Second, the essay does not refer to WP:BATTLEGROUND at all, but instead refers to WP:DISRUPTIVE. Combefere ★ Talk 21:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That an essay "has been used as a basis for sanctions in the past (in .Raven's first ANI for example)" looks like a problem in itself, since essays don't go through the consensus process — they may be one editor's opinion — and are neither policies nor guidelines.
    WP:DISRUPTIVE gives definitions I find very interesting. E.g.:
    1. Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editors not only add material; some engage in disruptive deletions as well, e.g. repeatedly removing reliable sources posted by other editors. [emphasis added]
      (Note that the wikilinked WP:TENDENTIOUS concurs on this meaning, e.g.:
      ... repeated biased edits of a single article or group of articles will be very unwelcome indeed. [emphasis added])
      Interesting because I've been accused here of tendentiousness by BilledMammal (twice), by Snow Rise, by Display name 99, by Parsecboy, and by CodeTalker, even though the complaints weren't about my repeatedly editing any article or group of articles at all — but about my comments on talkpages, where I commented specifically to avoid edit-wars. Am I to have blocks/bans waved or thrown at me based on "disruption" and "tendentiousness", when the definitions on those pages don't even refer to such edits as mine? Or can these be redefined on the fly to fit any chosen target?
      The remaining entries are even more clearly about article-editing.:
    2. Is unwilling or unable to satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research.
    3. Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified {{citation needed}} tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable.
    4. Does not engage in consensus building:
      A. repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for
       explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;
      B. repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.
    5. Rejects or ignores community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors.
    6. Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act counter to policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, or Wikipedia:Ownership of articles—or sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry that might not exhaust the general community's patience but still operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive, rule-abiding editors on certain articles.
    Again, I've been criticized here for a single substantive edit to article Eight-circuit model of consciousness (my only other edit there was a minor fix to 3 {{sfn}} templates), not for "uncivility" -through- "__puppetry" (there was an unfounded slam at Randy Kryn!), but for mere quantity of talkpage comments and definitely for defending myself here at AN/I. Was I, perhaps, supposed to "read the room" in one commenter's phrase and confess like a show-trial defendant? And not mention that trying to "demotivate unwanted members of discussion" is mentioned in WP:False consensus#Harassment as "against Wikipedia policies and should be dealt with accordingly"? – .Raven  .talk 04:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm going to beg the community's indulgence of a bit of a wall of text: I believe .Raven's recent comments and queries want for a substantial reply:

    I can't speak for anyone else, but I never quoted WP:TEND--I happened to say that you were being tendentious. I presume you know it was a word with a more generalized meaning long before it was a Wikilink. And if I'm being perfectly honest, if I've ever known an editor for whom that word applied better than it does for you at this present juncture of your engagement with the community, I'd have trouble remembering their name.
    For that matter, with regard to those who did cite the policy (admitedly quite a few), let's look at what some of the language there that you didn't cherry-pick says. For starters, four of the six behvaiours listed in the lead as common propensities that tend to define tendentiousness (in the formal policy meaning) include "abuse of process", "wikilawyering", "disruption to make a point", and "I didn't hear that", which I would say aligns pretty pricesely with the points the community has been trying to focus on when talking to you here. People have also broached essentially the exact principle of WP:REHASH with you repeatedly, in terms almost identical to what is in that section.
    But I don't want to argue with you about whether someone citing that particular policy supplemant was justified, or the verity of whether any of it's subparts apply to you--I really, really don't. What would be the point? No matter what metrics (or basis, or principle) anyone uses here to try to get you to consider your approach may be probleamtic, you're never convinced. No matter how someone arranges the math, or which diffs or behaviours they refer to, or policies they cite, you always have reason why the rest of us aren't seeing things clearly. You want to know the only figure you should be concerned with at this juncture? The fact that dozens of your fellow editors/community members are telling you that there is a serious issue. There's one or two people saying "Ehh, it's not too bad..." and the rest of us are responding with "Uhhh...it's pretty bad." And it's telling which group you are convinced you should be listening to.
    You really want to know the real problem here? Bluntly: it's your arrogance. You think you are entitled to say as much you want, whenever you want. And the rest of us just have you give you whatever you decide is a fair amount of time for the airing of your opinions. I'm sorry, but no. That's not how things work here. There are limits, even for a community that embraces open discourse as a conerstone value. You are disrupting these talk pages and community spaces. There is clear consensus that this is so--back and forth across this and multiple other discussions, including one that lead to another sanction thart you just returned from. We do not need to adjust to you--you need to start respecting community guidelines and moderating yourself accordingly. This community can and will act if you are not capable of that.
    I'm telling you as my last effort to give you some insight here: your inability to just not go nose-to-nose with everyone, about anything you disagree with, is the only reason you are about to get blocked. You were going to skate through this discussion, but then you just couldn't not argue with every single person who saw things just a shade differently from you. I.e., the very behaviour this thread is predicated on.
    You can't argue your way out of this. Your argumentation style is what got you into this. And for a certainty, this newest strategy of yours--casting yourself as a victim of everyone else's bullying--that's not doing you any favours either. You do realize that when you make unambiguous accusations of WP:harrassment by way of False consensus (which begins with "False consensus applies to any "consensus" arrived at through canvassing, vote-stacking, or any other manipulation of a process or discussion contrary to policy or to ArbCom decisions."), you are casting unjustified WP:aspersions on other editors, seemingly for no other reason than because they dared to find fault with your conduct first? How could you possibly think that would improve your position here? Or do you even care about that? Is not ever stopping in making your points that much more important to you than being here?
    Again, you need to not be focused on this discussion any further. You need to be thinking about what you are going to do after the sanction elapses. Because I do not think I am alone in that I am starting to question if you can competently contribute here with your current temperment. And not just because you are now openly accusing anyone who has qualms about your approach of WP:Malice (if there's a section of TEND you should read at the moment, it's that). Rather it's because the amount of community attention/efforts at restraint that you are sucking up are simply unsustainable. For my part, I'm certainly done: good luck to you finding a way forward. SnowRise let's rap 09:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    > tendentious... a word with a more generalized meaning..." — Google-define yields Oxford's "expressing or intending to promote a particular cause or point of view, especially a controversial one." Quoting/citing/linking Wikipedia's consensus-created policies, guidelines, and MOS is certainly promoting a particular point of view — that to follow these is a good idea — but if these are controversial, why haven't they been changed?
    > "let's look at what some of the language there that you didn't cherry-pick says." — I quoted those 6 items, out of 6, from the examples section in WP:DISRUPTIVE (the page Combefere linked), verbatim and in full, no cherry-picking. I did not try (or pretend) to re-post the entire page here. But subsequent sections continue the theme of editing articles in disruptive ways:
    "Point-illustrating" refers to WP:POINT, illustrated by examples like...
    • If you think someone unfairly removed "unsourced" content...
      • do find a source for it, make the referencing clear if it was already present, or explain why the content in question shouldn't require a cited source.
      • do not summarily remove from the page everything which appears to be unsourced.
    (Incidentally, compare item 1 of my reply above to JoelleJay; who did the do, and who did the do not, on that article?)
    "Failure or refusal to 'get the point'" clarifies:
    The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you. Stop writing, listen, and consider what the other editors are telling you. Make a strong effort to see their side of the debate, and work on finding points of agreement. Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with".
    I'd point out there's a two-way street of "hearing" involved in communication. If one side (even if it's multiple people) continues to repeat factual misstatements after those have been pointed out (also by multiple people, in this case), perhaps that's not the minority's fault. Having heard those misstatements does not oblige anyone to agree with them. And one implication of WP:NOTDEMOCRACY is that the majority in a discussion is not automatically right; following vs. not following policy matters, as closers are instructed.
    "Distinguished from productive editing" (e.g. Editors often post minority views to articles. ... The burden of evidence rests with the editor....) -and- "Attempts to evade detection" (e.g. edits may be distributed over a wide range of articles) -and- "Dealing with disruptive editors" (e.g. If reverting continues, and they are inserting unsourced information:) likewise focus on articles... though I note that the complaint about WT:MOSCAPS#Capitalization of "Marine" seems to involve how much I have been providing sources. – .Raven  .talk 12:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a temporary block and comment limits upon .Raven's return. Something very clearly needs to be done, as this individual has not been able to hear what a number of editors in the community have had to say, in regards to how their participation has been viewed as dominating and disruptive. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 05:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Disagreeing, with cites of the very page others thumped upon, is not inability to hear. Threats of being silenced are not the same as persuasion re rightness or wrongness, especially when the accusations rely on misstatements.
    He that complies against his will
    Is of his own opinion still
    — Samuel Butler (1612-1680), Hudibras, Part III, Canto iii, lines 547-548
    – .Raven  .talk 15:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: .Raven has now been warned on their talk page regarding WP:BLUDGEONING a talk page that .Raven only started editing on July 5, after this WP:ANI discussion started on July 3. The warning editor is entirely uninvolved with this ANI discussion. starship.paint (exalt) 12:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, typical response. "How am I doing wrong?" This is an editor that doesn't get it. Can we get a close here, there's a pretty clear support for actioin and dragging this out is a tax on the community. Nemov (talk) 12:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Requested close at WP:CR. I also want to add that if you read Talk:Transsexual#Transgender and Transsexual Merge (the discussion being warned about), you’ll find that .Raven is once again the #1 commenter in the discussion, despite arriving around two months after the discussion originally started. In those roughly two months, I believe that no user commented more than three times (not sure about IPs though), while Raven then arrived and proceeded to rack up twenty five comments, ignoring one humorous comment. starship.paint (exalt) 12:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Recap: partial block from Jordan Neely talk page, reached #1 commenter at WP:VPP RfC, Marines RfC, Transexual discussion… starship.paint (exalt) 12:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Usually citing evidence, links and quotes after links and quotes, as at Marines RfC. This is editcountitis again. – .Raven  .talk 12:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Raven, at this point you're going to recieve a two week block. There is no longer anything you can do to prevent that, and I would suggest you step back from all the discussions you are currently engaged in, including this one, before you dig yourself a deeper hole.
    I understand that you don't think you're doing anything wrong - but the community does, and that is what matters. If you when you return you resume acting in the way you are currently acting you will be back here in short order for an indefinite block, so I will strongly encourage you consider your behavior, consider why the community might consider your level of engagement in discussions disruptive, and even if you disagree consider how to act within community norms. BilledMammal (talk) 13:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    > "Also, typical response. 'How am I doing wrong?'" — Misquote. In reply to a comment saying "While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend.", I replied, "Gladly! What specifically was offensive?"
    Since the requestor hadn't specified – and as Starship.paint points out below, I had multiple comments there – that seemed a reasonable question. Would someone please tell me what was offensive so that I can take corrective action? The person I asked has not yet replied.
    I might guess that this exchange was intended, but I replied there too, and that requestor did not reply there either. If repeating what our articles say is offensive, then we have offensive articles. Is that the case? – .Raven  .talk 13:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:.Raven blocked indef

    User talk:.Raven#Indefinite block. El_C 13:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    HazaraHistorian

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

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

    I suspect it's mainly thanks to their false belief (this is not even close to the mainstream consensus in scholarship, not sure where they're getting it from) that the Hazaras are basically "Turks" [12] which have led to much of this disruption.

    • Yesterday they added that this Hazara tribe was descended from the Karluk Turks under the guise of a citation, except the citation mentioned no such thing. I.e. they inserted their own personal opinion/interpretation.[13]. They previously attempted to the same here without a source even [14]. Simultaneously, a random IP tried to do the same here [15]. That same IP tried more or less to add the same WP:OR POV edit of HazaraHistorian [16] here [17], trying to connect the Hazara to the Khazar Turks. Moreover, a mere day after I reverted HazaraHistorian for inserting a primary source [18], the IP conveniently knew of the rule, removing info about the Mongol connection of the Hazara [19]. In other words, that IP is probably theirs.
    • [20] Once again their own words under the guise of a citation.
    • [21] Removed info that was heavily sourced in the body of the article.

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

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

    When I told them (again) to stop attacking me [22], they acted like any other mature and collaborative Wiki user and responded with a head exploding emoji [23] --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll wait for HazaraHistory to respond to this thread, but I'm not seeing much which inspires confidence. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The book I cited literally mentions some Hazaras being Karluk, it don’t know if you can tell, but Qarluk is Karluk but with a q, without any sources you can see the connection. I also have DNA prove from Vaha duo distancing but idk if Wikipedia allows them to be uploaded. He adds that the Ghurid Dynasty is of Tajik origin, which is really disputed and there are many sources that say it is a Turkic Dynasty, I can provide them too. HazaraHistorian (talk) 03:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Another thing is I only have/use 1 IP address, I never used a different ip to make edits. I even didn’t use a different ip when I was banned earlier. HazaraHistorian (talk) 03:51, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For the Ghaznavid edit I’m not sure if I did anything wrong about the Middle East part, but I’m sure I didn’t do anything wrong with the Karluk part since I cited 2 sources of Ghaznavids being Karluk, if he doesn’t know that it’s clear that Ghaznavids were of Kalruk slave origin. HazaraHistorian (talk) 03:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you also ask him why he put the deletion request template on the Karakhanid-Sassanid War page, other than the reason of it being against what he likes. HazaraHistorian (talk) 04:51, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And yet you were reverted again by another user for WP:OR and non-WP:RS [25]. I would advise you to stop commenting on me. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You advise me not to comment on you but you comment on me HazaraHistorian (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    HoI is commenting on your behavior. And you're doing a great job of demonstrating that your behavior is in conflict with Wikipedia's policies. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @HazaraHistorian The matter at hand is whether you understand Wikipedia policies such as WP:Reliable sources and WP:No original research. Your edits appear to demonstrate that you do not. —C.Fred (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    HazaraHistorian's recent addition of "Origins" to the Ghaznavid article. The talk page discussion received no response, after I quoted from the source they provided(which made no mention of the middle east) and then I provided sources stating unequivocally the origins of Sabuktigin(ie. Ghaznavids). I would have to say HazaraHistorian does not understand original research. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:HiLo48 and incivility

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

    JeffSpaceman, I'd just rise above HiLo48's potshots, as tedious as they may be. Continuing to engage with this person will waste your time because, unlike you, HiLo48 is probably enjoying this fight and your discomfort on some level.
    The page move decision will be on consensus, not the volume or tenor or one person's posts.
    I'm not an admin; they may decide otherwise. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 13:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate your advice -- I think I will take it and stop engaging with them. I am trying to get through to them and assume good faith (as I try to with a lot of people on here), but that clearly just isn't working. Thank you for your kind words. JeffSpaceman (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "HiLo48 is probably enjoying this fight and your discomfort on some level." Basically, HiLo48 is behaving like a troll, intentionally trying to provoke you. Please try not to answer in kind, because emotional outbursts never end well in Wikipedia. Dimadick (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment JeffSpaceman has also fallen for the classic trap of not checking the archives before proposing a move that has been shot down on multiple occasions. HiLo48 may be slightly glib at talk but the truth is that the American newsreader Bill O'Reilly simply isn't globally relevant enough to make this move. At best he's a washed up former debate partner to Jon Stewart and a generally disgraced journalist. Simonm223 (talk) 14:56, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I will admit fault at not checking the archives, since I tend to just check whatever is currently on the talk page (something that typically works for me on pages that aren't updated as relatively regularly as O'Reilly's, but clearly didn't work this time). At the same time, I don't believe that HiLo48's snarking is a good way to go about it, since civility is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. Personally, I think that there are better ways of getting the opinion that they hold across (including in ways that other users who have opposed have used as reasoning). JeffSpaceman (talk) 15:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While I doubt that this thread will result in any sort of formal action being taken, it would be nice if an uninvolved admin could go to Hilo's talk page and explain why it is not appropriate for them to mock any comment that shows an ignorance of cricket or refer to other editors as parochial Americans. These are bright-line violations of our civility policy and they clearly run afoul of the collaborative spirit required here. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm willing to block people for bludgeoning, incivility, or discrimination based on where someone is from. I don't really see that here, though. I just see someone threatening to do that. If that happens, I'll block or topic ban. I'm tired of dramamongering in articles related to American politics, and I think maybe the topic area needs to be cleared out. If anyone is tempted to engage in dramamongering, they should consider this before posting. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    NinjaRobotPirate, are you saying that HiLo48’s comments are OK and that JeffSpaceman is to blame? His proposal, even if ultimately not the best, certainly is within the realm of reasonable. It seems tendered in good faith. His reactions to HiLo48 seem civil. HiLo48’s don’t. As for American politics, I’m sure the majority of Americans would also like the drama dialed down in the U.S.
    As for your comment, ”I think maybe the topic area [American politics] needs to be cleared out” - what are your intentions? A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 16:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Great. More dramamongering. Did JeffSpaceman threaten to bludgeon or mock anyone? If not, what I wrote probably doesn't apply. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @NinjaRobotPirate: No; but they don't seem too fond of being reminded of their own responsibilities in the area; I imagine it's more satisfying getting one's opponents hung out to dry at ANI. While they can do what they like with AC/DS notices, of course, it's always interesting to see how positive a response is. Or not, as the case might be. SN54129 16:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, they did snap back on Simonm223's talk page, and I interpreted "I am not going to explain this a second time" as enough of a threat to check whether or not they were an administrator (to see if they would or could follow through on such a threat), but I agree that none of this rises to the level of warranting action. While "parochial" (as in Wiktionary's description, "characterized by an unsophisticated focus on local concerns to the exclusion of wider contexts") is absolutely a correct descriptor for Americans of the belief that their pet newsbarker exceeds in notability a top athlete in a sport of intense popularity pretty well everywhere else on the planet, it's still an insult even if in jest, and Wikipedians should not be throwing it at other Wikipedians for any reason. All of that being said, calling attention to drama is rarely a suitable approach to squelching it. Can we all agree to go do something else? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I will say that I shouldn't have said the "I am not going to explain this a second time." I think I was just angry with what you correctly point out is an insult that should not be used against other users on here. I appreciate your forthright approach here, Ivanvector. JeffSpaceman (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • Here's a question I have to ask though - and I know it's irrelevant to the general policies at a RM discussion, but this sort of thing always bugs me. When someone types "Bill O'Reilly" into Wikipedia, looking for the (incredibly famous) cricketer or one of the other people at the dab page - do we really want to say to them "no, the one you're looking for is this guy who if you don't live in the USA you've probably never heard of, and who is best known for inventing sensational news stories and abusing women"? I'd say we probably don't. Black Kite (talk) 19:08, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "" "I'm tired of dramamongering in articles related to American politics" O'Reilly is not particularly relevant to politics, American or otherwise. He is just a former television presenter and a notorious hack writer, whose main claim to fame is a series of scandals concerning non-consensual sex. Dimadick (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure I accept the premise. I have no stake in the RM, but you're asserting without proving that the cricketer is more famous than the media personality. Leaving aside any question of morality (e.g. who should be better known), how do we know that? The page views point the other way. The media personality article exists in 32 languages, against 9 for the cricketer. If this speaks to the outsize influence of American media on the rest of the world, then I apologize, but we have to take the world as we find it. Mackensen (talk) 19:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      However, are we a popularity site or a work of reference? As I asked in the RM, should a musical act that lasted all of seven years be the primary topic over a millennia-old foundational spiritual concept, just because of pageviews? Zaathras (talk) 20:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, you said it yourself. I don't think anyone would make that argument. If they did, I don't think it would convince many people. The example is inapposite. Mackensen (talk) 22:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Editors are literally making that argument now, to rename the article based only on pageview arguments. Zaathras (talk) 00:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      With Bill O'Reilly yes, we're speaking of two men, one alive, one dead, who lived within a few decades of each other. Pageviews may well be relevant since we can't evaluate lasting importance. Your analogy, involving a millennia-old foundational spiritual concept and a recent rock band, doesn't speak to this issue, and that's what I was responding to. By all means, if Nirvana gets moved on the strength of pageviews I'll reconsider. Mackensen (talk) 03:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, in a way we can. The cricketer last played an international match 77 years ago and is still talked about as one of the best players in the second-most popular sport in the world. I'd be very surprised if the "political commentator" that has more pageviews (because controversy and being American) is likely to be remembered 77 years after his last rant on the Internet - wouldn't you? Indeed, if pageviews weren't being taken into account here, I'd say the cricketer should be at the base article name. Black Kite (talk) 09:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Ehh we’ll cross that bridge in c. 77 years Dronebogus (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      In 77 years, I hope someone still remembers Bill O'Reilly's exceptional performance in the field of falafel-based sexual harassment. --JBL (talk) 00:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      ...I don't even want to ask. SnowRise let's rap 06:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, that's why I said my comment is probably irrelevant to policy, I was more theorising about an IAR "what should we do" scenario. Having said that, looking at the RM the status quo is likely to be upheld anyway. Black Kite (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Generally speaking, yes, we do want that. We're not here to judge (and especially not to influence) what are the most likely to be searched topics; our role is, once the most likely topic is reasonably determined, to get the most readers to the information they're looking for with the least amount of effort. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC already covers the hypothetical case that Bill O'Reilly the Fox News personality is a much more (like, a lot more) likely topic amongst readers globally than Bill O'Reilly the accomplished cricketer, but that's not the case here. Disregarding the guideline over a morality panic would not be a good use of IAR. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Conversely, IMHO HiLo48 should also calibrate. Understand that what may be OK routine rough and tumble conversation in other venues might be the equivalent of tossing hand grenades in the Wikipedia venue. North8000 (talk) 13:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (Personal attack removed)
    An interesting, unusual dynamic in this dispute: each Bill O'Reilly is very important and noteworthy to a passionate, large group (hundreds of millions). Almost every member of one group has no interest in or even knows of the other Bill O'Reilly. The circles in the Venn Diagram are huge, flamboyantly colored and barely touch, let alone overlap.
    --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 22:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that William Joseph O'Reilly is deceased (and therefore incapable of political commentary), obviously the best resolution here would be for Wikipedia editors to convince William James O'Reilly Jr. to take up cricket. --JBL (talk) 00:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    I said somewhere in the sea of words above that throwing fuel on the fire is a poor way to deal with drama, and calling anything that happened here "racism" is exactly that. It is a very long way off from racism to note the documented tendency of the archetypal American to be disinterested or entirely unaware of the world happening outside of their own borders, as discussed for example in The Hill, The benefits of American disinterest in world affairs; Washington Post, Do Americans care about the rest of the world?; The University of Buffalo, Researcher says Americans are "deluded" regarding what they know about the rest of the world; Pew Research Center, The problem of American exceptionalism; Council on Foreign Relations, Americans lack knowledge of international issues yet consider them important; or Forbes, The American public's indifference to foreign affairs. It is also not racism, and frankly not a personal attack, to challenge an argument on the basis of it being grounded in this noted American parochialism, though as I said using it as an ad hominem crosses a very bright line. That said: calling this incident racism is just inflammatory rhetoric, whether you intended it or not, and not only does it not help to solve anything happening here, it also cheapens genuine discussions about real, systemic, institutionalized oppression. That is in fact an incredibly serious issue, and the term deserves not to be thrown around casually and haphazardly like this. I must also note here that baselessly accusing editors of racism crosses that same very bright line.
    As for HiLo48, they're aware of this discussion, and hopefully will absorb the criticism of their approach (although their most recent responses seem to indicate they instead feel justified in their "blunt" approach, which this non-American administrator suggests they should not). If they're also causing problems for new editors I have not seen evidence of it, but if they are they need to knock it off yesterday. Many an editor who felt their collection of contributions outweighed the civility policy have had that opinion noted in their block log. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps we should just sweep it all under the carpet. Again. Until some well-meaning editor runs afoul of some harsh comments. Again.
    I chose that word carefully. Here is an extract from WP:NPA:
    Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, religious or political beliefs, disability, ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.
    The colour of one's skin or the colour of one's passport; in the eyes of Wikipedia it is all one when derogatory remarks are directed against another editor. This is one of our fundamental pillars.
    Americans are a diverse bunch. I have many American friends and family and for every one of them who disagrees with my politics there are others who are shoulder to shoulder. Some are insular, some are well-versed in the world, some are this and some are that.
    I make the point that Americans who are also Wikipedia editors might be reasonably accepted as having views and attitudes that are broader and better-informed than the average. I'll accept that many Americans are insular and ignorant of the wider world. But that is definitely not true of many Americans of my acquaintance and I suggest that American Wikipedians are more open to other views, other eyes, other minds than the mass, simply by being part of the project. There is a degree of self-selection in play.
    I am chided for adding fuel to the fire. A valid point, but if so, then just what has HiLo been doing for years and years but just exactly that? There seems to be no capacity for acceptance and repentance and understanding on just how hurtful his remarks might be. Passions rise, discussion becomes inflamed, and we end up dealing with the fire here on a regular basis.
    I'm not seeking to raise the temperature here with ill-advised comments. I'm looking to find out the truth and I think a big part of the truth in general Wikipedia editing is disruption caused by heated personal attacks. What goes on in this forum is - by definition - out of the main stream of routine editing. Can we at least work towards making Wikipedia a safer, more welcoming, cooperative place for editors of all levels of experience and nationality? --Pete (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that HiLo’s comments are obnoxious and casually xenophobic, but they barelyrise to the level of offensive conduct. What are we even supposed to do here? Dronebogus (talk) 12:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's the long term behaviour. Offensive to other editors, unable to accept there is a problem, unwilling to accept that there is a community setting the standards and enforcing the rules.
    We accept all manner of views and reasons for editing and styles of participation. That's fine. His participation is as welcome as anyone else's.
    But we can't have someone ignoring one of our basics - WP:NPA - if they also set themselves up as a sort of wikipoliceman as this guy does with his "welcomes" to new editors who offend him for whatever reason.
    He's not participating here in this forum because he knows that if he says nothing, it will all go away and he can keep on driving his own bus the same way it's happened dozens of times before. Until it happens again.
    I'd like to see a commitment to lift his game, and I'd like to see that backed up by the community of editors who don't want to see the disruptive behaviour continue.
    I don't know how that's going to happen, though. Look at his user page. He is one of those people who melts down when shown that the facts contradict their opinions and it is just heartbreaking to see such anguish.
    I don't have the deft touch to steer him calmly into safe waters. As a diplomat I make a good hockey player. --Pete (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    HiLo48: courtesy break

    Before we go running off and closing this thread as no action taken, I want to attest to HiLo's behavior being extremely difficult to work with at WP:ITN. He seems completely incapable of having any sort of civil discussion where he doesn't immediately erupt into bursts of all-caps and shouting. A difference in user conduct is to be expected given differing cultural backgrounds, but some of these diffs go beyond the pale:
    [26]You clearly cannot read!!!! My opposition is NOT because the event is only relating to a single country. It's because it's about one PARTICULAR country, the USA!!!! I simply cannot imagine this getting any support at all if it happened in any other country. It's pure and blatant US-centrism. - Edit summary: "Stupid argument!!! Can't you read????"
    [27]Not another one!!!!! We are getting blurb nominations every few days at present. WE NEED BETTER RULES!!!!!
    [28]IT CANNOT BE PROVEN!!!!!! You have been told why. You are asking for the impossible. You are proving nothing with that demand. Read what others say carefully please, think about it, then bugger off!!! - Edit summary reads likewise
    [29]WHY ARE THE ADMINS IGNORING THIS??? Several Admin actions have occurred since the most recent comment above. My question is a serious one.
    [30]In a time critical environment, ignoring it for that long simply isn't good enough. You want the glory of being an Admin? Do your job!!!! If you can't do it, something really needs to change.
    Just a few examples. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s pretty embarrassing conduct that would get a newbie blocked. I think a topic ban from ITN might be necessary. Dronebogus (talk) 12:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean yes, ITN/C has its problems. Yes, lots of people don't like ITN and think it ought to be removed from the Main Page. Yes, you can argue there's just as much a civil POV pushing problem going on that page as there is with HiLo's incivility. However, if you look back in history to when he was previously topic banned from ITN for similar comments, this rises to the level of chronic activity. Or is this actually allowable as long as he's telling someone to "bugger off" and not actually calling them a slur? Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:20, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I read HiLo’s talk page reply anc rant archive userpage and it’s pretty clear that, despite assertions to the contrary, they hold some chauvinistic views towards Americans. Their overall attitude seems combative an incomparable with Wikipedia. Dronebogus (talk) 12:25, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @WaltCip: I looked in the usual places but don't see any record of HiLo48 having been banned from ITN in the past. Do you have a link for that sanction? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Here you go. It was a very long time ago, admittedly, back in 2012 and I had thought it was sooner than that. I'm not certain whether this would lessen the significance of it. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    One thing that has changed is he is no longer calling people "fucking morons" so in that sense, this current behavior a significant improvement as it no longer includes direct personal attacks. --Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I also found these:
    Note that these incidents were all within a span of roughly 3 years between 2011-2014, and their block log also mirrors this period. A common theme in these is a closing admin noting the problematic behaviour but referring the discussion to RFC/U, which was a handy catch-22 as RFC/U would not consider complaints if the user being discussed did not participate, and so in many of these cases action should have been taken but was not. However, there have been no other discussions (other than one which was frivolous, and this one) and no more blocks since December 2014, which suggests either that HiLo48 learned something from being reported so many times, or that the community got tired of reporting an unblockable and having admins pass the buck.
    Their recent behaviour at ITN (from WaltCip's diffs) suggests they're returning to their decade-past disruptive outbursts, but it would be a stretch to call this a pattern based on four edits over three months (one of the diffs is a duplicate). I think all that's warranted here is a warning that civility is required regardless of who your opponent is or what you believe their motivations are, and that further incidents will result in blocks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In general long-term productive editors are given a lot of leeway for obvious bad-faith lashings-out compared to newbies who might get an insta-indef. while in some ways this is understandable (thousands of good edits to one personal attack is a net positive; 100 edits entirely of angry POV warring isn’t) it’s also disturbing that we’re starting to let things like literal vandalism slide from experienced users Dronebogus (talk) 14:20, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That edit was 7 months ago, but if you wanted to bring it up there's already a thread about that editor on this page. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    …and as you can see it’s closed. I was bringing it up as an example of the abysmal standards we have for behavior from well-established editors. Dronebogus (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That example was instantly self-reverted. Do you have other examples? Aaron Liu (talk) 17:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn’t matter that it was self-reverted, in fact that’s basically system gaming because an experienced (or even novice) editor would know there is zero tolerance for vandalism on WP. So vandalism and subsequent “lol just kidding” is still vandalism. Dronebogus (talk) 18:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This goes back for a while. I only posted those as a current example, but HiLo has recently been posting on and off on ITN for more than a year. This is a sample of some of his behavior and absolutely does not represent the totality of his behavior at ITN/C, which I could certainly compile if I had the time in the day to do so. But if you think a warning - a FIRM warning - will do then so be it. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that they keep editing while this discussion continues, but they did not show up here. I am afraid all wishes that they take the criticism onboard are wishful thinking until they show up here and acknowledge the existence of the issues.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect that HiLo48 is watching this. Maybe they're too humiliated to participate? I could sure see why. Their peers are wondering out loud if their future contributions are worth the aggravation of any further bad behaviour.
    In any event, if they like editing Wikipedia, they should understand that many people are now aware of their negative behaviour and watching. They should understand they've just had their "last bite at the apple" before serious sanctions, even an indefinite block.
    They've played their last remaining "but they're a productive editor" pass.
    On the plus side, nobody's asking them to do anything exceptional -- just be polite like most everyone else. That's all. They can even secretly despise each one of the 335 million Americas alive on the planet -- they just have to keep it to themselves and treat them like everyone else. A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 19:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course he's watching this discussion. He doesn't participate for two reasons:
    1. If he doesn't say anything, it will get set aside with no action taken. Like always.
    2. He's pants at polite discussion. If someone contradicts him - like with facts and diffs and stuff - he blows up and melts down and lashes out. That sort of behaviour doesn't help when people are discussing his behaviour.
    Perhaps he might be induced to make a statement on his talk page or similar protected area where he can feel secure in simply removing responses he feels are upsetting him? -- Pete (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was introduced to the move discussion through this ANI and I have to agree that HiLo48's general attitude towards those with whom they disagree is problematic.[31] It's weird to me that a simple move discussion is contentious, but HiLo48's comments certainly haven't helped the tone despite multiple editors asking for people to tone it down. This behavior shouldn't be ignored. Nemov (talk) 13:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Well that’s… (sunglasses) just not cricket. Dronebogus (talk) 21:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just want to highlight this comment in particular, which was made after most of this ANI discussion. I know this is a foreign concept to most Americans, so they need to defer to people who do know about it. I don't know if this is HiLo's intent, but I read this as saying certain people shouldn't be allowed to participate in a discussion or that their input is less valuable on the basis of their nationality, which would be a bright red line on xenophobia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:38, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      He didn't say they couldn't participate or that their input is less valuable, just that American editors need to acknowledge their limitations. Like trying to impose the American concept of a "bright red line"; most will recognise this as a gaff, inadvertently proving Hilo's point, but many people around the would would see it as an example of American cultural imperialism. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:07, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah I agree, I would personally not have tried to evoke the silly concept of a "bright red line", which to me evokes thoughts of some recent events that happened on the international stage when America was playing world police. If there is a case to be made against HiLo, this isn't it. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 11:27, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      ...What limitations? --RockstoneSend me a message! 03:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      That most of them don't know about a global sport. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      A global sport that’s only played in the commonwealth because Britain introduced it. Let’s drop the “imperialism” natter. Dronebogus (talk) 14:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not sure what you mean by your second sentence, and the commonwealth is still all over the world and quite significant; I don't get your point here. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The second part was kind of a response to Hawkeye7, it was admittedly kind of unclear. But I think we’re digressing too much over whether it’s socially acceptable to be ignorant of cricket and not focusing on the fact that this user is frequently uncivil and combative. Dronebogus (talk) 15:05, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    HiLo: How to fix

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

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

    I was prepared to say that I too was of two minds on this when reading the initial portion of the thread. On the one hand, context is king, as the old saying goes, and I can see some circumstances in which the comments that are quoted by the OP could be taken in a affable light. But then I actually went and looked at the context. First HiLo apparently said "standard American lack of respect for history" followed up by "That too is a standard response from parochial Americans. It's NOT an insult. It's an invitation to you to learn more about the world outside your borders" I'm sorry, but how is this not a textbook WP:PA of one of the worst sorts? This is literaly item number one on the list of "types of comments that are never acceptable" (emphasis in original), according to the section of the policy "What is considered to be a personal attack?":
    "Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race ... ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors."
    This is not sassy "glibness", or blunt straight talk: it's just plain small-minded, bigoted regurgitation of tired stereotypes that serve no function other than to incite outrage in others and signal the speaker's general small-mindedness and willingness to reach for the most offensive representation of another editor's motives: that is a presumption of sheer ignorance on the part of your rhetorical opponent. This kind of behaviour has no place on this project and editors (American or otherwise) are very right to be upset with this and concerned about what it says that we are not nipping this sort of thing in the bud the second the first pair of community eyes falls on it. Do we really not have a single admin here willing to block such a brightline violation of WP:CIV? That surprises me, because there are names attached to mops that I respect in this discussion already. SnowRise let's rap 07:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And let me add that such would be my opinion if I was basing it just upon those comments initially alluded to by the OP. To see it followed by those additional diffs that can only be described as histrionic meltdowns? This seems to be an editor with tonal and self control issues that should have been addressed a long time ago. Indeed, I'm also pretty certain this is not nearly HiLo's first time here when it comes to this kind of thing; I did not participate in previous occasions his conduct was brought here, that I can recall, but I do feel confident in saying I've seen something like "HiLo and civility" in a discussion header here at least a dozen times over the years. Stopping to look at the conduct this time, it's clear why.
    I'm not familiar enough with the overall conduct to feel comfortable making a proposal for an appropriate preventative sanction, but if someone else does and it's reasonable, I am prepared to strongly consider support. HiLo could have shown up to defend this cluster of behaviour: their choice not to means I have to assume the pattern will persist if we don't do something. A block, TBANS...something seems called for. We can't let our editors/community members run around making these kinds of comments, stoking nationalistic rhetoric and division, in plain view of everyone. I try to avoid emotive appeals whenever possible, especially in a context like ANI, but honestly, it's an embarrassment that we even have to debate this. If these kinds of comments don't get an administrative or community response, I don't know what the point of having WP:CIV and WP:PA are. I really was starting to feel the community was turning a corner on "popularity armor" when it came to these kinds of issues, but the fact that this hasn't been acted on in the last couple of weeks makes me wonder.
    So if an admin is not willing to step in on this on their own onus, let's have an !vote, and we'll see what the community thinks about the idea of casually dismissing another editor by talking about "ignorant/myopic Americans" (or "loud Italians" or "drunken Irish" or "defeatist French" or "violent Africans" or "calculating Asians" or any other easy, stupid, hateful stereotype that we might slot in there). SnowRise let's rap 07:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's a random community opinion for you. I don't think much of the idea of casually dismissing an entire race of people in words like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stolen_Generations&diff=prev&oldid=853625286. This is from an editor who later tried to shoehorn a poor quality source into the Stolen Generations article: [[32]].
    Yes, anyone who's been around for a while knows that HiLo and Skyring don't get on. It looks to me like this is dragging on because of Skyring's agitation to get HiLo censured by any means possible. Good on HiLo for not taking the bait.
    The notion that Americans have little interest in the world outside their borders is a cheap stereotype but isn't racist. It's well known that Americans are one of the tiniest minnows in international cricket. It's no more racist to point that out than it is to point out the absence of an even vaguely competitive gridiron team in Australia.
    But basically we have two editors to contend with here. HiLo is blunt, abrasive and a net positive to Wikipedia. Skyring is polite, calm and a net negative to Wikipedia. Are we here to build an encylopaedia, or are we here to have a dinner party? Daveosaurus (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NPA is a policy, you don't just dismiss with with "are we here to have a dinner party?" and excuse poor behavior. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've heard about Skyring (btw why is his sig "Pete"?)—'s poor behavior, but I have not seen why they are a net negative while HiLo is a net positive. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Some people have too much “fun” creating screwy signatures. Hence why mine has always been the default. Dronebogus (talk) 17:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm more asking why it doesn't violate WP:CUSTOMSIG/P. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It pretty clearly does but that’s the least of our concerns here Dronebogus (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can’t we just censure both for casual racism/xenophobia? Dronebogus (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    BrownHairedGirl's lack of civility in CFD

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

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

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

    • Other Editors' Conduct
      • I also crossed the line with WP:CIVILITY and WP:AGF with this second half of this edit (Diff). I have stricken it & retracted it (Diff) and separately apologized on BrownHairedGirl's talk page (Diff).
      • Several comments by other editors have been snarky and BrownHairedGirl has correctly called them out.
      • I encourage others to read the 4 nominations I excerpted passages from and see if I'm missing something else obvious: 1, 2, 3, 4.
    • Lack of Assuming Good Faith Impacting Routine CFD Processes
      • Merge Targets: Editors assisting each other in refining the merge targets is seen as proof of bad faith even though this is a routine CFD function. (See Diff & Diff)
      • DRV: Because the nominations are seen as bad faith, any closures that disagree with her viewpoint is promised a WP:DRV, before the nomination is even closed. (See Diff & Diff)
      • RFC: Because interpretation of editing guidelines is seen as bad faith attempts to covertly rewrite them, WP:RFC is incorrectly pointed as the only venue for routine discussions. (See Diff & Diff)
      • Not Populating New Categories: The nominations were seen as bad faith because the nominator did not populate the small categories after she created them. (See this lengthy discussion right after the "Merge" !vote by car chasm) Requests for BrownHairedGirl to promptly populate her new categories were also seen as bad faith. (See Diff and Diff)
      • Expanding Another Editor's Nomination: An existing nomination was seen as bad faith so BrownHairedGirl corrected it by adding 246 categories--not a typo--to that existing nomination. (Diff) This was 4 days after it opened without coordinating with the nominator. I expressed concern that such a large change could be WP:POINTY (Diff). She then distanced herself from her own additions when another editor asked about them (Diff) and continued to oppose her own additions to the nomination (Diff).
    • Talk Page Discussion
    BrownHairedGirl and I began to talk about it but didn't come to a resolution. BrownHairedGirl stated that "Frankly, I am utterly sick of wasting time on your tedious obsession with so-called 'civility issues'" ... and she indicated that I was trying to "weaponise WP:5P4" and that she would ban me from her talk page for raising further civility concerns.(Diff, at the bottom) She indicated that the real incivility was from me for being an attack dog for a tag team.(Same Diff, just before that).
    That conversation got pretty grim in places. She wrote a parable about me where I was a misguided police officer ignoring violence.(Same Diff, in the fictional dialogue section) Then I was like a corrupt police officer who was revictimizing her.(Same diff, next section) I don't ever want to make someone feel that way. But I'm not an attack dog for a tag team or a bad cop!

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

    • Tagging Notice I notified every editor who participated in the four CFD nominations (regardless of !vote) about this ANI. Based on this side conversation, it sounds like that's a wider net than is customary.- RevelationDirect (talk) 04:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • RD, thank you for taking the effort to bring this to ANI. I have meanwhile become (sort of) used to all this rudeness but I surely agree that it should stop. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at her block log, hasn't this been a problem for a long time? -- RockstoneSend me a message! 05:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Propose topicban on SMALLCAT CfDs (bold text summary added 11:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)) I agree wholeheartedly with RevelationDirect's balanced assessment (and Marcocapelle's confirmation) of the problematic WP:UNCIVIL behaviour shown by BrownHairedGirl in specific CfDs. (I hadn't noticed until now that it was WP:SMALLCAT cases in particular, but that appears to be correct; at virtually all other CfDs, I have come to know BrownHairedGirl as a passionate but civil colleague I often agree with). At the June 2023 SMALLCAT CfD for Expatriates A-G, I was repeatedly taken aback by uncivil comments and behaviour by BrownHairedGirl, because it was not how I knew her from other interactions. RD appears to have correctly identified BrownHairedGirl's behaviour as having to do with trying to prevent the deletion of SMALLCATs at all costs - including at the cost of civility towards other editors - in my experience to prevent the breaking up of certain series of categories and the loss of metadata. It may be that we simply don't/didn't understand how important that metadata is, and personally I'm pretty much always open to be educated about anything new (that's what Wikipedia is sort of about), but not in this repeatedly uncivil, negative, abusive manner that targets the person/personality of other users in order to get her way. That is absolutely unacceptable. I wrote the following comment after I thought that enough was enough, and BrownHairedGirl needed to be told to back off and change her uncivil behaviour to me and others at the June 2023 SMALLCAT CfD for Expatriates A-G:
    @BrownHairedGirl WP:CLOSECHALLENGE does not allow a deletion review to be used 5. to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion.
    Your 18:58, 13 June 2023 Oppose !vote already argued that it is impossible to believe that the nominator has done WP:BEFORE to ensure that these categories all fulfill WP:SMALLCAT which is for "Small with no potential for growth". You've repeatedly invoked both policies in your comments since, so this cannot be a ground for a deletion review.
    Moreover, I think you shouldn't be sort of 'intimidating' the closer by warning that you will take it to WP:DRV before any decision has even been made. A closer needs to be able to make a decision without any beforehand pressure from any editor involved that there will be negative consequences if they make a decision which any editor involved disagrees with.
    This isn't the first time in this discussion that I think the way you are treating your fellow editors (myself included) should be a bit more WP:CIVIL.
    • E.g. you've said it was impossible to believe that the nominator has done WP:BEFORE etc. (potentially at odds with WP:AGF);
    • You've called Marcocapelle's comment disingenuous (potentially at odds with WP:AGF);
    • You've said It's a pity that some editors want to ignore the guidelines and discard all the !votes which flagrantly ignore the guidelines. (potentially at odds with WP:AGF, as this implicitly accuses fellow editors of incompetence or acting in bad faith);
    • This last set of statements is less worrisome, but still a bit on the edge. @Carchasm & @Nederlandse Leeuw: you both write as if you have never actually done the work of populating such categories, and are advocating an idealised process which won't work in practise, and If you or the other deletionists here had actually tried subcatting emigrant expat categories, you'd be aware of the difficulties., and It's blindingly obvious that you are pontificating away with great certainty about how to do a task which you have never actually done. This is essentially accusing us of incompetence, although I can understand your frustration if you feel like you've got a lot more experience with editing in this field. Your statement I am alarmed by the scant regard which this nomination and its supporters show for the purpose of categories and for the preservation of metadata seems to confirm you've got genuine and legitimate concerns over what is going to happen if the nominated categories will be deleted, and you're perfectly within your rights to say this. Expressing this frustration that we don't seem to understand or agree with your point of view is okay, but I wish you would word it differently per WP:AVOIDUNCIVIL Avoid condescension.
    I would really like to continue cooperating with you on lots issues. In fact, I find myself often agreeing with lots of comments and arguments you've made here at Categories for discussion; you've got a keen eye for details that many others miss, and you often provide solutions I agree with. It becomes a bit difficult to do that when comments such as the above are the way you are treating me and fellow editors. I fully understand your frustration, and I am familiar with it, but I hope you can find better ways to deal with it. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nederlandse Leeuw: just a brief reply for now, on one point.
    Yo write E.g. you've said it was impossible to believe that the nominator has done WP:BEFORE etc. (potentially at odds with WP:AGF)
    Why did your post above make no mention of my reply[33] to you in that CFD , in which I explained why it was impossible to believe that the nominator has done WP:BEFORE?
    In summary, doing proper scrutiny of the WP:SMALLCAT "potential for growth" of over 300 categories would be a huge undertaking, at minimum a whole day's work. I do still find it impossible to believe that the nominator both did all that work, and then not only omitted it from the nominaton, but also ignored repeated requests in the discussion to post aything at all about their asessments.
    It seems to me to be deeply uncivil to treat my observation of that fundamental omisson as a civiity issue (rather than a major flaw in the nomination), and to omit in your complaint any mention of my explanation. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @BrownHairedGirl Hi, I copypasted the entire comment in which I wrote about some of your comments in relation to WP:CIVIL. This included a section about you saying that you were going for a WP:DRV if the CfD in question was closed as Delete. I did not delve into your motives for it (I did and do not take a stand on that issue); instead, I was raising a procedural objection against the possibility of a deletion review based on repeating arguments you had already made, which is not allowed per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, and also used it as my first example of instances in which I thought you had been WP:UNCIVIL to fellow editors, namely by 'sort of 'intimidating' the closer' by not making a decision you disagreed with. I don't think your motive for a deletion review is relevant here. But now that you've added an explanation here, well, maybe others may see relevance in it.
    I do hope that you understand that I'm trying to see your side, and to allow you to continue to do the things you're good at, and that have earned you the respect of many editors, including mine. I just think it is better for yourself and the rest of the community if you no longer participate in areas where you repeatedly clash with others, and cross the our policy on civility. I want you here on Wikipedia, I want to work with you, and learn from you. You have a wealth of skills experience and knowledge. But cooperation on SMALLCAT CfDs may no longer be a good idea. Good luck in preparing your defence, and have a good day. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So yet again, you wholly ignore both the substance of what WP:SMALLCAT actually says, and you make no apology for entirely omtting to menton the fact that I had explained to you why I found it impossible to believe that WP:BEFORE had been done.
    That is not my idea of how to treat another editor with civility. WP:civil says "editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect".
    Misrepresemting an editor (as you have done to me) may be a good faith error, but failing to correct that misrepretation is a lomg way from "consideration and respect".
    It is also not "consideration and respect" to ignoring a sustantive problem of the misuse of a stable guideline, and focus solely on the tone of the objections. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @BrownHairedGirl Maybe you should take the olive branch I'm offering? I'm not your enemy, and can be your ally going forward. You are outnumbered and outgunned, but can still do damage control if you choose. You may lose everything if you choose this ANI as your hill to die on. I don't want that for you. I want you here on Wikipedia, doing the things you love and are good at. Have a good day. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I will not change my view that treating other people with "consideration and respect" is primarly a matter of being truthful and honest, and only secondarily about the words used.
    Sadly, some editors seem to think that repeated denial of actual facts is just fine, but that bluntly noting the falsehood is a mortal sin; or in other words, that a known falsehood stated in polite words is better conduct than a hrash correction of that false assertion. Not my values.
    So I'm sorry, but I am not seeing any olive branch. And sadly, your efforts to shut down any sustantive discussion here of WP:SMALLCAT do not look like the work of an ally. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @BrownHairedGirl This isn't about SMALLCAT, this is about your future on Wikipedia. This is about making your conduct acceptable to others, and that (in my estimation) you'll be faced with increasingly harsh restrictions if you don't (ranging from topicbans to temporary blocks to permanent blocks). If you don't understand that this is what is at stake, namely, your future on Wikipedia, then I'm afraid neither I nor you nor anyone else can protect you from yourself.
    If you'd rather have me join the opposition, I can, but that will be of no use to you. I would take the olive branch if I were you. I know you want to write about women's history, feminism etc. and if you'd like, I could cooperate with you on that and other topics. That seems much more worthwhile. Have a good day. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You a few others want to amke it about me.
    I am here to build an encylopedia, which is why I have taken a stand agaist the widespread destruction of encyclopedic metadata by editors who engage in sustained denalism of the actual content of the guideline they cite, and who continue that denial even after their error has been repeatdly demonstrated.
    I will not be bullied into denying reality. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I'm sorry, there's nothing more I can do for you in this ANI. Still proposing topicban on SMALLCAT CfDs, because it seems that imposing sanctions is the only way forward to prevent BHG from WP:DISRUPTing the project in this specific area. I hope we will not have to impose other sanctions in the future, but if we should, then we probably will. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "sustained denalism of the actual content of the guideline they cite" The guideline itself is highly problematic, and has been repeatedly used to destroy entire category trees. I have been discussing it often in real life as one of Wikipedia's self-destructive policies. But I find that shouting about things I dislike is not resolving much. After particularly depressing deletion events, I typically take a few days of wiki-break. I suggest you follow the same idea, instead of burning your bridges with other editors. Dimadick (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like good advice. And @Dimadick sorry if recent deletions have caused you to be upset. It's nothing personal; I generally appreciate your work as an editor very much. I believe to implementing policies and guidelines in each case. BHG probably has a good idea that we should RfC for a better, clearer wording of SMALLCAT to better prevent unfortunate disagreements and unexpected deletions in the future. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, so now it's uncivil to call out people on civility issues? I'm sorry, but I'm gonna call a cat a cat and call out uncivil behavior, even if BHG may be right in her concerns. That's not uncivil of people to call out uncivil behavior. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 20:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My thoughts exactly. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, as RevelationDirect highlighted, BrownHairedGirl almost completely ignored what I said, dismissing it as "just wikilawyering and offence-taking", and proceeding to say "the real issue here is the attempt to demolish the categorisation work of many editors without doing WP:BEFORE,(...)". She didn't care. She believed the ends justified the means. By being so repeatedly and (almost certainly) knowingly uncivil to and about others, BrownHairedGirl appears to have hoped to stampede us into agreeing with her Oppose to deleting the categories under nomination. No matter how virtuous one's goals may be, these are not appropriate methods to achieve them. This cannot go on like this. I have rarely participated in an ANI before either, and I don't know what is common here or potential measures to be taken, but if this uncivility is indeed limited to SMALLCAT CfDs, I suggest a sort of topicban, or at the very least strong warnings when it comes to her participation in them. I do not wish to restrict her editing privileges in other ways for now; I want BrownHairedGirl to continue to be able to constructively contribute to Wikipedia in many other ways she is known for. But this must stop. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Many years ago, on a discussion about Signature policy, BHG was the most stubborn, rude, uncooperative editor I'd experienced in years. I do hope something can be done to help her and the wider project. doktorb wordsdeeds 07:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So do I. I want her in this project, but not like this in these SMALLCAT CfD cases. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • On a personal note, I often find myself agreeing with BrownHairedGirl's arguments, and I do believe that both Marcocapelle's nominations and his/her other changes, at times do not match the contents of specific categories or reveal a poor understanding of certain topics. But that list of comments above goes way beyond incivility. It sounds like persecutory delusion at work. BrownHairedGirls is seriously accusing other editors of seeking revenge against her, of conspiring with each other, of bullying her, and of attacking her. Basically, anyone who disagrees with her is an enemy out to get her? Wow, I have seen such opinions expressed in real life, but never from a Wikipedia editor. How can she work with other editors if she views them as personal enemies? Dimadick (talk) 07:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Well said. And it surprised me, because in other cases I quite like cooperating with her. But the compliments I and others give her for that work elsewhere do not erase this incivility; it needs to be challenged and put to a stop. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Dimadick: I agree that my claims of vindictive, disruptive bad-faith tag-teaming are strong claims, which require evidence.
      The collation of that evidence is a big job, and as I noted below I will present it later, when I have collated it. But I stand my assertion. I will try to remember to ping you when I post it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support what the nominator has written. I contemplated writing something similar but decided not to do so. BTW, I must complement RD on how well laid out, logical, measured and temperate she has done the job. Any such case opened by me here or elsewhere would only have added fuel to the fire and laid me open to the accusation of vindictive action. The long history between BHG & I would have just been viewed as "Yet another BHG-LL ding-dong. Here we go again. Nothing to see here.". Now that it is open, I feel freer to contribute. I confirm that the examples cited above – mainly directed at me – were indeed uncivil and hurtful. Given our interaction history, I made especial efforts to avoid any contribution that might be taken as an ad hominen attack and tried to tackle the ball, not the woman. I may not have always succeeded. Pride, the root of all evil, is what lies behind all this; having constructed an amazing edifice of hundreds (thousands?) of micro-categories, it hurt BHG's pride to think that any of her creations might be flawed or less than perfect. She abandoned mature-wiki-admin-with-many years-of-experience mode and went into Mother Bear mode clawing savagely at any perceived threat to her cubs. In defending her interpretation of the WP:SmallCat exception, she is not even consistent; when it suits her case, she says that some "tails" can be cut; in other cases, such "tails" are part of a structured hierarchy with potential for growth. Anyway, the rights/wrongs of interpretation of wiki guidelines is not at issue here. What is beyond doubt is that BHG has gone beyond the bounds of civility in advancing her interpretations. At this point, she is not just my opponent, she is an actual menace to the Wiki Project in general and to those of us who linger around WP:CFD in particular. Who would enter the fray knowing that Mother Bear might emerge from the cave at any minute with claws sharpened and teeth bared? She is putting people off WP:CFD entirely in my view. ANI cannot propose any remedy that will help BHG – (Personal attack removed) - but it can and must protect the community. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I just had to quote this bit from her talkpage chat with RD: "..accept that WP:SMALLCAT really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really does say that is about "potential for growth" rather than current pagecount." Wow. Just wow. (Personal attack removed) Also, personally, i was mortified for poor RD who went in contrite and ended up being attacked for her efforts. One more quote: "I struggle to grasp how any competent, good-faith editor could realistically and genuinely fail to understand the difference between "potential for growth" and "current pagecount", and I don't see how any mediation or drama board is going to remedy that." Quite. Perhaps this "drama board" may offer a remedy. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Wow indeed... Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Just to be absolutely clear: I still struggle to grasp how any competent, good-faith editor could realistically and genuinely fail to understand the difference between "potential for growth" and "current pagecount".
      What's going on here?
      Why do some editors seem to be in deep denial about this? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • "a structured hierarchy with potential for growth." That potential of growth typically involves locating suitable articles which have been undercategorized or miscategorized. It sometimes takes me several days of searches just to locate the proper articles, and to correct any obvious errors in them. This is not something that I can complete in an hour or two. Dimadick (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree, Dimadick. In my recent 6-week burst of work categorising Irish bipographies, I repeaedly find articles to add to a category despite previous extensive searches. Where an article is currently grossly under- or mis- categorised, they will be found only through lengthy trawls through huge sets. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • Big surprise. A couple of years ago, I worked on categories on Welsh women writers. Several of these women had been miscategorized as "English" or "Scottish", based on a Welsh writer spending a year or two in London or Edinburgh, or marrying someone from England or Scotland. When it comes to Irish biographies, I have noticed several Anglo-Irish people miscategorized in "English" categories. Dimadick (talk) 16:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Laurel Lodged If you speculate on the mental health of another editor again I will block you. I hope this is clear. Black Kite (talk) 08:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Understood. I would echo the comment of doktorb: "I do hope something can be done to help her and the wider project." Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I think Black Kite has a good point that I was already considering to mention. I don't think we should be pathologising BrownHairedGirl's behaviour, and be implying that she must somehow also have bigger mental problems in her life that require professional attention. Even if it is well-intentioned, that's way beyond the scope of an ANI inquiry, and I personally don't think it's necessary. RD has identified a specific issue; let's focus on that and not go WP:OFFTOPIC. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I can accept that. We're editors Jim, not doctors. But if an editor had difficulties with empathy, that might be relevant to the discussion; such difficulties might also be taken into account if sanctions were being considered. Walking on eggshells here. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      It may be that incivility is the result of a lack of empathy, but I believe that investigating that is beyond the ANI inquiry scope and irrelevant. We should assume good faith whenever it is not necessary to suspect the opposite. I believe improvements are possible, and if not, a topicban for SMALLCAT CfDs specifically may provide a solution. I'm not convinced we should take it further than that at this time. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Wow. That's a blatant personal attack. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am concerned with the fact that they seem to be gaming the community sanction by not using personal attacks but otherwise engaging in assuming bad faith and escalating the situation. I think they should abide by the spirit of the sanction rather than the word, that's my two cents. Feel free to consider this opinion as someone "involved", albeit a long time in the past. --qedk (t 愛 c) 09:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So the merry-go-round is back.
    Or, if you would like another euphemism: "This isn't the first rodeo..."
    If you would like more diffs, or past history, just search in the noticeboard archives for BHG or BrownHairedGirl
    BHG is and has been a very prolific editor.
    She's smart and very experienced in Wikipedia and knows policy, and knows the category system, and the XfD processes very well.
    Because of these things she can very well be a boon to Wikipedia.
    However...
    In my experience (and I'm talking this pattern of behaviour goes back well over a decade). BHG treats discussions as a full-on assault, a full throated support of whatever she is championing. In particular, anything involving feminism or women's issues; and anything involving Northern ireland, Ireland, the UK, the British Commonwealth - you get the idea. There may be other topics, but In my experience, those two broad topics are where things usually get the most aggressive and battleground-ish.
    It's the sense of "being in the trenches".
    And if you engage with her, you are very likely to be drawn into the battleground too. It's just the tone that happens. If you are not a master at debate (and even if you think you are), you will.
    Now, all of us argue to support or oppose our perspective in a consensual discussion - it's the crucible that allows us to find consensus. But with BHG, it's way beyond that.
    Now remember the part where I said she's smart and knows Wikipedia very well? Well here are a few things to watch out for. a.) if you get baited into being uncivil, or even if not, in order to avoid being called uncivil herself, she will use your phrasing, slightly re-worded, and then when called on it, you get the faux innocence: "But I merely used the same words they did!" b.) Speaking of baiting, that's another one-two punch. Go on the assault, and when someone not as rhetorically capable responds to her, she will feign hurt and accuse the other person of personal attacks, and ABF.
    I say all this to try to save you all some time. This will likely be a long discussion, which will get nowhere, because of the above, and also because, she does do enough good work that those who see that and support that, are not going to want to see her sanctioned. which I understand.
    But as others have noted above - most CfD regulars seem to minimally engage with her anymore. Once bitten, twice shy, I guess.
    Do we sanction her for playing the Wikipedia game more aggressively than others or just accept that this is the direction that Wikipedia discussion is going - as we see examples of this across the Wiki.
    I don't know the answer to that. The optimist (and idealist) in me would like to hope for better. But the pragmatist in me? well.... I wish you all well with the time sink.
    And I say all this noting, that - while I've been aware of all of this and more - if you look in those past noticeboard discussions, I've defended her too. The world of Wikipedia is an interesting place sometimes.
    Oh and one last thing. While I am not currently "involved" in any discussion currently with BHG. From discussions long past and still seeing her pop up on my watchlist, I've definitely formed an opinion of her behaviour (as I think you can see by my words above), so I won't (and don't) use the tools in regards to her behaviour.
    I have no doubt I'll be accused of ABF, but the key to AGF is that it applies as long as facts have not proven differently. And I have years of experience where, when it comes to the things I've mentioned above? my "good faith" has been worn away.
    Good luck everyone, I wish you well. - jc37 09:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Special:Diff/1039021442. I don't think inaction is an option here.—S Marshall T/C 09:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for providing that context, S Marshall. This strengthens my case that action is required, but I believe action should be limited to a topicban at this time. Additional measures can be taken later, but are beyond the current ANI inquiry scope. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • "she will feign hurt and accuse the other person of personal attacks" This is Wikipedia we are talking about. In my years of editing, people have called me a dimwit, they accused me of fanatically supporting certain political or religious causes (even when I have never heard of that specific cause), they tried to convert to this or that religion, and have repeatedly threatened me with sanctions for daring to disagree with them. BrownHairedGirl is surprisingly polite, in comparison with some of the editors I have encountered over the years. Dimadick (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • BHG is a highly valued contributor with whom I have often worked closely. Her eloquent insights about encyclopedic content and navigation are always worth hearing. But I do wish that in discussions she would confine her observations to the objective facts, advantages and disadvantages of the case, without impugning the motives or competence of other editors. – Fayenatic London 09:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I concur. I've only known her for a short time so far, but this describes how I know BrownHairedGirl as well. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment by BHG. I stand by my comments.
      It will take me several hours to collect all the evidence, but I will make a full response when I have doe so. Meanwhile in summary, this is an attempt to invoke "civility" to punish criticism of a pattern of systemic abuse of CFD by a small number of editors, which has been possible only becaue participation at CFD has fallen to very low levels, and become a bit cliquey.
      The core of it lies in the guideline WP:SMALLCAT (stable for over a decade), whose headlne says "Small with no potential for growth" (emphasis added by BHG), and whose single para makes an exception for an established series of categories.
      Unfortinately, a small group of editors: @Oculi and @Laurel Lodged, often supported by @RevelationDirect, has been sysstematically abusing WP:SMALLCAT by ignoring both the "no potential for growth" part of the headline and the "establsihed series" exception. This has often been done in mass nominations, which were being nodded through by a few editors and approved by NAC closes until I started to challenge them, beginnig with WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 13#Expatriates_A-G, a fundaetally flawed nomination of over 300 categories This pattern was noted on my talk by the otherise uninvolved admin @Liz: see User talk:BrownHairedGirl#CFD comments (permalink).
      Note that this is not a matter of interpretation: "Small with no potential for growth" clearly requires an asessment of potential for growth, and the exception for etablished series is also plain. Laurel Lodged, Oculi and RevelationDirect have been persistently abusing WP:SMALLCAT by treating it as if said nothing other than "currently small", which it clearly does not.
      In revenge for my challenges to their abuses, LL & Oculi have been tag-teaming to vindictively attack my own categorisation work. See e.g. WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 25#People_by_occupation_in_Northern_Ireland, where 7 of the 10 nominated categories were recent creations by me (mostly within the preceding 48 hours). LL's nomination wholly ignored any question of "potential for growth" or of whether they were part of a established series, commeting solely on current size. When I challenged those fundamental omissions, LL repatedly refused to offer asessment on ether point. They were pseedily backed by Oculi.
      LL's allegation that I have been creating slews of "micro-categories" is false, and I note that LL has offered no evidence to support that claim. My recent prolific work on categorising Irish bographies has been done with full regard for WP:SMALLCAT. The issue at stake here is that no editor can safely engage in categorisatio work if the establsihed and stable guideline WP:SMALLCAT is then systematically misapplied to undo their work at whim by editors who repeatedly reject calls to read follow even the six-word headline of WP:SMALLCAT.
      I have to go out now, but when I return I will begin work on diff-farming to show both the extraordinary pattern of abuse of WP:SMALLCAT, and the way that LL and Oculi have been tag-teamig in revenege for my challenges. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      It's disappointing that BHG appears to respond with what seems like a persecution complex defence. I'm apparently not part of the small group of editors which has allegedly been tag-teamig [sic] in revenege [sic] for my challenges. Yet, I've noticed this pattern of behaviour myself at the 13 June Expatriates A-G CfD alone, and have personally been subjected to this incivility by BHG, and was the first to call it out at length within that CfD. I can confirm a lot of the observations made by pretty much all editors here, including people who are not part of this alleged "small group of team-taggers". Maybe there is not an issue with everyone else's behaviour, but with that of BHG? Something with Occam's razor...
      Incidentally, if BHG has good reason to suspect that team-tagging is indeed going on, then gathering evidence for a WP:CANVASSING (or perhaps WP:MEAT?) inquiry may be worth her time and effort. Allegations of editors teaming up to "demolish" her work specifically (WP:HOUNDING?) is a serious accusation requiring evidence. But as long as they are empty / unsubstantiated, this boils down to casting WP:ASPERSIONS, which is to be punished if committed repeatedly. Editors do not deserve their reputation to be smeared by unsubstantiated claims.
      I would further advise BHG to give priority to sifting through those diffs and carefully writing her response before mounting a defence. This comment appears to have been written in great haste (hence also lots of typos, which is uncharacteristic; the BrownHairedGirl I know writes very carefully), and in relative disregard to the points raised by "nominator" (RD) and partially supported by others. I think a carefully prepared defence after diff-sifts is more likely to be have significant importance for BHG herself.
      Good luck; I understand that you are a bit stressed now, but I think I and most editors here genuinely mean well and are trying to find a workable solution for us all. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Something with Occam's razor..." Speaking of Occam's razor, there is a simpler explanation on why Oculi and Laurel seem to be agreeing so much lately. They may happen to think alike on certain topics, or to be working on the same set of articles or categories. This type of informal agreements happens frequently on certain topic areas, with no conspiracy involved. Dimadick (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          @Dimadick Could be. An inattentive outside observer might think Marcocapelle and I always agree with each other so much that it must be suspicious....!!1! They obviously haven't paid attention to cases where we might have had a bit of a disagreement... Something like that could also be going on between Oculi, LL and RD; no formal cooperation of any kind, let alone some sort of team-tagging, canvassing, or off-wiki cabal, or anything; just like-minded individuals engaged in the same topic areas often agreeing, but not always. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban from CFD the diffs and BHG’s above response are more than enough evidence, I think, of extreme WP:ABF/WP:CIR/WP:CIV/WP:ASPERSIONS problems. This is a disagreement over category policy, not the illuminati. Dronebogus (talk) 09:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I identified and repeatdly noted a systemic pattern of fundamental misuse of a very brief and simple gudeline, WP:SMALLCAT. That misuse not only continued after being repeatedly challenged, but was weaponised by a tag team to target the complainant's own work.
      Why do you treat this solely as a matter of how the complainant phrases their repeated objections to the ongoing abuse, rather than focuisng on the substantive issue? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      If anyone has serious reasons to suspect a "tag team" being active, they should gather evidence and file a WP:CANVASS inquiry, not cast aspersions. (See my comment above). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I hoped that the tag team coud be persuaded to desist without the drama of a case discussion.
      Note tag this tag team engaged in little direct canvassing. They just followed each other around, targeting me. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh, I thought such targetted group behaviour fell under CANVAS, but what you're describing seems more like WP:HOUNDING. Just out of curiosity: what kind of measures should be taken in such a case? User Nobody suggested WP:IBANs, but I'm not sure if that would work in a situation in which group of editors A is allegedly intentionally jointly seeking to delete the work of editor B. (I don't see evidence of that being the case here, but if there is, such conduct may have to be sanctioned.) Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't want anyoe sanctioned. I just want the hounding and the tag-teaming to stop, and the sustained abuae of WP:SMALLCAT to stop.
      Note that the hounding by the LL/Oculi tag team does seem have stopped for now, i.e. in the last week. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, but suppose someone wanted to stop hounding and tag-teaming, where should they report it? And secondly, why wouldn't you want to impose a sanction to ensure it does not happen again? If you genuinely feel hounded as you say, I would want to make sure it stops if I were you. And if you've got evidence of hounding, I may support such sanctions, because I do not want you to be subjected to hounding while you're working on Wikipedia. This should be a harassment-free virtual workplace. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I am not vindictive. I just want it to stop. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, if they are really doing it as you are alleging, then I don't think they are suddenly going to be nice to you and stop doing it after you've been - in their words - quite uncivil to them. I wouldn't want to think of you as a naive person who engages in wishful thinking; I regard you as smarter than that. If I were you, I would expect them to continue as they have been, so I would try to impose sanctions on those who are allegedly hounding me, and allegedly team-tagging my work. I would not turn every CfD into a battleground, that wouldn't make me particularly cheerful while editing Wikipedia. I'd like you to be cheerful while editing Wikipedia, and not have to deal with editors who (rightfully or wrongfully) are - in your view - demolishing your work for no good reason in violation of hounding/canvass/whatever policy. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I’d like to point out that BHG has provided literally no evidence for the assertion that these two users are a “vindictive” “tag team” out to systematically destroy her work. That’s clearly casting WP:ASPERSIONS Dronebogus (talk) 16:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      So far, I agree, but she has also indicated that she is currently gathering evidence (e.g. I will begin work on diff-farming to show both the extraordinary pattern of abuse of WP:SMALLCAT, and the way that LL and Oculi have been tag-teamig [sic] in revenege [sic] for my challenges, and elsewhere). What I don't understand is that BHG wants to use evidence, not to sanction those who are allegedly hounding her or team-tagging her work, but for everyone to stop doing bad things and get back to business as usual. I don't think that's realistic. These clashes are almost bound to happen again. I think sanctions will have to be taken, one way or another, perhaps both. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This should be the type of issue that could be well dealt with by ArbCom, who would (theoretically) look at the actions of all parties in a dispute, but since that's exactly what didn't happen last time ArbCom got involved with BHG, I wouldn't blame her for not wanting that. However, can I suggest that if people are going to comment, they read the whole thing? There are a lot of diffs from either viewpoint. Black Kite (talk) 10:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find myself generally in agreement with BHG's reasons for opposing these nominations at CfD and her comments about a handful of editors attempting to impose their interpretation on others in poorly attended CfD discussions. I have myself in the past clashed with BHG over some issues, but I also recognise her valuable contributions to Wikipedia. She definitely needs to tone down her language at times and not attack other editors, but I do not believe any formal sanctions are necessary at this time. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • "in poorly attended CfD discussions" Necrothesp, this is not a new development. See for example the discussions from March 21. Some of these "discussions" involved only 2 or 3 different editors. Few Wikipedia editors even bother to comment on CfD, much less actively participate in the discussions. Dimadick (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note on OP: It is a surprising and unhelpful omission that the OP here @RevelationDirect did not open their ANI complaint by noting and linking to the discussion which they initiated about this issue on my talk: User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Apologies_for_CFD_comment (permalink).
      Instead RevelationDirect chose to cherrypick decontextalised comments which ignore my substantive points:
    1. it is not matter of interpretation or opinion that the guideline WP:SMALLCAT says "Small with no potential for growth" rather than just "small".
      The guideleine says "will never have more than a few members". It does not refer to current size. In fact, WP:SMALLCAT explicitly says the opposite: "this criterion does not preclude all small categories".
    2. it is not matter of interpretation or opinion that the guideline WP:SMALLCAT includes an exception for established series of categories: "unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme".
    RevelationDirect repeatedly ignores the substantive issue that by repeatedly ignoring those two factors, they and a few others are sytematically misapplying a brief and simple guideline by failing to apply the two key tests set out in the guidleline. Instead they are taking an approach which the gudeline explicitly rejects; they focus solely on my mounting exasperation at their avoidance of the substance. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no objection whatsoever to you presenting your different view on applying WP:SMALLCAT at CFD or in our talk page conversation. I welcome it! Here is a a nom from BrownHairedGirl, a nom from me, and a a controversial one that still remained civil. I want to see more collaborative discussions like those, disagreements and all, were we can really dig into those substantive issues. - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @RevelationDirect: Aaaargh!
    1. This is not a matter of a "different view". It is a matter of you and a few others wholly ignoring the actual words in WP:SMALLCAT.
      "This criterion does not preclude all small categories" is simple, plain English. The guideline makes it very clear that current size alone is not sufficiet reason to delete or merge.
    2. In our discussion on my talk at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Apologies_for_CFD_comment (permalink), I repeatedly tried to engage you on that substance, and you repeatedly refused to do so. So it's bizarre of you to now say that you want collaborative discussion.
    BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Laurel Lodged Again, pease don't tease/provoke her by copying her behaviour. You're not helping the inquiry, and undermining your own input. I suggest you keep WP:COOL and go do something else for a few hours or a day before coming back here. I would like your input to be valuable. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've deleted the offending material per the JC37 trap. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't spend nearly as much time at Cfd as I used to, but I have noticed a number of recent noms that attack the long-standing interpretation of SMALLCAT. Cfd debates are so poorly attended these days that it easy for a small number of editors to take over. So I find BHG's basic complaint rather plausible. Like Necrothesp above "I have myself in the past clashed with BHG over some issues, but I also recognise her valuable contributions to Wikipedia". She is not the only editor here who can be combative. Johnbod (talk) 14:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree almost universally with Johnbod and Necrothesp. It is not all that uncommon for discussions to get heated on Wikipedia and to me this seems as much of an issue of provocation as it is about incivility. I think BHG is making good points and those ought to be taken into consideration. A ban of any kind is excessive. --Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      BHG's conduct is evidently repeatedly WP:DISRUPTIVE. If you believe there are also issues of provocation, we can look into that separately, and see if other editors should also face sanctions. It's not sufficient to go tu quoque; that won't exonerate BHG from any policy violations she may have committed. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Nederlandse Leeuw appears to believe that it is not disruptive to repeatedly and persistently misreprepresnt a simple and stable guideline, and that the diruption conists only in objecting to those repeated misrepresentations, even when they continue after multiple corrections so that there is no posisbility whatsoever of the misrepresentations being good faith errors or oversights.
      That denialim is no way to work collaboratively, no way to build an encyclopedia, and no way to treat other people.
      Nederlandse Leeuw has agreed below to my suggestion that we should discuss this at an RFC. That is a welcome development, but I remain appalled that NL and a few others have tried to savagely to smear me for upholding what the WP:SMALLCAT has said for a decade in very simple words. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, if there is such evident long-standing disagreement over what WP:SMALLCAT says, then evidently the text of SMALLCAT is not clear enough, and should be clarified. Who misrepresented what seems to be a POV until there is agreement on what the text actually says. That's why I support an RfC and take no side on how to interpret the present text of SMALLCAT. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      No, there is not long-standing disagreement over what WP:SMALLCAT says.
      It is short, simple and stable. Al that as hapned is that for a few moths, a few editors have bene pretending that it says somethig other than what it actually says. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Then let me rephrase that: there has been long-standing disagreement over how WP:SMALLCAT should be interpreted. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • Conduct problems were part of why BrownHairedGirl was desysopped in the past.1
    • BrownHairedGirl Conduct got her blocked in the past.2
    • BrownHairedGirl has repeatedly clearly violated Conduct policies (See the diffs at the discussions beginning)
    • While disagreeing with someone/others about how to apply a policy/guideline (in this case WP:SMALLCAT) is fine (WP:CONTENTDISPUTE), but then talking about the user and not the guideline/content is clear conduct failure (See Graham's hierarchy of disagreement)
    • If ignoring the past conduct, this can be handled with either a warning or some IBANs I believe
    • Otherwise I believe a stronger type of sanction will be necessary. Nobody (talk) 14:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for providing this context, Nobody. I'm proposing a topicban for now, but I do not exclude further sanctions in the future. IBANs may also be a good idea. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @1AmNobody24: you seem to me to saying that when an editor persistently misrepresents a stable guideline and persistently refuses to corect their error, then any criticism of that editor is automatically unacceptable. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's not what Nobody is saying, namely talking about the user and not the guideline/content is clear conduct failure. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is not the guideline. It is clear and simple.
    The problem here has been that a small set of editors persistently misrepresents a stable guideline and persistently refuses to correct their error. That is a serious problem with the conduct of that user. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @BrownHairedGirl I linked WP:CONTENTDISPUTE as a hint of what I would've liked to see. Namely, a talk page discussion, be it a user talk, CfD talk or Overcategorization talk. And if a talk page discussion didn't bear fruit, there's WP:DR/N and WP:RfC. If there really is a consensus that "has long been broadly accepted", then at best, a talk page discussion and at worst, a RfC would've solved this. And as someone who's been here for over 15 years, with nearly 3 million edits and who has been an admin, I would expect you to know these steps already. But that's just my assumption. Nobody (talk) 17:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @1AmNobody24: see below, at #The core issue of WP:SMALLCAT where nobody dissents from my summary of WP:SMALLCAT. One of the tag-teamers actually described my post as "bait"ing.
    A talkpage discussion may help resolve a good faith disagreement about a policy or gideline. It cannot resolve the situation we had here, where a bunch of editors have been knowingly and repeatdly misrepresenting a simple guideline. That's why I chose instead to bring the abuse to the attention of the closer, who is required per WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS to weigh argments against the actual guidelies and policies.
    Posting on the talkpage woukd probably not get the attention of the closer.
    This is not a "content dispute". It is a dispute about how to apply a guideline, which is precisely what CFD debates theselves are for. Where a guideline is being abused, or when a nomination in made in clear bad faith, the closer needs to see that assertion in the main discussion. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    where nobody dissents from my summary of WP:SMALLCAT. Not really; I dissented from 4. unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme. by telling Johnbod:
    I have no objection against the "part of a wider scheme" exemption in theory. However, in practice, it is unclear what "wider scheme" even means, and even if it is clear, whether that is a good excuse. If you've got a series of five categories with only 1 item, I don't think "wider scheme" is a good excuse; I think those are five shit categories that should be (up)merged. I see this all the time with Fooians by century, especially when created with Template:Navseasoncats. It doesn't help navigation, it just makes items harder to find (for both readers and editors) and categorise (for editors).
    So if you want a simple "yes" or "no", I say: no. As long as we haven't defined what a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme actually is, anyone can claim anything is part of such a scheme and thus claim SMALLCAT doesn't apply and the nomination is invalid. That means this text is worthless. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nederlandse Leeuw: this is significant.
    BL writes I dissented from 4. unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme. by telling Johnbod
    Really? Do you disagree that it is currently, in the guideline, as it has been for at least a dec?de BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I don't disagree that it currently is in the guideline. I disagree that it should be in the guideline just because it currently is in the guideline. It shouldn't, because it is way too vague, and therefore impossible to adequately apply in practice.
    Moreover, this rule allows editors to set up an elaborated completely unnecessary subsubsubsubsubsubcategorised scheme with 1 or 2 items each (e.g. some sort of intersection between country and century), claim that "by country" and "by century" are "large overall accepted sub-categorization schemes", and thus, the completely unnecessary subsubsubsubsubsubcategorised scheme as a fait accompli. And there's nothing anyone can do about it once it has been created. That's just unworkable. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    At last! So you agree that I have accuately presnted what the guideline says.
    You are of course fully entitled to your own belief. But you are not entitled to your own guideline.
    It's utterly outrageous that you and a few others others choose to act as if the guideline says something radically different to what it actually says, and to berate me for challenging your denialism.
    If you want to change a guideline, the proper consenus-based approach is to go seek a consensus at an RFC, and to accept the outcome, whatever that is.
    But instead you have chosen in this discussion to repatedly suggest that I recuse myself (or be banned) from CFDs involving WP:SMALLCAT, because I have had the allegedly appalling rudeenss to uphold what the guidleine actually says. In what sort of a weirdly dysfunctioanl uiverse would that sort of approach be tolerated? This is a very nasty form of bullying, with a strong tint of gaslighting: you gnore the rules, but you smear BHG as the baddie for upolding them. I do not want to work in an environment like that.
    I regard your dismissal of the "established series" clause as hopelessly simplistic, but this is not the place for that substantive debate. What is at issue here is your choice to repeatedly attack me for upholding what the guidline actually says. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To BHG,
    Well well, you can quote verbatim what a publicly available online text says. Congratulations.
    Before you, in your typo-riddled misspelling flurry, accuse even more people or uiverses [sic] of being dysfunctioanl [sic], I suggest you keep it WP:COOL, then decide what you want your future on Wikipedia to be, which approach is most likely to lead to that outcome, and follow it. E.g.
    • If you're looking to be banned or blocked, then you shouldn't care if you're being uncivil in an ANI about your alleged incivility, because anything you say in a potentially uncivil manner here can and may be used against you. (I presume that is not your goal, but that may be the consequence of your conduct here; you're undermining your case by recklessly criticising the very people who are saying you should be more WP:CIVIL. If you entered this conversation being all nice to everyone and apologising for any offence you might have caused, your case might have been credible, but we're seeing the opposite).
    • If you're "gathering evidence" and "diff-sifting", ask yourself why. If you're not doing it in order to sanction those you want to stop allegedly "hounding" you or "team-tagging" your work, why are you gathering evidence?
    • If you don't want to have to deal with all this shit anymore, but just write great articles about topics you care about, then WP:LETITGO, do damage control, and secure the editing privileges you may still be allowed to keep after this is over.
    • Alternately, you always have the option of WP:RETIRE.
    I've done my best to offer an olive branch to you. What did you do with it? You threw it out of my hand, broke it in little pieces, set it on fire and poured petrol on it, declaring you are right and everyone else is wrong. Allow me to introduce myself as a new member of your opposition. Good night.
    To the rest:
    Per S Marshall, I do not think inaction is an option anymore. Nor do I think telling people to stop doing bad things without imposing sanctions (BHG's stance) is realistic anymore, but wishful thinking. These clashes will probably occur again at SMALLCAT CfDs in the near future. Therefore, I think sanctions are called for.
    So far, we have seen a compelling case being made from multiple editors why a topicban, an IBAN, or potentially other sanctions such as temporary blocks imposed upon BrownHairedGirl would be justified, and have in fact already been imposed upon her in the past for much the same reasons, including desysoping and temporary blocks (as summarised by Nobody). My recommendation would be to start with a topicban on SMALLCAT CfDs (as proposed by me) and an IBAN vis-à-vis Oculi, RevelationDirect, and Laurel Lodged (as proposed by Nobody). Further sanctions do not seem necessary at the moment, but should incivility take place in other contexts and involve other editors, these may be considered.
    On the other hand, we have seen BHG make unsubstantiated claims of hounding and team-tagging by the three editors mentioned; perhaps she is indeed gathering more evidence, but has also indicated not to desire any sanctions to be imposed upon anyone. So even if BHG will present this evidence eventually (instead of wildly responding to other editors in typo-fuelled CIVIL-skirting replies), there seems to be no case for sanctions against anyone but herself. I'm calling it a night, good night everyone. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow!
    Nederlandse Leeuw is not only continuing to demand my exclusion from CFD because I uphold the actual, stable guideline which Nederlandse Leeuw rejects ... but NL is overtly trying to drive me off Wikipedia etirely, suggesting that I retire.
    This is utterly appalling conduct.
    And they also have a go at mocking the typos caused by the dying keyboard on my laptop, which is a mess of sticky keys, dead keys and consequnetial remaps. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:53, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @BrownHairedGirl I'm not proposing to exclude you from CfD entirely, only a topicban on SMALLCAT CfDs.
    How the guideline should be interpreted has been unstable for years, e.g. no agreement on the minimum number of items required.
    I've suggested 4 options for your future on Wikipedia:
    Option #4 "voluntary retirement" is one way to achieve what you want, namely, for the alleged hounding to stop. This is preferable to retirement by admin, which is what you currently seem to be on track to, in several stages (option #1: "various types of bans and blocks").
    Option #2 "gathering evidence" is probably going to be inconsequential (see my replies to Dronebogus and DIYeditor).
    Option #3 "to let it go, do damage control, and secure your future on Wikipedia" is what I'm actually recommending, and in my view that involves accepting a topicban on SMALLCAT CfDs. But this requires you to take an olive branch (you've already rejected mine), or to disengage from this ANI and let it run its course (which you're not doing; you're actively responding to everyone everywhere, making option #1 more likely as you are skirting WP:CIVIL again and again in the process). The longer you fight against this option #3 in this belligerent manner, the closer you will get to option #1, and the more uncertain your future on Wikipedia is looking.
    Incidentally, if you've got a dying keyboard on my laptop, which is a mess of sticky keys, dead keys and consequnetial remaps, that is not our problem, but yours. You can still correct any typos before you hit the "Save" or the "Reply" button, or even after. (Alternately, you might want to have your keyboard repaired, or buy a new one).
    You might have noticed I have corrected some of my own typos after I posted some comments, because I want to make sure everyone here understands me correctly. FYI I used keyboards on 3 different devices so far to participate in this ANI; all of them work fine, and still I correct my own typos. Your failure or unwillingness to do so is entirely your own responsibility.
    I didn't even know you had a dying keyboard on my laptop, which is a mess of sticky keys, dead keys and consequnetial remaps until you just told all of us this. You could have kept that information private, to prevent people from mocking you for it. Now it's out in the open, and that is on you.
    Have a good day. Greetings from the opposition benches. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @BrownHairedGirl: I struggle daily with typos even though my equipment is working just fine. I went back and forth with the list of Diffs on whether to quote verbatim or clean up a few typos. I ended up going with the former to ensure an exact match, but no disrespect was intended. - RevelationDirect (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, @RevelationDirect. Either approach is fine with me: quote verbatim or tidy up, as you prefer. Both ways show consideration and respect.
    What is not in any way considerate or respectful is NL's mockery of me for typos, and their comment that disclosig my keyboard prolems makes me a legitmate target for mockery. That's no way to behave anywhere. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: I don't understand why the *peep* we should have a very special exemption just for works by creator: Also, subcategories of Category:Works by creator may be created even if they include only one page. This is completely random. Just special pleading. No reference is made to any precedent or discussion or agreement. Moreover, there are many Category:Works of uncertain authorship, so that one page in that one subcategory may not actually have been created by the alleged creator but by someone else. I really don't get it. This is one of the worst categorisation rules ever made. We should scrap it. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question BrownHairedGirl, if you believe(d) there was a disruptive, vindictive tag-team effort, why didn't you bring your evidence of bad faith here rather than sprinkling accusations around places where there is no way to address it? —DIYeditor (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I've been trying to get BHG to answer that question. So far she has said: I don't want anyoe [sic] sanctioned. I just want the hounding and the tag-teaming to stop. (...) I am not vindictive. I just want it to stop.
      As I told Dronebogus above, what I don't understand is that BHG wants to use evidence, not to sanction those who are allegedly hounding her or team-tagging her work, but for everyone to stop doing bad things and get back to business as usual. I don't think that's realistic. These clashes are almost bound to happen again. I think sanctions will have to be taken, one way or another, perhaps both. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Because ANI is a masively dysfunctional shitshow which I prefer to avoid until other paths have been exhausted. I find ANI to e deeply unpleasant and distressing timesink, even if it produces a broadly favourable outcome. (See e.g. my comments at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#5-JUL-2023 (permalink), about my othe recent trip to ANI, which I initiated.)
      In this instance, the worst of the tag-teaming stopped about ten days ago, and there seems to have been none this week. So there was no need to spend a day diff-farming. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I think this is pretty much the only venue on Wikipedia (other than e.g. arbcom, sock puppet investigations, and dealing directly with obvious vandalism) where it is appropriate to outright allege bad faith, with evidence of such. Doing so repeatedly elsewhere is an AGF/CIVIL problem. Either get the problem addressed properly or ignore it. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I strongly agree with DIYeditor. Whatever gathering evidence, diff-farming, diff-sifting etc. BrownHairedGirl is doing or planning is likely to be inconsequential if she does not want to impose sanctions on the three editors who she accuses of hounding and team-tagging. And as long as these accusations are presented, repeatedly, without the evidence for it, this is an WP:AFG/WP:CIVIL//WP:ASPERSIONS problem which strengthens the case of this ANI, and for sanctions to be imposed on BHG. Simultaneously, BHG is hereby undermining her own "defence", for lack of a better word, because I'm really struggling to understand what she's trying to do, and how she believes this will be successful in this situation. She appears to have chosen this as her wikt:hill to die on, rather than picking her battles. If this continues, it may be one of her last. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:54, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with the general sentiment of those who can see how BHG would feel put upon by these nominations. BD2412 T 18:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as of now. A lot of this seems passive aggressive and snarky, but very little crosses what I would consider the threshold for TBANs given the circumstances. IMO, Chide and issue a warning to BHG, and issue a two way IBAN if necessary.
      As someone who has been in my fair share of arguments, @BrownHairedGirl - Accusations like "tag-teaming" are quite serious violations, and if you are unwilling to take it to ANI it is best not to insinuate as such. If you feel you are being targeted, either bring it to ANI, or else just live with it. Unpleasant interactions do not help the project, and these accusations do not help your case in discussions. I would especially point to the usage by you of the term "vindictive, disruptive bad-faith nomination" - No closer will see this and see it as an argument that will change their mind. You are simply creating an unpleasant environment by using them, and I would expect you to not use such terminology in future. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @CapnJackSp: it is terminology which I have never used before this episode. I used it here because that is exactly what happened.
      My diff-farming is more time-consuing than I had hoped, and it may now not be until tomorrow that I post the evidence. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Sure, I expect you to not use it future either. Try to resolve issues on user talk pages, and if it doesnt work, bring it to ANI. Accusations in discussions help no one. As for the diffs, you can take your time. I doubt there will be a sudden closure to this. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • If even this does not cross the threshold, then what would? Is WP:CIVILITY perhaps entirely redundant? I'd be curious to know. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Given the circumstances, (which include the other editors being uncivil as well, including in this thread itself with violations I would categorise as far more egregious) I dont think the contribution by BHG in these discussions is a net negative. It is certainly unnecessary, and it should be avoided, but I do not think a TBAN results in a better space. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @CapnJackSp That's just tu quoque.
      • Saying "Well everyone's doing it, so what BHG is doing is only fair, let's get back to business as usual" doesn't solve anything. It won't exonerate BHG from any policy violations she may have committed, and won't prevent the same clashes from happening again at SMALLCAT CfDs, the probability of which is extremely high. BHG's own estimation that it will not happen again just because it has been quiet for a week seems wishful thinking to me. Particularly after this ANI, business as usual can safely be ruled out.
      • If other editors have allegedly been uncivil, she or you or someone else should make a case for that, and present evidence for it. As long as BHG or anyone else presents accusations of hounding, team-tagging or other violations on the part of other editors without the evidence for it, this is an WP:AFG/WP:CIVIL/WP:ASPERSIONS problem that undermines BHG's own "defence", and strengthens the case of this ANI and for sanctions to be imposed on BHG (see my reply to DIYeditor above). As it stands, only a case with evidence against BHG has been made by nom, and supported by several participants (myself included).
      • I note that nom herself has admitted to having been uncivil on at least one occasion, but having apologised for it to BHG. She recognises the importance of WP:CIVIL.
      • I also note that when LL made several provocations/teasings towards BHG in this ANI, and was called out by Black Kite and me not to do that and disengage from this ANI, LL removed the comments in question and disengaged. He recognises the importance of WP:CIVIL.
      • I finally note that BHG has not admitted to any wrongdoing whatsoever so far, let alone apologised for it. She does not recognise the importance of WP:CIVIL (except in an attempt to counter-accuse others; a tactic criticised by LilianaUwU above: That's not uncivil of people to call out uncivil behavior.). As I highlighted, when I first presented my findings with care and nuance to BHG that I found some of her comments to be uncivil, she responded by saying "That's just wikilawyering and offence-taking", confirming for me several weeks ago already that BHG does not recognise the importance of WP:CIVIL. In this ANI, too, almost every comment is filled with more WP:CIVIL-skirting belligerence and accusations addressed to her detractors, not just the three of the alleged "tagging team", but anyone else here who disagrees with her. This includes myself, despite my best efforts to be diplomatic, offer an olive branch, and work out some sort of compromise that could secure BHG's future with proper damage control. I have now joined the opposition, and concluded that limited sanctions against BHG must now be taken, for the good of the community, and for her own good.
      Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      You have argued passionately in favour of the TBAN, but it doesnt affect my analysis.
      The only aspect of WP:CIVIL I see being a clear violation would be WP:AGF, which does allow you to drop the assumption of good faith if it is a repeated pattern. I dont think it was right to accuse as such in a discussion, but that isnt by any way ban worthy.
      As for LL, they not only kept the mocking attitude, but also continued to insinuate regarding the extremely distasteful comments regarding her mental status after the warning that they would be banned. Such an attitude, to me, shows that there may have been grounds to disregard the good faith assumptions we usually expect.
      If BHG's version of events is true, she may not have much to apologise for. As such I reserve that judgement till later. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      If Foo's version of events is true, Foo may not have much to apologise for. That is to be expected, and why self-policing is generally not a great idea. What's more important is the testimonies of the rest of the community with regards to individual editors. I'm seeing a pretty strong majority of people here who have confirmed and added to the evidence provided by nom. On the other hand, I also see that the suggested sanctions are generally limited, and will allow BHG to continue editing Wikipedia in other areas, just not SMALLCAT CfDs anymore, both for the good of the community and her own good.
      Given that BHG has been blocked 4 times already from 2019 to 2022 already, in almost every case because of or related to WP:CIVIL, and been desysopped, prohibited from all portals, and given an IBAN in 2020 because of similar violations, this is not unfamiliar terrain, and sanctioning BHG is not unprecedented. If anything, it suggests past sanctions have not been sufficient to prevent further violations.
      I still want BrownHairedGirl on Wikipedia. But if she is not able to improve her own conduct, the community should take actions so that she can no longer engage in misconduct in areas or in interactions with certain editors where that is likely to happen again and again without sanctions. I am of the opinion that inaction is no longer an option, and mere warnings will not suffice. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:28, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      This is essentially restating what has been stated in comments above in much more detail. As such the assumption that I must have come to my conclusions by overlooking those comments seems inappropriate.
      I dont see a case prima facie for sanctions; And I will wait to hear BHG's side of the story with diffs. If you want me to pass judgement prior to that, I dont agree. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:07, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose topic ban for BHG, and seriously consider a topic band on CFD and removing categories for RevelationDirect, Oculi, and Laurel Lodged. who do not seem to understand what they have been doing is detrimental to Wikipedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The core issue of WP:SMALLCAT

    Small cat

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

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

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

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

    Does User:EEng's feline both represent small categories and a dialogue of the deaf, which seems to be the case here? Many white blue-eyed cats are deaf. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, er, um... Why, yes! How perceptive of you to see the joke within the joke. EEng 20:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    All kidding aside, that is one cute kitty. Thanks for your illustrations. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Yes" or "no", please. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Laurel Lodged Please don't tease/provoke her by copying her behaviour. You're not helping the inquiry, and undermining your own input. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @BrownHairedGirl no, the core issue is your lack of WP:CIVIL. Don't go WP:OFFTOPIC, please.
    I suggest we close this irrelevant subsection. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    On the contrary, @Nederlandse Leeuw, this whole thread is entirely about a sprawling dispute which arises from the sytematic misuse of WP:SMALLCAT by a small set of editors.
    I do undestand that it suits some editors to ignore the sustance and to try make an ANI drama focused solely on the tone of my challenges to that sytematic misuse. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I fell into the trap that JC37 mention: "a.) if you get baited into being uncivil". Stupid of me. I've deleted the material. --Laurel Lodged 12:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a great summary of this whole dispaute that my attempt to engage editors on the core substance of the whole dispute is labelled by Laurel Lodged as being baited into being uncivil.
    LL's unwillingness to reply with civility to a simple question is a key part of the reason why this became heated. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, LL, you aren't being baited at this ANI. You're just being uncivil for the sake of being uncivil, and this is twice now today. Anyone unfamiliar with the dispute would assume that it is your modus operandi. I notice that most of the OPs "uncivil" diffs are from BHG to you; if this is level of how your discourse runs I am unsurprised that other editors may sometimes talk to you like that. I suggest you disengage from this ANI completely and let your fellow editors involved in the situation handle it. Black Kite (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sadly, this is indeed LL's modus operandi, and has been for many years. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:55, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Laurel Lodged Good on you for deleting the material. I recommend you take Black Kite's suggestion and disengage from this ANI, at least for now. We'll take it from here. Have a good day, see you elsewhere. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't see the comments before they were deleted, but I'm against repeated incivility by any editor. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @RevelationDirect: Here they are: [34][35]. Please note that LL removed them completely instead of striking them out. This is in violation of WP:TALK#REPLIED. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why has the edit history of those two comments been suppressed? How does WP:SUPPRESS apply in this context? It feels a stretch to class it under criteria #4. Cashew.wheel (talk) 09:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The suppression was to hide something else that was unrelated. These two edits just got caught in the middle. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I would support a possible amendment of WP:SMALLCAT. @Smallchief has a good point. Established practice in recent months has, as far as I have experienced, shown that most editors consider a category to be a SMALLCAT if it has only 1 or 2 items (not counting subcategories), and that new categories should only be created if it has at least 5 items. I personally find that a good rule of thumb; if 1 or 2 items were miscategorised by the category creator, then we don't have to immediately delete the newly created category, because 3 is enough for a Keep.
    Smallchief is suggesting that a category should have 10 items at all times, from the moment of creation until eternity. I'm not sure if that is necessary, but I would not be opposed to having more stringent criteria than 5 at creation, 3 until eternity.
    At any rate, this is not the place to discuss this in detail, but I thought I'd give my 2 eurocents. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For years, "small" was generally accepted as meaning fewer than five, but if there are subcategories that would be different (obviously, I hope). But that is not the only issue or problem; there is also the "part of a wider scheme" exemption, also long accepted, which some editors are also now attacking. Johnbod (talk) 14:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm okay with making 5 the lowest limit, but at least we should have a limit. I don't wish it on anyone to have to continue to debate the limit for another decade.
    I have no objection against the "part of a wider scheme" exemption in theory. However, in practice, it is unclear what "wider scheme" even means, and even if it is clear, whether that is a good excuse. If you've got a series of five categories with only 1 item, I don't think "wider scheme" is a good excuse; I think those are five shit categories that should be (up)merged. I see this all the time with Fooians by century, especially when created with Template:Navseasoncats. It doesn't help navigation, it just makes items harder to find (for both readers and editors) and categorise (for editors). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A hard limit would be major change to WP:SMALLCAT.
    Nederlandse Leeuw is quite entitled to their view that the "wider scheme" clause is a bad idea, but they ar not entitled to continue to act as if it that clause had not been a stable part of WP:SMALLCAT for over a decade.
    I strongly disagree with NL's view, but I am happy to discuss it at an RFC. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smallchief, actually the lack of a definition of "small" is not contentious. A threshold of five as a safe number has long been broadly accepted at CFD. Lower numbers may be acceptable if there a reasonable possiility of growth, or if the category is part of a wider series. (The poblem with Elizabeth Taylor's husbands is not that the number is currently small; the probem is that is "Small with no potential for growth", on account of Taylor being sadly unable to marry again).
    The dispute is about the fact that a small group of editors have been persistently and stubbornly refusing to take any consideration whatsoever of WP:SMALLCAT's caveats about "potential for growth" and "established series". This whole ANI discuson is about their efforts to frame me as "ucivil" for objecting to their abuse.
    There may be a case for changes to WP:SMALLCAT. But as I have repeatedly pointed out at CFD discussions, any changes should be proposed and discussed at an RFC, to establish a broad WP:consensus. It is quite wrong for a small group of editors to try to use a WP:LOCALCON to simply ignore the actual contet of a short, stable guideline which they wholly misreporesent... let alone do as they have done here, to try to bully the objector into silence.
    To Nederlandse Leeuw and any other would like WP:SMALLCAT to be amended: RFC is thataway. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah perhaps we should make it an RfC, that's a good idea. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: I support setting up an RfC, but I've never done that before, so I would suggest a more experienced editor set it up. @Smallchief are you willing to do that? You seem like the experienced editor we need. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have started several RFCs, and participated in many more.
    So I strongly urge that before opening an RFC, there should be a discusison about what issues should be adressed, and how to frame them in a neutral way. I suggest WT:CAT as a venue for that preliminary discussion. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's best if neither I, nor BHR, nor RD, nor Oculi, nor LL, starts this RfC; we are all too closely involved in this ANI already, and I think we need a neutral party to pose this question. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoever opens the RFC, we need to start with a scoping discussion. That's the only way to ensure that the RFC does address all issues and that is actually neutral.
    I think it is highly unlikely that even the best-intetioned and most skilled editor can cover all the bases without a scoping discussion to find out what needs to be resolved. Note for example that I would want to propose several changes which have not been discussed so far, some of which are to keep up with technical develpments. There will probaly need to be several questions.
    One path which has often been successful is for the final draft of the RFC to be hammered out between two or more editors with opposing views. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Having a team preparing a draft RfC seems like a good idea. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: But I think it will not be possible to have a proper RfC before this ANI is closed. We're in the heat of the moment, IBANs are being suggested to be imposed between several editors, as well as other suggested sanctions. There will not be a way to keep things WP:COOL until the issues here have been addressed. I support an RfC after this is all over, because we do need a long-term solution. But first things first. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • In 2018 May 18#Category:Mayors of Daly City, California, User:Bearcat said of BHG "... your interpretation of what SMALLCAT means inherently causes SMALLCAT to defeat itself, because every SMALLCAT could always claim to be theoretically expandable someday, and thus no SMALLCAT would ever fail to qualify for that exemption from SMALLCAT." Exactly.
      Since 20 June 23, as well as excoriating any editors with the temerity to disagree with her, BHG has created 959 new categories in 18 days, a prodigious output. All of these will be properly named, parented and described, but not necessarily populated: BHG seems to think 1 member is enough (how navigation is improved by hiding a single article deep in an elegant web of tiny categories is never explained). Population is left to other editors, who may have no interest in populating say Category:17th-century bagpipe players or Category:Swiss emigrants to Ireland. It has certainly been a toxic atmosphere at cfd since BHG returned after a welcome break of many months.
      I am not particularly likely to tag team with Laurel Lodged, after their recent disobliging remarks on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 May 11#More emigrants "What makes this procedural lapse all the more egregious was the supercilious replies by the nominator [Oculi] to a GoodFaith query on his talk page", and after long-running disagreements at speedy and cfd based on LL's irrational objection to the demonym ("Down with the tyranny of demonyms!"). In any case it would have been an ineffective tag team as LL contributed nothing (until recent enigmatic remarks) to 2023 June 24#Irish field hockey players by county or 2023 June 24#Irish trade unionists by county (same page as LL's own nomination 2023 June 24#Irish police officers by county).
      BHG seems to be trying to create an atmosphere at cfd where (a) all her category creations are sacrosanct; (b) nominations are subjected to all manner of novel restrictions, rendering nominations almost impossible; (c) WP:SMALLCAT is disallowed. "a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme": 'accepted' by whom? Where is the 'accepted' part to be tested if not at cfd, preferably in a civilised conversation not bludgeoned to death by one remorselessly argumentative editor, capable of adding more bytes than the rest of the contributors combined?
      Accusing RevelationDirect of any impropriety is ridiculous: RevelationDirect typically supports SMALLCAT nominations with a remark such as "With no objection to recreating if any ever reach 5+ articles"; see eg this cfd search - 103 hits going back to 2016. Oculi (talk) 11:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Oculi writes a pile of blatant falsehoods BHG seems to be trying to create an atmosphere at cfd where (a) all her category creations are sacrosanct; (b) nominations are subjected to all manner of novel restrictions, rendering nominations almost impossible; (c) WP:SMALLCAT is disallowed. "a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme": 'accepted' by whom? Where is the 'accepted' part to be tested if not at cfd
      I note that Oculi offers absolutely no diffs to support these wholly false allegations.
      1. I have never argued or implied that my category creations are sacrosanct. I have asked that they not be targeted vindictively, that they not be immediately nominated for deletion, and that when discussed, they should be assessed against the actual guideline that I followed when creating them.
      2. It is a total inverson of the truth for Oculi to claim that I try to make nominations are subjected to all manner of novel restrictions.
        All I have asked is that the existing, long-term stable guideline be followed. It is absurd to claim that upholding a stable guideline is any form of "novel restriction"; more than absurd, it is a monstrous inversion of reality.
      3. WP:SMALLCAT is disallowed. "a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme": 'accepted' by whom? Where is the 'accepted' part to be tested".
        Again, utterly false. I have never argued that WP:SMALLCAT be disallowed; but what I have repeatedly argued (and got angry about) is that WP:SMALLCAT is not just a single word "small", but a set of simple principles in which current size is never the sole criterion: WP:SMALLCAT eplicity says "this criterion does not preclude all small categories", which could not be more clear.
        Oculi wants to ignore all of that guideline except the one word "small", even when he seeks to delete over 300 categories (WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 13#Expatriates_A-G) in one nomination, with precisely zero asesment of either their potential for growth of whether they were part of an accepted sub-categorization scheme.
      What on earth is going on here?
      I cannot know why Oculi and others repeatedly deny what WP:SMALLCAT actally says, and I make no claim to know why. I can ask questions: Is Oculi somehow unable to read the 100 words of WP:SMALLCAT? Does Oculi not want to read it? Is Oculi bluffing? -- but I cannot know the answers.
      All I do know is that this sustained denial of what WP:SMALLCAT actally says is happening, both at CFD and right here at ANI.
      What on earth is going on?
      Why is this sustained denialism of stable consensus not treated as gross misconduct?
      Why are attcks on me for upholding a stable consensus not treated as gross misconduct?
      It saddens me deeply that I come here to buld an encyclopedia, but find my categorisation work and that of others being subject to a large scale demolition effort by a small group of editors who systematically misuse the guideline which they namecheck. But what absolutely breaks my heart is the sheer sustained viciousness of their inversion of reality -- not primarily because it is directed agaist me, but because if en.wp cannot uphold the principle of honest use of a simple guidline, then what possible chance do we have of either creating an actual encyclopedia? If challenging outright falsehood is punished, then we are creating a savagely toxic environment.
      In over 40 years of adult life, much of it spent working on the edges of the dark and dirty world of politics, I thought I had witnessed far too much horrible behaviour. But have never before had such a close encounter with a concerted effort to invert reality and monster the person who points out that the rules are written down. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:46, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Accusing RevelationDirect of any impropriety is ridiculous: RevelationDirect typically supports SMALLCAT nominations with a remark such as "With no objection to recreating if any ever reach 5+ articles
      That quote is entirely the opposite of the gotcha that Oculi thinks it is.
      WP:SMALLCAT's 6-word headline says "Small with no potential for growth", but Oculi's search demonstrates that RevelationDirect is systematically failing to assess potential for growth, and wrongly asessessing only current article count, even tho WP:SMALLCAT says "this criterion does not preclude all small categories".
      Thank you, Oculi, for illustrating so persuasively how RevelationDirect's abuse of WP:SMALLCAT is much more widespread than I had realised. No wonder Oculi It has certainly been a toxic atmosphere at cfd since BHG returned after a welcome break of many months. -- it must be deeply uncomfortable to have someone repeatedly challenge sytematic abuse of a guideline after so many months of it being unchallenged.
      Oculi, RevelationDirect: which part of "this criterion does not preclude all small categories" is unclear to you both? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Smallcat

    Just for those who have not been around CfD:

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

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

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

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

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

    @Jc37: your good faith observation is, as you note, historical. Am I right in thinking that your former frequent participation at CFD is now more than 5 years behind us?
    In recent years, a threshold of five as a safe number has long been broadly accepted at CFD. Lower numbers may be acceptable if there a reasonable possibility of growth, or if the category is part of a wider series.
    But as noted above, this dispute is not about the definition of "small". It is about the sustained disregard shown by a few CFD regulars for WP:SMALLCAT's very clear caveats about "potential for growth" and "part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I read your comments above, and the first phrase that came to mind was: Suppose They Gave a War and Nobody Came.
    I hope you have a good day. - jc37 16:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not the most helpful response ever to polite request for clarification. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Laurel Lodged at CfD

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

    I agree here, wrt the sort of language used and especially the mocking of her supposed mental health status. I'd wait to see more before announcing any judgement on LL, but from their conduct in this thread it does seem to suggest a vendetta. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 20:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    LL's vendetta against me has been going on for years, but I doubt that I will have the energy or stomach to diff-farm through about a decade of bile.
    The new develoment has been LL's vindictive tag-teaming with Oculi, on which I am collecting diffs. That tag-teaming is a massive escalation. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The problems can be distinct, alleged tag-teaming behaviour is not any justification for being incivil. --qedk (t 愛 c) 22:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @MJL I didn't even know BHG was desysopped for incivility when this ANI was submitted; it has not been part of my case until S Marshall mentioned it, and it has not been a central part of my case after.
    As I have said elsewhere, it's always possible to file a complaint against other editors who may have engaged in similar or other violations, but only if evidence is presented for it (see my comments to Dronebogus, DIYeditor and Captain Jack Sparrow above).
    • The 1065 ANI report on "Emptying categories out of process" might count as evidence for a case on LL, but what I'm reading is that no agreement was reached on a sanction, and as a result no sanction has been imposed on LL.
    • The 1092 ANI report on "Laurel Lodged at WP:AN" might count as more serious evidence, but again no agreement was reached and no sanction imposed on LL.
    • I also note that when LL made several provocations/teasings towards BHG in this ANI, and was called out by Black Kite and me not to do that and disengage from this ANI, LL removed the comments in question and disengaged. He recognises the importance of WP:CIVIL. The same goes for RD (see my comment to Captain Jack Sparrow above).
    • As Nobody suggested above, mutual IBANs between BHG and LL could provide a partial solution to the "vendetta" Captain Jack Sparrow has also identified here. That seems to me to be a reasonable sanction to be imposed on both LL and BHG. (For the moment, I don't think it's necessary to consider IBANs between BHG and Oculi/RD; especially RD would really like to be able to continue cooperating "collegially" with BHG as she has stated in the OP, and that still seems possible.)
    • I support qedk's comment The problems can be distinct, alleged tag-teaming behaviour is not any justification for being incivil. As LilianaUwU also noted above, BHG has attempted to accuse those who accused her of being uncivil of incivility, but that very act is itself not uncivil: That's not uncivil of people to call out uncivil behavior. This is tu quoque behaviour, and without evidence also a WP:AFG/WP:CIVIL/WP:ASPERSIONS problem (see my comments to DIYeditor and Captain Jack Sparrow above).
    Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nederlandse Leeuw: Laurel Lodged had to be told twice by Black Kite to knock off the behavior in this AN/I thread before backing down. That is far, far, from supportive of the statement He recognises the importance of WP:CIVIL. You don't get to call someone a actual menace to the Wiki Project and get to turnaround saying you'll disengage. The damage has been done, and I never saw an apology to BHG (only a thing further accusing her of "baiting" him which isn't an excuse). He's just going to keep doing this kind of thing.
    @qedk: The way I see it; regardless of BHG's conduct here, LL should be considered for sanctions. No reasonable person acts the way he has acted here, and it's only made the situation worse. What kind of message are we sending out by saying Laurel Lodge's actions are in any way acceptable on Wikipedia? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is not to say that LL's conduct should not be examined, my point is to say that BHG's conduct should be examined with due diligence to past behaviour, and not treated as an isolated incident. --qedk (t 愛 c) 22:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO they cannot be treated in isolation. AGF does allow the assumption of bad faith if the opposing editor acts in a way as to lose that privilege. Both are connected. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The side issue of WP:SMALLCAT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Sorry, but @RevelationDirect absolutely does not have a plausible interpretation of the current editing guideline
    See the section above, #The core issue of WP:SMALLCAT. It's a series of quotes from WP:SMALLCAT.
    RevelationDirect has repeatedly rejected all of those parts of the guideline. I had a lengthy discusion with RD at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Apologies_for_CFD_comment (permaink), where they simply refused to engage on those simple points.
    This sustained denialism is not in any way a "plausible interpretation". And it is deeply to uncivil to disrespect other editors by pretending that the words of a guideline do not exist or have nothing remotely like their plain English meaning. WP:Civil reuires that oe editosr be treated with "consideration and respect" ... but this sustained denialism is thoroughly inconsiderate and deepy disrespectful.
    I am not obliged to sustain an assmption of good faith when someone repeatedly asserts that black is white. RD won't even agree that the 6-word headline "Small with no potential for growth" actually means what that ootential for growth is a factor!
    I do undestand that RD likes to come to Wikiedia to relax. But repeatedly winding up other editors by denying reality does not seem to me to be a good way to ensure a relaxing experience.
    . BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Because you wanted us to have a substantive discussion on WP:SMALLCAT, I tried really hard above to even-handedly contrast our interpretations of the guideline without any negative characterization of your perspective.RevelationDirect (talk) 04:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it will not be possible to have a proper RfC before this ANI is closed. We're in the heat of the moment, IBANs are being suggested to be imposed between several editors, as well as other suggested sanctions. There will not be a way to keep things WP:COOL until the issues here have been addressed. I support an RfC after this is all over, because we do need a long-term solution. But first things first. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @RevelationDirect: again, I remind you that the headline of WP:SMALLCAT says "Small with no potential for growth"'. It had exactly the same headline ten years ago.[36]
    Ten years ago[37] the body text of the guideine said "Note also that this criterion does not preclude all small categories". The current version[38] of WP:SMALLCAT uses exactly the same words "Note also that this criterion does not preclude all small categories".
    This guidance is clear and simple. It has been stable for at least a decade.
    That is not a matter of "interpretation", as you insist. It is a matter of fact.
    Yet you repeatedly deny that "potential for growth" is a factor when applying WP:SMALLCAT. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn’t mention the header of WP:SMALLCAT because we both treat it the same. If you look at our two current nominations (yours, mine), our views are so similar you could switch the signatures and no one would notice: we both nominated categories that were part of a series, both categories had at least some growth potential, but we didn’t see that growth potential as plausible. I do think growth potential should be considered (see here and here) but we have an honest disagreement about who should do that assessment work when an editor creates small categories en masse. Even if the positions you ascribe to me were true though, it wouldn’t show I’m part of an attack dog for a secret tag team.
    Your thesis here and on your talk page seemed to be that, if only we engage in a substantive discussion of the editing guideline, then the frank comments I've mischaracterized as uncivil would evaporate. (If that’s not a fair summary of your view, let me know.) But when I provided just the engagement you asked for, I received yet more aspersions about my motives and competency. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not true, @RevelationDirect.
    In the discusion User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Apologies_for_CFD_comment you repeatedly refsued to uphold the "Small with no potential for growth" principle. Instead you retained the position you had taken at WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_June_25#People_by_occupation_in_Northern_Ireland, when you expilicitly !voted to upmerge because, as you wrote in your reply to me Your clarification that you're not planning to populate these categories moves my !vote to Merge.[39]. A I noted in my reply, that both grossly misrepresented my position (I did not say that I was not planning to populate these categories), and also breached both WP:SMALLCAT's empahasis on "no potential for growth" and the "accepted series" clause. Your hostile repsose accused me of refusal to compromise.[40]
    It may be that you have since changed your view. Any editor is entitled to change their view on anything, and if you now upold the guideline as actually written then of course I welcome that.
    But if you have changed your mind, you should say that you have changed your mind. Instead, you picked a fight with me because you woudn't uphold the gudeline as written: you ignored both the "potential for growth" and the "accepted series" parts of WP:SMALLCAT. Then you refused to correct your view in your discusion on my talk. Then you cherrypicked diffs from our discussison to try to paint a black picture of me for ANI.
    And yet after all that you make a balatantly false asertion here that our positions are similar.
    That sort of warping of history to paint me in a bad light is the complete opposite of WP:civility's requirement to "consideration and respect". It is a very deeply uncivil way to treat any other person, in any context.
    Secondly, I did not accuse you of being part of a secret tag team. That is a straw man fallacy which you invented, and which I replied to on my talk 8 days ago: I also do no know whether you are a part of the tag team. All I do know is that you both repeatedly endorse the tag team, and that you repeatedly act as their attack dog by piling on me for criticising them.[41] BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:55, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's see if I can craft a draft summary of our disagreement that we can both agree on:
    "We disagree on whether WP:UNCIVIL or WP:SMALLCAT is the most important issue. We disagree on how to apply the first sentence of SMALLCAT discussing an "overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". (We disagree on the nature of that disagreement though, whether it's an honest difference of opinion or a deliberate misrepresentation.) SMALLCAT has two more sentences and a headline and we disagree about whether we disagree on all three of those. The layered nature of these disagreements has caused us to sometimes talk past each other."
    Any suggested edits @BrownHairedGirl: or am I on the wrong track? (I'm hoping that by naming our disagreements, we can lay the foundation for more constructive conversations on both sides!) - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @RevelationDirect, but I do not agree that this in any way a fair summary.
    What do you mean by We disagree on the first sentence of SMALLCAT discussing an "overall accepted sub-categorization scheme"????
    Do you disagree that WP:SMALLCAT says that???
    Or do you disagree that those words have their plain English meaning????
    I would like to move on to more productive discusion, but this draft gets us no closer.
    It also omits the fact that you pay no heed at all to WP:SMALLCAT's headline "Small with no potential for growth", or to its clear statement "Note also that this criterion does not preclude all small categories; a category which does have realistic potential for growth, such as a category for holders of a notable political office, may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time."
    I find it very surprising that after all ths drama, when you want to build bridges, you still have not ackowledged what WP:SMALLCAT actually says. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC:
    You're right, that sentence was pretty unclear so I added a little to it, but it sounds like I'm way off from your perspective. Would you rather do this the other way around and take a stab at a neutral summary of our disagreement that I might sign off on? - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I will try, @RevelationDirect. The gap between us is such that I doubt there is some sort of middle ground, but I will sleep on it, I will try my best to post something tomorrow.
    For now, I will simply note that in all our discussions, I can recall not a single instance you trying to apply either "no potential for growth" or an "overall accepted sub-categorization scheme".
    As Oculi's search found, you have a long history of simply assessing current size. Oculi found 103 hits for you writing "With no objection to recreating if any ever reach 5+ articles".
    Do uou disagree with Oculi's findigs? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, his report was accurate. If you don't think this is a fruitful avenue, you're under no obligation to spend time on it. I (mistakenly) thought my summary just needed a few words changed but this is harder than I thought. - RevelationDirect (talk) 04:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I really will try. I do believe that you want to resolve the dispute, so I wanna try to see if I can help build the very long bridge needed. Peacemaking is never easy {{smiley]} BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support the proposed injunction against BHG, per my reading of the discussions above. Lourdes 10:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      My apologies, Lourdes - but which proposed injunction? - jc37 10:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:SMALLCAT says Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme. Most of the categories which started this discussion, such as Category:Geneticists from Northern Ireland, are part of an existing hierarchy, along with Category:Scottish geneticists - parallel categories for the consituent countries of the UK. I don't see how WP:SMALLCAT can be used to oppose these categories, as I have already said in the discussion at CfD. I was not aware of this gigantic discussion here at ANI, having had a few days largely off-Wiki, but I must add that I have interacted with BHG on many occasions and admire her as a very energetic editor dedicated to improving the encyclopedia, willing to help other editors, super-knowledgeable about all matters of categories, and usually perfectly collegial with other constructive editors though sometimes pretty brusque with time-wasters. I am disappointed to see her being maligned and threatened with sanctions. PamD 15:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Thoughts about possible restrictions

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

    • Two-way WP:IBANs between BrownHairedGirl and Laurel Lodged; between BrownHairedGirl and RevelationDirect; and between BrownHairedGirl and Oculi.
    • Limited WP:TBAN on SMALLCAT CfDs, and limited nomination ban, for BrownHairedGirl. That means, if any nominator explicitly mentions WP:SMALLCAT in their rationale in order to propose deleting, merging, renaming or splitting a category, BrownHairedGirl is not allowed to participate in the discussion. BrownHairedGirl is allowed to nominate any category for discussion and invoke WP:SMALLCAT in her rationale, but she may not nominate any category created by Laurel Lodged, Oculi, or RevelationDirect.
    • Limited nomination ban for Laurel Lodged, Oculi and RevelationDirect: they may not nominate any category created by BrownHairedGirl, nor may they ask other editors to do so (WP:CANVASS).
    Might something like this restrictions package be a realistic solution? I'm especially asking everyone else who is not one of these 4 people to comment. Although I am so far not convinced that there is "team-tagging" going on, I think the limited nomination ban for Laurel Lodged, Oculi and RevelationDirect is necessary in order to make things fair, and not allow them to abuse the restrictions imposed upon BrownHairedGirl, and because I think we should take the experience of BrownHairedGirl seriously. I'm open to be corrected or supplemented on these suggestions, and obviously I'm not an admin making the decisions. Good day to everyone. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    1 seems okay. 2,3 seem like something that will be gamed, and Im not convinced that the TBAN is necessary regardless. Though this discussion is moot till @BrownHairedGirl actually shows diffs that she said she would bring. I dont believe it would be appropriate pronouncing judgement prior to it. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, for sure we are not ready to pronounce judgement yet. On the other hand, BHG has already indicated that, regardless of what evidence she might bring to the table, she does not want anyone to be sanctioned. So I don't think she will want us to use her evidence in order to consider sanctions. Nevertheless, I believe the limited nomination ban on the three would be fair and appropriate to balance things out for BHG as well. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that this whole section is proposed by one of the troublemakers, Nederlandse Leeuw (NL), who repeatedly refuses to uphold WP:SMALLCAT as it is actually wrtten. NL wants the guideline to be changed, which of course a legitiate aspiration; any editor may legitimately believe that any guideline or policy needs changes, or that it should be abolished. But unless and until there is a WP:consensus for changes, en.wp policy is that editors should uphold the existing consenus. This is absolutely fundamnetal to the WP:consensus principle of how en.wp works.
    However, instead of taking the collabaorative approach of seeking a consensus for change, NL has beeen posting repeatedly to this ANI, demanding that I be restricted from WP:SMALLCAT-related discussions. Why? Becuase I uphold the stable guideline as actually written.
    NL has also made a number of blatant personal attacks on me here at ANI, which include an allegation of lack of empathy, a typo flame[42] (after I challenged it, NL doubed down on it[43]: you could have kept that information private, to prevent people from mocking you for it. Now it's out in the open, and that is on you.). NL also wants to drive me off Wikipedia, suggesting you always have the option of WP:RETIRE.[44]
    This is overt hounding of me, being carried out right here at ANI. And it is overtly driven by a desire to silence me for upholding the long-term stable guideline.
    Tihs is completely Kafkaesque, and it's clearly a wild abuse of ANI. No organisation, company or project can function with any form of sanity if its procedures are weaponised to punish somone who upholds the existing rules unless and until they are changed. The worst possible consequences here are not life-threatening, but NL's logic reminds me of the Stalinist show trials. OMG! BHG uholds consensus!!! Mock her! Insult her! BAN HER' BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @BrownHairedGirl: I understand you may be upset by this proposal (I am too; it's simply unreasonable), but this comment isn't going to help your case at all. Try to relax with the comparisons to Stalinism and the bolded sarcasm, okay? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:37, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    this comment isn't going to help your case at all. Try to relax with the comparisons to Stalinism and the bolded sarcasm, okay? Hear, hear. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:00, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nederlandse Leeuw: I don't think you are being particularly helpful at this point either. As has been said to you already, you should really consider disengaging with this thread. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @MJL Oh, this is the first time I'm reading this (have I missed this? I do see DIYeditor saying something similar below), but I guess you're right. I'll see if there are some final things I should contribute before disengaging. Thanks for the advice, I will take it to heart. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, just disengage, period. Let the community handle it at this point. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 11:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The two-way IBAN between BHG and LL is reasonable; the SMALLCAT TBAN for BHG is just asking to be gamed, and the third restriction could possibly be as well. Black Kite (talk) 20:38, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, I'm wary of ways in which suggestion #2 and #3 could be gamed. Initially I was thinking about not allowing LL, Oculi and RD to nominate any category created by BHG per SMALLCAT, but that is probably too easy to circumvent, so I decided to propose a complete ban on nominating any category created by BHG fullstop. In return, I decided to add a nomination ban for BHG on any categories created by the three in return (even though I think that's unlikely to happen), in order to balance things out. This should prevent "team-tagging" or "revenge-nominating" either way.
      What I haven't yet figured out is whether these things can be circumvented in other ways. Maybe I should add that BHG should also not be allowed ask anyone else to nominate cats created by LL, Oculi and RD (per CANVASS)? What if any of the 4 deliberately created categories that the other party is not allowed to nominate? This would mostly be an annoyance and burden for other users who need to clear them up. Other issues may also arise. That's why I'm saying I don't have all the answers, and I stand to be corrected or supplemented if needed. But I think something like this restriction package will be necessary to resolve the core issues at hand. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Defer I'm here because I don't know how to fix this so I am open to whatever resolution the community thinks is appropriate. (I would need a little coaching on how IBANs would work in practice at CFD though.) It took me 3 evenings to put together the original list of Diffs; Captain Jack Sparrow's request to give BrownHairedGirl additional time to fully respond seems quite reasonable. - RevelationDirect (talk) 21:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Agreed. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:28, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Btw I suggested a two-way IBAN between you and BHG. In your OP, you still said If anyone has a magic wand, what I really want is for me and BrownHairedGirl to go back to collegial discussions in CFD; I understand and appreciate that sentiment. But there have been some sharp interactions between you two afterwards, and I'm getting the impression she would prefer to no longer interact with you in the long term (even though she does not want to impose any sanctions on anyone). How are you feeling about a two-way IBAN, or is that too soon for you to say? At the moment, I'm thinking it may be best for both of you, but I'm just an observer. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just an observer. No, you're not "just an observer." You've made approximately 70 edits to this AN/I thread, and persisted in editing here after you were warned about WP:BLUDGEON. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Each person's conduct should be evaluated in isolation and with respect to past behaviour, it is highly unlikely that a simple three-way IBAN would be a long-term solution for the good of the wiki. --qedk (t 愛 c) 22:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree. That's why I'm suggesting a mutual limited nomination ban for each other's created categories, and a SMALLCAT TBAN for BHG. Whether this is (A) fair and balanced, and (B) will work in practice, is something I hope to get people's feedback on. Hopefully we can work towards building a consensus on what should be done. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      That isnt possible; While two wrongs dont make a right, WP:AGF does allow the assumption of good faith to be dropped if the actions warrant as such. Therefore, actions must be evaluated in context and that involves evaluating the actions of others as well. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose BHG topic ban - The IBAN seems like it would be useful, but, as I read the evidence here, the problem is not emanating from BHG, it's from the editors who oppose her position and are bound and determined to get her sanctioned when it's not appropriate to do so.
      An important part of this issue is that some Wikipedians seems to believe that civility is the most important thing here, but it most decidedly not of paramount importance - improving the encyclopedia is the most important thing, close to being the only important thing about editing Wikipedia. A certain degree of mild incivility is quite appropriate when interacting with editors whose actions serve to degrade the quality of this encyclopedia. This is not a "Get Out of Jail Free" card for BHG, but her contributions to the project over the years have earned her a little leeway when dealing with unreasonable editors. (And on a side note, the desysoping of BHG is irrelevant here, because the standards of behavior for an admin are stricter than for an ordinary editor, which is as it should be.)
      I am also opposed to any other sanction being levied against BHG without an opposite and equal restriction against her opponents in this argument. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:44, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      An important part of this issue is that some Wikipedians seems to believe that civility is the most important thing here, but it most decidedly not of paramount importance. Well, given that Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility is one of the Wikipedia:Five pillars, the paramount importance of civility is beyond doubt vis-à-vis "improving the encyclopedia", which isn't.
      This is not a "Get Out of Jail Free" card for BHG, her contributions to the project over the years have earned her a little leeway when dealing with unreasonable editors. Well, that looks a lot like proposing a "Get Out of Jail Free" card for BHG. Given that BHG has already been blocked 4 times in the past 4 years, as well as desysoped, prohibited from all portals, and given an IBAN before, there is no reason to suddenly bring up her past achievement as an excuse for later, current and future misconduct. In fact, it suggests previous sanctions have not been effective enough yet, and require expansion. I think inaction is no longer an option, and the community should not engage in wishful thinking that these clashes won't happen again at SMALLCAT CfDs, especially between her and the three.
      I do read you support #1 and the limited nomination bans of categories created by the other party in #2 and #3? Then you mostly agree with me already, just not with the TBAN. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:19, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      There is one pillar about rules and policies ("Wikipedia had no firm rules"), THREE about Wikipedia's content "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia", "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view", and "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute") and ONE about behavior ("Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility"). "Respect and civility. It's worth considering that "respect" means not only "due regard for the feelings, wishes, rights, or traditions of others", but also "a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements". BHG has been here a long time (almost as long as me), and her "abilities, qualities and achievements" in helping to edit and improve Wikipedia have earned her the right to be respected. Again, this is not to say that she can misbehave at will, but it does put things into context, in my view. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Beyond My Ken So what you're saying is that: Because BHG has been here long and has made good contributions, we should forgive these repeated conduct problems with a Slap on the Wrist, basically saying BHGs part of the Unblockables? Nobody (talk) 06:12, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Nope. Did you miss the parts about "Not a Get Out of Jail Free card" and "this is not to say she can misbehave at will"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Just a caution at this point about WP:BLUDGEONing the process, Nederlandse Leeuw. Everyone is aware of your desire for sanctions. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I guess you're right. Thanks for the advice, I will take it to heart. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • We've been incredibly patient with BHG in the past, and I see that we're still bending over backwards to keep her at CFD. I can't see these insipid measures will have much effect.—S Marshall T/C 09:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      To be fair (my own past experiences of interactions with the editor, aside), in general, I think it's been mostly around the two topics that I noted above ("...anything involving feminism or women's issues; and anything involving Northern ireland, Ireland, the UK, the British Commonwealth - you get the idea..."). So, (to try to say this as neutral as possible), if, one feels that BHG is being disruptive, and thus if they are looking for sanctions to reduce/prevent such disruptions, then, probably an indefinite topic ban from those two general topics broadly construed, would likely be a step in that direction. But, call me jaded if you like, I am very doubtful that that will find consensus on AN/I. Plus, again to be fair, she has shown to be a positive contributor at times at CfD. In my opinion, the above has not shown her at her best, even if it may somewhat rather exemplify and illustrate some of the rhetorical WP:BATTLEGROUND, that I mentioned above.
      Also: While some of it maybe could be accounted for as baiting, there are some edits by others that probably should be looked at as well. For example, I don't know how extensive of a history Laurel Lodged and BHG have, but even if only from what we've seen in these threads, an interaction ban between those 2 at least, might not be a bad idea either. And if the seeming CFD battleground WP:DE by LL doesn't stop after being disengaged from interacting with BHG, then perhaps the community might need to look at a topic ban on the latter topic for them as well. - jc37 10:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While some of the categories were in one of those topic areas, I think that was only incidental. Other editors can of course express themselves how they wish, but my intent here was to raise specific concerns about incivility, not to make a broadside against BrownHairedGirl's contributions in general. - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:43, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to say, while I have not read everything, you really seem to have tried to keep collegiate discussion open with BHG. Yes, you both seem to clearly disagree on certain policy/guidelines, and you did lose your cool a few times, but you apologized and came back to the table to discuss. I don't think those discussions would win awards for positivity, but to me, it looks like you have tried. - jc37 10:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Miscellaneous Comments

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

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

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

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

    I may be misunderstanding things, but isn't BHG arguing for the existence of certain categories here? The main non-behavioural similarity with the portals case that I can see (so I am ignoring assumptions of bad faith, walls of text and bludgeoning) is that BHG is arguing for her preferred outcome using the wording of a policy that may or may not still represent consensus on an issue, and is unwilling to accept that policy can change even without a formal RfC that says so. Basically she says SMALLCAT should override vote-counting "consensus" at CfD; the opposite point of view might be that consensus in multiple discussions at CFD can show that the wording of SMALLCAT needs to be updated. Another similarity with the portals case is that portals and categories are fairly niche areas of Wikipedia, and the majority of editors ignore them most of the time. —Kusma (talk) 12:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO guidelines should be enforced uniformly, and unless the guideline is changed, the opinion of some editors in a discussion cannot overrule the accepted meaning of the guideline. If the guideline needs updating, they should update it using a well publicised RFC. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BOLD changes to guidelines do happen, and that is a Good Thing. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and it is fine to update the written rules without a formal RfC. (There is an old wiki-philosophical debate between the descriptivist and prescriptivist schools of thought). Wikipedia is not Nomic. —Kusma (talk) 13:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Kusma - Yes. After reading the diffs again, I see that BHG was defending the existence of small categories that were part of a subcategorization scheme or had the likelihood of growth. BHG had read the guidelines enough times to understand them, and the other editors only thought that they understood them. With both portals and small categories, BHG was thinking analytically based on what the guideline said, and had no patience with sloppy thinking. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    • Oppose I break my promise to disengage from this because I have been tagged. This proposal is wrong-headed. The issue is clear: BHG has been accused of uncivil behaviour; it is up to ANI to judge if that is true; if true, what sanctions are appropriate and likely to be effective both as a punishment and a remedy; if not true, close the case. Later, if other parties mentioned in this thread also feel that they have a case for uncivil behavior, let them take that to ANI. It really is that simple. I now withdraw permanently. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The proposer may not have seen your comments before they were expunged, but I did. Trust me, IBAN is a very lenient measure. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - key words: disruption and uncivil. And, I'll agree - this is very lenient from some of the other options on the table. - jc37 10:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • SupportOppose - I was minded to oppose until I saw that Laurel Lodged doesn't see their own uncivil behaviour as part of the problem. Whilst not a big fan of interaction bans, where two editors rub each other the wrong way, a break from that friction is often helpful. WCMemail 12:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment given the bear poking at WT:IE and below I'm minded to suggest a one way interaction ban instead forbidding LL from interacting with BHG. @Robert McClenon: its your proposal and I don't wish to disrupt it whilst the discussion is ongoing. I'd also strongly suggest to BrownHairedGirl that they ignore such provocation. WCMemail 14:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to oppose, very much in favour of a one sided ban. This would be my 2nd option. WCMemail 13:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I dont expect civil cooperation after the aspersions and resulting discussions.
    Changing my vote to oppose per the discussion below - It does raise the valid issue of trying to prevent communication between two longtime editors while allowing edits in the same space, which is likely to create more issues than it solves.
    Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • @Valereee, are you seriously saying that it is wrong to comment on a propsoal to delete categories based on a fundamneatl misuse of the relevant guideline? And wrong to note that the same editor repeats the same misuse despite being corrected? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @BrownHairedGirl, I am saying that personalizing such discussions is counterproductive. We don't have to call someone a liar. We can simply say their statement isn't true. Valereee (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      In these CFD discussions I have tried to not call anyone a liar.
      What I have done is to note bot the utrith and the fact that someone has repeatedly made similar misrepresentations of a very simple guideline.
      I reain deeply troubled that some editors focus solely on how the challenges are phrased, rather than on the substantive issue of consensus-forming being misled by the repeated misuse of a simple guideline. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      "You are a liar" vs. "That is not true" was just an example to make the problem easy to understand. You've called them malicious, vindictive, and operating in bad faith. Phrasing is important, BHG. Discuss the edits, not the editor. It's extremely frustrating to me that someone with 17 years and 3 million edits hasn't grokked that. Valereee (talk) 21:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Two of them have indeed been malicious, vindictive, and operating in bad faith: Laurel Lodged and Oculi.
      I will not refrain on Wikipedia or any other conte§t from noting such conduct when it happens, and I remain deeply sad that some editors are far more worried about those who challenge malicious, vindictive, bad faith actions than about the people engaging in malicious, vindictive, bad faith conduct. That's an inverted set of priorities. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I get it. You believe that's what's going on, and you believe in telling your truth. But it's counterproductive to come out and say it because saying it baldly weakens your argument. You may think that's deeply sad, but it's the wiser approach: describe what is happening objectively and let others connect the dots. Many of us are actually pretty good at that. Valereee (talk) 22:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I admittedly was reluctant to engage in the details of SMALLCAT until after the civility issues were resolved, but I finally did so above in the "The side issue of WP:SMALLCAT" section. Up to this point, that conversation hasn't lowered the temperature but I just added what I think is a neutral summary of our disagreement (diff). Shall we try again? - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question - would this mean that LL could not nominate categories created by BHG at cfd, and vice versa? Would it mean that BHG could not opine at cfd on nominations brought by LL and vice versa? (WP:IBAN says nothing on this.) Oculi (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Interaction between the two parties does indeed need to be contained. But by about 50%. SN54129 09:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - per my comments elsewhere and the obvious detriment to the project. Wee Curry Monster, you may wish to update your contribution above given Robert McClenon's newer proposal? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I have supported the one-way IBAN below. SportingFlyer T·C 15:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Not going anywhere. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

    • Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as targeted party. I can't speak for BrownHairedGirl, but she has indicated she does not want any sanctions, and I don't think she and I need a two-way IBAN. As far as I'm concerned, she and I will still be able to work together constructively in other areas. Evidently, there have been some tensions, but not nearly as strong as between BHG and the three. I can handle a few overblown Stalinist comparisons or some such in the heat of the moment, and I hope from my part some of my jokes weren't too harsh (otherwise I'm willing to apologise). But strange as it may sound, I think BrownHairedGirl and I will still be able to get along eventually. Just not during this ANI. BHG and I haven't got a long history of disagreeing, this is all recent and not that irreparable as far as I'm concerned. With that said, I shall disengage again as recommended; I only respond here because I was tagged. Good day to everyone. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:17, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      PS: Reading your comments again I can't see a reason why you would propose this. Are you sure you wanted to tag me, not someone else? (I'm not in a position to speculate). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per above. Even more head scratching that an editor who is not the subject of the complaint would be sanctioned instead of the accused. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - I don't think we're seeing here anywhere near the vitriol that we're seeing with BHG and LL. If NL stays cognizant of bludgeon, and of the possibility of being baited, I don't think there's an immediate need for this. - jc37 10:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose both in principle primarily because it is highly unlikely that will resolve long-term conflicts at CfD and/or result in improvement of conduct amongst the parties, I should also add that NL's conduct is nowhere near as vitriolic to BHG/LL and they should not have sanctions levied against them, at worst, they were badgering and even then, as soon as they were made cognizant of it, they stopped which is more than I can say about either of the other two parties involved. --qedk (t 愛 c) 11:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - as far as I am aware the only interactions between Nederlandse Leeuw and BHG are in this thread. (And Nederlandse Leeuw is part of the consensus against most tiny categories at cfd which prevailed peacefully until BHG returned with her view that the smallcat exceptions apply in almost all cases, rendering the argument toothless.) Oculi (talk) 12:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - per nom. As noted above, I'm not a big fan of interaction bans but its clear there is friction here and a break from that is often helpful. WCMemail 12:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose wrt NL-BHG IBAN. Isnt disruptive to the extent it needs sanctions as of now; Both editors have shown the ability to talk in a civil manner. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per above. I can see the rationale both for and against an LL-BHG interaction ban, but from my experience with NL they have been much more consistently civil at CFD, and I see no evidence of any pattern of non-constructive interactions between them and any other users. - car chasm (talk) 14:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose This doesn't yet rise to the level of an IBAN. I'd be willing to support if the sanction were NL not proposing BHG-created categories at CfD for a certain time period. SportingFlyer T·C 15:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Sorry, can people just remove proposals now? I'm just wondering what's happening to the process here. NL seems to be a) involved in the issue; and b) has contributed, by my count, in excess of 60 times to this discussion, to the extent they were warned about WP:BLUDGEON and only reluctantly stepped away. If ibans are being discussed, then to me, this is a valid proposal. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • [Discussion re-closed, above comment moved outside it.] @Bastun: I didn't say it was an invalid proposal. It's obviously not going to gain consensus, so I closed it. That is what admins are expected to do at the adminstrators' noticeboard for incidents. If you object to this close, you may file a close challenge at WP:AN. Please do not revert this close again. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 17:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    −
    Really? Is that what you think this case is about? Really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really? [[User:Laurel Lodged|Laurel Lodged]] ([[User talk:Laurel Lodged|talk]]) 11:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
    		+
    I fell into the trap that JC37 mention: "a.) if you get baited into being uncivil". Stupid of me. I've deleted the material. 12:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
    −
    I empathise with your problem. It's so annoying when people cannot accept that WP:SMALLCAT really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really does say that is about "potential for growth" rather than current pagecount. [[User:Laurel Lodged|Laurel Lodged]] ([[User talk:Laurel Lodged|talk]]) 11:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
    		+
    I've deleted the offending material per the JC37 trap. [[User:Laurel Lodged|Laurel Lodged]] ([[User talk:Laurel Lodged|talk]]) 12:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

    Proposal D: User:BrownHairedGirl is TBANned from all CfDs

    Also not going anywhere. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 17:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    I've seen some people suggest it in the main trunk of this behemoth, but here I am formally proposing a TBAN on all CfDs for User:BrownHairedGirl. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 05:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Disruption by Laurel Lodged

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

    At WT:WikiProject Ireland#TD_and_MEP_articles_and_the_'s-par'_template, @User:Bastun initiated[51] on 10 July a discussion on misleading uses of succession boxes for Teachtaí Dála (TDs), i.e. members of Dáil Éireann, the lower house of Ireland's parliament, the Oireachtas. The discussion has so far involved 4 editors: @Bastun, Iveagh Gardens, and Spleodrach: and me (BHG). It sooned reached agreement that while properly-built succession boxes for multi-seat constituencies can be made, not enough editors have been willing to do the very time-consuming work required.

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

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

    Then today, Laurel Lodged posted two comments[52][53] to the sub-thread WT:WikiProject Ireland#TD_navboxes:_getting_there. Those comments have nothing whatsoever to do with the refinement of the navboxes, or with any alterative solution. They are pure snark, whose purpose is solely to score points, and to try to stoke a dispute in an otherwise highly productive discussion. So I inserted[54] a new level 2 header above LL's comments, to allow discussion of the navboxes to proceed uninterrupted.

    Laurel Lodged's substantive point is that since their 2016 nomination of WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 March 3#Template:S-par/ie/oi those of us now working on the navboxes of us have revised our views, based on our experience of doing the work, and esp from the lack of other editors doing this work. LL seems to think that this learning from experience is a bad idea, and still seems to be unaware that their 2016 TFD nomination was wholly misconstrued: LL's proposed deletion of {{S-par/ie/oi}} would have left the succession boxes in place, just without their header. (I pointed this out[55] in the 2016 discussion).

    LL's conduct in that 2016 discussion was terrible. After I demonstrated a solution by adding properly-formatted succession boxes to some articles, LL falsely acused me of attempting to subvert, or at the very least to render moot this discussion by doing a solo run of a load of the boxes for TDs[56] with the edit summary "deplorable&nsp;behaviour". Nobody else supported LL's complaint, and @Wikimucker denounced[57] LL harshly: a User edits articles to give an example of what they are talking about they get swarmed by nutters indiscriminately quoting WP:*.* at them on talk pages all the time. Anyway I highly commend User:BrownHairedGirl for the given examples

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

    Please clarify the supposed disruptive behaviour. Is it: (1) the 2016 material; (2) today's material; (3) both. If (1), isn't there a wiki statute of limitations? If (2), I linked to an old related discussion. That's a sin now? Lastly, I'm not the only one to get in a final dig before the imminent IBAN. I'm minded to request an IBAN in case the ANI doesn't recommend same. I need protection from BHG. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    1. The 2016 discussion at WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 March 3#Template:S-par/ie/oi showed disruption by LL:
      • a nomination which coud not resolve the problem asserted. As I noted above, LL's proposed deletion of {{S-par/ie/oi}} would have left the contested succession boxes in place, just without their header.
      • a bogus allegation by LL that I engaged in deplorable behaviour[58] by creating examples of succession boxes which resolved the problem described by LL. That's why Wikimucker referred to LL as an example of nutters.[59]
      • LL's continued hostility[60] to my demonstration of a fix, even after 3 editors (NSH002, Wikimucker & Bastun) supported BHG's efforts.
        • LL's comment in the same edit An Admin has spoken, causa finita est, which falsely suggests that I used admin powers or status, and tries to smear me as some sort of Roman commander.
    2. The disruption in today's material is in two parts, as I explained in my initial post:
      • LL disrupted the sub-thread WT:WikiProject Ireland#TD_navboxes:_getting_there by posting comments which had nothing whatsoever to do with the refinement of the navboxes, or with any alternative solution. They were wholly off-topic to that discusion.
      • LL's posts today included unhelpful and misleading snark: The positions taken then versus now are amusing and instructive.[61] Remarks like that do not in any way help anyone to agree and build better solutions.
    In both 2016 and 2023, LL has poisoned discusions by failing to undestand the issues, and weaponising their misunderstading by attacks agaist me. This is long pattern, as LL has illustrated today by their own choice to draw attention to their 2016 antics. LL's question above isn't there a wiki statute of limitation is hypocrtical, because it was LL who chose to raise that 2016 discussion.
    LL does not need protection from BHG; LL needs to be proteced from their own persistent failure to behave collaboratively. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Laurel Lodged, forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, but re: isn't there a wiki statute of limitations?, wasn't it you who brought up 2016 here? Valereee (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • This complaint is lengthy and difficult to parse. Much like the now virtually impenetrable but still ongoing WP:ANI#BrownHairedGirl's lack of civility in CFD, which already contains the WP:ANI#Laurel Lodged at CfD subsection. Why is this thread separate from it? El_C 15:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @El C: I was unsure whether to post it as a sub-thread of the other or as a new thread.
      I the end, I decided that since this issue is about neither CFD nor allegations against me, it was on balance better as a new thread. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm gonna merge it, sorry. It's still about CfD, so it's best that everything be kept in one place. El_C 15:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Merged. El_C 15:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @El C, no it is not in any way about CFD. It's about WT:IRELAND and about TFD. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, whatever X the -FD is, it needs to be contained. Otherwise, outlining those grievances separately is hindering the normal operation of this noticeboard (such as it is). El_C 22:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @El C, I am sorry to say that your decision to take action on grounds that are simply wrong (even the error was pointed out to you before your action) shows a lack of care. And I am sad to see the lack of apology when you belatedly decided to assert a different rationale. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      You should not have filed a separate complaint. It's borderline disruptive that you did that, regardless of what those fine details are. El_C 22:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      As I explained above, I kept it separat because it involves separate issues, which are outside the scope of the headline "civility in CFD".
      You may disagree with that decision, but calling it borderline disruptive is very ureasonsable response. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      No, BHG, you don't get to do that while WP:ANI#Proposal A: IBAN Between User:BrownHairedGirl and User:Laurel Lodged is still live above. I won't allow you to disrupt this noticeboard, so take that as warning from an uninvolved admin. El_C 23:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @El C, I had hoped that any admin would accept that my decision was made in good faith, on reasoned grounds which I explained when challenged.
      I would also hope that per WP:ADMINACCT any admin would apologise for their repeated error about the nature of my complaint, rather than issuing a warning.
      I am also very saddened that instead of considering the substance of my complaint, you focus solely on your view that it would have bene better posted in a different place.
      . BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Your view of that be as it may, if you create a new ANI complaint about other persons prominently featured above rather than adding it as a subsection here, you will be sanctioned (no additional warning). I just want to make it perfectly clear you understand this. El_C 23:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      You have indeed made it abundantly clear that you are wholly unrepantant about your failure to read and comprehend the the ten words this issue is about neither CFD nor allegations against me.
      And yes, you have made your threat absolutely clear.
      In return, I hope that I have it absolutely clear to you I view it as a serious breach of WP:ADMIN that you have made and sustained a choice to ignore both the disruption of which I complained and the barrage of personal attacks for which I posted diffs, and that you instead chose to threaten me for what was at worst a good faith filing error. I just want to make it perfectly clear you understand this. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Don't label my warning as a "threat," BHG. You need to dial it down. El_C 00:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      It is a clear threat which follows you taking an action of the basis of a reason which was clearly false, and which you been explicitly warned was false.
      Please dial down your aggression. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, I am of the opinion that it was not a good faith filing error, in light of your experience, but not everything needs to be argued to exhaustion or doubled down on. And I'm sorry to say that I have low confidence that this will resonate with you. But I guess we'll see. El_C 01:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @El C: If it helps reduce tension, I give you--and only you--permission to rename this incident whatever you feel makes sense at this point. (Not sure if that would cause issues with any programs that track ANI though.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      El_C, this exchange would have ended long ago if you had had the courtesy to simply apologise for your error.
      Instead you escalated and prolonged our exchange by threatening me and by assuming bad faith in my straightforward explanation of how I made my decision on where to post.
      I undestand your view that my complaint shoukd have been posted as part of an existing thread, and I have not objected to your moving it
      But kindly don't attempt to depict your failure of WP:ADMINACCT as some sort of flaw in me. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      RevelationDirect, you lost me. Negative, BHG, that is not an error of note here and you are owed no apology. It's obviously the same person, regardless if it's TFD or CFD. For someone with your experience, you are displaying surprising WP:CIR inability, or unwillingness, to understand this. But that is on you. El_C 03:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      You took an admin action on a stated basis which was clearly false. That is an error of note.
      You are displaying surprising WP:CIR inability, or unwillingness, to understand this. But that is on you.
      My complaint about LL relates to one of the same people involved in the other thread, but the issues are different. I realised that there was a case in favour of both options, and also a case against both options. I reckoned that I could be praised or criticised for either choice.
      Butt for the reasons already stated, I thought a separate thread was on balance the least worst option, and the least likely to cause drama. You disagree, and you moved the thread. That's done. Now will you please back off? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Anyway, now I better understand why there are so, so many complaints against you, and why you are under behavioural restrictions. I was quite nice, actually, in merging a thread that, posted separately as it was, could easily be read as retaliatory. Instead, I'm faced with all of the above. That is to your discredit, I challenge. El_C 03:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      So you not only fail to apologose for your error, but you also appear wholly unwilling to cosider the substance of my post here. You repeateadly assume bad faith in me even when you are demonstrably wrong on points of fact.
      It is amazing that you claimed not to understand what my complaint was about, wrongly asserted that it was about CFD, ignored my detailed evidence of personal atacks by LL ... yet despite this string of incomprehension, you somehow seem confident in your ability to judge my intentions as malevolent.
      o BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Could be. Maybe stop assuming bad faith? As I recall, ABF is a major component of your behavioural restrictions. El_C 04:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      On the contrary, the ABF is entirely yours, as is the failure to read and the rapid resort threats. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh, I AGF'd, originally, but, no, not anymore. Obviously. El_C 04:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      You took action based on a false statement. You have had ample opportnity to demstrate your good faith by apologising for your error. But you didn't; you chose to act like someone of bad faith. You also to chose to threaten me, and to ignore he sustance of my complaint, and to accuse me of lacking competence, when you failed to read and comprehend the ten words you replied to.
      So don't accuse me of "projecting", as you did in a edit summary. This is on you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I am unmoved by your bluster. I stand by the merger and my reasoning for it. You've been warned not to misuse this noticeboard again, there's not much else to say. El_C 06:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      This is just another example of the fundamental problem with BHG's attitude to discussions: when she assumes she is right (and especially when she is), she will not cease to insist on her point, even if it is minor, and will actively prevent any de-escalation, but start assuming that those who disagree with her lack competence or act in bad faith. I think it might be time to clarify the third of her editing restrictions in a way that prevents threads like the one here. —Kusma (talk) 10:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So, BHG, forgive my ignorance, but why did this feel like a jab? Valereee (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read the LL's two edits[62] together.
    And please also read my explanation above. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So to you the "amusing and instructive" felt like a jab? I'd tend to agree that it looks like an attempt to bait you. @Laurel Lodged, can you comment on why you would be baiting BHG? Valereee (talk) 22:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Valereee, the baiting was partly in the comments themselves, but mostly in the invitation to other editors to come and re-open a debate from 7 years ago in the midst of a highly-focused discussion on developing what we hope may be a series of over 100 navboxes (if all the issues can be resolved).
    In my view, the core of the jab was the disruption that would have been caused if LL had succeded in that attempt to divert the productive discusison. That would have really screwed with my work.
    As @Spleodrach replied to LL this evening, If Laurel Lodged has nothing construtive to add then perhaps they should bow out of the discussion[63] BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Laurel Lodged's comments on Wikiproject Ireland, linked above, were the first inkling I had of... well, all of the above. It certainly struck me when I read it as a needless and pointy jab. Looking at all of the above, it was clearly baiting. Especially when you add in LL's subsequent comments about needing "protection from BHG."BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank You/Neutral I'm really glad to see this dispute over Irish navboxes going back to 2016 is now here at ANI instead of being worked in as subtext at CFD. Thank you for following up on MJL's earlier nomination within a nomination! (I defer to other editors on the merits of the points raised above.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Now what

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

    If anyone is interested in a drive-by close (bolding for truth-in-advertising's sake), I'd close it as (a) anyone involved will be blocked if, starting now, they continue to question the motives of other editors, (b) anyone involved will be blocked if, starting now, they try to bait one of the other editors, (c) everyone involved will stand down from nominating/commenting on category deletion discussions related to SMALLCAT until there's been an RFC on SMALLCAT, and (d) anyone involved who is rude to anyone else during that RFC will be blocked from the remainder of the RFC (and thus lose the opportunity to affect the outcome).

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

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

    I can't link to the diff of my comments above due to the mass oversaight of everyone's edits, but they're at timestamp: 09:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
    The above threads are just another example of what we've seen before - which is why I called it a "merry-go-round".
    I think your proposed solutions might not be bad, except that - based upon what we've seen here - I am doubting they could be effectively applied, much less achieve the hoped-for ends of reducing disruption.
    So I guess I am going to have to agree with you that AN/I does not seem to be effective for resolving these things.
    But I guess we'll see what we'll see.
    Thank you for taking the time to look this over Floquenbeam. I'm sorry you were drawn into this seeming time sink too. - jc37 17:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To be very clear: I wasn't drawn into this time sink, because I recognized it as a time sink. This is a drive-by suggestion in the sense that I only skimmed this once. My interest is more in pointing out how ANI doesn't handle this kind of thing well, rather than in trying to achieve some kind of actual "justice". I am most certainly not an example of the "wise, patient, uninvolved admin [who] is going to come by, carefully and diligently read and digest this sprawling mess, and block/warn/advise one or more editors". I'm just suggesting we try to salvage something here, but that we should give up on adding much more to this wall of text. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    "Unsubstantiated accusations of tag teaming are uncivil."

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

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

    Abel and POV pushing

    (non-admin closure) Abel has been indefinitely blocked by El C for disruptive editing and egregious misconduct at WP:UTRS. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

    The user has less than 10 edits. Some of these are POV pushing (removing Russian names of Ukrainian localities where Russian is predominantly spoken), others are rsnt on their talk page. They refuse to accept that new users may not edit articles on these topics (see their talk page). Could we have a block please. Ymblanter (talk) 18:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    And to be honest this happens multiple times per day. Extremely tiring. Ymblanter (talk) 18:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fourth revert on Kreminna now [64]. I guess their attack on Avdiivka is not much better, and this is pretty much theor only contribution. Ymblanter (talk) 19:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Attack? You are attacking by renaming Ukrainian cities. On what basis do you do this? You should be blocked for mystifying and misleading readers
    So why do you commit illegal actions several times a day - renaming Ukrainian cities? Are you the government or the parliament of Ukraine? What laws do you follow? Abel (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear, are you implying that adding city name translations is actually illegal? That it's against the law? 〜 Askarion ✉ 19:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Cities have an official name. What drives a person to change their name? Does he have such authority if it is a matter for the government of the country? Abel (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This comment shows that you either are not aware of our policies, or do not care about them, or, likely, both. Ymblanter (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been registered on Wikipedia since 2019, so I'm curious: since when did it become Wikipedia's policy to deceive people, what are you doing renaming Ukrainian cities at your discretion? Abel (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So why do you commit illegal actions several times a day - renaming Ukrainian cities? Are you the government or the parliament of Ukraine? What laws do you follow? Abel (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Could someone urgently block please? I am not sure why I should be forced to read this bullshit. Ymblanter (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope someone blocks you. Because what you are doing is called quackery. You cannot change the names of cities at your discretion Abel (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Cities have an official name that can only be changed by the country's parliament. Are you the parliament of Ukraine that changed the name of Ukrainian cities? Abel (talk) 19:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, four reverts at Avdiivka as well. Ymblanter (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    On what basis are you renaming Avdiivka again? Abel (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Because 1) you may not edit this article, and your edits should be reverted on the spot; 2) I did not rename anything; 3) my edits correspond to a long-standing consensus; 4) you are disruptive user and all your edits in fact degrade the quality of the English Wikipedia. Ymblanter (talk) 19:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Five reverts at Avdiivka. Ymblanter (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Avdiivka is Avdiivka. You keep adding a name to the city that doesn't exist. Stop deceiving people and using Wikipedia for political purposes Abel (talk) 19:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there any quality in lies? The city has an official name. What gives you the right to change it?
    If I start renaming Russian cities in the Ukrainian manner, this will also "improve quality"?) You are spreading lies and using Wikipedia for the political purposes of the Russian Federation and you should be blocked Abel (talk) 19:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, have you ever looked at Belgorod for example? And this is a clear and patent LIE that I spread anything in the interest of the Russian Federation. It is a pretty clear personal attack, and you have no place on this project. I am a community member in good standing, and you have no right saying this to me. Ymblanter (talk) 19:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You have a Russian-language Wikipedia, where the rules of the Russian language apply. In English, names are translated from the original language of the country. In English, we write New York, not, for example, Nueva York Abel (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure whether their denial of being new is a sock puppetry admittance, or the 2019 creation date. One week was generous for the RGW. Star Mississippi 02:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They are talking about their 200+ edits on the UKR-WP since 2010. Though this still doesn't allow them to RGW in EC-protected topic area, of course. a!rado🦈 (C✙T) 15:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked Abel for a week. Won't stand in the way of a longer sanction if somebody sees fit. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:55, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Interesting. Abel knows about UTRS, and sort of how to work it. This suggests to me that his previous presence here turned into a TPA revocation. I mean… Unless Ukrainian Wiki uses UTRS, too? MM (Give me info.) (Victories) 18:25, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like pretty clear WP:RGW. If the week long holiday works, great, else support further action. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Scammer reaching out to AfD article subject

    Regarding Malcolm Collins (author), which is currently at AfD, someone emailed the subject, claiming to be an admin, offering to help save the article after a "service fee". (feel free to move this to COIN or elsewhere if more appropriate) Opencooper (talk) 19:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Opencooper, this is a common scam. Please read Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Scam warning for more information and how to report it. Cullen328 (talk) 23:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cullen328: Thanks for the link. I'll email the subject and point them to it. Opencooper (talk) 00:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    request for service fee

    Sections on the same topic merged. Abecedare (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Apologies if this is already being handled somewhere else.
    I was just browsing Reddit and read a post where a screenshot is provided of somebody claiming to be a senior WP-administrator asking for a service fee. I have no idea if the post and/or screenshot are legit. To be honest I don't even know if there is such a position as senior admin, but it certainly raised my eyebrows and I thought it best to notify you guys (sorry if this is the wrong place for this issue. If it's a legit problem I trust 1 of you will make sure it gets to the right place.)
    Here is the Reddit post:
    https://www.reddit.com/r/WikipediaAdminReport/comments/14szgp5/tom_a_sr_admin_is_running_undisclosed_editing/
    The last sentence of the second of 3 pages is the fee request. Dutchy45 (talk) 07:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    See two threads above, there is already a thread about the same scam. --Cavarrone 07:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, yes I see. Thanks for pointing it out @Cavarrone Dutchy45 (talk) 08:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dutchy45 Extremely obvious and very common scam that falls apart with any kind of research or even just reading the email carefully. I'm sort of amazed that someone fell for it, let alone creating an entire reddit post over it.
    Among the more obvious things wrong in that email chain:
    1st email
    • Tom is not an admin, and has not been an admin for 4 1/2 years.
    • Tom has not edited the site since 2019, their talk page contains a large banner that they've MIA.
    • Tom has not disclosed their surname and does not use the name "Cooper" anywhere, their account used to be called User:Tomf688 so their surname actually probably starts with an F.
    • The email has been sent from the very obvious fake address "thewikipedians.com", wikipedia's url is, of course "wikipedia.org".
      • According to WHOIS the domain is registered via a proxy to hide who actually owns it.
    • There is no such thing as a "senior administrator"
    • There is no such thing as the "spam list", and there is no 5 year/lifetime block after a page has been deleted.
    • Per the WP:COI guidelines we would not be recommending that the subject of the article add references themselves.
    • We do not resolve deletion discussions by "removing the tag" from the article, they are resolved by evaluating consensus in the discussion.
    • We do not do any "clearing [of] our records" after a page is deleted, what does that even mean?
    • What on earth does "sent over the deletion log" mean? It's utter nonsense.
    • Page titles can be reused once a page is deleted
    • Page content can be restored, it doesn't become blacklisted/unusable because it was part of a deleted page.
    • If we delete a page we would not tell someone to recreate it at a different title, the page would just be WP:G4'd
    2nd email
    • There is no such thing as a moderator
    • AFD's are not votes or surveys
    • Bureaucrats do not close AFD's or delete pages
    • You do not need to get a "certain amount of keep votes" to stop a page being deleted, you need to demonstrate that the page meets the inclusion criteria.
    • There is no such thing as a "certified wikipedia administrator"
    • Anyone can contribute to AFD's, you don't need to be certified.
    It's very clearly a paid editing company impersonating an inactive admin to try to sign someone up for paid editing services, the entire email is full of nonsense that doesn't make any sense. 192.76.8.82 (talk) 13:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @192.76.8.82 >"I'm sort of amazed that someone fell for it, let alone creating an entire reddit post over it."
    Somebody making that post doesn't mean they fell for it. Redditors are regularly willing to go through all that effort for other reasons. i.e.:shitstirring, karmapoints or, what I suspect in this case, a beef with WP. Don't take Reddit serious, says the Redditor with over 40.000 karmapoints.🙄 Dutchy45 (talk) 07:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    > "It's very clearly a paid editing company impersonating an inactive admin...."
    Or an individual without any company doing that exact thing, in the hope of getting paid. 🙄🤥 – .Raven  .talk 02:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record, I emailed the subject of the article and they responded to me, so they have been made aware of the scam. Opencooper (talk) 23:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Opencooper He (I'm assuming) also commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malcolm Collins (author). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent disruptive editing by Chamaemelum

    (Given the exigent editing by Chamaemelum even while these discussions are onongoing, I am going ahead and closing this thread with the unanimous evident consensus that Chamaemelum is indefinitely topic banned by the community from aspartame/alternative medicine topics, broadly construed. Standard UNBAN conditions apply. Thank you, Lourdes 12:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC))[reply]

    • I have reopened this discussion to allow the community to explore whether the scope of the ban should be extended to include all medical related topics, broadly construed. Thanks, Lourdes 04:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This novice user (< 1500 edits since first in April) has been highly disruptive on Aspartame, warring against talk page consensus, and an admin revision (29 June, DMacks) with page protection (1 July); examples (among numerous in article history):

    On Talk:Aspartame, the user has been warring against comments and clear rebuttals by several experienced editors; examples:

    The user has been warned for disruptive editing by several talk page notices.

    Hi, I caused page protection by posting on a noticeboard to prevent edit warring due to a recent series of reverts he made. I first added the news story, which was widely reported as fact (~100 media outlets), that the WHO is reclassifying aspartame into possibly carcinogenic. Once I concluded this was not reliable (the result of "possibly carcinogenic", not the reclassification consideration) despite widespread secondary coverage, I instead added the non-disputed, also widely reported (including on the WHO's website) fact that they are considering reclassifying aspartame. This was in response to confused editors wondering why there was no mention of it. To be clear, at no point did I advocate for saying aspartame is unsafe or causes cancer, and I believe it doesn't, though I and multiple other users thought the widespread factual coverage of the WHO's reclassification was notable enough for inclusion.

    Multiple editors (e.g., WhatamIdoing, Little pob, cdh1001, TypistMonkey, many IP addresses, and countless other editors who made edits but didn't use the talk page) were on the side of the inclusion, and multiple were on the side of the deletion of the excluded content. There was no consensus.

    I repeatedly tried to open a dialog with Zefr, for example regarding the POV tag, but he didn't respond, instead removing it. The edits linked by Zefr [72] [73] show me deleting or rephrasing (to be closer to the source text) a non-independent source written entirely by a current employee of Cadbury about sweeteners. Per the talk page and my edits, I always tried to facilitate discussion to avoid editing disputes. Zefr said I acknowledged consensus was opposed but "continued warring" here [74]. This was in response to the comment "I think it would be appropriate to mention the certain facts, namely that a review will be happening. Just mentioning this fact (which is an "event", not Wikipedia:Biomedical information). . . ," by WhatamIdoing, and my comment intended to indicate a willingness to compromise "if" consensus was reached; it is not a claim about current consensus (indeed, multiple users had a dispute in that thread). I understand and respect the rules against disruptive editing and it's never my intention to go against consensus. I shouldn't have mentioned the trivia [75]; I was just surprised to see a peer-reviewed article about a Wikipedia user. Many of my edits or comments such as this [76] should be read in context of the discussion on the talk page. I left warnings on Zefr's talk page relating to edit warring (many reverts of multiple editors), improper template removal while declining discuss ([77][78][79][80][81][82]), and deleting others' talk page comments that have relevance to the article ([83][84][85]) or article discussions [86]. Because of the widespread nature of Zefr's disruptive editing here, but also with many other users on aspartame, I think it would be wise to consider Zefr in addition to myself in this report. Of course, I am also happy to revise my editing approach as necessary. Chamaemelum (talk) 05:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunately, it is very hard to take that final sentence at face value due to a general inability to understand and listen to consensus over the last few days. Draken Bowser (talk) 06:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban for Chamaemelum on aspartame and related articles. It seems to me that this is simply classic WP:IDHT. --RockstoneSend me a message! 06:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why the hurry, Chamaemelum? Just wait a week or two for the report to be published and we can then report accurate information, rather than selective speculation by the media. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, I agree. If I remember correctly, only my first edit was an attempt to include this media speculation. Afterward, I wanted to include only the information on the WHO's website regarding the situation (not related to the decision leak), and I still could wait with that, too. Chamaemelum (talk) 08:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support at a minimum whatever it takes to get them off the Aspartame/talk for the next few weeks. They moved from edit-warring on article, to talk-page discussion with substantial comments not directly aimed at improving the article, to now edit-warring on the talkpage over a discussion about a discussion about a disucssion that isn't directly about the article. I have not looked closely at their edits beyond that page and its talk to see if there is a wider problem. But I note that disruption of the article resumed after protection lapsed. DMacks (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support WP:TBAN. Unacceptable behaviour on the Aspartame article and talk-page from Chamaemelum. The same user has also made some bad edits on the red meat article, including copyrighted material. There seems to be a theme here of ignoring scientific consensus and what mainstream health authorities say, and ignoring advice from other users. Off-site Chamaemelum has been doing some research into Zefr's Wikipedia account and pasting in various websites. This is not outing because of anonymous account names but this has been done to me in the past and it is not very pleasant. I do not think that was being done in good faith. The user has also edited articles and talk-pages related to Water fluoridation, Ephebophilia, child sexuality, criticism of Islam, the age of Aisha, irreducible complexity, Innocence of Muslims, Richard Lewontin and articles related to race and intelligence. I have never edited any of these articles, I find it odd a brand new user would start editing all of these controversial topics within the space of a month. The user has posted that they had an older account on Wikipedia. This is definitely not a new user. My advice would be to edit non-controversial topics for a while and stay out of drama and edit-wars. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I absolutely did not post Zefr's name into any offline website in any shape or form. It's offensive and wrong that you accuse me of that, and I would never react that way over a simple disputed edit. Chamaemelum (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I think you might have misread that sentence, it says pasting not posting. Draken Bowser (talk) 22:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Pasting implies posting: for the paste to be published it must be posted. I mean "in any shape or form" which means no even tangentially related activity that could in any way be construed as something close to pasting Zefr's Wikipedia account in various websites. Chamaemelum (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      You have misunderstood what I wrote. I was referring to websites you pasted onto Wikipedia, I never claimed you were writing stuff off this website. I would agree with others users here including the user below. This is a massive time sink. Lot's of time has been wasted addressing concerns about your editing. I also have a bad feeling you are a returning banned user. I will not be responding again. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Chamaemelum: frankly IMO Psychologist Guy and Zefr and whoever else dealt with your talk pages posts have been very generous IMO. What you did seems to be a clear cut violation of Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment. Please do not make such posts again. If you have evidence of an editor behaving inappropriately, post about it in an appropriate place using only on-wiki evidence, not based on what someone else has said in some other site. An exception would be if there is some serious discussion of including the content in some article, but that clearly wasn't the case here. Nil Einne (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Just to be clear, I never posted external links relating to an editor on the aspartame talk page. Chamaemelum (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Yet, even though other editors deleted it and explained why in their edit summaries, you insisted on edit warring over it and restoring the negative content about another editor found off-wiki. That's a serious BLP violation. Editors here should not be harassed, and we get literal and serious death threats, so your actions were seriously bad. So far I think you are a net negative here and am seriously wondering if you shouldn't just be site banned as a massive time sink. When you meet resistance from other editors, and that is often in the form of a revert, immediately stop. Don't persist or repeat. If it's important to you, then start a discussion, but that brings us back to where much of your disruption has been. It is in many and long discussions on talk pages. Your IDHT behavior wastes our time on long and fruitless talk page discussions. SMH. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:52, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The comment which was deleted included discussion about the article. My proposal, to paraphrase the intent of the comment while deleting the link, was reasonable. Chamaemelum (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Chamaemelum: I admit, I missed that it wasn't you who initially added the link and so I apologise my comment was not as clear as it should have been. However your claim "I never posted external links relating to an editor on the aspartame talk page" is still bull. You reverted the removal of the comment wholesale which included adding back the link at least three times. Your reversions are still visible in the edit history clear as day. I'm not going to link to it since unlike you, I do not believe in contributing to off-wiki harassment, but these include 1164101590, 1164112776, 1164123422. If you are claiming someone else took control of your account and made the reversion, then your account needs to be blocked until we can be sure you have full control over your account. If you are not making such a claim, then please understand you are responsible for your all edits made via your account, which includes any harassment, BLP violations, or whatever else you choose to revert. While it's accepted that sometimes editors may sometimes inadvertently make mistakes e.g. add back BLP violations mistaking their removal for vandalism, in this case having done so 3 times and when you were clearly aware there was a problem with the comment, and where the problems with the comment were plainly obvious, there is no excuse for doing it once let alone 3 times. Whatever else you may have proposed, you did make such reversions so please don't come to ANI and try to bullshit us. And BTW, your highly belated proposal is still highly flawed. Removing the link is not sufficient. Again, either report the alleged inappropriate behaviour somewhere suitable which would not be an article talk page using only on-wiki evidence, or don't. But don't bring what other people on other sites have said about editors into the discussion unless you are proposing that we add this to some article. Nil Einne (talk) 18:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, I reverted the deletion of a comment supporting the inclusion of the WHO's reclassification consideration, and this comment also had a the external link which discusses the editor if you pay to view the article. I have no issue with anyone's "inappropriate behaviour" and I had no desire to keep a link to the peer-reviewed paper which discusses Zefr: my issue was that Zefr, who was against the inclusion of the WHO's reclassification, deleted an opinion he disagreed with off of the talk page without a note that said something like "Comment removed due to unwarrant linked, editor voiced support for the mention of the WHO's reclassification in the article." Notice that the second paragraph, not containing/discussing the link, was deleted as well. Chamaemelum (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Rschen7754 and I have called this user out for WP:PRODding 1/3 of the Nigerian road articles and, when that did not work out, WP:BLUDGEONING the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A236 highway (Nigeria). The latter discontent was only expressed by me, unless I missed something. Chamaemelum's behavior at the Nigeria national roads and the problems indicated above are extremely time consuming for the WP community that can use its time much better elsewhere. gidonb (talk) 00:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's interesting, gidonb, about a month ago, in my regular activity at AFD land, I noticed two editors who were focusing their attention on nominating bios of Nigerian people for deletion consideration. Undoubtedly, there are frequently a lot of poor sources in those articles but it seemed like a very specific focus. I wasn't sure what to make of it and when I contacted one of the editors about an unrelated AFD issue, this activity stopped. I kind of filed it away in case there were problems in the future but your comment brought it back to mind. I'm not suggesting coordination, it's just an odd coincidence. Liz Read! Talk! 05:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for being vigilant, Liz, against such threats! In general, the more people AfD or PROD, this affects precision. The only possible exception I presently notice is a user who always addresses sports and refrains from arguing. Someone who compensates the negative effects of quantity by being a subject matter and standards expert. When WP:BLUDGEONING is thrown into the mass PRODding or AfD mix, and it often is, the combination will become a brutal nuisance. This in general. As I mentioned in my responses at the Nigeria A236 AfD, specifically for Africa and many other regions, it is difficult to maintain good coverage, while balancing both quality and quantity. gidonb (talk) 06:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi gidonb,
    My comments there (and the PRODs) were due to my not knowing that a local consensus existed, having never interacted with road articles before. I know more now, but at the time I saw it akin to having articles for every individual tollbooth. That was my first deletion discussion and I'm more aware of the best practices now, like not responding to too many comments. I hope we can edit and discuss collaboratively in the future. Chamaemelum (talk) 06:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I reacted to what I saw. If the next encounters will be better, that would be good. gidonb (talk) 06:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban from Aspartame and Alternative medicine topics. A huge timesink with RGW, BLP, CIR, and IDHT issues. I suspect (I'm applying an extreme degree of AGF) there are also language issues involved which create misunderstandings. Editing here requires a minimum of English language comprehension. If that is not the case, then the problems are more serious and warrant a Tban, at a minimum. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban. These edit wars put unecessary strain on the Enwiki community. gidonb (talk) 15:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not only alternative/aspartame; I'm having a heck of a time with this user at Alzheimer's disease. My sense is that they want to be a good editor, but the amount of damage repair needed at Alzheimer's was a constant over the last few days, and Chamaemelum hasn't gotten yet a good grasp of even how to create a section heading[87] or a good understanding of how to apply WP:MEDMOS or WP:MEDRS. And there are organization, flow, prose issues as well as other (MOS) stylistic problems, along with the introduction of factual errors (Aducanumab was not fully approved, info not supported by source). Alzheimer's is a highly viewed article, and we just can't have factual errors added there. Perhaps this editor should build expertise outside of the medical realm entirely in the meanwhile. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      While I mixed up lecanemab and aducanumab (a single factual error) and some technical concerns (e.g., a different citation format), my overall contributions to the article have been net positive. This include major cleaning up and organization, [88][89], adding information [90][91], and improving misleading/wrong information (late-onset Alzheimer's is not inherited, mutations alter the Aβ42 ratios without increasing Aβ42 generally), etc. I wouldn't think my edits on this page support a ban on all medical articles. Chamaemelum (talk) 19:08, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      One if your own diffs is [92]. I agree with SandyGeorgia that the way you just tacked that on at the beginning didn't really improve that section. Per the talk page, you have been taking on feedback about your edits and trying to improve. I'm concerned though that your comments here suggest you still don't really understand why your edits can be problematic. Nil Einne (talk) 19:52, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree: it's true that I tacked it on, which wasn't great for flow. However, consider how I subsequently improved that section in my following edits. Chamaemelum (talk) 19:59, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban on aspartame broadly construed. From their postings on the aspartame talk page and here, it's clear this editor has a great deal of RGW. Further while I appreciate it's always tricky when there are concerns readers may be confused by a lack of information, it seems particularly silly that we're wasting all this effort on something which they agree is likely to be resolved in 1-2 weeks which to be clear includes their long effort to get some mention of the current review in the article. Especially, since as was fairly easy to predict IMO, after a massive spike in the first day, we're now down to about only 3x normal page views [93]. While I am deeply concerned about their apparent blase attitude to links and discussion of off-wiki comments on editors, it's not clear to me a wider topic ban will resolve that. Holding off on further discussing a wider topic ban for now due to EC with Sandy Georgia. Nil Einne (talk) 19:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I remain concerned. The Genetic section at Alzheimer's is not improved; it was in bad shape to begin with, but it's still quite a jumble of poor flow and organization and confusing text. The research section is also jumbled now. And as I mentioned on talk, the idea that we can compromise on facts is just odd (wrong is wrong). And I only happened across this ANI; it's always troubling to see a user talk page where all past commentary is blanked. It doesn't yet seem that Chamaemelum understands how medical content is built; in their defense, all of the NOTNEWS errors in that discussion were not Chamaemelum's, but their edits made clean up of the errors more difficult (in fact, it still has not been finished). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't believe that one should compromise on facts. That diff was intended to incorporate both perspectives from both you and the other editor to avoid a continuance of the dispute, as these types of compromise edits have been very constructive previously. Chamaemelum (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think it matters what you believe. What matters is what Wikipedia policy is. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 21:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Groan!!! Will it never end? Now they're making nonsensical edits at Multiple chemical sensitivity. A Tban from alternative medicine and all medical topics is really needed and needed yesterday. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      See the diff: [94]; "Although" casts doubt on the following claims by the AMA and WHO. Chamaemelum (talk) 22:19, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Chamaemelum, stop arguing and start listening to the community. Please. Or you're probably going to get blocked. If I were you, I would voluntarily refrain from making edits to topics related in any way to medicine for a period of several months. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 22:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Chamaemelum, no, it doesn't. There is no conflict between the existence of debilitating symptoms and the non-recognition of MCS by mainstream medicine. These people present with real and debilitating symptoms which they mistakenly attribute to MCS. Some of those symptoms may be caused by serious conditions and some might be psychosomatic. The long-standing version is accurate. Stop messing with articles at Wikipedia. You're treating this places like your own private website, and you do it at a dizzying pace and complexity that indicates you are likely a block-evading experienced editor. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I understand these concerns. I will be sure to not argue or revert for my preferred version of an article. I hope, since I believe we have similar worldviews in general and philosophies pertaining to pseudoscience, that you think of my edits more positively than warranting the suggestion of "Stop messing with articles at Wikipedia. Stop all editing. Just disappear." I believe, despite hiccups, that I will be a net-positive contributor. Chamaemelum (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      You are quite determined to push an emerging treatment of marginal benefit with serious risks into the lead of Alzheimer's disease as if it were a standard treatment protocol. I don't think you are getting the message. Talk:Alzheimer's disease#Immunotherapies continued. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      PS, for those unfamiliar with the state of Alzheimer medication research, I'll add here that a) it's a cash cow because of the projected growth in the number of cases due to the aging population, and b) emerging therapies are the subject of intense lobbying by patient advocate groups, resulting in fast-track approvals for drugs with serious adverse affects and unproven benefits. New York Times 1, New York Times 2, BMJ, NPR, CNN, New York Times 3 ARStechnica, Neurology Wikipedia is not a place for WP:ADVOCACY and our medical content should be uncorrupted by it; adding this emerging therapy to the lead is UNDUE. The information is appropriately added to the correct section, but Chamaemelum (having hopefully read all the info on talk), adds it to the lead with sourcing issues, as if it's a standard treatment protocol (maybe we should also add Gingko biloba to the lead then?). This is editing while under ANI scrutiny; I don't believe Chamaemelum should be editing medical topics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Lourdes, SandyGeorgia has expressed legitimate concerns that Chamaemelum should not be editing medical topics, and there are a number of other editors who have similar concerns. Please revise the close and ban accordingly. This editor is a wild bull in a China closet and needs very tight restraints if allowed to edit at all. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Valjean, I have reopened the discussions. Thanks, Lourdes 04:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Beginning here is the discussion of ban of any medical topic or a site-wide full ban, as opposed to the above discussion of an aspartame/alternative medicine ban. Chamaemelum (talk) 07:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    In total, my edits to medical topics have been beneficial to the encyclopedia, and there have been no disruptive editing, policy violations, or edit disputes that warrant a such a complete ban from all medically-related topics.

    My track record on medically-related articles is overall positive. See these medically-related articles I created: [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101]

    (And many more planned that are off-wiki drafts.)

    Or significantly contributed to: [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107]

    And numerous contributions, in:

    Biomed: [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116]
    Maintaining NPOV with people or organizations: [117] [118] [119]
    Other: [120] [121]

    Including minor edits to accurately represent the (il)legitimacy of fringe pseudoscience: [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] ([129], page at the time: [130]) [131] [132] [133] [134]

    And a large number of grammar/other small corrections on medical articles.

    SandyGeorgia’s medical-topic criticism comes from the Alzheimer’s disease page: [135]. Look at the difference between the “causes” section before [136] and after [137] my restructuring of the causes section. (Also note that there hasn’t been disruptive editing, long arguments, or edit disputes here.)

    Throughout my medical editing and in my interactions with SandyGeorgia, I’ve accepted criticism of my edits and improved them (e.g., citevar), which I will continue to do. I don't claim that all of my edits are flawless.

    Being banned from medical topics means I won’t be able to fix pages like this [138].

    I hope that my steady, quiet work improving a variety of medical topics is not overshadowed by a single, noisy dispute on aspartame: it would be a clear net-negative to permanently ban all of my future contributions in this regard. Chamaemelum (talk) 07:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Support T-Ban for all Medical Topics — per SandyGeorgia's comments here and on the Alzheimer's Talk Page, this is an advocacy issue. Moreover, it is my opinion that this user's edit count and behavior much more resemble a very experienced Wikipedia editor with an agenda than a 3-month old editor learning the ropes and trying to improve the encyclopedia. Combefere ★ Talk 08:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I added a new FDA approved treatment to the lede--SandyGeorgia pointed out that it is too emerging to be in the lede, which I acknowledged and accept. I don't think a topic ban on all medical topics is the correct response. As I have said before, I am a returning editor: "I had an account a long time ago (I stopped about 8 years ago).... Since then, when I was in college, they forced us to edit Wikipedia instead of giving us assignments for one of my classes." I would be interested to know which agenda I'm suspected of having. Chamaemelum (talk) 08:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You admit to being a returning editor but don't identify which one. Our concern is whether you are evading a block or ban.
    1. Are you the indefinitely blocked editor Rayner111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? That editor was blocked on 15:00, 8 May 2023 by Doug Weller. (User talk:Rayner111 is instructive.)
    2. Is J. E. R. Staddon (John Eric Rayner Staddon) your biography?
    3. Is Theoretical behaviorism an article you created and have returned to editing under your new username?
    While we really like having subject matter experts and published scientists editing here, sometimes they refuse to manage their COI appropriately. We even had to ban a Nobel Prize-winning physicist for this reason. Such achievements do not mean you have more rights than any other editor. Here we are all equal in that regard, and editors who run roughshod over other editors, do not respect WP:PRESERVE by making substantive deletions without discussion, and refuse to collaborate are not worth keeping, regardless if they are God herself. We effing don't need them! They are a huge time sink. We shouldn't have to analyze every single edit they make. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No. If you believe that's me, investigate further as needed, but don't base a reason for a ban on suspicion. Chamaemelum (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "when I was in college, they forced us to edit Wikipedia" This would be an example of such an agenda. Again, this is only my opinion, but it seems like you are more interested in meeting some sort of quota than in collaborating constructively with the rest of the community. It is impossible for any of us to know specifically why you are behaving this way (student assignments? paid contributor? CIR? something else?), but the effect is the same regardless: 'like a bull in a china shop' as another editor put it. I would also support a total ban from Wikipedia as it seems to me that you are not interested in collaboration which is a pillar of our project. Combefere ★ Talk 17:46, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't assume that I'm acting in bad faith. That doesn't make sense: I was a student a long time ago, and my edits don't push any sort of "paid" agenda. It would be helpful if my critics would provide diffs to claim that I have "deep state conspiracist views" or are pushing some quota/agenda. Chamaemelum (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support total ban from Wikipedia. Whatever the case, your lack of collaborative skills, CIR issues, and political "deep state" conspiracist views make you unsuitable for editing almost anything here, so I support a complete ban from Wikipedia. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, my sole interaction with Chamaemelum has been at Talk:Justyna Zander, where their lengthy rationale was irrelevant to the article's issues, including citing a foreign language wiki that was written by the article's subject, and a reliance on WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST. Probably all of this is beside the point if we're dealing with simple block evasion. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No foreign language wiki was cited. Chamaemelum (talk) 19:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Siteban. Enough. Even now, they are trying to control the narrative of the discussion about them, and not understanding that now we are still continuing what began in the now-reopened discussion rather than a "after this point is the start of the discussion" of an already-in-play topic. We've spent enough time here, no matter what we do in one realm just leads to a spread or new problem at some new target. CIR/timesink/sealion, take your pick. DMacks (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • For reasons including those explained at User talk:Lourdes, I really don't have time for this timesink right now. So one brief observation only; politely interacting on talk does not assuage the concerns-- the proof is in the pudding/edits. I look at the first line only in Chamaemelum's long response above, and I see the CIR issues ... "My track record on medically-related articles is overall positive. See these medically-related articles I created: ... " and from there Cham lists a number of bios including one put up just yesterday in draft space, and they all have the same issues that had to be corrected by others. Medical editors learn quickly about MOS:DOCTOR, yet Cham doesn't take that on board even after creating multiple Dr. So-and-so bios. Something is off here. Cham is now engaging on talk at Alzheimer's, rather than pushing through edits, and that's good; are they engaging overall and listening, or creating work for other editors? I don't think anyone reading of the serious advocacy issues that have plagued Alzheimer medications would be still pushing towards altering text to account for the possibility that these medications may eventually provide, while people who are using them are dying while hoping for a mere few months of cognitive improvement. Spending time on that content is a timesink; wait for the secondary reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support siteban—I had reservations and issues with this editor on the Nigerian road PRODs/AfD, and seeing the rest of the commentary here about other issues, I don't think this editor is here to contribute productively. For the good of the community, I think we should ask this person to leave. Imzadi 1979 → 22:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sadly, I feel like we are banning a high-profile editor. But they have been given enough WP:ROPE. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: (This is not an argument against a ban.) I'd like to continue editing on Wikipedia, so I want to make sure I understand what I can do to, frankly, not annoy people and to edit more collaboratively. I'd like to define what the issues are and receive feedback to see if I'm missing or misunderstanding.
      1. Adapt much more quickly to other editor's opinions, or simply drop the argument altogether, regardless of the correctness of the argument or if there is support from other editors. (Relevance: aspartame discussion, A236 highway AfD.)
      2. Make large edits slower or smaller. (Relevance: Alzheimer's disease, highway PROD.)
      • Combining 1 and 2, my plan is to, instead of bold->revert/get reverted->discuss, to do non-bold (to minimize reverts in the first place), get reverted or criticised, move on (don't discuss much if at all). Basically, treat every article like a hot potato: touch it only briefly and drop it quickly.
      3. Pay more attention to detail. (Relevance: SandyGeorgia's mentions of saying "Dr. First Last" instead of "First Last" on new articles, and matching the article-specific citation format.)
      I'm new to medical editing so I won't claim that I will never make a mistake again, but I hope that my proposed strategy will help minimize the frequency and the severity of any future mishaps. Is there any operationalization that I'm missing or misunderstanding? Chamaemelum (talk) 22:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support siteban User is not listening to others, nor acting in good faith, they have now joined WikiProject Medicine [139]. This is not the sort of user that should be editing here. The user has been given so much patience and time from other users but never listens. They are not helping or improving Wikipedia, they are nuisance soaking up users valuable editing time. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Support siteban, this user is not paying attention, the same disruption continues at other articles, and the repetition of the same kinds of issues across multiple topics and articles, even after explanation, is suggestive that they might be using AI to generate content. WP:NOTHERE, and someone else will need to decide whether to fully revert at multiple sclerosis or attempt to salvage something from the 2022 review; I don't have time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    And they've done the same thing at rheumatoid arthritis; that is, contrary to the promise above to make slower and smaller edits, and to pay attention to what they've been told, they've made broad edits introducing non-MEDRS sources; all will need to be checked or the whole thing reverted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Creating articles using book sources without page numbers, sample, Butterscotch Tart. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Adds primary source at Type 2 diabetes, after multiple times having been pointed to WP:MEDRS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for pointing that out. I've modified all edits on multiple sclerosis and rheumatoid arthritis to align with MEDRS. I hadn't looked at what counts as biomedical: I read MEDRS thinking that "biomedical" means pertaining to "medicine based on the application of the principles of the natural sciences"; for example, the efficacy of a treatment for a disease. Instead, on Wikipedia, biomedical includes "the molecular or cellular basis of a disease", which I'm now aware of. If my edits are bad, they are easily fixable by a single revert (edit summary, e.g.: MEDRS).
    I'll continue to improve the work-in-progress articles I created (the URLs often take you to the specific page; not ideal, I know). Chamaemelum (talk) 11:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Whit Hertford (Chronic and Intractable)

    After removing a ton of unsourced material from Whit Hertford I guesstimated on my talk-page this should end up on one of the drama-boards, and by golly it does. This user (and the WP:DUCK tells me we are dealing with the same person), treats this page as his personal resume. The problems are chronic and intractable and has every red flag an WP:SPA could aspire to. The end effect is disruptive. So here we are. Kleuske (talk) 17:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I second Kleuske on this. I put the page on my watchlist awhile ago because I noticed that it was being edited by him. I don’t think it’s a question of notability because he has a fairly extensive filmography. Afheather (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    A trip through the page history is a rather interesting one. Revealing several other accounts with very similar names and a ton of single minded anons. The other accounts seem to be abandoned and stale, so I'll just leave those out of this, but it does indicate this is a long standing (think 2009) habit. Kleuske (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've put COI templates on both of them and will block one for a username violation, they need to prove they are them as they could be an imposter (unlikely, more likely to be a dodgy self promoter) Secretlondon (talk) 16:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Might want to look into RyanItlov as he's edited back in the information twice now. Afheather (talk) 18:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no overlap in editing dates so maybe they lost access/forgot the account details of the first one. I've blocked the most recently used one - they need to prove they are not an imposter. I'd also want them to edit on things other than themselves. Secretlondon (talk) 16:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Now it looks like someone has created an account to act as his proxy to edit the page. Afheather (talk) 11:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just an IPv6 address I think. Secretlondon (talk) 18:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I posted about this issue here on this noticeboard but nobody responded to my post: [140]

    This user (User:Harmanjit Singh Khalsa123s) continues to disruptively edit Sikh pages, see: [141] , [142]

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

    Looks like long-term WP:DISRUPT. It believe it might be better if an admin indef blocked the account as it has been going on for months and the user has not engaged on the talk-page and ignored previous warnings. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Having seen this edit [143], this is vandalism. This is a case of WP:NOTHERE. I would support indef block. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have indefinitely blocked Harmanjit Singh Khalsa123s (talk · contribs) from editing articles and left them a message asking for a response. Johnuniq (talk) 05:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    2607:FB91:888C:A62:AC39:D1F7:4DF2:DE59

    2607:FB91:888C:A62:AC39:D1F7:4DF2:DE59 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was/is on a revenge SD nomination spree because they thought that if this article was invalid, an arbitrary group of others are too. The rationales were blatantly invalid and frivolous and have all been reverted. Normally I’d AGF and warn them but they’re both being uncivil about it (accusing the creators of COI/paid editing and hypocrisy) and creating unnecessary work for other editors to clean up. Maybe a preventative block from mainspace is necessary? Dronebogus (talk) 08:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    PLEASE. I'm the/a target of this disruption and it's unnecessary and unpleasant. The accusation [[144]] that I've changed my ID and am part of a COI ring extorting people is also both weird and mildly distasteful. Thanks Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Mercenf just changed his name from US-Verified.. Know when people are talking about you. 135.148.233.37 (talk) 06:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dronebogus according to reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/WikipediaAdminReport/) this is the same person who accused tom of being an UPE (i.e. the subject of the article) harassing other editors in revenge for their article being nominated for deletion, per some of the other posts on that subreddit they also appear to be evading a block on Mammach (talk · contribs) for spamming. 192.76.8.82 (talk) 15:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Merrymilkman1 is another self admitted sock puppet, clearly they're harassing people logged out and leaving votes to "save" their article logged in [145]. 192.76.8.82 (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Another IP of this sock, from the appearance of this [[146]] diff, is 47.181.166.72. They would all appear to link back to Mr Collins. Again with the bizarre COI/Extortion allegations... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Earlier today Bbb23 blocked the IP for a week. I see there is also a SPI report that has been filed so we'll see if anything pops up on that front. Of course, no connection to IP accounts will be verified but all of this activity has been disruptive today and targeted harassment of editors simply because of how they voted in one AFD discussion. Personally, I don't think the IP is the article subject, just a fan. Liz Read! Talk! 06:05, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at the links that were deleted.. All of them were non existent... if they rotted, he should fix them or leave it.. There were absolutely no bad edits at all. His user page says he is a paid PR consultant..He is just vandalizing and projecting. 135.148.233.37 (talk) 06:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you even look at the links that were removed? Seems irresponsible to just accept the word of someone who admits they are a paid pr consultant on their user page, had their 1st barnstar given to them by a sockpuppet, been accused of paid editing and is vandalizing wikipedia and causing a ton of headaches for all the editors. 135.148.233.37 (talk) 06:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Being a paid consultant is a job. It doesn't mean that it affects their editing on the project. They have been here long enough to know that if they are doing paid editing they need to disclose this and I assume they would. Your suspicions don't give you license to undo their edits. And your accusations of "paid editing" and "vandalism" carry no weight at ANI if you don't supply diffs as evidence to back up your claims. Liz Read! Talk! 06:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reverted the removal of all links from four articles and replaced the single broken link in each article. I can happily confirm I do not, and never have, edited Wikipedia as a paid editor. Random International once gave me a free $3 ticket to Rain Room after I created an article about them, which was nice of them. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, this [[147]] needs to stop now. Really. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Proxy user

    The 135.148 IP user immediately above appears to be using a proxy against policy, which I have reported at WP:WPOP. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Venezia Friulano

    Venezia Friulano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    I have now lost count of how many incidents he/she is responsible for. It is typical of Venezia Friulano to wage edit wars, change articles against the consensus and/or during an open debate, make personal attacks, and unjustly accuse those who in good faith stop him/her. On top of this, Venezia's behaviour is toxic: he/she constantly claims others act the way he/she acts, (accusation in a mirror); for example Venezia would make significant changes with no consensus and accuse those intervening to clean the situation to be violating wiki rules...or, again, Venezia would try to force a doubious source or a fringe view and say that those academic sources in contrast with it are not respectable nor credible. Venezia perfectly understands to be wrong, but pretends not to. Venezia has been told many times not to continue with this behaviour by several users, but continues to do it anyway. Even worse it's the disruption he/she tries to cause to the articles. Some examples:

    -Venezia waged edit war on the Mosque–Cathedral of Córdoba article, trying to water down the moorish roots of the current cathedral. User:R Prazeres stops in good faith Venezia and explains how consensus and Wikipedia works; at the end of the edit war, Venezia insinuates that RPrazeres is doing what he is doing 'cause he is a muslim, and accuses him of having an Islamic bias (the parts highlighted in black were highlighted by Venezia) 

    I understand that you like Islamic culture or architecture, your whole profile revolves around that, you could be even Muslim, I don't know, but please, at least try to hide your bias better next time. You are disregarding the official website of the Mosque-Cathedral of Córdoba, established sources of the article and twisting in a kafkaesque way everything to prevent the reader from seeing that it might originally have been a basilica before a mosque, something that obviously bothers you as a fan of islamic architecture. You're basically reflecting, the POV pushing is all yours. You screwed up deleting another user's editions saying that "obviously" the Mosque-Cathedral of Córdoba didnt have Gothic and Baroque architecture. You have deleted official sources and sources of the article just to remove small clarifications that bother you personally because of your Islamic bias.

    Needless to say that it's Venezia that has a bias there. Anyone looking at the talk page and history of the article can see who was acting in good faith and who was not.


    -Venezia changes content on the Spanish empire article with no consensus, right during an open debate on the talk page (basically wants an anachronous map, showing a bigger empire, I would have no problems with it if correct, but the method is not acceptable ). Reverted by User:Cinderella157 and told there is an ongoing talk, Venezia just did it again. And note that Venezia was aware that a debate was open already when he/she made the first change. Venezia went on the talk page to claim that the Spanish empire was bigger than what User:TompaDompa says (which, btw, it does not look like to be what TompaDompa say, but rather what the sources used on various articles for a long time have said). For that, the user TompaDompa is called a despot by Venezia: 

    I must admit that the language of TompaDompa is simply unbearable, biased and arrogant. TompaDompa is quite an inquisitive user on this topic, he uses Taagapera (1997) as if it were the Bible and avoids other users to use any other alternative source at all costs. Articles like the List of the Largest Empires are simply impossible to edit due to this user's despotic attitude.

    Needless to say that Venezia here perfectly described how he/she talks and acts, not TompaDompa.

    - User: 2A0C:5A81:302:1D00:954A:5080:3B4A:5418 in good faith corrected Venezia, who was causing an edit war, for obviously misusing and misinterpreting a source in the Romance languages article regarding the level of closeness of Spanish and Italian to Latin. I intervened to express my support to the user. Venezia pretended not to hear it for a while, at the end, shown to be wrong, insinuates I am a far right Italian nationalist (Then Venezia proceeds, but i won't write the whole thing here, with an absolute pointless and long rant on the Italians). 

    >I'm not saying that you are that, but there are traces and I recognize well an Italian nationalist. I am not at all surprised by the current political situation and inclination of Italy or that it has the only far-right government in Western Europe

    Yesterday, I have been called to see what was going on in the talk page of the Spanish empire. I asked Venezia not to make personal attacks on TompaDompa.

    The answers of Venezia were another personal attack on me (this time I have been accused of chasing him/her and I am sarcastically told to go edit Mussolini's page), 

    Barjimoa, I knew you were going to chase me here, you are very predictable. You are the only troublemaker here and you already lost in a recent discussion for not wanting to accept the basic Wikipedia rules for the Lead. Anyway, thanks for your great input. I suggest to edit the Mussolini article, it sure need your edits.

    and today attempts to say that TompaDompa is the abuser (with a sarcastic offense directed towards him): 

     in this article his only fetish source Taagepera (1997) prevails, unilaterally deleting all those alternative sources that he doesn't like. The article is in fact an article almost just for Taagapera's views, its just surreal. I even thought that Taagepera could be a relative of his, due to the insane obsession with this specific author


    Either all these wikipedia users Venezia has come into contact with are abusers and troublemakers or Venezia is. I believe it is evidently Venezia.

    (There are several other examples, but I think this is enough material. To sum it up, Venezia disrupts articles, disregards consensus and debates; when confronted, Venezia often ignores what's been told and resorts to personal attacks, gaslighting, strawman, denialism. He/she tries to change argument, tire you, get on your nerves, manipulate, and this how Venezia wants to prevail, or, rather, prevaricate. Not acceptable, constantly creates tensions with other users and edit wars.)

    Barjimoa (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    In addition, I am asking for a check. All these articles involved (Spanish empire, list of largest empires, African admixture in Europe, Genetic history of the Iberian Peninsula, expulsion of the Moriscos, and similar themes) have historically been targeted in the past by the Spanish user User:JamesOredan with his infinite list of sockpuppets, and the debates always ended with his defeat and blockings. JamesOredan too was known for having a similar "style" of proceeding. So it's also necessary to look into this. I wonder if that's him again, we should see if that's the case. I have this doubt 'cause the interests of (and the content introduced by) Venezia (and these IP adresses 2A02:2E02:D90:1F00:E4ED:2388:F4F9:96A4 and 2A02:2E02:D90:1F00:1D7F:A2DA:CFC0:4ACE, probably his/hers) look suspiciously similar to some of JamesOredan's socks, such as User:Itagnol and User:DavideNotta. It's curious that the word "Itagnol" is an Italian blend word for Italian and Spanish, and Venezia describes himself/herself in the bio as an Italian in Spain; Venezia is evidently Spanish, but he/she hides it by pretending to be Italian. Davide Notte too is an Italian name, and was picked by that Spanish sockpuppeter. Other users who suspiciously fight the same fights and/or have similar aggressive language are User:JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa and User:Bandeirantedopaulo, (both Spanish users faking to be Portuguese. Maybe a pattern?), Norprobr, as well as El Gran Capitán and Kev31zz, who have been shortly active some time ago. I have doubts on others as well. So i believe we need a big check on sockpuppetry here, just in case.
    Barjimoa (talk) 18:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As a general comment, Barjimoa, rather than present a long narrative statement or your selective quotes, it's preferred on noticeboards that you present "diffs" or edits that support your each of your claims. Then other editors can verify the case you are making. You can see in Cinderella157's comment that they present a diff from Talk:Spanish Empire. Editors who are considering this complaint are not going to go through an editor's entire contribution history but they will check out a limited number of diffs (I'd say 5-12 is reasonable depending on the extent of the accusations). I know I'd also like to hear from Venezia Friulano but they haven't edited in quite a few hours. Liz Read! Talk! 06:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    some of the personal attacks, note the toxic attitude.
    [148]
    [149],
    [150],
    [151],
    [152]
    For the context, also for recurring edits and edit wars made against the consensus or with an open debate, see the talk pages of talk:Spanish Empire, Talk:Mosque–Cathedral of Córdoba, talk:Trajan, talk:Romance languages
    In the process, this is some of the times Venezia was told by other users to not do what he/she continues to do.
    [153]
    [154]
    [155]
    [156]
    [157]
    [158]
    Barjimoa (talk) 08:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of the above qualify on Arbcom's definition of personal attacks, but not that much on ANI's definition. Don't get me wrong, Venezia should not be speaking the way they have -- accusing someone of being a relative of another person, berating another of being an Italian nationalist, asking derogatorily to edit Mussolini's articles.... are not the right way to discuss. But not much will come at this desk for the personal attack, apart from advise to Venezia to cool off their discussion style (they have apologised in the past for their inflammatory comments, so they are prone to understanding). Lourdes 08:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Lourdes, the thing is that I believe Venezia already fully understands that it should not be done, but it's a tactic employed to delegitimate the person he/she is talking to.Barjimoa (talk) 09:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Barjimoa, take the sock evidence to WP:SPI. I would recommend not repeating the allegation anywhere until you have filed at SPI. Thanks, Lourdes 09:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done that. Barjimoa (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ibarrutidarruti - vandalism, edit warring, uncivil behavior, no intention to stop

    Ibarrutidarruti seems to be a vandal account and sanctions are in order. Already posted to AIV but felt it was necessary here as well. The majority of their edits add WP:OR, unreliable sources, and violate WP:NEUTRAL. They also engage in delayed edit warring to avoid warnings, general uncivil behavior, removed a vandal warning from their talk page, and edit warred on my user talk page. My impression is they don't intend to stop their behavior, and I have concerns that they are a sockpuppet given the infrequent editing, knowledge of wikipedia, and focus on specific articles.

    Here are some examples:

    The void century 18:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah, it's already here. ANI is right, AIV is rather unsuitable for such detailed warnings about not-necessarily-bad-faith disruption.
    The void century, removing warnings from one's own talk page is generally fine (WP:UP#CMT), although of course that doesn't apply to the edit summary used there. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated WP:BLUDGEONING by User:Redacted II at Talk:SpaceX Starship

    Earlier this year at the talk page for SpaceX Starship, there were two extremely long, pointless RfCs ([1], [2]) that had to be started because some people tried to give prototype vehicles some kind of special treatment over fully operational launch vehicles. These discussions mostly centred around people's refusal to accept the status of the flight on 20 April 2023 as a failure, while others had to constantly barge in and remind everyone that some sources were simply uncritically repeating what Musk and SpaceX were claiming.

    One of the users who refused to back down from this was User:Redacted II, who had to be warned about such behaviour.

    Just two days after the second RfC was closed, Redacted II starts up this section, once again trying to push the same "separating prototypes from operational vehicles" thing, while other rocketry articles, when counting launch successes and failures, either lump prototypes in with production vehicles or don't list them at all. I've tried to explain to the user why this "distinction" is pointless, and also the fact that they've been told this before, but they've refused to back down. DASL51984 (Speak to me!) 18:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    That is a stretch.
    "Just two days after the second RFC was closed, Redacted II starts up this section, once again trying to push the same "separating prototypes from operational vehicles" thing"
    That RFC had been settled for a month or so. The only reason it was still active is (presumably) because no one had gotten around to closing it. I had probably thought "oh, the RFCs finally been ended", before forgetting about it.
    "I've tried to explain to the user why this "distinction" is pointless, and also the fact that they've been told this before, but they've refused to back down"
    Simply put, this is a dispute over the content of an article. The first RFC (back in April and May) was about the failure v.s success of the April 20th. I will not defend my behavior during the beginning of that debate, and I was corrected by several other users.
    The second RFC began with me placing a note in the infobox of SpaceX starship, which DASL51984 opposed. After they started an RFC, they proceeded to remove the note. I reminded them that until the RFC is resolved, the note should remain. They continued to remove the note, and got a 48 hour block for edit warring as a result. Eventually, the note was later removed.
    I thought that, since the second RFC was in regards to the note, and not any potential distinction, maybe other users wouldn't be as opposed. After all, in the falcon 9 article, there is even a chart for listing the type of vehicle flown.
    No-one commented in the first week, and just two days later, Fehér Zsigmond-03 said "I completely support this". I went to implement my planned change into the article, and discovered that the bar chart was an excerpt of the List of SpaceX Starship Flight Tests article. I posted the same proposal in that articles talk page, and was going to remove the one in SpaceX Starship, but then people began to comment on the first one the next day. As of writing this, no-one has posted in the second one.
    During the argument between me and DASL51984, they repeatedly stated that it was a "waste of everyone's time" and was "beating a dead horse", while I offered potential compromises.
    Something similar to this happened before, where a user went after me for starting the previously mentioned RFC (which, btw, was started by DASL51984). After discussion on my talk page, they withdrew their complaint. Redacted II (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I was convinced to drop the proposal until IFT-2 launches about thirteen minutes ago. Redacted II (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Though there may be some problems with the graph (why include success/failure categories when that does not exist on the graph?), the proposal is reasonable, and does not conflict with the RfCs, which discuss specific issues pertaining to the infobox, not a general notion that the word "prototype" cannot be used anywhere. DASL51984, frustrated by the proposal, said "Do you not understand this, or do you wilfully ignore it?", and doesn't propose a compromise. The reason why I see a distinction between the infobox and the graph is because more space can be allotted to the graph in the body, rather than the infobox, which is supposed to be very brief (unable to capture the nuances of how much of a failure/prototype or not it is). Instead of back-and-forth arguing, the proposal could have been used as a starting point for a more fruitful discussion. For example, a compromise could be to not display "prototype" on the graph, but have a note on the graph similar to the proposed infobox note, or further explanation in the body. It seems that both Redacted II and DASL51984 were bludgeoning (though perhaps to different extents in various places), by the looks of the RfCs and talk page. This seems more like a content dispute and "getting close to" disruptive editing rather than a bona fide violation. Chamaemelum (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I just want to mention: I proposed a compromise in this dif, as well as requesting we go back to peaceful discussion. DASL51984 ignored it. Redacted II (talk) 13:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Somehow I missed this while making these two edits, my apologies to Redacted II.
    I'm a bit frustrated by the situation too, but I concur with Chamaemelum. Particularly I still stand by this. While it's annoying to relitigate whether this was a "failure" or "prototype failure", I think (hope) Redacted II has gotten the message that consensus is against them, at least for the time being. This was a "failure". Nevertheless, I anticipate Redacted II will get their way at some point in the future, probably when more launches and reliable sources establish what is a prototype versus an operational vehicle. All in all, mostly content, arguably perhaps disruptive editing, I would not suggest anything more than a warning. Leijurv (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have. And thank you for standing up for me, especially when you didn't have to. Redacted II (talk) 11:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the overall picture, I think it is quite obvious that there are people who strongly push pro-Musk content and try to erase anything which can be interpreted as slightly negative about what he is doing. From what I have seen this is quite different from various other articles even in the same area, e.g. space flight. This push about removing "failure" from the description of the Starship test flight is a typical example. Trying again and again and again, didn't work, trying again in different ways, now with bars. This is far beyond any constructive discussions. I am no expert on Wikipedia mechanisms, but I think there should be some limits. Zae8 (talk) 16:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I do agree that Redacted II can be cocky at times, but I don't think that putting this at ANI is going to solve anything. Something like "let's monitor their future behavior and ban them if they cross the line" is perfect for the time being. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that there have been behavioural issues from both sides. In the RfC on "clarifying issue in infobox", DASL51984 responded to 3 out of the 6 statements in favour of keeping the clarification in the infobox, and proceeded to present the same argument in each one. To me, this constitutes bludgeoning, however, Redacted II's bludgeoning was more prolific and went across both RfCs. However, I have not counted how many statements Redacted II replied to, and it's also important to keep in mind that a lot more editors supported the removal of the clarification in contrast to keeping the clarification. In my opinion, I think that both users need a good talking to so that they remain civil (both RfCs were quite heated, mind you) and assume good faith in the future. I hope that further action isn't needed with both users. Hope you all have a good day or night, wherever you are! Yasslaywikia (talk) 21:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bgsu98

    User:Bgsu98 A consistent disregard to rules, uses discriminatory language against IP editors and implements changes without taking to the talk page first. Suggesting a warning 2A00:23EE:13F8:30C3:200F:9DEA:4AE5:AD46 (talk) 20:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Diffs please? Anything other than a wild accusation? RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    IP, you have failed to notify Bgsu98 of this discussion. I have done so for you. I would also like to note to passing editors that this entire /64 range has been edit warring on these Big Brother articles, nonstop, without providing sources for their edits. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Online) 20:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There you go https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_Brother_24_(American_season)&oldid=1164737635 , again probably nothing is going to come of this as you have an attitude also. Wikipedia is made BY everyone FOR everyone. Not just the odd few chronically online editors. Thank you. Sources have been provided. 2A00:23EE:13F8:30C3:200F:9DEA:4AE5:AD46 (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A passing note to editors that User:Yoshi24517 should not be involved this dispute due to a conflict of interest and biased to the user involved https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bgsu98&oldid=1164739879 "I hate to do this to you" is inappropriate. 2A00:23EE:13F8:30C3:200F:9DEA:4AE5:AD46 (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Making a note here, that the underlying /64 range was blocked by Jauerback for disruptive editing. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Online) 20:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not about to continue an edit war over this nonsense. IP uses the phrase "official title" to refer to "Walked" vis à vis "Quit" or "Withdrew", like there is such a thing as an "official title." Maybe "walked" is a phrase used in the U.K. - the "source" IP provides references only self-evictions from the U.K. version of the show. Here is an example of a source using "quit" in reference to the American version of the show: https://screenrant.com/big-brother-contestant-quit-show/ IP has also edited in bad faith: I offered "withdrew" as a compromise to "quit" since he didn't like "quit" and his response https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_Brother_24_(American_season)&diff=prev&oldid=1164735151was: "We'll [sic] compromise on "Walked", the title that has been used on WikiProject Big Brother for the past twenty years." As if "It's always been that way" is any excuse at all for anything. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree that Bgsu98's comments sound like personal attacks and are inappropriate regardless of the underlying content dispute. Bgsu98 previously cast aspersions against me as well, trying to ban me for sockpuppetry even after Blablubbs's investigation came up negative.[1][2] I think that Bgsu98 should work on their civility, especially with newcomers.  — Freoh 12:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Per the BRD process, users who find themselves reverted should take it to the talk page, it is not the onus of the reverter to discuss it. The first change was initiated by the IP address in Special:Diff/1164620739, so they should've taken their own advice and headed to the talk page. Don't see anything particularly wrong, even the fly-by-night comment (if we're being really technical it's a non-static IP, so Bgsu98 isn't wrong in that regard). Two diffs in a recent discussion don't point towards a pattern of incivility either X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 22:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying I particularly covered myself in glory here, but in my defense, I had just dealt with an IP editor last week, who also geolocated to the U.K., and who was given a one-year time-out from Wikipedia for disruptive editing on the Dancing on Ice pages. The M.O. was also the same: persistent reversions, staunch "that's the way it's always been" B.S., etc. For all I knew, it was the same editor. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It would not be unhelpful to extend a bit of empathy in understanding Bgsu98's frustration; personally, I do not see them straying too far from the straight and narrow. An uncooperative user is a handful, registered or not. X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 09:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Special:Diff/1158589583
    2. ^ Special:Diff/1146856362

    Talk pages receiving WP:NOTAFORUM violations

    I have been patrolling talk pages for quite some time, and I see violations of WP:NOTAFORUM on some of them. There are certain pages that get this treatment more frequently than others, listed below:

    I am requesting to any admins who see this and are interested to make edit notices, like this one, to discourage inappropriate discussions (even though they may not do much). Thank you. Zoe Trent Fan🎤💍 20:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    -Removed troll comment. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Online) 23:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, Zoe Trent Fan. I recommend that you (and all other editors) remove NOTAFORUM talk page posts on sight, with an edit summary of WP:NOTAFORUM. That's what I do. Cullen328 (talk) 02:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that's my standard. If no one has replied, just delete it with the edit summary pointing to NOTAFORUM. 90% of the time that's the end of it. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    not neutral Nationalist

    Hi , a moderator is absolutely not neutral, and when I speak of not neutral I speak of recurring nationalism, which totally ruins the experience of wikipedia, he tries everything to get me banned, and deletes reliable sources, the incident which makes me want to talk to you, it's the haik incident, on all the wikipedia pages (French, Spanish, Italian, etc.) the haik is sourced as traditional Algerian clothing, apart from this moderator who, moreover, has a lot of links with Morocco, find things for deleted sources for no reason, so I want an investigation if it’s possible : the moderator is : 

    R Prazeres  — Preceding unsigned comment added by WillToons (talk • contribs) 04:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the editing history of WillToons will speak for itself, but I'm happy to provide more specific evidence of their abuse if needed. The only reason I haven't reported them here already (so I'm not sure what they mean by "tries everything to get me banned") is because I filed an SPI instead with more pertinent evidence a while ago. I prefer to await the outcome of that SPI, assuming they don't further escalate their disruption of articles in the meantime. Note: they also failed to notify me of this report, I had to learn of it from another editor. R Prazeres (talk) 06:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    R Prazeres' recent edits on Haik (garment) ([159], [160]) look perfectly appropriate to me; they have also started a discussion on the talkpage. Unless WillToons provides some compelling diffs of bad behaviour, this is at best a run of the mill content dispute. And though ANI is not a forum for solving content issues, one where it looks to me as though R Prazeres has a point: other language wikipedias are not a reliable source and we don't defer to them in deciding what our article says, and the source that WillToons cited did not support the claim that the haik is specifically Algerian. (Also I note that contra the original description of R Prazeres as a "moderator", they are not and apparently never have been an administrator.) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's the link to the SPI. M.Bitton (talk) 10:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Funkyuggla

    Funkyuggla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The user has been creating articles on some Swedish nobility, which lack proper sources and (likely) do not meet any notability criteria, violating WP:BLP in the process. These articles appear to be extremely poorly sourced and many of the sources cited do not even mention the subject for which they are cited. Some seem to be notable, but many fail any notability test. Given their single minded devotion to these families I suspect some sort of WP:COI. I have expressed my concerns ([161]) at their TP, but to no avail. He simply created the next article Björn Engwall with the same problems.

    Examples include, but are not limited to

    Kleuske (talk) 10:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Many of these articles are very nicely done compared to our standard fare. Complicating the notability issue is the reliance on paper books for some of the historical figures-- perfectly legitimate but not readily checked by others. In some cases, there's no corresponding article on the Swedish or Polish Wikipedias; that's not a requirement but it can be telling as to notability when the subject lacks an article in their native language.
    Björn Engwall looks clearly non-notable.
    Funkyuggla has made only a handful of edits in User talk and Wikipedia talk.
    See also:
    The use of two accounts, while unacceptable, seems benign -- I don't see any abusive use. As the CU noted, they just need to choose between the 2 accounts.
    I hope this editor will engage with us on these topics. We can use their skill here but they need to collaborate and not just proceed unilaterally. I'd hate to see them have to be sanctioned.
    --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 13:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry for not being more involved in this matter. I apologize for any confusion, but I actually have two accounts—one for my PC and another for my mobile device. They serve different purposes and are used separately depending on the device I'm using. I was not prior to your notice aware of the “Sockpuppet” rules.
    With regards to the articles that have been created, I must clarify that I have no personal connection to them. Initially, I held a keen interest in Ivar Kreuger and Paul Toll. However, during my research on the subject, I came across the Engwall family, prominently featured in Magnus Toll's book titled "Paul Toll 1882-1946, ingeniör-entreprenör."
    Subsequently, I initiated communication with the "Engwall Stiftelsen" and acquired relevant materials pertaining to the subject. During my academic tenure, I composed my gymnasium essay on this topic, incorporating the information I had gathered to create additional articles. I acknowledge that certain articles may not possess the requisite level of notability.
    I established my account on a relatively recent basis and have not yet fully familiarised myself with the practices and regulations of Wikipedia. While this does not serve as an excuse to neglect them, I kindly request everyone to consider this fact and take it into account. Funkyuggla (talk) 14:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. I’d say you’re probably ok with the sock puppet issue if you just explicitly abandon one account and do all your editing with the other account. Many of us use multiple devices with our one account.
    I’m not an administrator so this is not an “official” decision but I expect they’d say the same thing.
    —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 14:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're allowed to have two accounts for this purpose (it's not unusual), Funkyuggla, but it has to be clear it's you in both instances. So if you you work to WP:RENAME the Essenafzillie account to something like Funkyuggla (mobile), then you'll be good. HTH. El_C 15:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Okey, will do! Funkyuggla (talk) 15:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Some of these articles look plausibly notable and some (e.g. Stefan Przanowski) clearly notable. But the content centered around WP:INUNIVERSE fantasy claims to defunct titles, extinct decades before the subject was born, and the detailed genealogies listing many non-notable relatives, are unencyclopedic and need to be removed. This is especially problematic in Mona Przanowska. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Request to restore talk page access

    Can an admin please restore talk page access to my colleague User:Dancey2 so that they can appeal a block?

    My request for this was declined on the talk page in the section User_talk:Dancey2#Confirmed_identity for being out of process, when the request needs to be here at ANI. The user's own request for unblock was declined at UTRS based on need to confirm identity, which I vouch for as I know them personally. Thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 11:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Wouldn’t WP:CLEANSTART or WP:SO have been better for an account that got the chop 6 years ago? That Talk Page history’s gonna go against them somewhere down the line. MM (Give me info.) (Victories) 12:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Users who may not have a clean start: Any user who has currently active bans, blocks or other sanctions imposed. No, CLEANSTART would not be better for an indeffed editor. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:10, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I vouch for as I know them personally users vouching for others to "confirm identities" is not accepted on wikipedia especially for those vouching the identity of blocked editors. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:17, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This editor appears to be unable to appeal their ban via the ticket system as they cannot prove they are the original account owner, and they cannot appeal their ban here because their block prevents them. They don't appear to have any option whatsoever. Surely we don't have a system that actually forces banned editors to do exactly what we don't want them to do: open a block-evading sock-puppet in order to appeal a ban, where, if they're honest, they will be instantly re-blocked (and the unban-request summarily dismissed) for being a sock-puppet of a banned account? That would be silly at a truly Yes Minister level. Is there a constructive way out of the dilemma? Elemimele (talk) 12:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding some context that Dancey2, in their UTRS appeal, claimed to have been evading the block since February 2022, from an account that has continued to make edits after the appeal was declined. So if Bluerasberry is vouching that Dancey2 is telling the truth when they say that they've been socking for the past year and a half, then I would suggest that the ball is in Dancey2's court in terms of demonstrating a good-faith commitment to following all policies, including WP:SOCK. Dancey2 has not been banned from UTRS, and is able to open a second UTRS appeal (hopefully a more substantive one) when they're ready. DanCherek (talk) 13:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm unsure if it would be accepted or not but emailing the VRT at info-enwikimedia.org explaining , could be a method for confirming identity.
    If not then, another account could work, we've allowed socks who no longer have access to their original account to appeal from their newest account before. Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry about all this. I do not think this situation has to be complicated. Anyone please make any specific demand and we will comply. The user got blocked for copyright violation, which is serious but it is also teachable and more easily corrected than a conduct problem. The user wishes to appeal.
    As Elemimele says, they have no appeal option right now. They do not have talk page access so they cannot give a public explanation as they prefer. UTRS - the private backstage option - is blocked because of someone requiring them to do WP:Identity verification. Also UTRS has a rate limit for appeals and they are in time out right now, and cannot submit.
    Lavalizard101 If my word of personally knowing this user is insufficient to restore their right to appeal on their talk page, then please suggest any method of identity verification and I can have this person do it. The problem is that UTRS is demanding identity verification, but WP:Identity verification is not a standard process.
    DanCherek This user is not requesting privacy. Their current account, old account, and public identity can be connected. After being blocked for 7 years they made a new account. I do not think anyone would call that "socking" or "evasion", but yes, the point of this appeal is to connect the accounts and identity. The process that the Wikipedia platform offers for such users is to make a new account, and other options are non-intuitive. Nevertheless, I will support them in expressing understanding of WP:SOCK in their appeal. Since the problem in UTRS was identity, not copyvio, and not socking, I thought to come to the wiki since no one here is asking for the privacy inherent in UTRS.
    Matticusmadness I do not see any shame in past violations. If someone was blocked years ago and they do confession and contrition then I see no reason for them to carry guilt or for the wiki community to shame them. Whenever possible, I encourage appealing blocks through the standard process.
    Again, suggest any process, and I will support my colleague in applying. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    emailing the VRT at info-enwikimedia.org explaining [the situation], could be a method for confirming identity. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I emailed VRT! See the message at ticket:2023071210009396. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Fortnitegamer3432 repeated additions of unreliable sources

    Fortnitegamer3432 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has already been blocked once for personal attacks. Requesting block from article space due to failure to understand WP:RS policies per WP:CIR. Despite already having been warned that social media (reddit) is not RS, this user continues to create articles cited to unreliable sources, and to copy content from other articles without attribution, creating multiple low quality content forks that have been reverted. The user used an AI generated source (rebellionresearch.com) and unreliable Youtube video to create this article, and cited an unverifiable facebook page in this edit.

    In addition, numerous articles created by this user are unattributed machine translations from Russian wikipedia such as Armed Forces of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, and the user has made no effort to copy edit the page. The user also fails to copy content without verifying that references actually support it, for example Afghan Army (1978-1992) has blatant factual errors in the lead (the name of the military itself) that are not supported by the references cited, demonstrating failure to read references. Kges1901 (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    the Afghan Army was litterly called the Afghan National Army in the 80s my friends grandfather and multiple uncles served, what's your source buddy? Fortnitegamer3432 (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately sources must be from published sources, so that other editors can verify the information. Friends, grandfather's and uncles can't be used a sources. You'll need to find published sources for your changes. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    the sources i cited in the articles litterly referred to the Afghan Army as "Afghan National Army" Fortnitegamer3432 (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They refer to the Afghan National Army of the 21st century only as the ANA, while the sources cited refer to the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan's army as the Afghan Army or DRA Army. Kges1901 (talk) 19:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also like to register my concerns about Fortnightgamer3432 and his use of unreliable and AI sources. He is also creating non-standard categories. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    He is also creating images which have false attribution templates: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Afghan_Ministry_of_Defense_Emblem_1978-1992.png. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I talked to my friend and also looked at some sources from Pre 1993 and I misinterpreted him. mb you're right about the name Fortnitegamer3432 (talk) 03:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I’d have WP:UNCONF concerns over anyone using ‘Fortnite’, ‘Grand Theft Auto’, ‘Call of Duty’, etc, in their username, under Confusing usernames can often be a red flag for other problems. I mean, we’re in a report at ‘other problems’ central, right now, so the point kind of wrote itself here, no?

    Other than that, is this not a whole load of Content Dispute? Or am I missing something here? MM (Give me info.) (Victories) 14:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Taisho79 vandalism and uncivil

    Persistent contrafactual editing by Taisho79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Uncivil and edit warring, too. Examples:

    • TNT Equivalent: Changing numbers contrary to citation: here. After reversion and talk page notification, deleting entire section here. After reversion and 3RR warning: Removing a smaller section here.
    • Chelyabinsk meteor: Changing numbers contrary to citation: here. After reversion, removing statement entirely: here
    • Orders of magnitude (energy): Changing numbers contrary to citation: here. After reversion, removing section entirely: here

    Uncivil behaviour on talk page: hereand here. Tarl N. (discuss) 18:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:EmilyWilson2

    CLOSED
    Issue resolved Valereee (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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



    Has received fourth warning regarding proper MOS:LQ (logical quotes), but continuing to add. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    EmilyWilson2 is a newish editor who doesn't seem to have discovered their user talk page yet. Schazjmd (talk) 18:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, she seems to be editing in good faith, and seems to be editing on her phone (which, unless something has changed, sometimes makes getting to your talk page difficult). Should we issue an attention-getting block to point her there, which any admin could lift as soon as she acknowledges the messages on her talk page? Or wait to see if she stops now? Floquenbeam (talk) 18:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I did find that her first edit was an edit request on this very issue, where she stated Commas and periods ALWAYS go inside quotation marks, and was pointed to WP:LQ at that time.[162] (No idea if she ever read the response to her edit request.) Schazjmd (talk) 18:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure her device, but if you log in via Safari (and not an app), you get a notification in the top right, when you get replied to, mentioned, reverted, or a new addition to your talk page. [original research?] MM (Give me info.) (Victories) 07:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm, I don't see any exception for enforcing MOS:LQ in the rules about edit-warring... Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Technically, it isn't edit warring, as she is adding new "corrections" each time, and Hyphenation Expert is reverting each of those. I don't believe either one of them has re-done a reverted edit. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe @Writ Keeper is warning the OP to be cautious of reverting material of EmilyWilson2 to avoid overstepping 3RR. If @Hyphenation Expert made one more revert to Roald Dahl in the next 23 hours they would technically be a bright-line violation. Although I don't see anyone making a fuss over it, it's good to be aware of some of our more idiosyncratic rules. Also HE why would you wish such malaise upon visitors to your talk page GabberFlasted (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    yes, I deliberately stopped on Mt. Rushmore / Roald Dahl at 3RR. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 19:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While we're here @Hyphenation Expert:, can you please remove the disruption to the standard interface that is on your user talk page as per WP:SMI. I'm talking about the anti-accessible tilting and overlapping of the text on the page that makes it unaccessible. Also when you revert someone, please include an edit summary, otherwise it comes across as a disruptive edit. Canterbury Tail talk 19:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe p-block from article space with an edit summary directing her to her user talk? I hate to even do that, but how else do we get peoples' attention? Valereee (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It might help prevent future problems if we can somehow get her attention to explain the problem. She appears to have stopped editing today. Schazjmd (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Valereee, Emily has apologized on her talk page and says she will stop. Schazjmd (talk) 21:17, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hyphenation Expert you really need to change that talk page... It is unreadable. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They did change the angled look and overlapping after my comment above, but I agree the graduated coloured background would prevent many from being able to interact with it. Canterbury Tail talk 12:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe its different for you but when I go to their T/P all the discussions are squished to the right side, with one-two words per line. Quite hard to read. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm personally not seeing that on my browser/OS/monitor setup, but they have made a lot of HTML overrides to the standard interface that it wouldn't surprise me that there's an issue with rendering it for some. This is why WP:SMI is there. @User:Hyphenation Expert we request that you remove all your HTML overrides to the standard wiki interface and skin on your talkpage as it's quite clearly causing issues for many people. Please don't try and snazz up your talk page, it causes problems for others. Canterbury Tail talk 13:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like EmilyWilson2 has found their user talk page and has begun discussing their edits (they haven't made any mainspace edits since then) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:AlphabetFIXER making mass edits and refusing to communicate

    User:AlphabetFIXER (contribs) started editing in June. Their edits have quickly become disruptive; they seem allergic to using the preview button and make massive numbers of small edits (here's 26 small edits in 13 minutes, here's SEVENTY straight edits adding all sorts of trivial and unencyclopedic information. Their talk page is littered with warnings and pleas to at least communicate from 5 editors including myself, all of which have fallen on deaf ears. An indef block is necessary here to stop their disruptive edits, essentially all of which contradict the MOS. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems like classic WP:RADAR behavior, having a closer look now. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've partially blocked them from article space, which appears to be the only namespace they have edited in, and informed them that they can and should comment here if they wish to be unblocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks to you both. (I’m late joining the discussion here because I had a long day yesterday—my wife had surgery—and I turned in pretty early last night.) I don’t have anything to add to the several comments I left on the user's talk page, the final two of which regarding state abbreviations seem to me to demonstrate the crux of the issue about the combination of pointless edits and ignoring other users' comments. I suppose I also find it frustrating that, as noted in my original comment there, the user's edit summaries aren’t useful, but at least now that the user has settled into a semi-predictable pattern of mostly adding state postal abbreviations it's easier than it was at first to figure out what’s going on. I’m inherently skeptical of edit summaries that say "added word" or "added content" because over the years I’ve come to associate those with vandalism, but at least "added state" has come to reflect a pattern in this user's case. 1995hoo (talk) 11:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Another rangeblock needed for Youngstown music vandal

    Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Youngstown music vandal is an ongoing problem. The range Special:Contributions/2603:6011:5401:34A7:0:0:0:0/64 was recently blocked for a month, but the person is evading that block by using IP4 addresses. To me, it looks like the range Special:Contributions/174.251.192.0/19 would cover the problem, with just a minor amount of collateral. Perhaps a smaller rangeblock could be crafted. Below are the involved IP6s from the last four weeks. Binksternet (talk) 01:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I blocked 174.251.192.0/19 for a month. Johnuniq (talk) 05:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Perfect. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 17:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    IP user disruption on araucarian conifer articles

    I've become extremely frustrated with a dynamic Sydney based IP user, who edits articles about araucarian conifers, particularly Agathis and Wollemia. Their additions, which span several months since this April are often completely unsourced [163] [164], or have basic grammar errors [165]. I have tried to communicate with them on several occasions, [166] (I regret making a personal attack here, but I was extremely frustrated by their silence)[167], but they have refused to communicate whatsoever. Recently they appear to have made an account Mcteamtnt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which they appear to have promptly abandoned after I made a post on their talkpage asking them to communicate [168]. I am at my wits end. Their edits continually degrade the quality of the articles, and I think semi-protection may be warranted.

    A complete list of addresses:

    This seems like too wide a range to rangeblock. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Notified the most recent IP (49.179.19.172) and Mcteamtnt of this discussion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    IP vandalism

    IP blocked for 36 hours. (non-admin closure) LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 05:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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


    2607:FB91:3E81:C078:AC39:3BD7:6592:4AF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    IP user repeatedly adding unsourced content to multiple articles despite four warnings. Has reverted corrective edit with scornful remark. Rift (talk) 03:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 36 hours, but please file vandalism reports to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism moving forward. Thanks. El_C 03:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


    Blocked user spamming their own talk page

    (non-admin closure) Talk page access revoked by Euryalus. Amaury • 08:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Blocked user is spamming their own talk page, despite warnings. —Bruce1eetalk 08:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, TPA removed. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Continuous trolling

    Any more comments about the socking can be made at the SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hello! There is a continuous trolling on Hungarian related articles a long time ago, first by IP users, now by several accounts, and always the same: "Hungarian Cyrillic" which is a fake non existent thing. These edits are usually instantly reverting by other standard users, however it unnecessarily consumes the time of the real Wiki users. All edits are the same trolling:

    OrionNimrod (talk) 10:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Interesting musings about an arcane content side issue, not relevant for admin action.
    • "...the Hungarian Cyrillic alphabet, or маЃар цирилл, was invented by Samuel P. Bateman, who wanted to make it easier for Hungarians to learn Russian as a second language"... (Iliev, Ivan G. "Short history of the Cyrillic alphabet." International Journal of Russian Studies 2.2 (2013): 1-65.). No comments on the trolling though... Lourdes 10:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Hi @Lourdes, thanks for the feedback! As a native Hungarian I really has no clue about this "Hungarian Cyrillic". This was upload in 2015: [169] (no more upload by this user) I found only this [170] which is only the same sentence what you wrote (no more thing). Searching in the internet in Hungarian I do not find anything about "Hungarian Cyrillic" or "Samuel P. Bateman" (Even this is not a Hungarian or Russian name, if we suppose a native linguists). I suppose this is a hoax. If not, still it is really irrevelant to add to the first part of the Hungarian language and Hungarian alphabet article as a very long section, max it should be a separate article, but still I think it is hoax as no Hungarian sources about an allegedly Hungarian language thing. Btw the sourced document also say "Such systems were created for other languages, too, even for Hungarian" which means should we add this irrevelant big Cyrillic chart (which was allegedly created 100+ years ago) for every other language articles however nobody use those created unknown script? Also the mentioned users use many accounts and unreasonably add on the lead a Cyrillic texts of many Hungarian articles: Special:Contributions/Stairsonysanta, Special:Contributions/Saintpetersgate, Special:Contributions/Discospinter26...etc OrionNimrod (talk) 10:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Lourdes: It is true that google gives back this academic document as a result, however, when I tried to find it in the text, I failed. So which page contains this sentence?
      There is a cross reference however for the Omniglot blog, which I mentioned on the talkpage already but as OrionNimrod mentioned there is no any source on the blog, and there is no any clue when and where Samuel P. Bateman was teaching Hungarians, and there is no any other mention of this man can be found. If you think of as a help this alphabet works the opposite way: can be a guide for those who already knows Cyrillic letters, and so able to pronounce Hungarian words written like this, and not Hungarians to learn Russian. JSoos (talk) 10:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      On some blogs I found the same reference but specifically mentioning that Bateman was teaching in Vojvodina, which could make sense, as there they could already been familiar to Serbian Cyrillic. JSoos (talk) 11:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Hi @Lourdes, he created more sockpuppets to aggressively spreading the same thing. Based on this behavior I can suppose perhaps those minimal sources regarding this on the internet created by this user.
      Special:Contributions/Itsmemodi
      Special:Contributions/Mugafatov
      @JSoos, page 35: "However, a system for Cyrillic transcription for the Japanese language, called Rosiadzi or Kiridzi, was created in 1917 by E. Polivanov (Such systems were created for other languages, too, even for Hungarian: the Hungarian Cyrillic alphabet, or маЃар цирилл, was invented by Samuel P. Bateman, who wanted to make it easier for Hungarians to learn Russian as a second language)." And true this refers to Omniglot blog, it seems it is a circular reference. I also do not see any allegedly Cyrillic variants in the Japanase language article or spamming there this irrevelant info if this exist. OrionNimrod (talk) 11:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks, I did not find it, as I was looking the characters: "Hungarian cyrillic", which is on a page brake. JSoos (talk) 11:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      DuckDuckGo shows me a preview of the deleted article Cyrillization of Georgian. It starts: "The Cyrillization of Georgian was a Cyrillic alphabet designed for the Georgian language during the period of the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic. It was devised by American-Soviet linguist Samuel P. Bateman who was notable for designing the following system and the alternative Cyrillization of Hungarian. The system was created in order to standardize and establish Cyrillic as the official writing system of the Soviet Union and, subsequently, of the assimilation and standardization of all people under communism." The article was deleted in 2018 as blatant hoax. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 12:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Just for info, can you tell me when was that page created? Thanx! JSoos (talk) 12:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Unfortunately no. The preview only shows what I quoted. And the information about deletion is from Cyrillization of Georgian. But maybe an admin can figure out when and by whom it was written. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 12:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I do not know Russian and Cyrillic or the mentioned Serbian Cyrillic. I do not know what is the reality because I was unable to find any Hungarian sources (even not academic) about this. Which means this things is a really irrevelant and unknown or a fake. The user use a lot of accounts to force this unknown thing many times to many Hungarian related article, no talk page usage (that is why I moved the issue here), it is clearly a trolling behavior. OrionNimrod (talk) 12:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      For example this article has no references: Cyrillization of Japanese, we know Japanese alphabet is very unique, why Hungarian is Latin. I know Arabian, Russian, Japanese, Korean, Chinese… words have Latin transcription for understanding, which mean I can imagine that unique Japanese could also have Cyrillic version but I do not know anot nothing about the usage. Hungarian alphabet is not so unique, it use Latin alphabet with some special characters, also historial and nowadays the Old Hungarian script is used for several purpose. However we can see this is a separate article in the case of Japanese, but the sockpuppet user wanted to force this unknown Cyrillic Hungarian thing to many Hungarian articles and morover as lead part. OrionNimrod (talk) 12:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I think that there could be some context, but I do not find relevant sources either. However my sister had a napkin collection when we were children and one of them contained Hungarian text written in Cyrillic, which I found very funny that time. So may be there could have some system existed, but I doubt that it was created for to help teaching Russian language. JSoos (talk) 12:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another editor opened up a report at SPI regarding two of the accounts listed here. I have added the rest. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Saintpetersgate.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Sidenote: If Hungarian Cyrillic looks strange, what to say about Filipino Hangul? 헛소리 같네요. a!rado🦈 (C✙T) 15:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Or Japanese Arabic. Canterbury Tail talk 15:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      It is not questioned if cyrillization exist, but for Hungarian there are no relevant sources at all, only pure one blog page, while in the above mentioned two "strange" articles have many relevant citations. JSoos (talk) 16:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Hi JSoos, relevant sources are perhaps there. I could find one on Google Scholar searching for your term (and that's what I have quoted above). You possibly also reached the same source. Like I said earlier, no comments on the trolling. Lourdes 16:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Rolled up an interesting discussion as not relevant here. Mathglot (talk) 16:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Back on track

    Just to get this discussion back on track: perhaps it could've been worded better, but this report is not some arcane content question about whether Hungarian Cyrillic exists; it is about a large amount of vandalism by sockpuppets inserting text prominently in either the lead sentence or the Infobox of numerous articles relating to Hungary. Typical is this edit at Pál Schmitt:

    −
    '''Pál Schmitt''' (<span class="IPA-label IPA-label-small">Hungarian:</span> <span class="IPA nowrap" lang="hu-Latn-fonipa">[[Help:IPA/Hungarian|[ˈpaːl<span class="wrap"> </span>ˈʃmitt]]]</span>; born <span class="nowrap">13 May</span> 1942) is a Hungarian Olympic fencer and politician who served as [[President of Hungary]]
    		+
    '''Pál Schmitt''' (<span class="IPA-label IPA-label-small">Hungarian:</span> <span class="IPA nowrap" lang="hu-Latn-fonipa">[[Help:IPA/Hungarian|[ˈpaːl<span class="wrap"> </span>ˈʃmitt]]]</span>; ([[Hungarian alphabet|Hungarian Cyrillic]]: Пял Шмитт), born <span class="nowrap">13 May</span> 1942) is a Hungarian Olympic fencer and politician who served as [[President of Hungary]]

    Thanks are due to OrionNimrod for raising this here. SPI can be found here, with a couple dozen blocked so far. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 16:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Special:Contributions/142.134.96.119

    Special:Contributions/142.134.96.119 has been making track list changes which are disruptive as the editor has had it explained to them why they are incorrect, yet continues to make them. I don't think AIV is appropriate as its not vandalism. I believe a short block of a week (24 hrs is not enough as the edits have been sporadic over 3 days) may be needed.

    Copy vio

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

    Some of the IP addresses are -

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

    Consistent low-quality edits from 2804:1054:3015:EE90::/64

    contributions

    This IP range has been making consistent low-quality edits for about 11 days. Most edits are on the topic of language. About 70% have been reverted; others have required fixing due to, for example, disambiguation links added.

    It seems like they mean well FWIW, but their changes have been minor improvements at best, with most others being degradations, some even incomprehensible like for example linking the page Glasgow dialect back to itself under the word "Scots", which is not the same thing (diff).

    Mutt Lunker has been involved in reverting a bunch of their edits; see contributions and Ctrl+F for "rv mass". I've done a bunch of the others.

    I'm not quite sure how to post a warning for a whole IP range, but I've already put warnings on two of the IP talk pages (1, 2), and I'll put an {{ANI-notice}} on the most recently-used IP.
    — W.andrea (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. What's a "bkf ip clone"? — W.andrea (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BKFIP MrOllie (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is the ring of familiarity about a prolific language topic editor in the broad geolocation, no edit summaries, evident scant understanding of the subjects they are addressing and either a poor grasp of English or a failure to read back their edits in the full context before publishing. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mutt Lunker @Lourdes This is WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Helivelto, a Brazilian editor that makes disruptive edits to articles/redirects with particular focus on Scotland, Ireland and Americans. 2804:1054:3010::/44 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has just come off a 1 year range block due to disruption from this editor [171], since the same person seems to be using it to continue the same disruption may I suggest that the block should be reinstated? 192.76.8.82 (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Range around 197.144.98.197

    Moved from User talk:ToBeFree
     – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    197.144.64.0/18 (range copied from WHOIS) has a history of removing content without explanation going back to 19 February. Please block whichever range is responsible for this.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    They apparently also edit from 105.71.145.0/24 but that range hasn't been active for awhile.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Now I see that I've interacted with them before.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess 197.147.0.0/18 is also them.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, well, well. I found a blocked proxy with the same MO.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Skywatcher68, I'll move this to ANI as I usually don't create rangeblocks of this size in response to a talk page request. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1165209109"