Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

203.145.95.X harassment, personal attack and possible part of off site canvassing behaviours

• 203.145.95.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• City University of Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• South Island line (West) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tai Po Market (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• old ANI thread 1
• old ANI thread 2

Ok, i have been asked to make a shorter thread. Here is one thread for one ip range. If you like to read the previous drama: here.

The ip made groundless claim that 210.6.10.X ip range was my meatsock on 21:46, 8 November 2021 by this edit (Special:Diff/1054238016). Which the ip has received warning by User:Ohnoitsjamie

However, way before that edit, the ip already trolling me by false claim I have suggested something (offsite) somewhere by this edit (Special:Diff/1052306852) Agree Matthew. As you suggested elsewhere, which exactly the same disruptive edit as the edit of 210.6.10.X ip range (Special:Diff/1050888402, Agree with Matthew. It's all about how. I saw his message on an online forum and I agree with his reasoning.) on the same talk page. SPI clerk user:Tamzin simply called 210.6.10.X ip range as troll (mentioned in previous ANI October thread) or in blockable conduct (mentioned here). But i am not sure other admin would consider 210.6.10.X ip range and 203.145.95.X (this thread) are meatsock, or same person that ip hopping with another ISP, or else. Template talk:China–Hong Kong border crossings's RfC attracted a lot of unregistered ip from different HK ip ranges as apparent off site canvassing , just i fails to dig out the exact thread, only their possible point of contact in Telegram (app) (Read the above ANI thread for details). Or, may be people may not agree there is any off site canvassing, so that this thread talk about edit inside wikipedia.

The ip range also harassed other registered editor, and matching the pattern of yet another ANI thread back in January 2021, which either harassed other people's English level, or other editor not Hongkonger enough to edit wikipedia's Hong Kong content.

In specific, now the 203.145.95.X ip ranged harassed user: Citobun in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong

On a side note, Citobun does not appear to be adequately familiar with some Hong Kong topics Special:Diff/1054239450 on 21:57, 8 November 2021

So, any thought? Matthew hk (talk) 06:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I've added a link to the range ([1]) at the top of this thread. I see that the user responded to my warning here, where they agreed to stop making accusations. Do you have any examples (with links to the diff) of harassment from that IP range since I warned them? Claiming that another user is not "adequately familiar" with a topic may be a bit uncivil, but it's not harassment or an attack. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ohnoitsjamie: For the record, this is a quote from an ip ( 1.64.46.X) from the January 2021 ANI thread, but since it is from different ip range so that never able to actually verify it is controlled by same person or just coincidence or not: With such a level of proficiency in the English language, as well as reference to "To Ka Wan" (as opposed to To Kwa Wan) I would have much reservation towards his claims that he's a Hongkonger residing in Australia and that he's familiar with the Hong Kong-related matters he edits on Wikipedia.. So, would you think use today or 8 November or date that someone send a user talk message to 203.145.95.X ip range, that "from Hong Kong is not a mandatory requirement to edit Hong Kong -related topic" Able to show WP:RS to allow other people to WP:V is more important" ?

BTW Citobun did say this to the ip gang already in January 2021 thread Third party comment: If you (singular? plural?) created an account and cut down on all the snide remarks regarding English proficiency then I think it would be much easier to have a constructive discussion regarding the issues at hand Matthew hk (talk) 08:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• And actually 203.145.95.X ip range and the (rival?) 124.217.188.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ip range just caused the article City University of Hong Kong edit protected . Despite 124.217.188.145 seem more clear cut disruptive by add obsolete place name New Kowloon. (@Ohnoitsjamie: Guess what, 124.217 ip range, also edit Country article, that you protected)

• While seem two ips take turn to add obsolete place name to article in South Island line (West)

Special:Diff/1052070292 by 124.217.188.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Special:Diff/1054164236 by 203.145.95.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) 1RR

203.145.95.32 did stop and not having 2RR and instead made this Special:Diff/1054230185

But the problem is, you can't add placename that was used in 100 year ago. Hong Kong place name changed from time to time (See Ma Tau Chung#Geography) so that such stuff need WP:RS to verify the modern place name of the area.

Matthew hk (talk) 08:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute in which all parties are participating in talk page discussions. If the dispute comes to a statemate, please follow dispute resolution procedures. I have no further interest in this, please don't ping me about it again. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Would this be an abuse of WP:AN/I? 219.76.24.216 (talk) 13:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Matthew hk for opening this thread. Sorry that I am busy in real life this week and can't contribute very much to this discussion. But I would say: Hong Kong subjects have had, for a long time, problems with disruptive IP editors whom I suspect are the same person as there is a great deal of subject overlap among the IPs. I last opened a discussion about this here. Their common editing pattern can be summed up as persistently adding obscure place names (e.g. Staunton Creek, New Kowloon, etc), other obscure/incorrect names (e.g. "Harbour Crossing Tunnel"), highlighting obscure geographic trivia that usually consists of WP:OR (example here, and so on. Instead of providing WP:RS, they just start revert wars and make personal attacks. It's hard to address the problem since they are constantly changing IP addresses. Citobun (talk) 02:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

To be fair 124.217.188.X ip seems linked to the creator of Jeffrey Ngai Pang Chin, a globally locked user (see Afd, 124.217.188.X ip vote stacking to try to keep the article, and no other user and ip really agree it) of which probably a lock evasion, but CU will not do the check for ip and locked user linkage anyway.

124.217.188.X ip and 203.145.95.X seems different person as there is edit war between them in City U article. Just 124.217.188.X probably won't able to open an account or else it will escalated to SPI quickly, while the latter chose to personal attack and voluntarily not registered to enjoy the collateral damage of edit protection of articles (or may even worse, may mistook as the same person as 124.217.188.X ips) So that you may need to open thread for 124.217.188.X ip range as people want to read concise thread and don't want to spend time to know that really happened. Matthew hk (talk) 02:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah, these are not harassment after they fails to provide WP:RS Special:Diff/1055348314 .....Admit your own fault and stop pretend that you are always right. Matthew hk (talk) 10:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

  Is there any reason why you would take things out of context this way? That was all about what you did, first, calling "flag station" a "slang" and second, disregarding the fact that the term appeared the HKU paper quoted. harassment after they fails [sic] to provide WP:RS? 203.145.94.111 (talk) 14:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• As of November 17, the IP is still pushing obscure place names (e.g. the use of the name Butterfly Beach to describe the entire surrounding area within Tuen Mun) without reliable sources. Citobun (talk) 06:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• The IP is also stalking the most recent pages I have edited. For instance, I have most recently edited Shek Kip Mei fire and Eastern Express (newspaper). Immediately thereafter, the IP edited the same pages, making changes that I have objected to on other pages in the past (e.g. adding the obscure place name "New Kowloon" and changing the spelling of "Hong Kong" to "Hongkong"). Citobun (talk) 04:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I still can't figure out what their agenda actually is, but I've reverted their edits on Shek Kip Mei fire, but their use of 'Hongkong' on Eastern Express (newspaper) seems to be justified as The Standard was actually named the 'Hongkong Standard' during that time period. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 03:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Matthew hk's personal attacks

(Continued from /IncidentArchive1084.)

@Johnuniq: Here you are: "Also, it is a genuine suggestion on seek medical advice.", "Zh-wiki do have infested so that no one has CU right, but it is delusional so bad that...", "Just seek medical advice if you (the ip hopper(s)) have persecutory delusion...", "You guy delusional really bad,". 219.76.18.80 (talk) 13:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

There are four links above but two duplicates (that is, there are two different diffs, each pointing to Matthew hk making a comment at ANI on November 4 and 7). In the ANI archive, I asked for evidence of "an actual problem". What I meant was something substantive to do with article content, not squabbling at ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes four quotes from two edits.

(If you aren't going to deal with PAs in AN/I, then an actual problem I had learnt from talk pages and observed in diffs is that Matthew hk has refused to proofread (whereas for Citobun it's been with his wholesale reverts and provocative editing style; and for Atsme and Valereee their unawareness or unfamiliarity in the subject matters and unwillingness to hold back their wrong edits).) 219.76.18.74 (talk) 12:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Matt hk has been editing wikipedia for years, so forgive me, but I am confused and can't see what personal attack you're on about. Admin's are more likely to lean towards the experience editor than a jumping IP complaints. :/ (storm in a tea-cup again?) Govvy (talk) 12:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

That'd be systemic bias isn't it? But then fyi this bloke has been like this for a long time. Possibly all along. The personal attacks in the diff links above happened here at AN/I but that happened on and off too. 219.76.18.78 (talk) 08:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

On HandThatFeeds' merger of two "related" sections: [2] [3] [4] I was not aware of the other section about 203.145.95.x and I still don't think the two sections are related. What I reported deals specifically with the PAs by Matthew hk (and possibly others). 219.76.18.75 (talk) 09:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

7&6=thirteen’s behavior hasn’t improved

13 was warned about this earlier I believe, but they haven’t improved their behavior:

Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron

Redirecting the Article Rescue Squadron:

Prop: Conspiracy mongering about “stifling reasonable minds” with “prior restraint” Prop 2: Calls editors he disagrees with “trollish” “sharks” who “pounce” (a bizarre triple mixed metaphor) on AfDs, without evidence Prop 4: General passive-aggression

Is ARS still here?: Conspiracy/persecution complex mongering, unprovoked haranguing/canvassing-lite of prospective new member, I’m a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” for wanting to reform ARS, the “inquisition”, importing the below-mentioned drama from AfD as “evidence”

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARS Public School (3rd nomination)

Disruptive personal attack conspiracy mongering in the middle of an unrelated discussion

Dronebogus (talk) 14:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Neither of you come out of those two spats very well, to be honest. But I don't see anything worthy of admin action. Can we keep the ARS drama away from ANI for a few week unless something really egregious is happening? Black Kite (talk) 15:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I’d like multiple opinions first. Dronebogus (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • BK, this is at least the third time this has come to ANI since I've been here, and you said something like this the last two times (last year, this month). What's he gotta do, kill somebody? :-P I don't get why this one is different from the other two (against whom you supported sanctions last time). Seemed obvious to me that if we tbanned two out of four, the other two would continue. But more to the point, your thesis that "some admin will handle it/community's patience is clearly not endless" gets undercut when you're more-or-less against an admin handling it ("not worthy of admin action") and in favor of extending the community's patience ("unless something really egregious is happening"). After however-many years, maybe it's time, you know? Levivich 15:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
    • If this isn’t enough evidence he just wants to feud with and WP:HOUND me I don’t know what is: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron&diff=1054689154&oldid=1054687222 Dronebogus (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Note that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARS Public School (3rd nomination) Dronebogus started the nomination with Nomination a few days ago closed as no consensus and was tied up in ARS drama so I’m renominating in hopes of a clearer consensus. But not one regular member of the Article Rescue Squadron voted there, although two did discuss things in the AFD and also edited the article to make improvements. Dronebogus seems determined to blame the Article Rescue Squadron for things they didn't do. Also why don't we have a rule that if you don't like how a deletion discussion ends, you can't just renominate it less than two days later? Isn't that a bit disruptive? Or gaming the system? In that AFD instead of focusing on the article, he keeps making accusations against the Article Rescue Squadron. Dream Focus 15:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • What rule? Where? And why can’t I re-nominate it after it closed as no consensus? Dronebogus (talk) 16:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • IMO, referring to the re-nomination of no-consensus AFDs as disruptive is one of the tactics ARS use to badger nominators. Similarly to the practice of referring to no-consensus results as a "keep" (and recording them as such on the rescue list). Thus, they make the argument we see in this AfD that this article was kept twice and a third nomination is therefore disruptive. But of course it isn't: re-nomination is the natural thing to do after a no-consensus result. Similarly, ARS will badger post-AFD merge/split discussions, saying that if the article was kept (even if it was actually no consensus), any efforts to merge/split is "back door deletion" (or similar). Let me know if anyone wants diffs of examples of these tactics being used. Levivich 17:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

    I've seen rapid renomination labelled as disruptive in the past. If it is okay, then what is the point of WP:DRV? Just keep nominating until you get the result you want. NemesisAT (talk) 19:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• I recall being told calling someone "paranoid" is not acceptable. Dronebogus does that in his rant. [5] I'd also like to point out his previous rant against the ARS when he nominated it for deletion at [6] He seems determine to cast accusations against "its four dominant members". Please list specific evidence against individuals you believe are doing something wrong, and stop making vaguewave accusations. Dream Focus 15:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I literally presented evidence about one member above. With links. What more do you need, fingerprinting? DNA tests? Dronebogus (talk) 16:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Evidence about this ridiculous and relentless canvassing accusation is what I meant. Dream Focus 16:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
      • This isn’t about the earlier ARS drama. This is about 13’s recent antics. This doesn’t involve you or the two tbanned ARS users. Stop dragging this away from the topic. Dronebogus (talk) 16:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
        • This is about you arguing with him at Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron#Is_ARS_still_here? and both got a bit unpleasant towards each other, and over at the AFD I mentioned [7]. You don't just make accusations about him but the Article Rescue Squadron. Dream Focus 16:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
          • Look we’re obviously never going to agree on the ARS but the main issue is 13. And yes I may have gotten a bit snippy with him. But based on his reaction to this ANI issue he’s clearly interested in making this a matter of personal “honor” and not a professional dispute. Dronebogus (talk) 16:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• This is about User:Dronebogus's wilfully disruptive behavior at WP:ARS and at various deletion discussions. He never misses an opportunity to cast aspersions on me and WP:ARS. The whole fiasco at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARS Public School (3rd nomination) and its predecessor was apparently intended to make a point. He should be WP:Topic banned from the ARS pages and participation at articles for deletion. I have not called on him directly, but I have been firm in my expessed belief that ARS should be allowed to conduct its business withhout the saboteurs taking over. Indeed, I should not be personally harassed, which this is. It is time for a WP:Boomerang. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • You’re the one who made the snarky overly personal remark about this discussion at the ARS talk page, not me. You’re the one who has ended up here at least two unrelated times, not me. You’re the one who immediately walks in here demanding sanctions, when I just wanted a review of your behavior and offended no comment. Dronebogus (talk) 17:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Read the whole pages and the AFDs. User:Dronebogus is not alone in this. But his part and intent is clear and unmistakable The WP:Harassment has got to stop. Do your duty. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

You think admins are just going to do what you want because you demanded it? The first admin who showed up wasn’t even on either of our sides. The fact that you respond to any criticism by WP:HOUNDing me and ranting about Deletionist conspiracy this or that is telling. Dronebogus (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Res ipsa loquitur. Topic bans are required. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• • This isn’t a place to get revenge on rivals! I opened this because I wanted an admin to look over this matter and see if anything needed to be done, not because I want to start a grudge match! Even if you believe my behavior to be out of order you’re not going to correct it by coming in here eagerly calling for heavy sanctioning before even a warning or significant admin comment. Dronebogus (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• "I'm (Dronebogus) making fun of your (7&6) group (ARS)". We can see that. They disrupted a neutral question by "making fun" of people. Maybe the connection between ARS School and WP:ARS is "funny", or not even by accident, but I'm trying to solve a puzzle (finding more sources) and when a user disrupts that process with mockery it shuts down the process and becomes, as they say, "drama". -- GreenC 17:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  I apologize for that. But that isn’t topic ban material. Dronebogus (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  I just want to point out that that was my joke [8] and Dronebogus stole it. Can he be blocked for that? EEng 19:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• I observe [9] and [10]. Doesn't exactly inspire confidence. (And no one better say that ARS regulars post there to draw attention to discussions where they hope like-minded editors will look. Heavens, no!) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• This is just a bad faith discussion from Dronebogus after reviewing the AfD mentioned. Extremely WP:POINTY and this discussion is just adding a disruptive nature because they won't WP:DROPIT. – The Grid (talk) 18:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• I’m probably going to get topic banned again for posting here but I’d like to ask why everyone is focusing on whatever crap I’ve done wrong in my brief time here when LB is violating their topic ban and 13 is behaving uncivilly after multiple warnings over a multi-year basis. Dronebogus (talk) 19:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  Because your behavior is obviously disruptive and problematic in various ways, and your response when people point that out is to argue instead of introspect and change your behavior. --JBL (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  And their behavior somehow isn’t? Dronebogus (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  Dronebogus, I mean this with all due respect and in sincere good faith, but your continued participation here is actually detrimental to your cause. Do with that opinion what you will. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  What Dumuzid said ^. Both "sides" increasingly have unclean hands, and both "sides" should take a good look at WP:2WRONGS. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks for providing a clear-cut illustration of exactly my point. --JBL (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposed interaction ban between Dronebogus and 7&6=thirteen

This argument is not going to cease and will continue in ARS and across various AfD's. I propose a no-fault, time limited, interaction ban between Dronebogus (talk · contribs) and 7%266%3Dthirteen (talk · contribs) to prevent further disruption. SailingInABathTub (talk) 17:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Yes. Please. Dronebogus (talk) 17:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• I propose that Dronebogus stay off the WP:ARS page. And his participition at AFDs likewise. He proposes and supports a lot more AFDs than I participate in. I do not interact with him but I should not be curtailed from parfticipating in AFDs by his broad brush. That we are going through serial nominationsd at the ARS School demonstrates the problem.

And while you are at it, ban the bomb throwers from the ARS pages. Read them and you will understand that this has been going on for years. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• • Might help if you didn’t just assume everyone knows what you’re talking about. Dronebogus (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I disagree with ARS sanctions because I want to work on reform efforts but that’s for an admin to decide. Dronebogus (talk) 17:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Reform as in spread rumors when a new comer shows up then arguing with others? You aren't going to reform it, you just insult it constantly, and did nominate it for deletion even. It would be great if those who had a wikiproject were not allowed to be bothered this way. Dream Focus 17:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
      • I could say “no you” but this is obviously going nowhere so sure topic ban me from ARS. And set up n interaction ban between me and DF since we always just end up fighting. Dronebogus (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Perhaps that might be the wrong person to topic ban, assuming this is needed. Qwirkle (talk) 17:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
        • By that you mean…? Dronebogus (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• Not quite at the stage of suggesting an interaction ban, but to be quite frank I feel like blocking the next one of Dronebogus and 7&6=thirteen who slings mud at the other. Please, just calm down, both of you. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • blocking is more reasonable than an interaction ban? Dronebogus (talk) 18:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

    It means I would like both of you to stop arguing and thinking that the other one is "the enemy". I'm off out in a mo, but on my return I would love this thread to be closed as "The two parties have agreed to disagree and avoid each other voluntarily - no administrative action required". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

    Yes please. --JBL (talk) 20:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• I came here because I was of this edit: [11], and was going to request 7&6=thirteen not to change discussions without timestamping: (The case of the additional sentence here was likely minor and inconsequential, but the fact I noticed it meant it was disruptive). However from their talk page I note this ANI drama. Given Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1083##Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron is getting problematic closed 4 November 2021, the nomination by Dronebogus of ARS Public School at AfD two days after the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARS Public School (2nd nomination) non-consensus close by Scottywong rather than the two months suggested by the guideline Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion pointed to by the BEFORE instructions was a probable WP:SEALION attempt, which looks very likely to succeed in bans/blocks for one or more other editors. The ARS acronymn in the title is likely to allude to "Article Rescue Squadron", so the article selection here looks very POINTy. But I agree with Richie/JBL, this has to stop, so I hope people listen to what they say. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Boomerang Dronebogus is being disruptive. They have followed, and grave danced, and repeatedly brought editors to ANI. Their behavior has been POINTY. They also pulled me back into ANI last week for essentially more drama and harassment. Lightburst (talk) 18:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  Here here. I hadn't heard of Dronebogus before a month ago, now it seems their name is all over these boards. That's not a good thing. Seems like they're trying to stir and are going looking for trouble. How about avoiding the drama and concentrating on editing and improving the project? Canterbury Tail talk 20:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Note for admins. Isn't this a violation of Lightburst's topic ban?[12] This discussion is focused on behavior at AfDs and ARS. No one with such a topic ban should even be thinking of commenting on those discussions. The whole point of that ban was to keep Lightburst from continuing in the battleground mentality related to this subject or related editors. KoA (talk) 05:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  I don't think so. The wording of that topic ban is "Lightburst is banned from deletion-related activities for 6 months. This includes but is not limited to XFD, deletion review, PROD, and CSDs that are not covered by WP:BANEX." and this isn't a deletion related discussion. As someone with no prior knowledge of this topic ban, coming across this ban criteria wouldn't make me think they cannot participate in this particular discussion as it's about user behaviours, not deletion. Canterbury Tail talk 12:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail: The topic ban included things related to ARS. Which this discussion has to do with. Also, [here] he commented on an AfD. Even if this isn't technically a violation the other comment clearly is. I still think it is though. Plus there a few other things like him participating in an ARS discussion and comment about deletion related topics on his talk page. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

The remaining text of the topic ban was "Two important caveats. This does prohibit Lightburst from notifying ARS members of deletion discussions as it is "deletion-related". That said, it does not prevent Lightburst from improving articles that are nominated for deletion as long as Lightburst does not participate in the deletion discussion." I don't see that this is constituted in that. It was not generally related to ARS, and doesn't prevent them from participating in improvement discussions etc. I make no comment on their edits elsewhere, and I'm not looking at this, just on this discussion. Canterbury Tail talk 13:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Wow I'm surprised your reading of the TBAN discussion is that the community wanted to ban LB from from deletion-related activities but still allow him to comment in a thread about how a fellow ARS member behaves in AFDs and suggest sanctions against the reporting editor. That reading doesn't make much sense to me. To me, this is a deletion-related discussion because it's about an ARS member's behavior in deletion discussions. I can't think of another example when someone was TBAN'd from "Foo" but allowed to comment in ANI threads about someone else's behavior in articles about "Foo". The more I think about it, the clearer a tban violation this becomes. Levivich 13:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

There's literally no other way to interpret this discussion then being "deletion-related" and there's zero reason he would have participated in this if it had nothing to do with ARS and (or) AfDs. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Actually yes you're right, looking to the top section. I didn't sleep well last night, so this is probably my que to exit this thread. Canterbury Tail talk 14:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Canterbury Tail is correct that I am not banned from discussing any matters in this "community". I am not surprised that Levivich and Adamant would want me shunned or would want to remove my voice from this "community". I am not participating in any deletion related activities at all. I am free to comment on sanctions for editors who have been entirely unproductive, and have been following, needling and harassing me on talk pages. DB has brought me into ANI twice in a week just to be disruptive. But they already caught a one day block today I see. Lightburst (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Canterbury literally just said it did apply. You need to take this seriously Lightburst. Keep in mind you are also engaging in WP:ASPERSIONS at this point without diffs. You can be blocked for that. If you truly want to make accusations, then provide diffs relevant to this ANI. Keep in mind since you are posting in an ANI about behavior behavior in deletion and ARS topics you should already know that providing diffs related to that would also be a violation of your topic ban. It should be clear as day to you that you should be avoiding discussions like this with your ban, not jumping into them. KoA (talk) 05:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@KoA: I agree that the accusations are WP:ASPERSIONS. I've defended him and other ARS members multiple times since this whole thing started. Apparently it's harassment to not show 100% undying deviation to them and their cause in the interim though. Otherwise I'd like to see some evidence of the harassing behavior and the agenda that he's repeatedly accused me of having. I'm not sure how I could have an agenda when I've been defending them, but whatever. I'm willing to see his evidence. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Definitely a TBAN violation per Levivich. Buffs (talk) 22:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• I propose that (1) Dronebogus, at any time that you feel that 7&6 and/or Dream Focus has said or done something you object to, just ignore it. Let it go. No matter what it is, just let it slide, and move on to something else. And (2) 7&6 and Dream Focus, at any time that you feel that Dronebogus has said or done something you object to, just ignore it. Let it go. No matter what it is, just let it slide, and move on to something else. And the rest of us, let's bring down the hammer on whoever breaks that silence first. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• Not a support or oppose, just a note that if, after just 2500 edits, you find yourself repeatedly embroiled in conflict without even getting into DS topic areas, and have more than three times as many edits just to ANI as to the entire talk namespace... you may want to experiment with helping out in different parts of the project. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Tryptofish, Rhododendrites and others! Johnbod (talk) 00:53, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

{{yo:Dream Focus}} You talk above about those who had a wikiproject. But note, a project is not owned by its "members", each project belongs to all of us. Paul August ☎ 01:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I should've wrote "those who are active members of a Wikiproject". Note I wrote "I would be great if those who had a wikiproject were not allowed to bother it this way." So obviously I didn't proofread or think it through before writing. I just fixed it so now it sounds more coherent. Dream Focus 01:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support topic ban of Dronebogus from ARS, per their own recommendation above. The pattern of behavior here is simply unsustainable. This AN/I thread about an ARS member comes a scant four days after Dronebogus' previous AN/I thread about ARS members, created while they were in the middle of a heated argument with said members (in which they made posts like "Why do you think that the founder of this website wants to hear you complain about some drama at ANI? Why are so self-important as to think that your personal disputes warrant the Immortal God Emperor of Wikipedia’s direct attention?"). No action was taken. That thread itself came just a couple days after this AN/I thread about the ARS (one of the longest in the history of AN/I), which Dronebogus also started. The degree to which they seem to be fixated on these editors is concerning. I think that it may be more productive for everyone involved if Dronebogus and ARS members simply did not interact. jp×g 07:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Looking at this in a little more depth, I find bizarre conversations on WT:ARS, with Dronebogus contributing posts like "this is the reason ARS has so many enemies. Not because we hate you and articles and Wikipedia or whatever, but because the first thing you tell new users is that you’re victims of an evil Deletionist conspiracy and everything you hear from outsiders is filthy slander" and accusing ARS members of "paranoid hostility". In what way is this intended to be a constructive discussion? jp×g 07:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with those who dont yet think topic or iBans are needed. DroneBogus seems a smart editor & hopefully has begun to learn the importance of winning gracefully. Their original ANI caused the first substantial damage to the squad in almost a decade, despite many other attacks & plotting. Even some who found it woefully misguided can respect the achievement. But while understandable they let the success go to their head, these further ANIs are having the opposite effect, and just wasting the communities time. I agree with giving them perhaps a one month block if they launch any further attacks. And also for a similar block in the unlikely event any ARS editor goes out of their way to harass Dronebogus. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I wasn’t trying to “win” anything, imo, but I agree I’ve been wasting time with these further squabbles. Dronebogus (talk) 08:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• 13 called me thin-skinned a few days ago on the Article Rescue Squad talk page when I was making a good faithed effort to discuss the problems they have been having. Which was after the civility warning. Also, LightBurst posted multiple messages on Jimmy Whales talk page related to deletion discussions after he was tbanned from talking about the subject. He's also participated in this ANI complaint against the t-ban. Sure, we could all just ignore it, but then there could also be consequences for their actions. Seriously, which one of those is good for the project and which isn't? In the meantime "Is ARS still here?" is a perfect example of 13's continuing poor behavior and attitude about this. In it he compared ARS to Jean d'Arc and accused other people of being part of the Inquisition. He also said people who have issues with his behavior are gaslighting, and making deliberate hollow threats to disrupt the project. Is all that really acceptable behavior for someone who was just warned to be more civil? --Adamant1 (talk) 09:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

"Sure, we could all just ignore it, but then there could also be consequences for their actions. Seriously, which one of those is good for the project and which isn't?" Ignoring it allows you to forget about the problem and concentrating on improving the encyclopedia. In your case, Adamant1, I notice you have made one edit to the entire mainspace in the last month (at least that one edit was a good one!) while, conversely, you have spent quite a bit of time chatting at WP:JIMBOTALK. My advice is for you to ignore 7&6=13, Dream Focus and Lightburst, and in return I'd like 7&6=13, Dream Focus and Lightburst to ignore you. We might then be able to get on with more interesting things. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:36, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Not to be rude, but that seems like a rather dismissive handwave of serious problems. For one I haven't been involved in 99% of the problems that 7&6=13 has had. Including his comments on the ARS talk page that I added a reference to where he said this whole thing was an inquisition. So it's ridiculous to act like me ignoring him has any bearing on his uncivil behavior or resolving this. Nor do I have any issue with DreamFocus. I didn't even mention him in my comment. So I don't know why your bringing him into this. Outside of that, I find your insinuation that working on AfDs doesn't improve the Encyclopedia rather insulting. If you really want us to get on to more interesting things then sanction 7&6=13 for his lack of civility and LightBurst for discussing an area he's t-banned from. Then we can all get on with it. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I am happily editing main space. I am improving Tuskegee Airmen articles, and I even started three articles this week. I am not missing the friction. You on the other hand are seeking friction - the proof is in the pudding. My talk space conversation at JW is about this ANI process and not as you say. Your own involvement at JW is needling and following and essentially NOYB. Lightburst (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I empathize with Adamant1 and would also like to state that it’s hard to edit in mainspace when you’re in the middle of a long in-depth discussion, heated or not. I understand I’ve been uncivil lately and should stop bashing the ARS but 13 has been warned about this multiple times over several years and shouldn’t just get away with it yet again because the’ve been around longer and “two wrongs don’t make a right”. Dronebogus (talk) 12:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Gosh if only there were some way not to keep starting or joining or commenting in long discussions .... --JBL (talk) 14:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support a six month timeout for Dronebogus from deletion-related activity. That's not a TBan proposal, but really: go make content, do something else on Wikipedia that you find enjoyable. There will be articles to delete later after you've taken a break from the activity, and other people will likely be less tense and AGF-strained than they are now. Jclemens (talk) 18:04, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I do not support this. I have civil interactions with most other users at AfD; it’s just I don’t get along with 13 and the ARS. A functional “voluntary” topic ban, especially one-sided against me and for six months, seems drastic for such a narrow issue. Dronebogus (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Of course you don't, and no one would expect you to, but that's what external input is for--to encourage things that you're not seeing. Everyone takes voluntary, informal topic bans if they linger around Wikipedia long enough: interests change, people give up, admins ragequi... err, retire for a while after their decisions are questioned. That's a natural part of the interest lifecycle, and if you want to hang around for a while, you need to develop a sense when doing something else is necessary to help you rediscover your joy in volunteering here. Jclemens (talk) 20:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Just sanction the person that's already gotten a recent warning for civility and be done with it. Outside of that, it's ridiculous to sanction someone for bringing his behavior to ANI just because the warning was recent. 7+6=13's behavior was an issue long before Dronebogus got involved and will continue to be after Dronebogus is sanctioned. By not dealing with 7+6=13 now we're just kicking the can down the road. Are we going to T-Ban everyone going forward that he gets into it with? ARS isn't an exclusive club or fraternity house either. Anyone should be able to participate in it, without having to worry that they will be T-banned from doing so if they don't kiss the rings of the main contributors. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support a six month timeout for Dronebogus from deletion-related and ARS following activity. Dronebogus has been following, harassing, needling, grave dancing and engaging in POINTY behavior. Dronebogus has been especially disruptive. Also as Ritchie has pointed out Adamant1 is heading in a similar direction with unproductive following. Neither editor is contributing to the project. Lightburst (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Hey wait, why you are trying to cancel me and Dronebogus? I thought you were against that and ANI because it's unfair and just about trashing people. I guess that whole thing only applies when your being sanctioned. Go figure. I knew I should have created some G7 articles before commenting on this. Darn it. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support I'm just a part-timer that got pulled into Dronebogus' deletion frenzy. Their behavior has been WP:HARASS for anyone that votes against theirs in AFDs. I'm talking about WP:HOUNDING on talk pages and running to ANI when people get miffed, including several significant editors who make enormous contributions to WP (just search the archives for Dronebogus and you'll see how aggressive this person is). I echo JClemens suggestion that they find a project where they can actually contribute to WP, rather than simply tearing down others' work. There is a need for weeding out bad articles, of course, but it's been an exhausting few months in the AfDs because of this user. I, for one, had to step back from WP because of how much time it was eating. -Tiredmeliorist (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose taking action exclusively against Dronebogus; insufficient evidence of a long-term problem to justify something like this, especially since it's clear the problem is not one-sided. --Aquillion (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose banning Dronebogus from AfD. They seem to be one of the very active members, like Lightburst, and just because they are very unpopular in some quarters and have done their share of whatever they are accused of doesn't mean they or anyone else should be cancelled without totally grievous cause. As a wise man once said, "Can't we all just get along?" Randy Kryn (talk) 00:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: While I fundamentally disagree with you that anyone is being canceled, I respect that your consistent in the believe and don't just use it as way to excuse one sides behavior. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support timeout from AFD. As confirmed by others, Dronebogus has been disruptive at AfD recently. Their first edit to Wikipedia was a "gnome" userbox template, then began noming articles for deletion. From the start they showed in-depth understanding of NOTE. They are obviously a very quick study of how Wikipedia works, with a focus on controversial deletions and user blocking. They can leverage that intelligence to do something else for a while, such as content creation/improvement, AfC needs help. -- GreenC 17:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• I want to state that this seems like a biased party-line vote since GreenC and LB are both ARS members and I reported TM for disruptive behavior a while back after we had a dispute. I explicitly supported an interaction/topic ban from ARS but a one-sided “restraining order” against one of my primary interest areas for scattered fights with certain users (who I repeat are now voting against me) feels vindictive. Dronebogus (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose sanction, support warning - I agree there is battleground behavior per above, but as I believe this is their first time being at ANI for it, it should be a warning and not a sanction. Levivich 00:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose and warning the problem here is 7&6's battleground behavior as detailed below. Dronebogus has been drawn into that battleground behavior but should receive a warning as it is their first time at ANI. Mztourist (talk) 03:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• Seems like no one is commenting on the original proposal in this section? I think there are several reasonable proposals above to deal with Dronebogus's highly combative approach; I think a topic bad would be more effective than an i-ban, but I would support either. --JBL (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban, support one week block I'd support a one week block to allow him to cool down and let this and the ARS Public School AfD work themselves out without his involvement. 99% of his AfD participation is perfectly fine though and a topic ban due to one issue is rather extreme. An iban isn't really going to solve anything either. Especially if 7+6=13 is topic banned. Also, as a side to that it looks like the ARS Public School AfD is probably going to close as delete. Two people from India have said it isn't notable. Given that all the haranguing that was done about it being re-nominated turned out to be a massive time sink I think Dronebogus' push back of it was totally warranted. Although he could have done it in a less bludgeoning way. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose sanction, support warning. Also, support moratorium on ARS related posts at ANI, broadly construed, for the rest of 2021. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 19:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• Boomerang sanction on Dronebogus - This report comes across as Dronebogus using an ARS witchhunt to get the edge on 7+6=13 in a mutual dispute, and that doesn't sit right with me. I don't oppose the IBAN, however. Darkknight2149 20:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support interaction ban - This seems the best way to curtail the drama. I'm surprised this is ongoing. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposal for dealing with AFD disruption at ANI

From this point forward, let's handle ANI reports of AFD disruption thusly:

• 3 recent diffs of disruptive edits in AFDs brought to ANI = warning
• A 4th diff for anyone who's been warned = 3-month tban
• A 5th diff for anyone who's been tbanned = indef tban
• Editors who make these reports can just post the three diffs (or the 4th or 5th with a link to previous warning/tban), and editors reviewing the reports can just comment whether they agree/disagree the diffs are disruptive

Same rules for everyone; doesn't matter if they vote "keep" or "delete", are an ARS member or not, or how many great edits they've made elsewhere. Levivich 18:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Personally I'd TBan (permanently) any editor who persistently votes "Keep" or "Delete" at many AfDs with continually shitty rationales. It shows they're not here to actyally improve the content on Wikipedia , but to push a POV, whether that be "inclusionism" or "deletionism". Black Kite (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree that would be an example of "disruptive edits". Under my proposed system, five times would get an editor indef tbanned. Under our current system, as it's worked historically, editors have done it many more than five times before being tbanned. Levivich 19:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

    And how do you define a "disruptive edit"? Bear in mind you may have editors making "bad" arguments simply because they're not aware of the guidelines, or interpret them differently to yourself. NemesisAT (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

    If it occurs repeatedly then the person should know better by then. No one is going to be sanctioned for making a single ignorant vote. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

    WP:DE defines "disruptive edit" and as stated in the OP, editors reviewing the reports can just comment whether they agree/disagree the diffs are disruptive, meaning whether or not the diffs are violations of WP:DE. Levivich 21:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

    • I feel like we might want to define that somewhere and reach a clear consensus on it, especially if we're going to make it a guideline that a user !voting similarly on large numbers of AFDs without reasonable individual rationales should be considered disruptive and merits a ban from AFD if the behavior continues. That's the real crux of the debate - editors should approach AFDs on an individual basis, and if there's a reason to think they are approaching them as part of some larger battleground over the nature of AFD or deletions in general, then they need to be told to stop and shown the door if they refuse. Given that this is such a long-running problem and has caused so much bad blood, a guideline to try and put it to rest seems reasonable - it'd just be a guideline at most, so people could (and would still have to) decide on an individual basis, but a guideline would be important both to establish the general consensus and to warn people who do that sort of thing that their behavior is generally viewed as inappropriate. --Aquillion (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Would be best to let AfD closers evaluate whether a 'keep' or 'delete' vote, should be dismissed. GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Repeated bad voting can still be disruptive to the process if the closer ultimately disregards it. I don't think the good faithed users who are here to improve the encyclopedia should have to suck it up and deal with the ones who aren't just because the closer will eventually ignore them. Closers disregarding bad votes does nothing to curb the behavior either. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• I don't know about this specific proposal, but I have thought for a while that there needs to be some kind of neutral mechanism for addressing misconduct at AfD. The main problem with dispute resolution, to me, seems to be that the main venue for it AN/I; threads here tend to be created about one person (or a couple people) engaging in the same type of behavior. That is to say, there are no AN/I threads about rapid-fire, low-effort "keep"s and rapid-fire low-effort "delete"s, so people will participate mostly along "party lines". Of course, both forms of drive-by voting are obviously bad for the deletion process, and both cause people to become extremely mad. One idea I had was to simply write a tool that performs database queries (similar to the ones done by AfDstats.py) and indicates the interval between each !vote. This would make it very easy to tell if any given !vote was made, say, thirty seconds after the user's last edit. Perhaps there could be a version of the {{canvassed}} template automatically applied to AfD !votes made in less than a minute. Of course, there are other ideas: per my analysis of all AfDs, the rate of deletion discussions has declined markedly over time, from a peak of 54,000 in 2006 to around 18,000 in 2005 (i.e. from around 149 per day to around 50). Perhaps it would cool things down a bit if discussions ran longer -- it would certainly make it less important to argue quickly and forcefully before the close. jp×g 22:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't personally see the rapid fire nominations as that problematic or anywhere near on par when it comes to being disruptive as low effort, party line voting. Maybe some research multiple articles ahead of time. I do that myself sometimes. If so there's zero reason they shouldn't nominate them all in one go. It might also be possible that there was already a discussion about the articles as a group that would warrant it. I think that happened with the articles about Tuskegee Airmen. Whereas, there is no legitimate reason to do low effort, party line voting. As far as resolving disputes goes, I've always thought the AfD guidelines make it sound like are suppose to be self-regulating to a degree, but that clearly hasn't been effective. So something else is needed. I'm not sure what the best solution would be though. I like Levivich idea, but then I'm not sure if a random ANI complaint is the best venue to decide on it. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• It takes seconds to make an WP:AFD nomination. Especially when WP:Before is ignored or poorly done. A statement of fact when that occurs. But I've been told that pointing that out is a "personal attack." Responding and doing article and source improvement takes a lot of time. Figure it out. You think that deletion discussions are being instigated and voted on in a "party line". We agree, but your accusation is misdirected. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I could really care less if you say the nominator didn't do a WP:Before once in a while when it's warranted and you have evidence. The problem is that you say it as a generic vote rational without providing evidence and then brow beat the nominator about it multiple times after they and other people tell you that one was done. Like you did in Articles_for_deletion/Daniella_van_Graas where the nominator and another user told you they both did before multiple times and you refused to get the point. For whatever reason you keep obfuscating this into me just having a problem with you saying it in the first place though, when that's never been my issue. If you didn't use WP:Before as a generic vote rational and cheap way to discredit nominators then I would really care less about it. I don't think anyone else would either. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I added the sources to the articles, which proved the statement. And the deletionists remove them, which does not evaporate them. It is a fact. And I don't care how you "feel". Your open hostility is admitted here and elsewhere. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

You finding a reference or two isn't evidence of anything except that you found a reference. It's almost like your so paranoid and prejudiced against people who nominate articles that your unable to accept basic facts like that people get different results when they search Google. I can use the main Google sites search right now and will get different results then if I click the links in an AfD. It doesn't mean the nominator lied and didn't look for references. As far as your accusation of "open hostility", I've defended ARS and it's members, including you, multiple times since this whole started and I made suggestions to improve the project that were ignored. Sorry I committed the heinous crime of not throwing palm branches at your guys feet in every single message wrote. The only thing you and other ARS members will accept is 100% undying deviation and adoration or the person is out to get you and destroy the project. Seriously, get over it. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

You are the source of apathy, not antipathy.

If you defended ARS and me, thank you.

Otherwise, own what you said. And give it a rest. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:41, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll own that I defend people when it's warranted and I don't when it isn't. That's it. I'd expect the same from everyone else here. Otherwise, we are just playing a quid pro quo game of hide the ball. I rather not. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• Against, AfD is not a closed club or shut to the rabble. Myself, I only vote Keep, and only enter discussions where I'll keep. Just my style. And my style would qualify for cancellation? Ridiculous (Harry Potter reference). Randy Kryn (talk) 00:09, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• Against also, but like Randy, I only vote Delete, and only enter discussions where I'll delete. The Keepers can deal with the obvious keeps, and now that we are in a post-brouhaha era, I note that ARS members are behaving a little better, having had some casualties, and a few close shots across their bows. I still think that it is too soon to evaluate ARS' new behaviour, but community eyes are on them like never before. The community should be commended. Barnstars all round. -Roxy the dog. wooF 15:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• Against just a handful of extraordinarily stubborn and zealous users, not a documented contemporary phenomenon. Making a systemic solution for an individualized problem. Dronebogus (talk) 19:36, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. I generally vote delete, and (apart from times when I'm among the first participants) almost exclusively enter discussions that are controversial and where I don't know where my !vote will land. I think it would be helpful if closers explicitly said they ignored the low-effort cookie-cutter !votes and closed against numerical consensus more often. This would encourage better AfD behavior in the long run, hopefully... JoelleJay (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment That there is such a thing as "disruptive editing" in AfD to begin with suggests that the problem ultimately lies on those responsible for closing the discussions. Per WP:NHC, arguments that that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue are to be disregarded. And yet many closers don't do so, and it becomes possible to change the course of a discussion simply by having enough pure votes, even when the argument accompanying each is clearly bland or disingenuous. The only admin at AfD whom I've seen regularly weighing votes in a dispassionate, objective, efficient, and clear way is probably Sandstein. Maybe the NHC standards should be increased or better enforced; perhaps closers should be forced to give more than a superficial vote assessment ('the result was keep/no consensus/delete', followed by nothing else) when closing contentious discussions; maybe a stricter burden of proof should exist for those providing sources, in order to prevent the common occurrence of an article being kept but not subsequently improved. Avilich (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  Along with Sandstein, I've seen Black Kite, Nosebagbear, Randykitty, Missvain, Spartaz, and Seraphimblade make well-reasoned, against-numerical-consensus closes in athlete and other BLP AfDs. This should be the norm everywhere. JoelleJay (talk) 15:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Whatever we can do to improve conditions I'm all about it. AfD closing is a thankful task and I've been disrespected by newbie and experienced editors repeatedly and I think I do a very good job - even if I have occasional slip ups (I am human, gasp!). It causes burn out and is one reason so few of us participate in the closure process. (It's even worse on Commons...!!! The closure backlog is like 3 months LOL) Missvain (talk) 15:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose as the proposal is too subjective and political. Decisions to block would depend on how many deletionists or inclusionists attended the board at that time so it could unfairly effect both deletionists and inclusionists. One solution to poor afd votes would be to make participation subject to confirmed status as there is an increasing number of brand new editors speedily voting keep or delete in order to reach confirmed status so they can in many cases publish a third rate promotional article into mainspace, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I've been into that idea for a while now. It would also help deal with the sock voting. Although, it wouldn't have helped with the current issue. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose wrong place for this discussion. Though it might apply, this would require a much wider audience in its own separate topic thread, not buried in a discussion. Move to close. Buffs (talk) 22:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
• Proposal closure: Wrong place, borderline off-topic. Darkknight2149 03:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: Look. There's certainly a side I'm on in this. AFDSTATS has me at 84% Delete, and somewhat amusingly, when I do vote to Keep, I'm much more often doing it against the eventual consensus. And I get there are a number of constituencies here: the jihadists certain that their opponents are the wellsprings of evil on Wikipedia and must be put down no matter the cost, the ones who are tired of the whole mess, the ones who want someway to idiotproof the deletion process against kneejerk, biased and/or inaccurate voting, the ones who want the closers to rule only on policy, the ones who want the closers to rule solely on headcount. Most everyone's destined not to get their way. Me, here's where I'm at: drop the damn stick already, everyone. Whether you think that the crusade's been thwarted, completed, or halfway done -- whatever you do think the "crusade" is all about, anyway -- can we at least have a little bit of peace for a while and, y'know, go improve some articles with all that energy? Ravenswing 10:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Block

I have blocked Dronebogus for 24 hours from ANI for persistent bludgeoning of the debate, despite being asked not to and after being advised that a block might occur. I want to emphasise this is not an endorsement or criticism of any other editor's behaviour, which I have not looked at. As per usual, any administrator is free to lift the block without needing to consult me. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Noting for the record that per xtools Dronebogus has about a fifth as many edits to ANI alone as to all of mainspace and a grand total of 5% mainspace edits this month compared to 63% projectspace (70% WP+WT). There seem to be some priority considerations here. Vaticidalprophet 22:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

You should do the same for LightBurst since multiple people agree that his involvement in this is a violation of his topic ban and he is still contributing despite it being pointed out. I guess I could start another ANI complaint for it, but I rather not be straw manned for grave dancing, harassing him or whatever other nonsense people on his side decide to invent to excuse his behavior. Adamant1 (talk) 22:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Multiple editors meaning you and Levivich? Got it. I will leave you to it. Lets all go back to main space now. Lightburst (talk) 22:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm no Lightburst aficiando and I think his chart could be a lot healthier too, but hell, so could yours (0% mainspace twice this year?). I think you could all do with finding something better, and in the specific case of Dronebogus, a relatively inexperienced user (2.5k edits), a pretty serious warning that the purpose of Wikipedia is to write articles and not to make 63 comments in one AfD. Vaticidalprophet 22:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I find the whole thing about how many mainspace edits someone has made a rather pedantic way to dismiss someone's opinion by citing meaningless credentials. I'm sure if I had a bunch of mainspace edits people who are acting like it matters would just move the bar to something else. In the Jimmy Whales discussion Lightburst tried to say I had no room to participate in the discussion or have an opinion about his behavior because I haven't created any G7 articles like he has. So there's always going to be some arbitrary bar. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Adamant1, You only need to search for "Malleus Fatuorum" or "Eric Corbett" on this board to see that having a large total of mainspace edits lets you be excused or justified for a hell of a lot worse than any behaviour on this thread, up to and including throwing the "c" word at Jimbo Wales. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:43, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Vaticidalprophet I am certainly going to very quickly back out of here after I said my piece. Lightburst (talk) 22:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

No. Multiple editors meaning the user who first made the observation, the one who agreed it was a deletion related discussion, and then yes me and Levivich. It wasn't just me and Levivich though. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

It was myself and Canterbury Tail you allude to from the above section initially pointing out the violation. I'm pretty sure we're both relatively uninvolved too with myself mostly only being around from the last ANI (Lightburst's topic ban) when I commented after seeing how much space it was taking up on the board. It's definitely not just heavily involved editors "out to get" Lightburst who are concerned here. KoA (talk) 06:07, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• I agree that it is an obvious topic-ban violation as well; obviously the ban was intended to cover Article Rescue Squadron (as the crux of the deletion-related behavior that led to the ban), and clearly discussions about the actions of one of Article Rescue Squadron's most active members, taken as a part of Article Rescue Squadron's activities, with Article Rescue Squadron mentioned at the top of the section would fall under that scope. --Aquillion (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

No matter how broadly this line is define: "banned from deletion-related activities" ...commenting here is not a deletion related activity. This is a TBAN discussion. I am not debating the merits of any content which is what a deletion-related activity is. I am not making deletion rationales. The TBAN does not extend to discussions on this board as long as they are not discussing deletion of content. But as I said at JW talk, all you need is enough editors with grievances and you can further an agenda. Lightburst (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

commenting here is not a deletion related activity. This is a TBAN discussion. TBANing from what? From deletion. Levivich 23:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Unblock all of them, that's my two cents. As for Lightburst, they're looking more and more like a hero, wounded but not fallen. I can see why some want LB gone, a voice quieted. I literally heard of (or at least got my attention drawn to it) ARS very recently. Seem like a fine bunch who've done a lot of good. If they enter en masse sometimes to save an in-their-eyes worthy page, good for them, because that doesn't put more than a dent in the seemingly daily waterfall of deletion attempts of articles, categories, templates, and other Wikipedia user creations. AfD is certainly the tar pit of Wikipedia, and if a few of the herd can be saved with concentrated effort, nothing spectacularly wrong with that. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Ritchie333, I agree that Dronebogus had to step back (block or not) as it was clear they were getting too riled up by other pot-stirring going on. That said, can we get enforcement of the existing sanctions here as Aquillion points out? This is an ANI about behavior in deletion and ARS articles. Those like me who've seen this on the periphery at ANI have been getting exhausted from seeing this subject repeatedly, but when already topic-banned editors like Lightburst jump back into it, that only exacerbates issues (and blows up the ANI boards even more).

The whole spirit of Lightburst's topic ban is that they stay away from these deletion-related behavior disputes whether it's AfD itself or commenting on behavior in those discussions on other boards in any plain reading of normal topic bans. I've seen editors try to test the limits of their topic ban or thumb their nose at warnings they were crossing the line with much less and still get blocked. Like Dronebogus not stepping back, skirting topic bans like that is just destabilizing this topic even more for those of us trying to sort through this all. KoA (talk) 06:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

KoA, I have dropped a warning on Lightburst's talk page to stay away from ANI; for now, that will suffice. If he comes back here and continues badgering, a think a block would be justified. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate Ritchie's issuance of a warning, but I also think that we are getting to the point where the testing of the limits of the deletion/ARS tban, noted by others here, is getting to the point of just about no "rope" left. I've had some discussions with Lightburst just before this newest ANI began, about what I see as stepping over the line, where I attempted to treat it as AGF and tried to give helpful advice. But Lightburst took a pretty clear position of thanking me but disagreeing that the deletion restriction was "in the broadest sense". Here are the relevant diffs: first, at ARS: [13] (later revised, after my advice), [14], and [15]. Then at his user talk: [16] and [17]. And then at my talk: [18] and [19]. It's all very cordial, from my reading of it, but nonetheless there's a real resistance to accepting the extent of the existing restrictions, and if compliance does not end up happening voluntarily after Ritchie's warning, I think that a block will be inevitable. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Obviously this block was insufficient in getting the message across, which is exceptionally disappointing; since the badgering has continued, perhaps something broader or of longer duration could be applied? --JBL (talk) 21:17, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic ban 7&6=Thirteen from deletion related activities

7&6=thirteen received a final warning on 3 November. Recent inflammatory comments on the ARS talk page after that date demonstrate an ongoing battleground mentality and continued unwillingness or inability to participate in a civil manner.

1. [20] - Decribing ANI thread as a "purge"
2. [21] - Comparing delete !voters to great white sharks in a feeding frenzy
3. [22] - Calling someone "thin skinned"
4. [23] - "There are a lot of folks now participating in this talk page whose avowed objective is to kill off those who might oppose them at AFDs. And euthanize WP:ARS."
5. [24] - The "Wolf in Sheep's Clothing" comment mentioned above, along with a comparison to the Inquisition
6. [25] - Something about firearms on the table?
7. [26] - When an editor discusses revisiting prior AfDs potentially affected by ARS, 7&6 accuses them of seeking "do-overs" because they didn't like the results.

These comments show that 7&6=thirteen has repeatedly assumed bad faith and failed to remain civil, hindering the efforts of other editors to refocus ARS in a more positive direction and repair some of the damage that has been done. This is the same attitude that Andrew Davidson and Lightburst were sanctioned for. It's also not limited to their interactions with any particular editor, so an I-ban will not suffice. –dlthewave ☎ 23:15, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support per the history and what's happened since the last time:
  • 2019 ANI, 2020 ANI, 2021 ANI (closed 10 days ago), and now we have our second 2021 ANI. Each of these was brought by four different editors, and involved 7&6 having disputes with different editors. The common thread here is 7&6.
  • Canvassing the Arabeyes AFD [27]; discussed at User talk:7&6=thirteen#AfD notices (7&6 notified everyone except the two editors who !voted delete)
  • Canvassing ARS Public School AFD: [28];
  • Canvassing this discussion at ARS with a non-neutral heading (see WP:TALKHEADPOV) [29]; when another editor makes a neutral heading, edit warring to revert to the non-neutral heading: [30] [31]; warning the other editor for neutralizing the heading: [32]; complaining about it: [33]; and saying "I own this comment" [34] (compare with WP:SECTIONHEADINGOWN: no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading)
  • Reverts when an editor hats a discussion: [35]

Combined with the other diffs linked above in this proposal and the OP, and the prior history, it's a pattern of persistent disruption surrounding deletion, for years. Levivich 00:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• I would like to point out that less than two days after the previous AFD ended, Dronebogus started ARS Public School (3rd nomination). Everyone who participated in it should've been told it was restarted again. As for the section heading being changed on a talk page, after someone pointed to where the rule is about that, he didn't change it again. And there is nothing wrong with unhatting something if you are one of the people who is still having a conversation in the hatted section. Dream Focus 02:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Ok, take everything you're pointing to out of the equation, and what's left is still a pile of problematic diffs from the last ten days. Between each of these ANI threads over the last two years, there has been little or no improvement in behavior; the only thing that changes is who is complaining. Levivich 02:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• We are not discussing Dronebogus' behavior in this section, nor should we. We are discussing 7&6=thirteen's. Whatever the antics of Dronebogus or any other editor's, 7&6=thirteen's obligation was to walk away if he felt incapable of the level of civility he was told two weeks ago was expected of him. And in fact, per WP:CIVIL, that's the response expected of any editor as a matter of course, no matter the alleged provocation. Ravenswing 10:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support this is an ongoing pattern of Battleground behavior from 7&6, here are just some of the cases that I have experienced with them:

1. [36]
2. [37]
3. [38]
4. [39]
5. [40] Mztourist (talk) 03:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support Today he left this message on the ARS talk page in response to me saying that we should try to find a clearer consensus on the more contentious AfDs that have closed as no consensus and were posted at ARS. I've been clear in multiple places that I could really care less what that consensus is, but that we should find one. His response to that, as well articles that are closed as no consensus chronically being called "keep outcomes" by him and other ARS members, makes me think that he is trying to use no consensus outcomes as de-facto keeps. Which is why ARS members (including him) always have an issue with articles being re-listed, the ARS Public School AfD being one of many examples. Treating no consensus closes as de-facto keeps is battleground behavior. It also shows an utter lack of caring for the notability guidelines and AfD process. Plus he called me thin skinned after receiving a civility warning, but that's not my main issue or why I support this. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support an indefinite topic-ban from AFD, ARS, and any discussions related to them, broadly construed. Looking over their history they have been a consistent source of AFD-related WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior for literally years. Given the confusion Lightburst seems to have had about their topic-ban above, the wording should place a particular emphasis on extending to discussions of ARS, its activities, or any sort of allegations of misconduct related to AFD by any user, in any forum - that ought to be obvious, but it doesn't hurt to be sure. --Aquillion (talk) 05:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support Evidently has not taken the final warning seriously as demonstrated above. This was probably a good opportunity to take a break from deletion activities but the battlegrounding has continue. Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

  I would also add that if 7&6 does receive a topic ban I would support a strong warning to Dronebogus who has engaged in activities no less problematic than 7&6 since that massive AN/I. The difference here being that Dronebogus has yet to receive a warning (although returning back here straight after a 24h ban isn't a good sign). Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support I consider myself a moderate inclusionist and the evidence for that is the list I maintain on my user page of articles I have learned about at AfD and helped save by improving then substantively. But I consider extreme inclusionism and extreme deletionism to be disruptive editing behaviors if they continue after warnings. This editor should spend a year or so actually improving articles without any participation in deletion discussions, and then explain to the community how they are prepared to contribute to deletion discussions without engaging any any knee-jerk and poorly reasoned inclusionist misbehavior. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Cullen honestly I can't imagine anymore who has done much more to improve articles than 7&6, their work has been prodigious. They take on the really hard AfD projects that require deep research and days to find sources, build out articles and take through DYK. The lack of recognition for his work in this regard, and blinkered singular focus on Keep votes is mostly a fun-house mirror view. -- GreenC 07:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

If this is truly the case, then participation in AFD, or the lack of it, will not be needed for them to continue improving articles and their work to improve sourcing and quality can be done independently of that process, which would alleviate any concerns of battleground mentality. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 18:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose This is the third attempt in 10 days, if it fails there will be a fourth until it succeeds. Mostly by the same users. Nothing significant has happened since the last topic ban failure, 10 days ago.. 2 days ago. The diffs presented are old, or ARS talk pages, elective reading, for many a place to vent including for non-ARS members whose history of disruptive behavior there is long. Come on, if 7&6 was really that bad he would have been blocked long ago, would not have support from other editors. When you deconstruct what happened in these diffs, they are complex multi-page multi-editor interactions. There are provokers and provoked and he is often responding to provocations. -- GreenC 07:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

His "The firearms are on the table" comment was made in response to Dronebogus alerting him of the ANI complaint. Can you point to anywhere that Dronebogus has made similar analogies? Because there's a point where this whole "both sides are at fault" nonsense doesn't hold up to scrutiny anymore and he's long past it. Same goes for your assertion that this doesn't have any merit because he hasn't been blocked yet. No one is blocked until they are blocked. You should really have more valid reasons to oppose this then the same circular talking points that ARS members have repeatedly given to defend each others behavior. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose any block t-ban longer than 6 months. The only reason I don't oppose a 3-6 month t-ban is just to give the community a break. As GreenC says, if this attacks fails, we'll very likely see round 4 very soon. 13 is clearly too honest to do the tactical thing and bob & weave in the face of the persistent baiting they've received since two of their colleagues were taken down. To be clear, I don't see merit in the diff pile here. If anything 13 is to be commended for their apt use of figurative language. To address the first diff: The original Halloween ANI sought to take out all four of the squads active article defenders. How was it not a purge? I've never seen such poor conduct by the attacking side in all my years on Wikipedia. Sure certain squad members have been engaged in frequent banter/minor attacks, so cant blame the community for piling on with calling us arses, etc. But never have I seen an ARS editor give out an insult any where near as mean spirited as "disturbingly obsessive". And talk of confronting editors in real life, would normally guarantee at least a stern warning. Oh don't worry, its the ARS, they are too noble & kind to ever fight back! At least the spotlight on the ARS has drawn attention to lesser known editors like 13 & Lightburst, showing they warrant a place in the Wikipedia half of fame. Whatever happens to them, at least while perceptive editors still draw breath, their names and deeds will never be forgotten. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  • legitimately cannot tell whether you’re being ironic. I wouldn’t exactly call the above diffs “noble and kind” by a long shot. This kind of exaggerated, hagiographic language is going to weaken rather than enhance your arguments. Dronebogus (talk) 12:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Yub yub. Anyone who votes keep on AfDs is a luminous being of angelic purity, no matter what else they get up to. I mean, Feyd still worships the likes of Ikip and A Nobody who- well, they're long before your time but you can look them up in old archives if you want to see what a disruption the Squadron was in its heyday. Reyk _YO! 13:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Hopefully people will click on the differences presented and make their own decisions, reading not just what he said but what he was responding to. This editor has done quite a lot of editing on articles to improve them, and is thus a valuable member of the Wikipedia community. Dream Focus 11:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support indef ban. They haven’t improved their behavior after multiple warnings over several years, and think they can demand harsh unilateral sanctions against a user one minute while mocking and antagonizing them the next. Also note that so far the only “oppose” votes are from fellow ARS members. Dronebogus (talk) 11:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Let’s also question whether the ARS public school massacree would’ve gone down if it wasn’t for 13’s antics. Dronebogus (talk) 11:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm just waiting for one of them to say the user from India voted delete because they have an anti-ARS agenda. They are about at that point with this whole thing. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support because of blatant canvassing. When I pointed out the issue with his selective notifications for the Arabeyes AfD, I assumed it was an oversight. But two days later, 7&6 repeated the same selective notifications for the ARS Public School AfD, failing to notify two "delete" editors from the previous AfD. At this point, it just seems intentional. Schazjmd (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

As far as I know, all of the prior discussants on both sides were notified on the second example your proffered. As to the first, I corrected that, and you know that.. There was no repeated "selection." I did not make the same mistake after you called it to my attention. I apologize for the first mistake, and I urge you to reconsider. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• Weak oppose Describing an event as a 'purge', editors as 'white sharks in a feeding frenzy', or complaining about a 'daily flood of AFD nominations' sounds more like a harmless PoV description of recent events than actual disruptive behavior. Not much can be said of these minor examples of canvassing, considering nothing has ever been done about ARS itself despite that it serves no purpose other than asking low-standard inclusionists for backup. Conspicuously belligerent behavior for someone who has just been warned, of course, but very little of this so far will translate into AfD discussions being actually derailed: the original cause of complaint. 7&6=13 doesn't like 'deletionists', and 'deletionists' don't like him: inevitably interactions between these two parties will be, according to some definition or another, battlegrounds. I certainly don't like how he has handled sources and voting in the past, and to that effect I submitted diffs against him in the last discussion, though I stopped short of supporting any concrete sanctions. Both the nomination and closing statements against 7&6=13 in the last ANI were poorly conducted, but there's little justification for changing the final verdict – a warning, not a block – a mere days after. Unless, as per the warning, he's doing actual vote-stacking or mishandling sources – which result in actual disruptions, and which are more objective grievances than 'battleground behavior' or 'assuming bad faith' – then maybe he can be allowed to enjoy the chance he's been given. Avilich (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Within days of being warned at ANI, 7&6 blatantly canvasses AFDs, notifying past keep voters with non-neutral messages but not delete voters, and you want to give it a pass because it was ultimately unsuccessful. I'm surprised anyone would say 7&6 has to successfully disrupt AFDs, and not just attempt to disrupt AFDs, before 7&6 should be excluded from AFDs. Levivich 16:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I missed the Schazjmd's cmt due to edit conflict. It's not strictly accurate, since 7&6 does (correct me if I'm mistaken) seem to have given appropriate notifications for the Indian public school discussion: user The Banner, of the deletionist party, was apparently the first one he notified. As for the Arabeyes one, eh, perhaps. He did post both noms on the ARS list, which is arguably a form of canvassing itself, but nobody has until now successfully taken serious action against this, and lack of enforcement has allowed it to become standard practice. Anyway, the main complaint here is 'battleground' behavior, which I don't consider to be good grounds for a permablock. Avilich (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Levivich: Crossing out my vote. Reviewing the evidence more closely, it does appear that the notifications for the ARS school AfD were disproportionately handed out to keepers, even to notorious inclusionists who hadn't participated in the previous two discussions. His recent indiscriminate source dump here makes me doubt that the old custom of passing by solely to drag an AfD through the mud and not genuinely improve the article won't go away. I have certainly no ground to oppose any action anymore. Avilich (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support' This thread highlights everything wrong with their approach, and swiftly followed by what may be termed inflamatory to say the least, indicates that they are congenitally incapable of approaching deletion discussions objectively. Everything must always be personalised—and usually uncivilly as the numerous recent threads collected above show. ——Serial 16:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support per dlthewave and Levivich's diffs. Their canvassing and battleground behaviors are clearly not going to improve. JoelleJay (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support. I was honestly going to just ignore proposals at this particular ANI as I was hoping giving the topic some space to settle down after the recent topic bans would be best. The diffs on canvassing, battleground, etc. after the last warning though tell me that isn't feasible and this sanction is now needed. I personally tend to give people leeway after a warning, but this degree of doubling down is clearly not going away now without sanctions. It comes across as 7&6=Thirteen just working to waste community time whether intentional or not, and that's where my hard tolerance line is crossed. KoA (talk) 18:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• Very weak support: (and I am very seesawing on weak opposed): Real concerns was set up on a WP:SEALION especially given the POINTy nature of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARS Public School (3rd nomination) and perhaps the "Is ARS still here?" section at Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron which was a real trouble magnet of a heading (I AGF it was not a SEALION). The keeper biased WP:CANVASing is however a different matter and while not referenced at the 3rd November 2021 warning should have been considered. While discussion on deleted related discussions DRV/AfD's should be banned the placing of a {{rescue list}} on a discussion should be permitted with a neutral statement. Its ugly, very ugly, the way this discussion has been set up and a possible victory for SEALIONing Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support, per the convincing evidence that the combative approach has not abated following the previous monster ANI thread. --JBL (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as the user hasn't been given any breathing room. Can anyone seriously argue that this is a separate discussion rather than just a continuation of last week's? I suggest that all those opining there be ping'ed, lest this be a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS of everyone except those who thought the matter might be left alone for a while. Jclemens (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  • This vote and Djm-leighpark‘s vote seem like they’re relying on technicalities to discredit the discussion rather than addressing the actual issue of 13’s behavior. How many minor guideline violations can dance on a pin and whatever, when it’s obvious that 13’s behavior is a persistent problem that they’ve already been warned about. Dronebogus (talk) 20:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

    Why should they get away with things like the above because I renominated an article for deletion too early, or a discussion from a few weeks back didn’t arrive at a consensus against them for unrelated reasons? Dronebogus (talk) 20:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Dronebogus I consider between this recent comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARS Public School (3rd nomination) and what I see as your resumption of your bludgeoning following your block I am choosing to remove myself from these discussions and strike my !vote above. Thankyou. 22:16, 14 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs)

• Support Whoever closes this will find that there is a fair amount of party line voting so should look closely at the reasoning for the votes. For me it is the refusal or moderate in any way their rhetoric aftef a severe warming and the partisan canvassing that shows that 13 has learned nothing and needs to step back and restore their perspective. Battlefield anything in any discussion is poisonous to effective consensus building. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support, albeit with some ambivalence. I did support the previous proposal that ended in "no consensus", but I looked at all of the new diffs as well as my own observations, and I think that anything based only what has happened post-the last discussion is borderline, but just over the line. Some of the diffs raised are not as bad as they look at first glance, when one looks at the context in its entirety. But I won't belabor that, because there is also enough here to conclude that this is a net-negative situation. (Personally, I am especially bothered by the "love letter" section referring here, and the edit warring over it.) So I come down on the support side. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as there is too much political voting going on here in favour of removing editors from AfD to aid their own objectives. If thirteen's behaviour is sufficiently bad then they should get a complete block not just to remove them from deletion matters. A warning is sufficient in my view and ive seen far worse battleground language from respected editors not to mention admin (an example admin using the F word in block notices).Atlantic306 (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I can't speak for other people, but personally I've defended ARS members multiple times since this started. So I don't really have an "objective" outside of wanting the disruption 7+6=13 is causing to end. His behavior has clearly passed the threshold of what should be acceptable since he has already received multiple civility warnings and couldn't keep his behavior in check for more then a few days past the last one. Given that, there's zero indicator at this point that more warnings are going to be effective. I don't think he should receive a full block either though. There's no reason he can't edit productively in areas where he doesn't have behavioral issues. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose (now Strong Oppose, see below), I just ran across this and thought it was an old thread, then looked at the dates and it's real time. Seriously? Another cancel-an-editor-athon over in AfDland brought to ANI? Haven't at least two AfD regulars (more?) been shooed out, now there's another? What a place! Randy Kryn (talk) 02:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Just read the links where the sins were supposed to be, and aside from some colorful language that seemed entirely metaphorical, which has been cherry-picked and highlighted, what I read (the parts that weren't quoted) was astute analysis and personal complaints about the current good faith bouncing of long-time editors who save articles. Let 7-13 blow off some steam in-between fair points, is anyone really actually offended enough not to take the rest of the comments and real concerns into consideration? Makes me think that they would have hated Lenny Bruce, but that's a personal aside. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:22, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry but a project page where editors are trying to move forward and clean up the mess is not the place to "blow off steam" or recap an ANI discussion. They're actively distrupting productive discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 15:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I've been observing all this drama recently and find it both fascinating and exhausting. What I think the examples above most prove is that 7&6=thirteen and Dronebogus really, really don't get along. So the best course the action is for the two users to stay as far away from each other as possible. I'm hopeful that apart the two can get back to making good and productive edits. If not, and the negative behavior for one continues even without the other being involved, then that would prove harsher actions are needed as others above have suggested. But right now, I wouldn't support them. Rhino131 (talk) 03:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

None of the seven diffs I provided (except maybe this) have anything to do with a conflict between Dronebogus and 7&6=thirteen. –dlthewave ☎ 15:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. I almost never !vote in ANI, but this one boggles my mind, so I will drop off two cents due to an alarming number of supports. The earlier ARS restrictions were sorely needed and a good change. This particular complaint, however, stinks to high heaven. I don't see any convincing rationale that something changed in the past two weeks aside from normal salty talk on a talk page after some friends were sanctioned, which is hardly shocking. If anyone should be sanctioned here, it's Dronebogus for deciding to needlessly re-poke a drama mill that had calmed down and been resolved in shockingly reasonable fashion off of very shabby accusations. So yes, 7&6 should probably try to keep the temperature a bit lower even on the ARS talk page, but that is not really reason for sanctions. SnowFire (talk) 03:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

No, nothing has changed after the last warning, and that's the problem. –dlthewave ☎ 15:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support, the links above are just the latest in the extremely long history of Thirteen’s incivility and either incompetence or blatant disruption. Thirteen is probably the most egregious of the ARS regulars at bludgeoning XfD discussions. Further, during deletion discussions he bombards articles with information cited to terrible, clearly unreliable sources, many not even relating to the subject, and then casts aspersions at anyone who challenges them. The encyclopedia would be improved if this TBAN included a prohibition from editing any articles under XfD discussion. Cavalryman (talk) 04:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC).
• Oppose per Randy Kryn and SnowFire. While the recent selected diffs do show some incivility, it does not appear to be without provocation. Several users here are very keen on rubbing salt in other user's wounds and need to be careful where they throw that boomerang. There are at least two users here who need to be sanctioned for persistent bludgeoning. Banning those users (I don't need to name them, right?) from going anywhere near ARS (and indeed ANI) would be a good start.Polyamorph (talk) 08:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean, "not without provocation"? The diffs which I provided show 7&6=thirteen entering into discussions which did not involve them in any way (aside from the ANI notice) to make uncivil comments. –dlthewave ☎ 18:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per the points raised by Polyamorph. The two users alluded to by Polyamorph should, at the very minimum, be asked to desist from their battleground mentality and politely time out from ANI. If the community finds that the supposed problem regarding incivility and incompetence by certain editors is still ongoing and not resolved by the ANI Tbans and sanctions, then ArbCom should reconsider their decision to recuse and proceed to accept the case and resolve it once and for all. Haleth (talk) 09:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Isn't this proposal kind of the community finding out if the supposed problem regarding incivility and incompetence by certain editors is still ongoing? How long should 7&6's problematic behavior be able to go on for before it would be appropriate to open another complaint or see if ArbCom will re-consider the case? --Adamant1 (talk) 09:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support, as proposer the last time this came up. I would prefer an equal topic ban for Dronebogus who is not improving AfD either. We need to make AfD work better now and that requires removing the drama creators.—S Marshall T/C 09:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

  Ten thousand times this. --JBL (talk) 11:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose; it's not clear to me what they were doing to cause drama. I think that "editors who hate them will create an unending stream of increasingly perplexing AN/I threads until they are ousted" is a very bad reason to take action. jp×g 12:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: While the examples above are not stellar behavior, I'm not seeing anything here serious enough to take action on, and suggest that people stop looking for reasons to get rid of the top ARS contributors as an end-run to eliminiating the ARS itself. BOZ (talk) 13:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The language used by 13 may be over-dramatic but its not worthy of sanctions in my view. AfD will always create conflict, that is unavoidable. Apparently, according to an above comment, this thread highlights everything wrong with 13's approach but what I see is a wind-up attempt by Dronebogus. NemesisAT (talk) 13:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support I have been taking part in Afd's for decades and I got to say that 7&6=Thirteen is one of the worst editor's I came across. For years it was a continual stream of obsfucation designed to promote uncertainty and doubt to ensure at the very least no consensus was reached, before the ARS section arrived. They basically gamed the whole system. As a group I suprised they never all got indeffed blocked. The worst part, which suprisingly was the most unpleasant, was they're was no logic to it. I really wish the ARS could could get shut down. The original vision of trying to save genuine notable article is long gone. It is completely corrupt and biased. Here is an example of 7&6=Thirteen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arabeyes (2nd nomination) Clippings. 23:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC) scope_creep^Talk 23:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Scope creep, I'm not sure that's a good example - I closed the AfD as "keep" because I saw consensus that the article could be improved further instead of deleted after several editors did so (WP:HEY), although not 7&6=Thirteen. A better example might be one where 7&6 argued vociferously for "keep" but the consensus was "delete" - have you got one? (I know their username trips a bug in the AfD stats tool so I can't easily find one myself). In fact, looking at that AfD, the comment that jumps out as worrisome is Levivich telling Adamant1 "This is not a debate club. If you don't think the sources people put forward meet GNG, then say why, and then shut up. Skip calling them "trash", skip replying with things like "are you seriously going to argue", and skip cherrypicking two out of five as if that proves something." Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: That was an example I used on the day. I was planning to look for other examples from my own Afd's, but it has been happening for at least two years. Everytime you saw them, paticularly 7&6=Thirteen, it would become a kind of null return gig, because the whole Afd was horsed. It seemed there were no concerns regarding honesty for following policy during proceedings. The kind of refs that "7&6=" returned was often barely related to the subject, wether it was an old photograph image, or blank profile, any junk. Just in attempt to stymie the Afd until the rest of them arrived. A stalling tactic. They would be trying to get there first, to alter the flow of thought. It was massively frustrating and a bit cruel, nasty and corrupt. They had and still do, complete disregard for WP:AGF, Wikipedia policies and Wikipedia itself. scope_creep^Talk 21:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. All editors, whether they trend to a "deletionist" or "inclusionist" perspective, have the right to be heard -- so long as they do so civilly and without engaging in personal attacks. While the cited language is colorful in its use of metaphors, it reflects an understandable sensitivity given the recent, unrelenting efforts to "purge" (yes, "purge") the members of ARS. And, honestly, I see nothing so egregious in the quoted excerpts that it would support the relief sought here. Deletion discussions (and Wikipedia as a whole) operate best as a democracy of ideas, weighing all points of view. The recent campaign to "purge" editors with a strongly inclusionist point of view brings to mind the words of Harry Truman during the Second Red Scare: "Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear." ... Will I now be asked, "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the ARS party?" Cbl62 (talk) 12:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @Cbl62: Sorry but how do you write so long as they do so civilly and without engaging in personal attacks and then in the next sentence write given the recent, unrelenting efforts to "purge" (yes, "purge") the members of ARS? Isn't that uncivil and a personal attack? Do you think I am part of an unrelenting effort to purge the members of ARS? If so, what do you think my motivation is? When people are disruptive, and other people are like, "hey, those disruptive people should stop being disruptive or be removed," is that a "purge" in your eyes? Levivich 15:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

There it is. Merely voicing opposition to the purge is proof of incivility. As for whether or not this is a "purge", see the freedictionary definition: "To rid (a nation or political party, for example) of people considered undesirable." See also Cambridge dictionary: "to get rid of people from an organization because you do not agree with them." And Collins dictionary: "To purge an organization of its unacceptable members means to remove them from it." You make think there are valid reasons for the purge, but calling a purge a purge is not incivil. Cbl62 (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

"Purge" implies an illegitimate attempt to ban/remove editors simply because one disagrees with/does not like them. I think that this accusation is a violation of our WP:AGF guideline and our WP:CIVILITY policy since ample evidence of incivility has been brought forward and no evidence has been provided to support the notion that this is somehow politically motivated. This type of language only perpetuates the WP:BATTLEGROUND environment that we're trying to deescalate and I wish folks would stop using it. –dlthewave ☎ 16:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Check the dictionary definitions cited above. Purges can be either legitimate or illegitimate. That said, I am all in favor of de-escalating and found Dronebogus's "new proposal" (below) to be both graceful and diplomatic -- just the kind of de-escalation that this discussion needs. Cbl62 (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

When numerous editors complain about an editor being disruptive, over a period of time, with different editors and new diffs each time, I think it's pretty terrible that you'd describe that as a relentless purge. Way to support your colleagues and take their concerns seriously. Levivich 17:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you're "terrible" and am sorry you see me that way. From my perspective, we simply disagree as to whether 7&6's actions are T-ban-worthy. I value civility greatly (for example, I am in the minority on our project's tolerance of extreme profanity), but I have seen 7&6's work, find it generally constructive, and do not believe that the proffered diffs warrant the proposed T-ban. Others disagree, and that's fine. My use of the world "relentless" (definition: "Steady and persistent; unremitting") was driven by the fact that this is, I think, the third attempt in a single month to T-ban the same user. As noted above, I would like to see everyone de-escalate which is why I support Dronebogus's "new proposal" below. Cbl62 (talk) 18:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I did not say you are terrible, and your comments about civility and de-escalation ring hollow when you accuse me and others of engaging in a relentless purge. Quoting the dictionary is also insulting: we all know what the words mean... and Oxford defines purge as being "abrupt or violent", it clearly has a negative connotation in the way you used it, and for the record I do not want to remove anyone because I disagree with them. I don't even want to remove anyone from AFDs at all. The reason I support a tban is because there have been so many complaints from so many different editors over the least few years that I think it's necessary to protect everyone else at AfD from 7&6's disruption. I would much prefer 7&6 just stopped being disruptive and participate in AFDs in a non-disruptive manner. This is impossible so long as other editors, such as yourself, when reviewing concerns of disruption, cast those raising the concerns as engaging in a relentless purge. By your comments you have perpetuated the very battleground behavior that is the problem we're trying to solve. You say you want to de-escalate, but your comments do the opposite. Note, by the way, I'm not even attempting to get you to change your !vote--only the way you describe other editors and their motivations. Levivich 18:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Can't believe you have the gall to try and play moderator on this one. I'd agree with Cbl62 you're normally a valued member of our community. Yet your behaviour on the Halloween purge thread however was both terrible and relentless. You posted to it over 50 times, supporting sanctions on all viable subthreads. Yet despite obvious non neutrality, you took it upon yourself to moderate the thread. You overturned an attempt at sanction free closure. You deleted a sub thread encouraging an end to the nightmare. You relentlessly tagged most of those who opposed sanctions, including long posts discrediting even non ARS members. Your complaining on civility would be easier to take seriously if they said a word against the gross incivility that was aimed at the ARS (I don't mean mostly harmless jokes about us being arses, but the nastier stuff). And now you're trying to moderate this thread to in a way that disrupts attempts at peaceful de-secalation. Get a grip Levivich! FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

When someone describes me as engaged in a relentless purge and I object to it, that's not attempting to "moderate" a thread. An example of me calling out incivility aimed at the ARS is in this thread (I support a warning above) and another example from an AfD is quoted somewhere in this thread by Ritchie. I stand by my identification of ARS members block-voting in response to canvassing as they did in that thread, in this thread, and many other threads. (The diffs of canvassing this thread is in my support vote.) Levivich 19:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - Per Atlantic306 and Randy Kryn. I feel this ARS-witch hunt proposal was Dronebogus' intended result when he filed this report on what is essentially a mutual dispute with mutual incivility. On a side note, I'll add that tag-teaming and political voting is an underrated form of disruption that needs to be cracked down on more. Darkknight2149 03:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support: indef Tban. Look. People can complain about witchhunting, and complain about it being too soon, and complain about baiting or gravedancing, and complain about all the things they're wont to complain about. But the upshot is simple: 7&6=thirteen was given a final warning to clean up his act. He has demonstrably not done so. His obligation given the warning was to act civilly, and ignore (or following accepted rules, report) provocations, and to cease battleground behavior. This was apparently too much to ask. It should not be so very hard as all of that to wrap one's head around dropping the stick, especially right after a serious controversy and a serious warning, especially right when the ARS remains under heavy scrutiny. Continued sniping from that point isn't so much ignoring the warning as defying the warning. Fair enough, so be it. Ravenswing 10:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - Way too many times we keep poking and poking at people and eventually they are going to respond in the manner they are being talked to. 7&6 has done amazing work building this encyclopedia for over 14 years and has been under a microscope for the last two weeks. Indefing them shouldn't be on the table. spryde | talk 20:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

It is not that we're proding and proding at them. They are trying game the system, to their advantage and our disadvantage. They are rational human beings. The original vision of WP:ARS is subverted. If the same gang was there 10 years ago, we wouldn't be here. scope_creep^Talk 22:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Some of us were around ten years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Members I joined February 26, 2009. Andrew Davidson joined on February 2008 as Colonel Warden. If you have any specific examples by all means, compile the evidence, and present it. Since most of the AFDs we do are as individuals, we not together, I don't see a problem. I just went to an article for a writer I originally said Keep, finding some reviews that convinced others. Turned out Kirkus Reviews now allows people to pay for reviews, so any reviews tagged as being part of that program don't count as notability, so I changed my vote to delete. I didn't tag it for Rescue even though almost all the votes before I arrived were delete. The few times I do tag an article for Rescue its because I believe there are sources and need help accessing them. Many over the years have looked at all the articles tagged for Rescue, and found that a lot of them get no one to go and say Keep at all, and others just have some members going and not others. Even articles added by regular members sometimes get ignored by others. No one is gaming the system. We are a legitimate Wikiproject. Dream Focus 22:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

scope_creep's description of the situation is correct. Ten years ago, Dream Focus and Andrew Davidson had not yet made any posts on the ARS nomination page. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:41, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

The first archive of that list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron_%E2%80%93_Rescue_list/Archive_1 is January 2012 and the first thing listed is an entry I made. Things before that were on some other page. History of the current Rescue list shows Northamerica1000 created it at 02:55, 22 January 2012‎. Anyway, on the history at the main page of the ARS [41] I see that I was editing it back in 2010 and Andrew Davidson(known as Colonel Warden back then) even before then. So yes, we were around and active ten years ago, and surely did put some things on the list, wherever it was at, back then. Dream Focus 02:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree that you had made made edits in January 2012, but that is not ten years ago. Besides, even in early 2012 the main contributors were Northamerica1000 and Milowent, not Andrew Davidson or yourself.

Given that this discussion is in the context of Scope_creep's statement about it being the same gang as ten years ago, your initial response (that Andrew Davidson and Dream Focus's accounts were created prior to then) is therefore misleading.

Also, I am concerned that the ARS attitude of regarding a "no consensus" result as a "win" seems very much like WP:GAMING the system. MrsSnoozyTurtle 04:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

You misread what I wrote. I mentioned the date that we joined the ARS, linking to the members page. We were both active in it, editing the main page of it over 11 years ago.

Some administrators still close AFDs with "no consensus to delete, default to keep". [42] Dream Focus 04:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

A closer can say whatever they want in a closing message. It doesn't fundementally change the outcome of the AfD though. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Dream Focus, what do you think I misread in your reply? The point here is that it is not the "same gang" at ARS today as it was ten years ago, despite the cherry-picked examples you presented.

Yes, the AfD practice of "when in doubt, keep" has been very effectively exploited by ARS in recent years. MrsSnoozyTurtle 04:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support 7&6's WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude and disrespect shown to other editors means that their contributions in this area is not a net positive to the encyclopedia. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support, per WP:ROPE. Insufficient improvement after a warning. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support T-ban - apologies accepted 7&6=thirteen, but your initial non-WP:AGF regarding me above is not William Harris (talk) 08:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Most of the diffs provided are the result of Dronebogus's antagonistic behaviour towards 7&6 and ARS, essentially baiting some of the responses given. This included a blatantly out of process nomination for the ARS school, which while correct on the merits, was done with an unhealthy battleground mentality against ARS. It's definitely understandable why 7&6 reacted the way they did, even if it was unwise. It would be a different story if 7&6 reacted this way without any provocation. The remaining diffs are on the melodramatic/frank side, but not to the point of incivility. If the community feels that 7&6's behaviour deserves a sanction, then Dronebogus's behaviour should be similarly examined. But since that's not in play here, I think it's better to close this without further sanctions and let people go back to editing. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @Patar knight: Re: But since that's not in play here, I think it's better to close this without further sanctions and let people go back to editing. If it is in play here, then what do you think? Levivich 02:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Some topic/interaction ban on Dronebogus in respect to 7&6/ARS/deletion and rephrase/reiterate the current warning for 7&6 to discourage behaviour such as Dronebogus's. However, since sanctions for Dronebogus are not really in play, so I haven't thought about anything more specific than that. A warning against further incivility should not be an invitation to goad the target of the warning into further sanctions. Given the context of Dronebogu's actions, the diffs are so terrible as to prove that in the course of normal, unheated editing, 7&6 isn't able to adhere to the warning. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• SupportTo prevent this ongoing disruption. And it's time for the ARS to quit circling the wagons every time one of them is brought up for their bad behavior. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

new proposal

This discussion is clearly a disaster and I’d like to apologize for starting it and wasting everyone’s time. I’d like to get back to productive editing but waiting for a potential sanction is causing me immense stress and frustration, and it probably is doing the same for 13. In light of this I would like to propose:

• a voluntary interaction ban between me and 13
• a six-month topic ban of me from the ARS (this includes ANI threads against members)
• a voluntary topic ban from the ARS public school AfD until it closes, with a promise not to renominate it for at least two months if it’s kept (unlikely but still)
• giving both me and 13 a courtesy “pardon” for any potentially sanctionable behavior (at any point, not just now), with the understanding that this does not prevent anyone other than each-other from opening threads on ANI against us for whatever reason

Would that be acceptable? Dronebogus (talk) 13:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• You promise not to renominate the same article again for two months if you don't get the result you want?! Sending it back to AFD less than two days after the previous AFD closed was bad enough, but you are now planning on doing that yet again?! How about you agree the same person should not send the same article to AFD twice under any possible circumstances and to never start any AFD over again unless its been at least two months since the last AFD? Dream Focus 14:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Okay, okay, in the unlikely event that it’s kept I will never renominate it EVER. I don’t support banning same-user renoms because sometimes an AfD is just incredibly slow with only 2-4 users who vote against one another (with lousy rationales from at least one) and is closed as no consensus because of it, like the AfDs for Gina D’s Kids Club. Dronebogus (talk) 14:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

  I agree that he should stay away from the ARS Public School article going forward if it isn't closed as delete, but people are allowed to re-nominate articles that they originally listed and doing so wasn't what caused the problems. So there's zero reason he should be blocked from re-nominating articles if he wants to and waits the proper amount of time to do it again. Just as long as it's not ARS Public School. Also, on the interaction ban 13 should agree to it also since he was rather antagonistic toward Dronebogus several times in conversations he wasn't even involved in. It's not going to help having an interaction ban if 13 can still rant like a violent crazy person about Dronebogus in the meantime. Nether one should have anything to do with each other. Including in conservations to other people. Also, 13 should receive an actually final warning, with zero allowance for any of the scape scapegoating nonsense when he breaks it again. Since there is currently more consensus for sanctions against him then not and it's as much on him as Dronebogus. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• This strikes me as a gracious & welcome resolution, now Dream's amendment has been accepted, as long as 13 is happy with the iban. I'd recommend the iban is truly voluntary in the sense that it's not logged at WP:RESTRICT - some see that as a sanction, and count it as a blot on an editors record. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support with condition I support this with the condition that 13 receives an actually final civility warning and also commits to not go on unhinged sounding conspiracy laden rants anymore. Not just in relation to Dronebogus, but also anyone else who he thinks is out to get him and (or) ARS. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support: Very acceptable. Unexpected offer essentially offering to restrict own behavior without trying to force restrictions on others. Seems like an excellent example of a lead to how to help de-escalate the situation and one the community is likely to accept. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment While apologies and voluntary disengagement is welcome, the bludgeoning by Adamant continues. The behaviour demonstrated here by Dronebogus and Adamant, at ARS, and AfD has been so disruptive that formal sanctions are required. Polyamorph (talk) 16:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Well I am trying to stop over-posting for that exact reason, but Adamant1 could stand to step back a little. I think sanctions are uncalled for at this point against anyone since they inevitably heat up rather than cool down the situation and seem punitive after voluntary disengagement. Dronebogus (talk) 16:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
    • You have literally broken your voluntary six month topic ban with that comment. Polyamorph (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
      • I didn’t think it had strictly “begun” yet, since I usually thought these things took force after a community consensus, but I can stop posting now. Dronebogus (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I have nothing to say about this. I was actually done participating here already. Except I do kindly ask Polyamorph to AGF and stop casting aspersions. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Only a few hours previous to your comment you wrote (if 13 can still rant like a violent crazy person about Dronebogus). No aspersions are being cast, simple observation of how disruptive the behaviour of several users is here, at ARS, and AfD.Polyamorph (talk) 08:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Did you read the various complaints here and his rant on the ARS article talk page in response to Plutonical? Calling me and Dronebogus "members of the Inquisition" and "bomb throwers", as well as the "guns on the table" comment. I don't know about you but those sound "like" something a violent person would say. The key part there incase you don't get the nuance being "sounds like", not "is", because I don't think 13 is a violent person. I do think such violent sounding comments aren't good to make though. Which should be pretty uncontroversial and is why I asked you to AGF. Hopefully that's a satisfactory answer. Now that I've given one I'd appreciate it if you dropped it. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Although I appreciate the deescalation attempt, this proposal just has too many little caveats that could easily turn into "gotchas" and arguments about technicalities down the road. In my experience the best way to implement a "voluntary interaction ban" is to just quietly walk away from the topic without making a big fuss about it. There's no drama and nobody can accuse you of violating it if you slip up. This is why you don't really see me commenting at ARS: Regardless of who's right or wrong, I know that I'm probably not going to accomplish anything productive there. Dronebogus, Adamant1 and 7&6=thirteen would all be well advised to step away from ARS for a bit. Rest assured that others will address any great wrongs that may happen in your absence. –dlthewave ☎ 18:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• To some extent, the community at ANI cannot really declare that a voluntary agreement is enforceable by admins, in the way that a community sanction would be. But that doesn't make a voluntary deescalation a bad thing – indeed, quite the opposite. We can, however, say that, broadly speaking, it's a good idea, and broadly speaking it is a good one. And we can point out, as other editors have done just above, that there are pitfalls in the wording of the offer, that should be avoided. And later, if there is evidence of non-adherence to the voluntary agreement, that can at least be taken into consideration as disruptive. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• CommentOppose I don't see any reason why Dronebogus should be sanctioned while 7&6 just gets another minor slap on the wrist (which they will undoubtedly ignore based on their unchanged behavior while this discussion has been running). Mztourist (talk) 09:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

That makes sense. If this is successful, I hope the closer considers classing the whole set of restrictions as voluntary, with nothing logged at WP:RESTRICT. So there are no sanctions for either. It would be a shame if such an admirable attempt at de-escalation can't be rewarded. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree. scope_creep^Talk 12:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support. A diplomatic gesture. Cbl62 (talk) 13:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support: While the drama between Dronebogus and the ARS has been pretty entertaining, it's bad for the encyclopedia and this proposal seems like it's just kicking the can down the road. I say we give Dronebogus an indefinite topic ban from pages that are directly related to ARS and an indefinite interaction ban with ARS members. That way, we don't get any more drama after 6 months, and even if ARS acts up, it will be seen through the neutral lens of an uninvolved user rather than the lens of someone who's had conflict with them. Please note, I'm not picking sides or saying ARS is right or wrong, but Dronebogus is clearly not neutral because he's been in conflict with ARS for a while. After a bit of help from Reyk (talk · contribs), I see the benefits of this and the lack of punishment. I fully support it. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᵀᵃˡᵏ ᵗᵒ ᵐᵉ 15:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "I'm not picking sides but you should punish this guy and not that guy". That's exactly what picking sides is. Reyk _YO! 15:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
    • @Reyk It's not punishment, it's just meant to separate Dronebogus from ARS, since they're not reconciling very well. Since it's a group of users against one user (Dronebogus), a topic and interaction ban for that one user would solve the problem much more efficiently than individual interaction bans against every user in ARS. Not to mention there is no topic ban that would solve the problem on ARS's side (save for a ban from AfD, which is probably too far) but since ARS could be considered a topic in itself, banning Dronebogus from the topic of ARS would effectively isolate him entirely from them and therefore solve the drama and prevent it from coming back in six months. Nobody here is right or wrong, and it's not meant to be punitive, but it IS meant to be preventative. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᵀᵃˡᵏ ᵗᵒ ᵐᵉ 17:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• The effect would be purely punitive regardless of the stated intention. Any topic ban is just going to be treated as a red badge of shame: "this guy was one-way topic banned from ARS so he's a bad hombre and they're the good guys." That's how it always works. Always. Nor do I imagine for a moment that this would insulate Dronebogus from the ARS- experience with other editors has shown they'll gravedance and cackle about him behind the scenes, wave their hands an inch from his face and go "I'm not touching you!". Kicking someone in the teeth just because it's easier doesn't make it right. Reyk _YO! 21:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• Well, that's not what I was going for. I want something that will separate them (and prevent the issue from flaring up again) without being punitive. Do you have any suggestions that will prevent this from just flaring back up as soon as the 6 months are over? (UPDATE: Just realized that's what Dronebogus's proposal is. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᵀᵃˡᵏ ᵗᵒ ᵐᵉ 15:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support per Cb162. Buffs (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support This doesn't seem unreasonable, given the circumstances. Darkknight2149 03:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
• Color me confused: You know, Dronebogus, there is nothing in the wide green world preventing you from just walking away. Why are you proposing an interaction ban on yourself when you can just voluntarily stop interacting? Why are you proposing a topic ban on yourself when you can just walk away from the topic? Why are you suggesting a ban against dealing with the ARS when you can just choose to stop dealing with the ARS? Are you saying that you're incapable of doing these things unless we make it a community-backed formal sanction? Because with all the good will in the world, we're not therapists here. If all this drama has you so wound up that you keep diving in, I urge you to take a Wikibreak generally -- walk away for a few months, take in a concert or two, play with kittens, smell the roses. Ravenswing 11:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Maybe he wants the other parties to back off too? You need two to tango...The Banner talk 13:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
    • There wouldn't be anything for other parties to back off from if Dronebogus stepped back himself. See, the way I see it is that ARS and its cronies had a pretty stinging -- and long-merited -- rebuke a couple weeks back. It is reasonable to keep a careful eye on their doings, and reasonable to be sure that the sanctioned editors comply with their topic bans. But Dronebogus doesn't have to be one of those watchers, and we don't have to keep poking the hornets' nest with a stick. ARS-aligned editors displaying dismay over the outcome is no more unreasonable than the triumphalism and schadenfreude from the other camp, and barring egregious violations, the best thing now is for everyone to just settle down and give it a couple months to see if the process did indeed work. Ravenswing 20:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I've been following this pretty closely and I haven't seen any triumphalism or schadenfreude from "the other camp." Whomever that is. Neither on par with the "dismay" over the outcome being shown by ARS members or at all for that matter. It's also an extreme stretch to call 13's and Lightburst's behavior since the blocks just showing dismay about the outcome. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support This doesn't seem unreasonable, given the circumstances. The Banner talk 16:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - Like Ravenswing posted. Just walk away from all of it, there's thousands of other areas to putter around, in Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
• Procedural oppose If Dronebogus and Thirteen mutually agree to this, it works. If they don't, it doesn't. Community consensus at ANI will not help the matter, but only potentially encourage gaming of the system. I and others may think Thirteen's actions merit an AFD ban (I would argue about as much as Andrew, who at least was usually civil in his presentation of fake sources, and never plagiarized my comments and/or forged comments in my name—something I can't say for Thirteen [the actual text of the diff implies plagiarism, but his response to my calling him out on it, i.e., Example text, implies that he was merely transposing my comment, in which case his adding a final sentence in his own words would constitute a forgery]). But if that proposal doesn't pass and this alternative is the only way to stem the drahma, then both of them need to agree to it without a bunch of advocates of one "side" or the other tagging on extra baggage that will only allow whichever one has the most loyal allies (or perceives themselves as having the most loyal allies -- I guess Dronebogus, if he looks at my history, would probably count me as an ally, but I have very little interest in weighing into this matter or patience for the idea that I am on anyone's "side" apart from the side of building a good encyclopedia) to effectively flout it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, I should say that if Dronebogus wants to withdraw from deletion discussions and avoid the ARS, there's nothing stopping them from doing that immediately on their own initiative. I did this about two years ago (I don't even remember what the "last straw" was at this point); I was briefly followed to a non-deletion-related discussion on an article talk page, but that was, IIRC, about it as far as reprisals went. I enjoy editing the encyclopedia a lot more as a result, and I hardly ever get people talking about how I have more edits to the Wikipedia space than the article space anymore. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Hijiri88, did you experience some ARS retaliatory WP:FOLLOWING also? After pointing out some ARS disruption at the 2020 ANI discussion and tackling some further ARS disruption elsewhere, I realised I had omitted some merger notices in a (to that time) uncontroversial merger discussion. So I rectified the omission [43][44] and made a note of it at the discussion [45]. Within six hours Lightburst arrived to oppose the proposal [46], followed by Thirteen [47] and of course ... Dream Focus [48].

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs/Article alerts only listed the merger 16 hours after Lightburst’s arrival [49], two of them had never edited either page to that date (LB [50][51] and DF [52][53]); Thirteen’s last edit to one of the lists was six years previously [54] having never edited the other [55]. I doubt they will respond to the above, Dream Focus may state the ends justified the means and explain that WP:HOUNDING is allowed when trying to chase off a nasty deletionist. I guarantee none of them have the character to admit any wrongdoing. Cavalryman (talk) 08:33, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Cavalryman: I would rather not go into details, but basically everything that happened at Talk:Mottainai between February 2018 and early November 2019 were tied to ARS. There was subsequently some kind of sockfarm activity, but it seems likely that the ringleader was not directly retaliating against me for criticizing ARS but rather something else. The last direct involvement of ARS was this. It's possible that without that, the whole thing would have died off after a week rather than dragging on for another year, but the biggest problem editor there actually seems to have had only indirect ties to ARS: he had a grudge against me from long before I had even heard of ARS (I think going back to 2014...?) and was subsequently site-banned for unrelated reasons. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Can we avoid using small text please? Per [Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Font_size the Manual of Style], it should be used sparingly. Making entire comments small makes it harder for partially sighted people, who'll have already chosen their desired font size and won't want to suddenly come across a comment in smaller font. NemesisAT (talk) 09:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Cavalryman, I used [56] to see how I got there. We were arguing in a different article, Talk:Ratonero_Murciano, and you mentioned List of extinct dog breeds in a post you made on 01:27, 6 August 2020. I have participated in quite a lot of list articles, they of interest to me, so of course went there and posted on 19:45, 9 August 2020. Now kindly stop trying to shift the conversation to something else. This thing is far too long already. Dream Focus 11:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Please move towards close - In hindsight, maybe some ARBCOM involvement wouldn't have been so bad after all. At the very least, Dronebogus should stop butting heads with the Article Keep Squadron and move elsewhere. I support an interaction ban but I'm not seeing much consensus for formal action to be taken, and the discussion has outlived its usefulness. No doubt that within the next 12 months the ARS crew will have generated new ire by defending more lousy articles and antagonizing more bystanders (I never saw myself as a "deletionist" but now I'm apparently in that camp because I don't think WP:OR and using blogs is a good thing). But let's not go around starting fires now, and hope for the best. -Indy beetle (talk) 11:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• "No doubt that within the next 12 months the ARS crew will have generated new ire by defending more lousy articles and antagonizing more bystanders" - Dronebogus is responsible for his own behaviour, no one else. From what I can tell, this was an instance of a mutually uncivil dispute between Dronebogus and 7&6=thirteen, and it seems that Dronebogus thought that if filed a report against his opponent and waved around the magical words "Article Rescue Squadron", he would automatically generate support. It's honestly disheartening to see so many people take the bait. Darkknight2149 17:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  • More disheartening is reading all the editors who are assuming bad faith. Here's another explanation for Dronebogus's behavior: after the last ANI thread ended in a warning, the problematic behavior continued for over a week, and so Dronebogus brought it back to ANI. Levivich 17:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• I just went back over some of the spats at Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron and the others linked here, and Dronebogus' behaviour isn't any less problematic, uncivil, presumptive, or WP:BATTLEGROUND than 7&6=Thirteen's. If you want 7&6=Thirteen sanctioned, then I would recommend against defending Dronebogus' disruption to do it. Darkknight2149 17:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• I don't want 13 sanctioned, what I want is for 13 to stop being disruptive, and whether 13 is disruptive or not has nothing to do with the actions of any other editor. It wasn't Dronebogus that made 13 disruptive this time, or last time, or the time before. And anyway if you scroll up above you'll see, I support a warning against Dronebogus (a warning because it's a first trip to ANI, unlike 13), and you'll also note I opposed sanctions the last time Dronebogus filed an ANI request against ARS members. Sucks when facts get in the way of narratives, eh? :-) Levivich 17:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Levivich: Was there ever a time when 13 wasn't disruptive? My interactions with him were relatively brief, but they were also a long time ago, and recent evidence indicates that very little has changed in three years, except that now (thanks to the recent TBAN) he has one or two fewer editors to reflexively oppose any attempt to sanction him. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
• (Full disclosure: there is an ongoing IBAN between me and Hijiri88) @Levivich: "Want" was perhaps the wrong word, but all of my judgments come specifically from this situation. I am not familiar with 7&6=Thirteen's history, although I have seen him around in administrative forums. My primary point is that, in this situation, Dronebogus wasn't much better than 7&6=Thirteen, and neither 7&6 nor the ARS are responsible for his side of it. Coming to ANI during a mutual dispute and evoking the ARS controversy on your opponent in the opening paragraph of your report is also not a very good look. If not for Dronebogus' own behaviour (or if someone else filed the report), my stance here might have been more hardlined against 7&6. Darkknight2149 06:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose As per Mztourist. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support no action closure of whole thread. Looks like several feel Dronebogus's suggested resolution was overly generous, which isn't unreasonable. Dragging this thing out so long is starting to feel like unintentional emotional torture towards 13, little wonder they made the long & not especially wise or coherent omni-response. Wish I was non-involved & able to otter close this. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

At this point someone should close the whole thing since it seems to have mostly ran it's course. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Omnibus response

I note first that User:Hijiri88 has answered the call of User:Cavalryman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&type=revision&diff=1055836760&oldid=1055836684&diffmode=source

Let me note that this interaction was 2 ½ years ago. So I have no personal recollection of it.

User:Hijiri88 makes a ridiculous claim against me. Note that what he links to [57] shows what really happened in the next edit [58] edit summary from you (duplicate Sorry!) when you undid it. So I saw a request for help, posted it on the wrong page, my name signed perhaps automatically, and I saw the mistake and erased it.

Pointing this out should disredit his nonsense.

Also he states he doesn't remember why he stopped following ARS. Its because there was an interaction ban against him after he went crazy. here.

shows a lot of people have IBANs with him.

I would note also that this was posted only after the solicication of User:Cavalryman. He and I go way back. See here. I basically gave up my participation in WP:DOGS because of his harassment. He destroyed Mountain dog. Here is the article before his destroying it. And he continues to follow me around to this day.

I would also remonstrate about the interest of User:Mztourist. He has been a saboteur of and at WP:ARS for a long time. And you may take it to the bank that we have encountered each other a lot at various AFDs. here. He too has a history of uncivil behavior and being disciplined at ANI.

I note also that I thought this ANI had run its course, but Mztourist revived it. When he did so he did not bother to inform me on my talk page. A breach of basic due process, fairness and ANI etiquette.

Mztourist wrote:

Support this is an ongoing pattern of Battleground behavior from 7&6, here are just some of the cases that I have experienced with them: He cited four instances:

• March 21, 2021 User:Mztourist and 153 articles redirect-merged without discussion

• September 23, 2021 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willie H. Fuller What I wrote was: *Keep notable Tuskegee airman. Irrelevant whataboutism and Ad hominem arguments.

• September 25, 2021 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willie H. Fuller What I wrote in two edits: :However, gutting the article's contents while an extended and contentious WP:AFD is pending looks like deck stacking. But you know that already. YMMV. But I'll WP:AGF and move along.
  

You are right about his rank. I confabulate him with another. But he is buried where he is buried. Find a grave is right. Unless you have imagined a contrary source and result, that is.

• September 25, 2021 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willie H. Fuller

This included the following exchange:

• Keep. Moderately/somewhat notable member of very notable group. Yeah, it's not great, and the sourcing is not great, but I don't care: the sourcing indicates well enough that this man did things that would have been all over the press if the press at the time had cared a bit more. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
• Comment its hilarious that all the !Keep voters still haven't noticed the error on this page. Mztourist (talk) 04:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Hilarity is fly specking as an argument. Stop picking flyshit out of pepper

I said that. And indeed, it was an appropriate response.

• October 17, 2021 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willie H. Fuller I wrote:
  

Fortunately, it is not up to you. Incessant repetition only exposes the weakness of your position. I WP:AGF, but enough already.

The Fuller discussion was very long and involved. Read it all if you are going to judge it

I note also that User:Dlthewave doesn't like my tone. He too chose not to inform mw on my talk page, even as he posted a laundry list of new allegations. I don't admmire him either.

There ought to be something like double jeopardy here. You keep trying to heap a second, third and fourth helpin onto dishes that have already been washed and put away

The critical difference here is that I did not take either of these folks to ANI excepting the mass deletion mentioned above.

I’ve been here repeatedly, unjustifiably and for months on end.

I tried not responding, and this discussion won’t end.

I firmly believe this is all nonsense. It should end. I also recognize that facts don’t matter to some of you. But they ought to. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I tried not responding Well obviously that's not true if we mean "in any venue" rather than "specifically at ANI". But also have you tried treating the complaints about your behavior as a sign that you should change how you act? Because that would be a good way to make this stop. --JBL (talk) 18:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:2WRONGS. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I've often deplored Hijiri88's occasional tendency to go thermonuclear. But I've also seen some of the cruelties he's been subjected to. My sympathies tend to be more with the person getting ganged up on than with the gang. Reyk _YO! 21:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I assume your talking about Thirteen and the many people who have voted to t-ban him. If so, I'm not a fan of people being ganged up on either, but in this case it seems to be more the result of him repeatedly antagonizing multiple people over two years then it is just the usual rando ANI mob. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:35, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Hm? No, I was referring to the tag team gang pestering Hijiri88 back then. Reyk _YO! 14:39, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• I’ve been deliberately avoiding posting in this thread for obvious reasons, but it seems like 13 and calvaryman seem to have a deep dispute that may need to be addressed separately from the “who called who a so-and-so” nonsense that started this. Dronebogus (talk) 01:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• You know, while it was poor decision of Dronebogus to dive at you, it would help if you sought to change some of your methods. For starters, using sources deemed unreliable and listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources (Find a Grave) after six discussions and dismissing qualms about that with "he is buried where he is buried. Find a grave is right" demonstrates either your inability to understand WP:Verify or unwillingness to adhere to sourcing policies. You've been editing for years and should know better. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. Thirteen left a note on my TP so here I am. Our interactions in the last two days are stellar examples of Thirteen’s revert, canvass and avoid meaningful discussion approach to disputes. Two days ago he made a number of additions to Saint Guinefort which I noticed on the WP:DOGS articles recent changes. Amongst his additions, he added four sources that I asses to be self-published from authors with no discernible subject matter expertise, so I removed those sources and everything uniquely cited to them and stated as much in my edit summary [59]. Thirteen’s reaction was to revert me [60] then canvass his ARS friends [61] [62], not raising the issue with me on the article’s TP per WP:BRD. I could be wrong about the sources and would be happy to be proven so, but Thirteen needs to demonstrate their reliability, his citations include no publication details so it was up to me to search for them, unsuccessfully.

Now I have commenced the discussion about these sources here, Thirteen’s only defence of the sources is These are reliable sources ... This is the same pattern of nothing responses I have received from him previously when discussing sources here and here.

As to the charges that I somehow harassed Thirteen out of WP:DOGS, some diffs would be helpful, such accusations without evidence is WP:PAs. I have looked at our combined contributions to WT:DOGS [63] and can see only one interaction. Cavalryman (talk) 02:22, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this comment from 7&6 regarding Cavalryman is acceptable either: [64]. Mztourist (talk) 03:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment The reason we keep coming back here is that the conduct 7&6=thirteen was warned about is continuing. Dronebogus, myself and others have provided examples of unprovoked inflammatory comments made after their recent final warning; addressing these new instances of the same issue is not double jeopardy. I can't speak for other editors but I'm not here to relitigate the last ANI (I didn't even support a tban after the sourcing error kerfuffle was resolved) or dig up dirt from long ago. Thirteen would be well advised to heed the warning and reevaluate the way they conduct themselves instead of trying to discredit those who commented here with ad hominem attacks. –dlthewave ☎ 03:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment 7&6 posted on my Talk page so here I am. It really seems that 7&6 is lashing out in all directions, blamestorming everyone else for their behavior, which further reinforces why a ban is necessary. I'll just respond briefly to one comment: "I note also that I thought this ANI had run its course, but Mztourist revived it. When he did so he did not bother to inform me on my talk page. A breach of basic due process, fairness and ANI etiquette." As anyone can see from looking above, the "Proposal: Topic ban 7&6=Thirteen from deletion related activities​" was initiated by Dlthewave on 13 November and I supported it on 14 November. Making a support comment at ANI does not require a notice and so all the outraged comments about my behavior are incorrect. This is yet another example of 7&6 playing fast and loose, too caught up in their own battleground rhetoric to observe the facts. Mztourist (talk) 03:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment by creating this section, 13 is choosing to bludgeon— loudly —an argument that is puttering out towards no consensus. I had stopped giving a crap about whatever was going on besides occasionally checking back without interaction, but 13 clearly doesn’t want to drop the WP:STICK already. I understand why he wants this to end, but lashing out isn’t the way to do it. Dronebogus (talk) 03:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment A wonderful opportunity presents itself right now. I recommend that editors here take a look at the article Saint Guinefort and at what 13 vehemently regards as WP:RELIABLE sources. Are they? If YES, that is fine. If NO, T-BAN him for 6 months and stop stuffing around! William Harris (talk) 07:39, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• I have looked there and 7&6 is edit-warring to include obviously WP:SPS, further demonstrating why a ban is necessary. Mztourist (talk) 08:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

There is no edit war here. There is a discussion about sources and links. I await consensus there. Calling it an edit war does not make it so. Apparently I am not permitted to discuss, and ought to be punished. User:William Harris opines this is "a wondeful opportunity" for him to arrive at the conclusion he has supported before. WP:BRD is being repealed. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Clear edit warring. Consensus is against you there. Mztourist (talk) 10:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

"...for him to arrive at the conclusion he has supported before..." Explain yourself, 13. William Harris (talk) 11:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

User:William Harris You are right, and I was mistaken. I struck it. Sorry.

But it is neither edit warring nor anything unreasonable to discuss sources and external links on an article talk page. Your conclusion is still wrong. It is an ex post facto argument. It is a conclusion looking for a pretensive justification. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:23, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd also like to see an explanation of how the new story presented above (I saw a request for help, posted it on the wrong page, my name signed perhaps automatically, and I saw the mistake and erased it.) gels with this posting (note particularly the final sentence, Wikipedia has a systemic language problem on this one, I think., not in my original comment) which was not immediately self-reverted; rather, I saw it almost a week later and naturally felt somewhat violated that my post had been copy-pasted with one extra sentence and another editor's signature added. The fact that 13 is apparently contriving counterfactual excuses for his misbehaviour from years ago, while also distorting the facts of his present disputes before immediately issuing insincere apologies for such "mistakes" once called out, is very concerning: this kind of behaviour, when it has kept happening over multiple years and is still ongoing, makes it impossible to assume good faith. Yes, if 13 issued me with such an apology and struck his false claims about me that might make me feel somewhat gratified in the short term (and yes, I am requesting that he do just that with regard to all of his above claims about me—everything between User:Hijiri88 has answered the call... and ...have IBANs with him. is either a lie or a misrepresentation). But even if his victims are satisfied with a retraction and an apology, the community should not keep letting him away with this kind of behaviour. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• Gosh, what a truly splendid thread. Another great landmark achievement and surely a new high for Wikipedia. Drama board aficionados must be plump with pride at seeing how productive and relevant these exchanges are to the project. — Epipelagic (talk) 02:58, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your uncivil opinion, but if you have nothing relevant to add you don’t need to say it. Dronebogus (talk) 04:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your kind thanks. But that is what a civil comment looks like, and is the most relevant comment in the whole thread. — Epipelagic (talk) 05:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok, but this "omnibus" is all about other users.

Do you believe that any of the warnings you've received[65][66] have caused you to improve your behavior? ApLundell (talk) 06:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Close

I'm not seeing any consensus for anything, tbh. Heck, even Dragline knew when to stop. An administrator should step in & shut it down. Enough time (nearly 2 weeks) has passed. GoodDay (talk) 03:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The question raised directly above your Close is probably not going to be answered by the subject, therefore I concur that it is probably time to bring an end to this epic saga. William Harris (talk) 08:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to state on the record before the close/archive comes that I would prefer that whoever opens the inevitable next discussion simply link to my comments here rather than pinging me in. I naturally find interacting with this user (and other members of his "gang") quite upsetting and chilling, and (as an examination of my edit history in the last few weeks will attest[67][68][69][70][71]) was extremely reluctant to come here at all. I've said my piece, and while I stand by it, I'd rather not be requested to repeatedly make myself a target. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Hijiri88 came here of his own volition at the invitation of Cavalryman. He had not been mentioned by anyone else at the time. This inquiry was started by Dronebogus, not by ARS. When he chose to intervene, he opened up his motives and history. Particularly so when he could only offer a 2 1/2 year old incident, which has been explained. It was before all of these prior ANI's about me. In any event, Hijirii's note is misdirection and unjustified. He jumped into the cauldron.

I am sure someone will say I left a note on his talk page telling him of the discussion. That is true. It was simply a courtesy, and would free up ANI to sanction him, if it decided that was in order, and to give him a meaninful opportunity to respond if he chose. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Banana Republic casting ASPERSIONS and overall not assuming good faith

Let's Go Brandon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Brandon Brown (racing driver) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Kelli Stavast (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Banana Republic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There is discussion going on at these three pages regarding the incident in which Kelli Stavast interviewed a NASCAR driver, leading to some phrase she said becoming viral. There are legitimate WP:BLP policy concerns being made which have led to RfCs at all three talk pages. Simultaneously, Let's Go Brandon and Kelli Stavast were nominated for deletion (Stavast by myself, on the same rationale that I used to nominate 3 other NASCAR reporters the same day, two of which were closed as delete; LGB by Beccaynr on the grounds that a previous incarnation of that article, Fuck Joe Biden was closed as a SNOW delete).

Throughout these discussions, Banana Republic has repeatedly accused Beccaynr and myself of inappropriate behavior without any evidence to bring forth(aka WP:ASPERSIONS, and in general are assuming bad faith. Let's look at some of Banana's diffs.

• diff 1 It is pretty clear that Beccaynr are acting as a WP:TEDIOUS editor. They tried to delete the article, then they took the AfD to a DelRev, they did not get their way in the above RfC about not naming Kelly Stavast, so they are now throwing moving the fight to the article lead. They are acting in tandem with GhostOfDanGurney to eliminate all mention of Kelly Stavast and Let's Go Brandon on Wikipedia. - Recurring theme here that we are trying to "censor".
• diff 2 ...they (along with one of their buddies) are wasting the community's time with frivolous AfDs (frivolous AfD#1, frivolous AfD#2, and frivolous AfD#3) and now this frivolous DelRev. I wish there was a way to sanction them, but working together, they know how to game the system and exploit the community's patience and good will. - Accusing me of "frivolous AfDs" despite me stating on MULTIPLE occasions that I put up other NASCAR reporters and of vaguely "gaming the system". LGB closed as keep by a non-admin in a highly controversial topic area, the only reason for the DelRev (such DelRev was also described as a "hissy fit" by the closer [72]).
• diff 3 GhostOfDanGurney is clearly gaming the system to push their own agenda, refusing to concede to consensus and playing tricks such as [this AfD withdrawal comment] in order to get another opportunity to bring up an AfD. - My only "agenda" is improving Wikipedia, so on that ground, guilty as charged? Yes, when the first Stavast AfD closed, the closer said in the closing message no prejudice to speedy renom, which I did. Evidently, that was a bad idea since at least one editor said doing so was "ridiculous". I then withdrew it, which, according to Banana, is a bad faith "trick".

Overall, this is getting tiring from them. We are trying to have a discussion, but these repeated and continuous assumptions of bad faith by this user do nothing but discourage that discussion. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• I recently commented in one of the discussions about article content with an array of diffs [73] to offer some context to the broad statements made about me in the discussion, and as part of my appeal to all participants to assume good faith, practice civility, and avoid a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. It is an incomplete synopsis, but I offer it here to the extent that context may be helpful to this discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• Further diffs here and here since this was posted further illustrating that this editor has no intention of working civilly. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 19:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• This complaint is truly bizarre !!! They are complaining about me inappropriately assuming bad faith, and then they quote another editor who is also criticizing their behavior? Did we just enter the twilight zone? Banana Republic (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • And just for good measure, here is another editor questioning the motives of GhostOfDanGurney. Banana Republic (talk) 19:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • The questioning of their motives just keeps piling on from other users. Banana Republic (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• I have followed what's happening and did not really want to involve myself as I thought that the opposition to this topic's coverage would fizzle out. I'm now involved as I posted in the DRV, and have made a revert in the article. These are some of my thoughts:
  – diff1: Banana Republic did not use the word censor -- what they said are mostly historical facts about the overarching dispute.
  – diff2: The characterization of actions as "frivolous" seems to be the problem... If one keeps starting hopeless processes and disputes that don't seem to lead anywhere, and are patently programmed to fail (unless we somehow imagine we are all collectively really really dumb), someone will at some point become concerned, and this word will come up.
  – diff3: What GhostOfDanGurney was doing with their immanently frustrated delete initiative was strange. When such seemingly irrational things are done, someone will express their concern using some and not other words, some of which are maybe kinder and better. "Agenda" is maybe less kind and worse, but in substance it changes nothing -- it's impossible to avoid this bad perception, and everyone is not going to keep their mouth shut. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

He did in fact present evidence. Beccaynr did try to delete Let's Go Brandon [74] and then tried to get the close overturned at DRV (for which Beccaynr was trouted) [75], then Beccaynr tried to remove Kelly Stavast's name from the article. [76] After that RfC failed, Beccaynr tried to remove Stavast's name from just the lede. In all of those cases except the DRV, GhostOfDanGurney participated and agreed with Beccaynr. And the user interaction timeline of GhostOfDanGurney and Beccaynr is certainly interesting. [77] I would say the MfD was certainly a bad nom and so was the DelRev. And wow, holy shit, "no prejudice against speedy renomination" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelli Stavast does not mean "renominate after 38 minutes" with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelli Stavast (2nd nomination). Banana Republic is right that the second nom is bs and he's also right that the withdrawal was questionable, although he could've said it far more civilly than he actually did. Mikehawk10's message [78] provides a far better example of how Banana Republic could've handled the issue.

I'll also point to this exciting discussion at User talk:Beccaynr [79] to sort of demonstrate that the uncivil sniping of third parties in laudatory talk page messages seems to happen from both sides of this dispute. It's also interesting that GhostOfDanGurney brings up that they put up other NASCAR reporters at AfD. Is it truly coincidental that Beccaynr showed up to comment at all 3 of those AfDs of the "other NASCAR reporters"? [80] [81] [82] I'd like Beccaynr to explain their thought process as why they decided to comment on those three AfDs in particular. Were they chosen at random? Were they found at a noticeboard or delsort listing? etc etc. Perhaps GhostOfDanGurney could elaborate on what they meant by "There sure has been a lot of crap coming from the trees the last few weeks." as well.

I certainly wish Banana Republic would've brought these concerns to ANI rather than immaturely sniping at the two editors in question on talk pages complaining about how Banana Republic wishes "there was a way to sanction them". That is practically useless and is still casting WP:ASPERSIONS, even if the claims are true. The reason is that article talk pages and other content discussions forums are not good places to discuss editor conduct; discussions of editor conduct inevitably overwhelm actual content discussion and degrade the quality of our output. I can see a temporary block for that behaviour. I also wish that Banana Republic's response to this thread would be a little more substantive than these diffs from other users criticizing GhostOfDanGurney and Beccaynr. The idiom is "use your words", not someone else's. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, chess, for pointing out the bad behaviors of GhostOfDanGurney and Beccaynr. The reason I did not file complaints against them is that I don't know the process (and don't care to become familiar with the process) of filing a complaint. I'd rather spend my time editing articles, than getting into Wikifights. I definitely don't want to waste my time gathering evidence to file a complaint, which is why I wrote "I wish there was a way to sanction them", as I don't know the way to do it, and don't want to know the way to do it. Since neither explicitly violated WP:3RR, for which evidence gathering is relatively simple, I did not file a complaint. Banana Republic (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

If you don't care to become familiar with the process for dealing with other editors' behaviour then you need to stop talking about other editors' behaviour. If you don't want to get into WikiFights then you need to stop taking shots at other editors. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:39, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll just quote Potter Stewart who said "I know it when I see it". I know bad behavior when I see it. I don't know how to build a case to sanction the bad behavior, but that does not mean that I cannot call out the bad behavior. Banana Republic (talk) 21:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Actually, not wanting to come here does mean you can't call them out if you want to continue editing this encyclopedia. You should be addressing your concerns with the editor that you have a problem with. If that fails, then you can come to ANI with the behavioural problem. You do not get to spend your time calling people out on article talk pages or with passive aggressive user talk page messages that masquerade as compliments towards another person. It's not that discussing another editors behavioural issues is wrong. It's that we have a designated board for those discussions. This is that board. If you're going to refuse to say your piece now and explain the problems you have then you're going to lose the benefit of the doubt in the future when you make these comments, even if the comments are accurate assessments of the situation. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 02:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't need to accuse them of anything any more. Others are doing a much better job than I ever could (and that includes you, Chess). Banana Republic (talk) 04:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I would characterize the other side's conduct as reckless (more in diff). Pushing for the desired outcome using all permitted venues (while being more or less okay or not) is one thing, but insisting (reverts included) on a totally unjustified POV template in an essentially okay actively-worked-on-and-discussed article with tens of thousands of daily views prompted me to react. By their account, the template would have been removed when their version of the lead, exclusively stylistically different (diff), was implemented (where's the POV issue???). So it looks like the goal was the template for the template's sake. This made me suspicious. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't feel this is a fair characterization of my position, particularly after my repeated attempts to explain the justification based on policy and guidelines, as well as my offer to further clarify in the related discussion at the Talk page. From my view, the template is supported, and it is a way to encourage discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't see it as fair. I have a sincere concern. It's hard for me to see how adding that template on such a hot topic, in an actively worked on article, that already has a lot of participation, would have encouraged anything positive. To me it feels like the idea was to keep the template up as long as possible on formalistic grounds of there being a dispute that somehow, in theory, very tenuously, has to do with a POV concern. Keeping the tag would impede progress as it would divert everyone's attention to the issue seen as connected to the template, but the issue isn't very material to start with and it would only have led to general frustration and loss of interest. This disrupts normal work on the article, undermines the consensus-building process, and unduly worsens readers' reception of the article. It's really a good way to undermine an article after deletion attempts have been frustrated, and it's a known pattern. — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

As also noted below [83], I added the template after creating a discussion on the Talk page, and after Banana Republic had reverted my attempt to improve the lead [84]. Per WP:AVOIDEDITWAR, It may help to remember that there is no due-date and that editors can add appropriate cleanup tags to problematic sections under current discussion. Also, best practices in heavily monitored articles includes, If the consensus is that there is no problem, then the message can be removed immediately. We clearly disagree about the tag, but from my view, it had seemed like it could have been an efficient way to address a narrow issue that was both independent of and related to the previous RfC.

• But I was instead accused of attempted censorship [85] by a participant in the discussion, of being a WP:TEDIOUS editor and "acting in tandem with GhostOfDanGurney to eliminate all mention of Kelly Stavast and Let's Go Brandon on Wikipedia" by Banana Republic [86], and again accused of being WP:TEDIOUS by Banana Republic due to adding the template [87], and then after I appealed for an assumption of good faith, civility and avoiding a battleground [88], and further attempted to explain the several bases for the template, you described the explanation as a single point and removed the template [89], which I asked you to restore after additional explanation [90], and you declined to do so, suggesting the discussion could continue without the tag [91].
• The next comment agrees with you and Banana Republic and appears to question my good faith [92], and another participant then accuses me of being "tendentious and obstructionist" [93].
• In response to another participant's attempt to steer the discussion back to the content, Banana Republic replies, Not needed. The only point of contention is whether the lead should name Kelli Stavast. Basically [ping removed] GhostOfDanGurney and [ping removed] Beccaynr did not get their way in the RfC above about whether to name Kelli Stavast in the article, so they are creating a new controversy surrounding the lead. This is why they are being accused of being WP:TEDIOUS editors. etc [94].
• I think the ping failed, because I only noticed now in my review of how the discussion continued after I stopped following it, but the participant who had attempted to focus on the content also appears to have agreed with my attempt to improve the lead [95], and the discussion does not appear to have continued beyond a comment from a participant who had appeared to question my good faith [96].

I think the dispute resolution policy is relevant here, including how it discusses a failure to focus on the content during discussions about content creates a distraction to the discussion and may inflame the situation. From my view, discussions on article Talk pages have been disrupted by failures to focus on the content, as well as apparent failures to assume good faith. I am concerned this can discourage other editors from trying to participate in discussions or working to improve the article, and undermines the consensus-building process. Beccaynr (talk) 17:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• Am I alone among the 96% who don't live in the United States in being totally bemused by this whole topic, and wondering how any encyclopedia could possibly feel the need to have coverage of it? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Hell, you aren’t alone among those who -do- live in the US. Qwirkle (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:WORDISSUBJECT article with established vast notability. The 96% needs to read more such articles to get a feel for how normal it is to cover such topics I guess. — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe give WP:RECENT a read, and realize this won't be relevant in a year, much less a decade. This doesn't deserve it's own article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

As someone who asked for delete on the FJB AfD, asked for protection on Kelli and found my redirect deletion on LGB and the 1st Kelli nomination somehow turn into an out-of-AfD process article creation for LGB solely because of BLP concerns (and was attacked when someone wanted me to contribute to an article I never wanted created in the first place because they inappropriately pinged me and asked them not to, then turned out to be a sock of a blocked political crank)..."takes in big breath". We'll be back in six months asking why this was created when LGB merchandise is clogging bargain bins/burned due to NASCAR copyright claims. I hated the abuse of processes here and harassment, and it makes me feel less inclined to ever edit a politics or politics-adjacent article ever again. Nobody here on either side came out of this looking good. Nate • (chatter) 20:15, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

This discussion should probably get hatted before it turns into a rehashing of the AfD. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 01:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

The AfD is referred to as evidence against me, so I think discussion related to the good-faith basis of the Let's Go Brandon AfD is relevant. To clarify, my nomination mentioned the Fuck Joe Biden AfD, but it was based on WP:EVENTCRIT on October 27, 2021. A second Let's Go Brandon AfD was opened by someone else on November 14, 2021, based on RECENT and LASTING, and was closed as a speedy keep by 力. [97]. Beccaynr (talk) 12:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

SOCK comments., and blocked

:::::: Oh come off of it, @Mrschimpf:. A) I thought it was funny. B) I have been around longer than you, while doing more for the project than you or the tag team currently WIKYLAWYERING over this topic. C) I felt pushing the envelope to expedite the creation of an article that meets GNG was worth a shot... and it worked, did't it?. I pinged you as a goof so get over it and edit where you want; certainly no need for such theatrics about being some victim. There is a reason I volunteered to @Beccaynr: and @GhostOfDanGurney: who I was: Their games are obvious and I didn't need to be involved anymore. The rest of the community will surely show them the door sooner or later. Well on that note: I'm off to go create another GA about a burrito or some drummer. Good night. - Cpt "the crank" nono (and screw you). But before I forget, someone needs to give WP:VIDEOLINK some love--the flow chart especially has some issues now that I am more experienced in Project Management. Cheers! — Mallsdudes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 11:20, 13 November 2021 (UTC). Someone please block Mallsdudes (talk · contribs) as a sock for their OT trolling above, and add this comment to the hat once it's done. And to their points; A, nope, ping abuse is not funny and is a hassle to me and everyone else, B, been here since 2005 (longer than your blocked account) and prefer to stop engaging when it doesn't help the situation, and C, just stating my side of the situation. Article's been created out of process (but now meets the lowest rung of N possible) and I stand by my comments 100%. Nate • (chatter) 16:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Hi Chess, you asked me to explain my thought process as to why I decided to comment on those three AfDs, and my recollection is it was due to the AfDs being mentioned in the first Kelli Stavast AfD by GhostOfDanGurney, e.g. on October 18 [98] and October 19 [99], so I looked at them, conducted research, and then !voted. I'm also sorry that my reference to the observations on Wikipedia behavior essay on my Talk page [100] comes across as uncivil sniping, when it was intended as supportive reassurance to GhostOfDanGurney, after they reported an attempted attack on the security of their account to me. I wasn't sure how to respond, and had thought a well-regarded essay that I like to review from time to time might be helpful. Beccaynr (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC) I also participated in the Kelli Stavast AfD because I routinely check the Women-related AfD del-sort, which may be evident from my userpage. Beccaynr (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Beccaynr: That sounds like a legitimate rationale, but I think you should consider how it looks when you and GhostOfDanGurney often !vote in the same way on the same pages. Even if you're independently looking at the AfDs GhostOfDanGurney started, it still doesn't look good to be browsing through someone else's noms and mostly voting support on them. This isn't super good in a "high intensity" conflict area such as American politics and contributes to a sense of bias. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Chess, in the first Kelli Stavast AfD, before I !voted, there was a !vote alleging political bias [101], to which GhostOfDanGurney responded [102], mentioning WP:ASPERSION and their nomination of three other pit reporters; based on when I participated in the Marty Snider AfD [103], this comment appears to have led me to look, after I researched, !voted [104] and added a source assessment table [105] to the Kelli Stavast AfD. GhostOfDanGurney later provided links to the other AfDs, [106], and I found sources for one [107] that convinced GhostOfDanGurney to withdraw their nomination [108]. I think my independent review of the other AfDs mentioned shows I am conducting research and !voting based on what I was able to find and according to my interpretation of applicable policies and guidelines. It has also not only been GhostOfDanGurney and I holding similar positions in these wide-ranging discussions, and we have had different approaches to different issues, and the extent our views overlap can be read as an agreement about what best serves the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and editors are supposed to resist the urge to turn Wikipedia into a battleground between factions, and instead assume good faith that every editor and group is here to improve Wikipedia — especially if they hold a point of view with which you disagree. It seems especially important in a "high intensity" conflict area such as American politics, where a failure to assume good faith could be particularly disruptive. Beccaynr (talk) 04:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Hello all. Chess pinged me on my talk page, so I figure I may as well give my few cents:
  1. I have been subject to the kind of side-sniping that Chess describes both on and off-wiki, and—believe me—it does not make me feel good when I see it. Please don't be passive aggressive to other editors on talk pages, because editors will probably wind up seeing the edits, and doing so with the intent to snipe at people behind their backs is uncivil. In my view (I don't think there's a policy on this, so take this as you will), behavioral issues should first be directly discussed with the editor that has problem behaviors, except where that behavioral issue is directly pertinent to the discussion at hand (for example, canvassing in an AfD) or when you are asking the editor to strike a specific personal attack.
  2. As Chess notes above, yes, I did ask GhostOfDanGurney to rescind their withdrawal of their close; I had thought (and still think) that it was not done in line with WP:WITHDRAWN. I did say that I was going to pursue a close challenge, though as 力 alluded to this wouldn't have really changed all that much with respect to the article's current status as being kept. However, the immediate assumption of bad faith made by GhostOfDanGurney shown in this edit (and expanded upon in this edit) did leave me rubbed the wrong way. The recent attempt by GhostOfDanGurney to drag Banana Republic to the edit warring noticeboard (see this diff for the full conversation) seemed somewhat frivolous as there were a total of three reverts listed over a period that encompassed three calendar days. And, to be frank, this edit made by GhostOfDanGurney on the talk page of Beccaynr seems like it could reasonably be a canvassing problem. In many ways, I'd expect that there would be room for a WP:BOOMERANG if sanctions against editors wind up being handed out.
  3. I have been involved in a content/sourcing dispute with Beccaynr on Kelli Stavast and Let's Go Brandon that played out, in part, on both of our talk pages. In what I can only describe as an egregious example of stretching policy way beyond a reasonable reading, the user has repeatedly argued that I could not use a source because its title contained information that was related to an ongoing RfC, even though I was using the source for the date of the individuals' engagement. The user framed this on my talk page as intending to keep the page stable pending the conclusion of their own (updated: 22:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)) RfC, which... honestly didn't sit right given how weak the policy claim was, though they also noted disagreement over the extent to which the source was an WP:RS, and that's obviously a valid part of a good faith sourcing dispute. I repeatedly asked the user to strike their characterization that I had somehow been violating RfC-related policies by making this edit, though the user has repeatedly declined to do so in line with their reading of WP:RFC, which I guess is their right.

I understand that there's a great deal of frustration brewing between editors here, though I really do find it strange that this sort of stuff wound up on ANI. There really isn't anything in my view that rose to the level of bringing it here; nobody's been violating 3rr, while there have been aspersions they haven't been egregious and people who have been subject to them don't actually appear to have asked for apologies before coming here (or if they have, a diff would be nice to see). It also seems like the consensus on the content (which shouldn't be a factor at ANI but can add to general tension between passionate editors) is pretty clear, and I don't see much of a reason to believe that behavioral issues are affecting the outcome of content disputes. But, now that we're here, we're here. The only way I see out of this without some sanctions being handed out to someone would be for people to apologize to each other for when they wronged someone else, and to promise to work collaboratively in discussions going forward. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mikehawk10, I think your summary of my view is incomplete, and it is discussed more on my Talk page [109], but the major reason why I want to briefly comment is because I think it is important to note we were able to disagree while also working together to improve the article, and I appreciate that very much. And as a minor detail, I never started an RfC, so referring to "their own RfC" seems inaccurate. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 22:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Beccaynr. My apolologies for misreading the RfCs. I've struck that portion of my comment and I'm sorry about that mischaracterization. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I am only involved here in an administrative capacity. The immediate re-nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelli Stavast (2nd nomination) should be considered explicitly allowed based on my close of the first nomination. Beyond that, regarding the initial filing: Banana Republic's complaints about the existence of tedious procedural issues, while perhaps not framed with perfect decor, are based in enough evidence there is no cause for sanctions. Regarding anything else: editing recent American Poltiics topics isn't the topic area for you if you can't handle disagreement on talk pages. Apart from "hey admins, maybe watchlist these pages", there is no action needed. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 04:04, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

力, by only involved in an administrative capacity, based on your contributions, this appears to include 1) approving the Let's Go Brandon article submitted by Globgenie (the apparent sock) through AFC [110], 2) closing the first Kelli Stavast AfD as no consensus [111], 3) offering your opinion about an AfD of Let's Go Brandon on the article Talk page [112], 4) responding to GhostOfDanGurney's concerns about the acceptance of Let's Go Brandon on the article Talk page [113], 5) commenting in the Let's Go Brandon AfD about why you accepted the article at AFC [114], 6) commenting on a discussion on GhostOfDanGurney's Talk page about the closure of the second Kelli Stavast AfD [115], 7) participating in a discussion about the status quo of the Let's Go Brandon article, and noting that future discussions can address more specific concerns about article content [116]. Beccaynr (talk) 13:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC) And closing the RfC on the Let's Go Brandon Talk page that was started by Banana Republic on October 30 as finding consensus to include Stavast's name in the article [117] on November 10. Beccaynr (talk) 13:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Alright, I see a few points raised:
  1. And wow, holy shit, "no prejudice against speedy renomination" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelli Stavast does not mean "renominate after 38 minutes" with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelli Stavast (2nd nomination). Banana Republic is right that the second nom is bs and he's also right that the withdrawal was questionable, although he could've said it far more civilly than he actually did. Mikehawk10's message [115] provides a far better example of how Banana Republic could've handled the issue. .... Perhaps GhostOfDanGurney could elaborate on what they meant by "There sure has been a lot of crap coming from the trees the last few weeks." as well. -- The first Kelli Stavast AfD had become a hot mess of off-topic arguments. I interpreted the close as "no consensus" as a way to stop these before they got out of hand. Was it hasty to renom so quick and should I have talked to 力 first to confirm my assumption? Yeah, absolutely. Bullshit? Fuck no. The first time I nominated the article, I had been unable to find adequate sources such that I felt it failed WP:NBASIC. The discussion immediately became about "LGB", which is fair given the timeframe of the event, but I felt many !voters were !voting on "LGB" and not the subject of the article itself. I allowed myself to get sucked in to this,[118] and in my haste in the renom, failed to clue in that by doing it so quickly, I was only going to invite the same type of discussion. The "crap from the trees" comment was an observation of Beccaynr willingness to edit on in spite of all of the chaos that apparently is par for the course in AmPoli discussions (which 6 months ago if you told me I'd be involved in, I'd say you were nuts; my primary topic area is motorsports with occasional dabbles into Canadian politics).
  2. However, the immediate assumption of bad faith made by GhostOfDanGurney shown in this edit (and expanded upon in this edit) did leave me rubbed the wrong way. -- The sharp tone of the response to you here was a combination of stress on my part and frankly, the fact that you weren't honest in your explanation; You had told me essentially "Hey you didn't follow WP:WITHDRAW because Beccaynr didn't strike her rationale",[119] when you had just prior made edits stating The most recent AfD on Kelli Stavast was a Snow Keep to such an extent that the nominator withdrew it.[120]. I don't get what your aim here was. If it truly was a snow keep, what's the point of me reopening it when there were votes like "an absurd waste of time and effort" and "Same guy nominating the same article a day after the previous nomination ended in no consensus, is just ridiculous!"
  3. The recent attempt by GhostOfDanGurney to drag Banana Republic to the edit warring noticeboard seemed somewhat frivolous as there were a total of three reverts listed over a period that encompassed three calendar days. -- I point to this[121] conversation between MER-C and myself where I was advised to go to AN3.

As for why I'm here, I want Banana Republic to stop commenting on other's motives and accusing me of "gaming the system". GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 07:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Beccaynr has again totally removed the insertion of the topic in Brandon Brown (racing driver), citing the RfC with the opposing result and WP:ONUS, which does not apply in its own right - after even GhostOfDanGurney had given up the fundamental opposition and had entered arguments on the volume and scope of the addition. I think there is conclusive evidence now that Beccanyr is WP:WIKILAWYERING for reasons that can hardly interpreted as anything else than partisanship, and that Banana Republic is right, at least regarding Beccanyr. This is well supported by Beccanyr's ridiculous request to indefinitely block Banana Republic. As a minimum sanction I suggest to interdict Beccanyr to further participate in the Let's Go Brandon debate - in all related places. --KnightMove (talk) 12:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

It does not appear possible for anyone to productively edit when they are routinely accused of partisanship, without evidence, during a content dispute. The content is disputed, the RfC is not closed, the RfC discussion includes a variety of oppose !votes, and WP:ONUS states The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. My hope has been for this ANI complaint to resolve with an understanding that allegations of "motives" and "partisanship" make the editing environment less productive, and to affirm core principles of assuming good faith, civility, and avoiding a battleground. I am concerned that disruption will continue without such an affirmation, and I am sorry that my poorly-phrased attempt to refocus this discussion on that goal with a proposal for a conditional indef did not adequately communicate my intent. Beccaynr (talk) 12:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

after even GhostOfDanGurney had given up the fundamental opposition False; I have consistently maintained my opposition even if I'm willing to compromise pending a closure of the RfC as include. The RfC has not closed.. Please strike. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 13:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

New edit war at Brandon Brown (racing driver)

The complaining editor here is now edit warring at Brandon Brown (racing driver).

• Revert #1
• Revert #2 20 minutes later

Banana Republic (talk) 14:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Because you were, once again, pushing through material from a then-open RfC, the very behavior I reported you for the first time. It is not edit warring to prevent disruption. Now it's been closed. This section can be disregarded now. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 14:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Let's get the facts straight:

• GhostOfDanGurney put what they considered to be a compromise version for Let's go Brandon into the article on 17:43, 11 November 2021
• This compromise stayed in the article for 5 days.
• I added Brown's response on 04:16, 16 November 2021
• Beccaynr went against consensus on 11:19, 16 November 2021 and removed from the article all mention of Let's go Brandon
• Two other editors have joined me in enforcing the consensus (KnightMove's revert and 331dot's revert).

Banana Republic (talk) 14:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

And? Consensus was never established until 331dot closed the RfC. This whole thing with involved !voters thinking they can determine consensus through their bias is getting old, tired, and laughable. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 14:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Consensus was already established when you inserted what you considered to be a compromise version.

331dot merely hatted the debate.

You need to be sanctioned for edit warring.

Banana Republic (talk) 14:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. Full stop. You're being frivolous now, which is most ironic. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 14:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

And here you go yet again with jumping the gun on a still-open RfC that you have participated in. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

My recent attempt to add a new source to the still-pending RfC on the Kelli Stavast Talk page, including to support WP:BLP concerns [122] was responded to with a comment by Banana Republic [123] that includes Nothing new with your comment. [...] Time to drop the WP:STICK and then a reply by KnightMove [124] that includes a link to this ANI complaint and I fail to apply WP:AGF anymore and have suggested [link to ANI complaint removed] to interdict him from further participation in this debate. Banana Republic made their addition to the Kelli Stavast article later that day [125].

In the RfC about naming Kelli Stavast started by Banana Republic on the Let's Go Brandon Talk page, the oppose !vote by Seraphimblade included stating that she "originated" it, in the form of use the article describes it as, would be quite misleading and therefore contrary to WP:BLP. The individuals who made it into a meme "originated" it in the form it is described here, and as with many memes, I cannot find that there is any one individual who is credited as particularly responsible for that. The recent addition to the Kelli Stavast article by Banana Republic while the RfC is still pending [126] included in the 'known for' parameter of the infobox "coining the phrase Let's Go Brandon which became a meme". I have since reverted the addition by Banana Republic [127], which seems problematic for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to failing to wait for consensus and BLP concerns, and I noted WP:ONUS, the pending RfC and WP:BLP in my edit summary. From my view, beyond the disparagement of Stavast reported to be part of the meme, there appear to be additional BLP issues raised by the summary of the event by Banana Republic in the infobox and the article. Beccaynr (talk) 17:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

As an update, while the RfC is still pending, Banana Republic reverted my removal of their addition [128] with the edit summary Speaking of WP:ONUS, the onus is to get consensus, and the consensus that has formed at the talk page is to include this material. Beccaynr (talk) 18:30, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

New edit war at Kelli Stavast

The two WP:TEDIOUS editors, GhostOfDanGurney, Beccaynr, are now edit warring at Kelli Stavast. It's a little ironic that they first wanted to eliminate the paragraph on ground of WP:DUE and now that there is a consensus to include the material are insisting on making it longer than needed and, even worse, are insisting on maintaining a grammar error in the form of an incomplete sentence at the end of of the paragraph. When alerted to their behavior, they responded that it's a personal attack. Banana Republic (talk) 15:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
The edit warring by the two WP:TEDIOUS editors is getting pretty bad. They are even reverting what should be non-controversial edits of a wikilink. There are no other wikilinks within that article to that phrase, so it's definitely not overlinking. Banana Republic (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

While the apparent bad faith of User:Beccaynr and User:GhostOfDanGurney in their attempt to impose their will on Stavast's and other articles (despite overwhelming consensus opposing them) is growing clearer by the day, Beccaynr's removal of the Wikilink was correct per WP:OVERLINK. LGB is linked in the next sentence. Frank Anchor 16:17, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

While the apparent bad faith of User:Beccaynr and User:GhostOfDanGurney in their attempt to impose their will on Stavast's and other articles (despite overwhelming consensus opposing them) is growing clearer by the day, On the contrary, I think the events of today/yesterday show that Beccaynr is willing to work within a "consensus" that hasn't even been fully established by the fact the RfC on the matter is still open. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

While the content remains in the article, I have attempted to work on it per policies including WP:BLP, neutral point of view, and no original research, as well as the MOS:SAID guideline that is related to BLP and NPOV policies. Beccaynr (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I did just get a moment to fix the grammar error that appears to have developed over the course of editing [129], and I do not appreciate being accused of vandalizing [130] the article for inadvertantly adding a grammatical error while trying to revert what appears to be an unsourced addition, to remove an apparent WP:BLP concern, to restore reliably-sourced content that was removed, and to restore WP:WIKIVOICE, as noted in my edit summary [131], so I removed your comment from my Talk page. I also added an edit warring warning on your Talk page that encourages discussion on the Talk page of the article [132], which you reverted [133], but I continue to encourage further discussion on the Talk page. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 16:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I also started a discussion on the headset. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 16:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Banana Republic, I think issues like whether or not the wikilink (which is clearly already in the article, as noted in my edit summary) is already in the article is better to discuss at the article Talk page - this appears to be an issue related to MOS:OVERLINK and from my view is a routine part of editing to help direct the reader to where the link is contextually most relevant. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 16:15, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved user: To a first approximation, it seems like the three of you have each made about 20 posts in this larger discussion, and that all other editors combined have perhaps made 30 posts. So maybe you could all disengage somewhat, stop finding new ways to antagonize each other, and give other editors an opportunity to evaluate the situation? --JBL (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Username Issue?

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

---

• Not to be that guy, but shouldn't Banana Republic have been blocked right out the gate? Per WP:USERNAME, "The following types of usernames are not permitted because they are considered promotional: Usernames that unambiguously represent the name of a company, group, institution or product", and according to Wikipedia, Banana Republic is an American clothing and accessories retailer owned by the American multinational corporation Gap Inc. This then could be mistrued as the company attempting to edit, although admittedly I see nothing promotional for the company or its products in the editing history, it still begs the question why this hasn't been looked at. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Probably because the clothing company and the user are (probably) both named after the general concept of a "banana republic", i.e. (narrowly) a Central or South American country which is de facto ruled by American fruit companies or (broadly) "a politically unstable country with an economy dependent upon the exportation of a limited-resource product" as per our article ont the topic. Because of the existing use, it doesn't unambiguously represent the American clothing company and is therefore (arguably) not promotional under WP:USERNAME. (Wouldn't object to asking them to change it tho.) Loki (talk) 18:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

That would be the case if they were using the little "r", but their using the big' "R", which on our site clearly and unmistakably goes to the store and not the concept. In lew of that observation, I believe that regardless of whats decided here they should be required to change usernames. My two cents. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

To me (not an American), "Banana Republic" unambiguously reads as a reference to the concept (before happening upon this thread, I'd never heard of the brand), with the second word capitalised because, as a username, it is part of a proper noun. Unless the user is actively making promotional edits in favour of the brand, I think their username is fine. Rummskartoffel 19:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I assumed it was a reference to the political concept rather than the retailer (which didn't cross my mind at all until this section was opened). User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

The username does not appear to be unambiguously promotional, so I don't think any action is needed. Isabelle ^🔔 21:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Proposal: warnings for the parties involved

Given that there's not a crystal clear consensus above on what was/wasn't OK, I'd like to propose that Banana Republic be given a warning to abide by WP:NPA in the future. Specifically, comments about other editors' behaviour, including but not limited to accusing others of tagteaming, gaming the system, or being WP:TEDIOUS should not be made at article talk pages or content discussions like AfD. If you have a problem with an editor's behaviour, take it up directly with the editor in question at their user talk page, and if that fails, bring it to an administrator, WP:ANI, or other appropriate place to discuss editor conduct.
Additionally, everyone should be reminded that indirectly "sniping" at other editors through vaguely worded talk page messages is unacceptable on this project and is a violation of our civility policies. Threads and discussions like these [134] [135] are examples of this kind of unacceptable behaviour. If you're the person who receives one of these messages, try not to get involved in the sniping; others might interpret agreement as part of the insults, regardless of intent. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Support as proposer. Regardless of the accuracy of the comments Banana Republic made, they were inappropriate in the context they were said. Truth isn't always a defence to WP:NPA; and article talk pages/user talk pages of unrelated non-admins aren't the place to hash out your complaints. While I don't like some of the behaviour the other editors have displayed, it's not egregious enough to WP:BOOMERANG on them. The passive-aggressive talk page sniping needs to stop too. The fact an attack is phrased as a compliment towards someone else doesn't negate it being uncivil. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 00:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Chess, your first diff above [136] is a link to a comment by Banana Republic, on the Talk page of Alalch Emis. Can you please specify where and how I accused others of tagteaming, gaming the system, or being WP:TEDIOUS? Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 00:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Looks like a mix-up — Alalch Emis (talk) 00:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Beccaynr: I'm very sorry. I got you two mixed up like an idiot. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 00:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and altered it w/o including a strikethrough since the first part was not intended to be directed at you whatsoever. The second part is meant to include examples from "both sides" so to speak. Thank you very much for flagging this issue. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 00:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Chess, I appreciate the clarification, and I am also mulling over a response to your comment in the discussion above. In the meantime, I have been meaning to say I appreciate your insight above about how article talk pages and other content discussions forums are not good places to discuss editor conduct; discussions of editor conduct inevitably overwhelm actual content discussion and degrade the quality of our output, including because I think it helps emphasize why it is important for Wikipedia to not be a battleground. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 01:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Chess, I have thought about your proposal to also remind parties about Talk page usage, and your use of a conversation from my Talk page [137] started by GhostOfDanGurney towards the end of October 28, 2021 as an example of unacceptable behaviour, because the content and context reminds me of The Purple Barnstar, i.e. given to Wikipedians who have been hurt by others, for example by having their user pages vandalized, being mistakenly blocked (for too long, or affected by range blocks), being personally attacked, etc. Long established PUA award. In the context of what was visible on my Talk page at that time, e.g. [138], some of the comments in the first Kelli Stavast AfD, e.g. [139], [140], [141], and the Let's Go Brandon AfD, e.g. [142], it seems qualitatively different from the comment by Banana Republic and the response by Alalch Emis [143]. On November 7, I was told about the EW noticeboard complaint filed on Banana Republic, and what an admin had said about further edits to the article. (The Kelli Stavast article is now temporarily protected following the 3RR complaint [144].) And then I was told of an attempted security breach. By contrast, Banana Republic seems engaged in WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior with comments like It's all about one thing: their agenda to delete Kelli Stavast and Let's Go Brandon from Wikipedia [145]. I think to most effectively protect the encyclopedia from future disruption, it would help to not dilute a response to Banana Republic with a "both sides" warning under these circumstances. Beccaynr (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Since this thread started, and the collaborative process on the article normalized (end of deletion initiatives, POV template, spurious protracted disputes), the article improved. Actual WP:WEIGHT issues were able to be dealt with as they appeared etc. Now it's easy to work on the article and things are good. Accuracy of Banana Republic's comments isn't just philosophical, his overall positioning in trying to have a normal functioning article and collaborative process led to something advantageous and beneficial to the encyclopedia. Banana Republic did a lot to make it so, and while doing it he used some wrong words and wrong venues. But the end result matters the most. This must not be forgotten. Simply penalizing (only) him in some sense does nothing to cement this better state that we are in now, and would probably not lead to the most WP:DESIRABLEOUTCOME. — Alalch Emis (talk) 01:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Question: Is this comment made by the complaining editor acceptable? This comment shows the motivation for their WP:TEDIOUS behavior. Banana Republic (talk) 03:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

No, it's not. I went ahead and removed it. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 04:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to head off now. Misjudged that message and thought too fast. There's really not much more I can contribute to resolving this dispute. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 04:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Yep, you deserve a WP:TROUT for that removal. Banana Republic (talk) 04:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

They complimented the creation of a frivolous AfD. Banana Republic (talk) 03:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Hardly frivolous. They simply arrived late to the party and didn't realize that it had already been put up, as they stated in a subsequent edit summary. This jumping to conclusions and lack of WP:AGF is the very behaviour I'm complaining about. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 04:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Didn't realize that it was already nominated ????? WTF ????? They put in a 2nd nomination !!! There is absolutely no way to put up a 2nd nomination without realizing there was a first nomination. Banana Republic (talk) 04:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

That's programmatically done by WP:Twinkle. It's not evidence that the user knew about the first nomination. AlexEng^(TALK) 08:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Indef block for Banana Republic

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

---

I am concerned by a pattern of Banana Republic's behavior, including but not limited to since this ANI discussion began on November 11. For example:

• On 15:22 November 11, Banana Republic removed the template I added, [146] with an edit summary Boldly removing a frivolous template placed by a WP:TEDIOUS editor who took the article the an AfD, did not get their way, then took to a DelRev, and still did not get way. Enough disruption !!!, which was reverted with a warning from GhostOfDanGurney about assuming good faith [147]. GhostOfDanGurney also left a warning about assuming good faith on Banana Republic's Talk page [148] at 16:13 November 11. The removal of my template happened after Banana Republic reverted my attempt to improve the lead [149].
• Banana Republic removed their ANI notice [150] on 19:26 November 11 with an edit summary When you act in bad faith, you will get called for it.
• On 19:45 November 11, Banana Republic appears to have been counseled by Alalch Emis, e.g. I think the AfD was okay, and understandable -- someone was bound to start it; DRV was technically okay as we were dealing with a BADNAC under a very technical reading of conventions, which is also an interpretation someone is bound to hold, and act upon; these are inescapable realities... (with additional discussion about the template).
• On November 12, even though I did not file this ANI complaint, Banana Republic commented on the Let's Go Brandon Talk page [151], Basically [ping removed] GhostOfDanGurney and [ping removed] Beccaynr did not get their way in the RfC above about whether or not to name Kelli Stavast in the article, so they are creating a new controversy surrounding the lead. This is why they are being accused of being WP:TEDIOUS editors. They filed a complaint against me [link to ANI removed], accusing me of not being WP:CIVIL by accusing them of being tedious editors, so I'll throw them a WP:CIVIL bone right here, right now. I do not suspect that the two users are socks of each other. As noted in the discussion above, it was stated on November 1 [152] that further discussions can address more specific concerns about article content. Inclusion of Stavast's name in the article appears to be different than inclusion in the lead, and that distinction appears to have support, including from other participants in the previous RfC discussion, as I explained when asked, e.g. [153], [154], [155].
• In this discussion, instead of taking an opportunity to reflect and engage directly with concerns expressed about their behavior and fundamental principles related to editing productively here, Banana Republic appears to have continued to focus on what they describe as "motives" of myself and GhostOfDanGurney, e.g. November 11 [156], November 11 [157], and November 15 [158].

I therefore propose an indef block of Banana Republic, because it appears that further disruption is likely to continue without a clear sanction that provides an opportunity for Banana Republic to reflect on how Wikipedia is not a battleground and to promise to avoid such conduct in the future. I further propose an indef block be avoided if in this discussion, Banana Republic acknowledges how WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior can be harmful to the encyclopedia, and if they promise to avoid such conduct in the future. Beccaynr (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Based on the pattern described above, and after the comment by Banana Republic on November 15 [159] that followed the warning proposal above, it appears that a warning is likely not enough to prevent future disruption, unless Banana Republic acknowledges how WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior can be harmful to the encyclopedia, and if they promise to avoid such conduct in the future. Beccaynr (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per WP:BLOCK, Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. To be absolutely frank, the evidence presented above doesn’t show that the user needs to be completely ejected from the project in order for Wikipedia to be improved. I would suggest that we all take a chill pill on this one; proposing an indef is really uncalled for and it highlights the strong emotions currently present. If anything, a temporary two-way Interaction ban between the proposer of the indef and the target of the proposal might help to do that, though I believe that all editors involved would be willing to try to calm down without the community using coercive banning powers. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 17:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

This conditional proposal is intended to prevent damage or disruption, because an indef block (which could be brief) is presented as a last resort, conditioned on whether Banana Republic addresses the concerns outlined in the discussion and promises to avoid such conduct in the future. Without such assurance, it appears likely that disruption could continue. I also do not see evidence to support a two-way interaction ban, or how it would address concerns about Banana Republic's behavior towards GhostOfDanGurney. As noted above, I also think a "both sides" approach in this situation risks diluting the effectiveness of a response to Banana Republic that is otherwise intended to help avoid battleground conduct by them in the future. Their response after a warning was proposed has been a particular cause for concern, but to be clear, I am not strictly calling for an indef block and my hope is that future disruption can be prevented by Banana Republic acknowledging how WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior can be harmful to the encyclopedia, and promising to avoid such conduct in the future. Beccaynr (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Time to apply WP:BOOMERANG This proposal shows exactly why Beccaynr and GhostOfDanGurney are WP:TEDIOUS editors that should be sanctioned. I don't need to add anything else. Banana Republic (talk) 20:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• Speedy close this section as a WP:WIKILAWYERING abuse of process and redirect discussion back to Chess's proposal above. It's a simple tactic of moving the Overton window, and asking for more to settle for less. This editor knows that Banana Republic will not be removed from the project or submitted to the kind of absurd ultimatum proposed, but knows that this proposal will easily reframe the conduct dispute in such a way that it will look very normal to penalize Banana Republic at least relatively mildly—when he will not have been penalized harshly. (Mikehawk10, with due respect, you've now already fell for this while suggesting the possibility of a much more restrictive measure, than anything suggested thus far.) This would both (1) make it sure that Banana Republic is sanctioned, when prior to that, from earlier substantive discussion, it was not certain that he would be sanctcioned in any way, (2) turn attention away from Beccaynr's conduct. That is, it would lead to the real outcome desired by Beccaynr which is for only Banana Republic to get any kind of sanction, and they themselves getting none. It's silly to think that Beccaynr really believes that there is a prospect of success with regard to indeffing, but still proposes it. So this is a textbook case of: Applying a portion of a policy or guideline to achieve an objective other than compliance with that policy or guideline or its objectives. Particularly when doing so in a way that is stricter, more categorical or more literal than the norm.
  This outlandish "pragmatism" occurs in response to Chess's idea of somehow warning "both sides" diff. There is agreement among commenters here that Beccaynr has shown a propensity toward tedious procedural issues (or something approximately such) in connection to the "Let's Go Brandon" topic. Everyting added together, I think that being sanctioned even in the mildest sense is an unacceptable affront to Beccaynr's sense of extreme validation in everything they have done so far, and this lack of reflection can also be seen from lack of substantive replies to any criticism on this issue.
  A message needs to be sent that when deletion initiatives fail, it's time to either distance oneself from the article with whose existence one disagrees with, or to treat it like any other article, and work on improving it following a normal collaborative process. A bad thing sometimes that happens on Wikipedia is someone trying deletion and then, when that fails, going on to disrupt normal work on the article (using something such as a frivolous POV template) and then, when that fails too, going so far as to try to get editors associated with this page removed or marginalized, or at least humiliated. This is happening right now, and it's bad. — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Alalch Emis, from my view, my proposal is an attempt to resolve a conflict, because I would request closure of this complaint if Banana Republic offered reassurance that they will avoid WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct in the future. This is intended to protect the encyclopedia from future disruption, not as a penalty. It does not appear to me that there is agreement that I have what you describe as a propensity toward tedious procedural issues (or something approximately such) in connection to the "Let's Go Brandon" topic, and I believe my participation in the discussion here shows I have substantively engaged with concerns. I am not trying to remove, marginalize, or humiliate anyone. I asked for a bare minimum commitment from Banana Republic so we can close this complaint and get back to editing, and for an indef block only if Banana Republic will not affirm their intent to avoid WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct in the future. Beccaynr (talk) 23:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose block, but definitely warn BR as reporter - I agree with Mikehawk10 that a block at this stage would be more punitive then preventative and would add that it could possibly even have a negative effect on their future behavior, as evidenced by their proposing a BOOMERANG here. They do absolutely need to get it through to them that commenting on others' motives, assuming bad faith and stubbornly holding the line on those comments and assumptions is UNCIVIL and disruptive and I thoroughly agree with the rationale for this proposal, but outside of this topic and the resulting discussions, their behavior has been fine from what I've seen. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 23:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Proposal: Topic ban Banana Republic from Kelli Stavast

(edit conflict) Beccaynr has continued to try to improve the article [160], while Banana Republic edit wars in order to debate semantics and whether a PPE headset that was worn is relevant to her saying the misheard phrase, while also making changes that aren't being mentioned in their edit summaries [161] (note it says nothing about editing the location of "Fuck Joe Biden", leading to the very redundancy that they "correct" in their next edit; all while failing to discuss on talk. This dishonest editing goes beyond what I originally reported this here for and is a clear call for sanctions beyond a simple warning. My good faith is waning and I am increasingly concerned that this user is simply trying to "win" a debate against Beccanyr, while the latter has shown a great willingness to work with others. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 15:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

The aspersions continue and now BR is edit warring manipulating the discussion at ANI now After I attempted to properly reorder the sections in this report. [162] [163] Wow. Egregiously inappropriate behavior from them now GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 16:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict): I am concerned about what appears to be a pattern of disruptive editing by Banana Republic with regard to the topic of Kelli Stavast, including since this ANI complaint began. For example:

• On November 18, after I attempted to remove content added by Banana Republic, Banana Republic restored it [164], without addressing the WP:BLP concern raised in my edit summary. An admin then removed part of the addition per WP:BLP [165].
• On November 19, after edits continued to be made to this section, I made edits [166] with the edit summary ce citation, add information from refs, ce MOS:SAID/WP:WIKIVOICE, rm excess/repetitive sources, rm WP:BI and opinion source, rm WP:OR, and Banana Republic removed the reliably-sourced mention of Stavast wearing a headset and added the disputed term "mischaracterized" back into the article [167]. GhostOfDanGurney restored the version I had added [168] with an edit summary Restore version by Beccanyr; headset is very relevant to the event, you also created the "redundancy" with a change in the previous edit that was not mentioned in the summary. I then updated the citations to add direct quotes from the sources to help make the content in the article more clearly sourced to reliable sources [169].
• On November 20, KnightMove removed reliably sourced content, and added content that was otherwise sourced to one of the sources removed [170]. I then restored the content and added content from the source [171] with the edit summary restore sourced content to support 'political slogan' text as well as ongoing notability of 'media conspiracy' relevant to Stavast. Banana Republic also continued to edit, including by removing reliably-sourced content [172] with the edit summary remove unnecessary sentence by absorbing the 3 important words into a previous sentence and changing the text in a way that is not supported by the source that was removed and also appears undermined by the source at the end of the sentence. Banana Republic also again removed the reliably-sourced content about the headset, and added the disputed term 'mischaracterized' [173], with the edit summary What difference does it make that she wore a headset? Do we also need to specify that she wore a bra and a tampon? I then reverted these additions [174] with the edit summary Rm unsourced addtion, rm WP:BLP concern, restore content sourced to RS, restore WP:WIKIVOICE, which Banana Republic reverted [175] with the edit summary Nope. It's a little ironic that you first complain about WP:DUE and now you insist on putting unnecessary crap into the paragraph., which was reverted by GhostOfDanGurney [176].

I think a focus on issues that Banana Republic may have with me may be a red herring, and I think it may be better to focus on signs of disruptive editing while considering whether a topic ban is warranted. Beccaynr (talk) 16:59, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• As I was about to participate in the now-open Talk page discussion to explain how the NYT source in the article also includes a brief quote to help support the content, I found Banana Republic had once again removed it [177] and added a version that appears to be unsupported by reliable sources, including the source at the end of the sentence, with the edit summary I'm not sure if this was controversial (shouldn't be) as this is just condensing two sentences into one (and eliminating an un-needed reference). As demonstrated by the edit at [diff removed], some of my previous edits were not controversial (such as fixing a grammar error) but got entangled because the editors are creating a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Beccaynr (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• Conditional Support provided that User:GhostOfDanGurney and User:Beccaynr also receive a topic ban. I would very strongly oppose a topic ban for only User: Banana Republic. It takes two sides to create a WP:BATTLEGROUND and GhostOfDanGurney and Beccaynr have been the main instigators acting in equally bad, if not worse, faith. I’ll give Beccaynr the benefit of the doubt in starting the deletion review on Let’s go Brandon since it is reasonable to consider the AFD a bad NAC (though I believe the NAC was appropriate). After that failed with overwhelming consensus to endorse keep, Beccaynr and GhostOfDanGurney went into an endless display of WP:WIKILAWYERING and WP:TEDIOUS editing to chip away connections between Stavast, Brandon Brown, and “Let’s Go Brandon.” This included an uncalled for and frivolous attempt to indef block BananaRepublic. These efforts were opposed by large consensus every step of the way (including pending consensus in the ongoing RFC on Stavast’s page). Everyone needs to take a break from these pages for a while, but to put the blame solely on BananaRepublic would be the wrong move.Frank Anchor 22:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC) [comment slightly modified for clarity - F.A. 14:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)]
• Oppose While I largely agree with Frank Anchor's good analysis in his previous statement, a topic ban for User:Beccaynr and User:GhostOfDanGurney is the only appropriate and necessary measure to pacify the battleground. Everyone else will come along in the discussion. --KnightMove (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment For what it's worth, regardless of any support this reply/proposal gets, I'm voluntarily disengaging from the topic, as I told BR before these replies from Frank and Knight went up. American Politics is clearly not the topic I want to ever be involved in. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 00:23, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not going to vote, but it would be a good idea for all three of Beccaynr, GhostOfDanGurney, and Banana Republic to voluntarily avoid this article for the next month. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:02, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment As a follow up to the diffs above in this section, and after trying to discuss the issue further with Banana Republic, I filed a 3RR complaint against Banana Republic [178]. During the content discussion on the Kelli Stavast Talk page [179], Banana Republic referred to me as WP:TEDIOUS [180], and my reply included a request to focus on the content, not the contributor [181]. The discussion continued, but Banana Republic again referred to me as WP:TEDIOUS [182], and I again asked for the discussion to focus on the content [183]. I hope that uninvolved users will participate in the discussion here, because many diffs have been produced about a pattern of behavior by Banana Republic. I also think over the course of this ANI discussion, GhostOfDanGurney and I have shown we are not a faction, that our actions should not be attributed to each other, and we are here to build the encyclopedia. Beccaynr (talk) 02:39, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

While no editor other than myself has accused you of being WP:TEDIOUS, other editors have accused you here of engaging in WP:Wikilawyering and engaging in WP:OWN (a second editor and a third editor agreed on the WP:WIKILAWYERING accusations). Do you prefer those accusations over the accusations of being WP:TEDIOUS? If so, I'll be more than happy to strike out all my accusations of WP:TEDIOUS and replace them with accusations of WP:WIKILAWYERING and WP:OWN. Banana Republic (talk) 04:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

In your first diff, Mikehawk10 discusses wikilawyering in the context of me raising WP:ONUS, among other issues, as further discussed on my Talk page [184], and Mikehawk10 edited their comment soon after posting it to change their reference from WP:OWN to WP:GAME [185], and then edited and apologized [186] for suggesting I had started an RfC. In your second diff, Alalch Emis uses the term wikilawyering to describe my proposal for conditional indef, which I apologized for during this discussion [187]. In your third diff, KnightMove appears to consider it wikilawyering for me to have relied on WP:ONUS during a pending RfC, including because of KnightMove's incorrect [188] characterization of GhostOfDanGurney's opinion. What I would prefer is for there to be a focus on the content during discussions of content, and for concerns about conduct to be discussed in appropriate forums, with supporting diffs. Beccaynr (talk) 06:39, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I stand corrected. As you pointed out, you were accused of WP:GAME, not WP:OWN. I'm not sure which one is worse, but nonetheless thanks for the correction. Banana Republic (talk) 21:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:GAME, Use of the term "gaming the system" should be done with caution, as it can be interpreted as an accusation of bad-faith editing. [...] However clear such an intent might subjectively seem, one should not cast aspersions about the mentalities or motivations of other editors. Wikipedia has a variety of noticeboards for dealing with problematic editing behavior, patterns of which tend to speak for themselves when properly diffed with evidence. Beccaynr (talk) 22:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The Pollster immediately returning to disruptive behavior

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Original poster warned about WP:BATTLE. First diff in the complaint is clearly bogus. Jehochman ^Talk 14:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

---

• Jeppiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The Pollster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Only yesterday, we closed a long discussion about whether to indefinitely block The Pollster Heavy OWN, TENDENTIOUS and PA behaviour by The Pollster for their repeated personal attacks, edit warring, and WP:OWN. Everyone who took part in the long discussion agreed The Pollster's behaviour was unacceptable, opinions differed on whether to block them indefinitely, for a limited time, or just give them a warning. In the end, the closing admin settled for a warning. As many of us feared, The Pollster construed this close and the warning as a carte blanche to behave as he pleases. This includes:

• Claiming that the discussion about their edit warring and personal attacks was to "censor" him [189]
• Returning to personal attacks by claiming those who disagree with him "are applying a double standard [190], even accusing users of wanting "to sustain corruption" [191].
• Immediately returning to the same edit warring, restoring his own version of the contested article once again [192] (and deceptively trying to hide it by a misleading edit summary).
  

I feel enough is enough. If The Pollster reads the long discussion of whether to block him, and the final warning he was given, as vindication that he was right, then something is very wrong. Several users already suggested WP:COMPETENCE and that The Pollster does not seem to able to edit. Given that in less than 24 hours after the close and the warning, The Pollster has doubled down on his personal attacks, on the edit warring, and on the own-issues, it seems clear they are right. As the warning to The Pollster clearly did not work, I repeat my suggestion that Wikipedia is better off without this highly disruptive user. Jeppiz (talk) 13:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Your first diff is bogus, so I stopped reading your complaint there. The first diff you site is a comment made prior to the warning I gave upon closing the thread. I now must warn you to stop treating Wikipedia as a battleground. Jehochman ^Talk 14:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not sure Jehochman, who per Jeppiz "settled for a warning" in the previous discussion, is the ideal admin to close this new thread without anybody else having had time to comment. For that reason, I do want to state that I agree with him (with Jehochman), and would have closed in a similar way, and would also have warned Jeppiz. Bishonen | tålk 15:26, 12 November 2021 (UTC). (Bad Bishonen for editing inside the closed discussion.)

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

TBAN proposal: The Pollster

It's true Jeppiz messed up the diffs in this report. The first three diffs (in the first two bullet points in the OP) are all the same diff, and they did technically come before the warning. However, that diff (Special:Diff/1054626602, 05:03 Nov 11) was a comment made at the bottom of the tban proposal, and did, in fact, say the majority of admins are against censoring me and for restoration of my version, because they clearly see through the double standard that some are applying and It gives the impression that you (impru & co.) want to sustain corruption and fake polling in this article for whatever reason. Neither of these comments suggests that The Pollster understood the discussion about them. I was surprised that Jehochman closed that thread with a warning a few hours later (Special:Diff/1054652842, 09:39 Nov 11). Frankly, had I seen The Pollster's comment at 05:03, I may have changed my !vote from oppose to support.

More importantly, that same 05:03 comment stated Admins, please restore my modernized version of the article, because of this context. That's WP:IDHT in its purest form right there. Worse is that The Pollster went and restored their edits:

• Here are some of the edits that led to The Pollster's first ANI thread (there are others):
  • 04:53 Nov 7 - restoring their reverted changes (which included segregating out certain polls into a separate table and collapsing that table), with the edit summary You have contributed nothing to this article impru. Go back to Spain. Research Affairs polls are not needed, I modernized the article.
  • 11:17 Nov 7 - restoring their reverted changes again, with the edit summary vandalism by people with no knowledge of the situation
• As a reminder, 05:03 Nov 11 is when The Pollster made the comment linked above, in part asking admins to restore their preferred version, and 09:39 is when Jehochman warned The Pollster
• 05:19 Nov 12 - Pollster, in their next edit after making the above comment at ANI and after being warned, again restores their edits (separating out certain polls into a new table and collapsing that table), but does so along with an addition of content, and uses the edit summary Added new poll.

The Nov 12 edit is, in fact, a direct continuation of the exact thing that led to the ANI thread in the first place. "Added new poll" is, in fact, a deceptive edit summary. Given they previously asked for this content to be restored, I don't think this was any kind of good faith error. Clearly, Jehochman's warning was ineffective. (I also very much object to Jehochman's comment here, "First thing to do is scrutinize the filer", which I think expresses an attitude that is at the core of why ANI doesn't work well. First thing to do is to read report, and the diffs, in full. I also think that shows a bit of anti-filer bias which may have influenced the premature closing of this report.)

Jeppiz, since being warned above, has posted a wiki-break notice. Meanwhile, another editor had to revert The Pollster. I don't think it's good that this ends with other editors having to revert The Pollster again, while an editor who is trying to stop that disruption is run off the project. As such, I'm now proposing a TBAN from polling against The Pollster.

• Support TBAN from polling, broadly construed as proposer, per my comments above. Subsequent actions by The Pollster have convinced me that I was wrong to oppose a sanction last time. Within a day of being warned, they've gone right back to edit-warring in their preferred changes (05:19 Nov 12) after asking admins to restore their preferred changes (05:03 Nov 11). The warning (09:39 Nov 11) clearly was not effective. Levivich 16:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support I think the warning has not had the desired result, and it doesn't look as if Pollster is going to change his behavior. Paul August ☎ 17:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support I agree with everything Levivich has written. This is a sorry incident and Jeppiz and Impru20 (the original filer to be supposedly “scrutinised”) are owed apologies. DeCausa (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support Levivich has summarized the situation well. An imperfect filing should not result in disregard of the ongoing issues that led to the filing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support as per filer of initial ANI thread (since the original rationale persists) and because of Levivich's neatly summarized rationale: it's a matter of IDHT as of now. The Pollster's restoration of the disputed content under a misleading and deceiving edit summary while discussion with other users was still underway in the talk page, coupled with a failure to re-engage in such discussion once the previous ANI thread was closed, clearly showed a bad-faith intent in this. A TBAN would also be a less harsh remedy than a full block, and can give The Pollster time to reconsider their current approach towards Wikipedia. Sincerely, he should really take the rope that is being given to him if he wants to avoid the risk of being indeffed in the future. Impru20^talk 18:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Noting that a mere minutes after I posted my message, The Pollster has re-engaged the discussion. In his reply, he argues that "I have addressed everything in proper manner and it’s well sourced. I reverted it to my previous edition incl. the new poll because you guys are ignorant of the required changes of the modern design despite my sources and repeatedly act like cyber-bullies in reverting my version to the corruption-filled outdated version." Note that this was said with this ANI sub-thread ongoing and following everything that has transpired (including a piece of advice made by Jehochman in his talk page right today after closing Jeppiz's thread). Oh well. Impru20^talk 19:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Impru and Co. act like cyber-bullies by reverting my edits. My edits hide corrupt polling to a minimum, while their version is highlighting it for everyone to see. Wikipedia must not be a place that highlights and showcases corruption and fake polling, when everything is very obvious and well-sourced. Wikipedia is not a vessel of Donald Trump-style fake news. I am therefore in the opinion that my version is still very much correct and I ask you admins to reconsider your position because tolerating fake news and faked polling in an official corruption probe in articles on here sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and you as moderators. Thanks. Long live accuracy, facts and freedom. --The Pollster (talk) 19:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  It's much simpler to say WP:IDHT. Just a thought for the future. Cheers all, and happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• I think that TP may have a legitimate point on the content issue here, but just doesn't understand how to argue it starting from WP:PAG. He's trying to remove polls made by a polling bureau that has been compromised in a corruption scandal, but instead of pointing out that this may render these polls unreliable sources, he unhappily focuses on the "faking" of the polls by the polling bureau, which cannot be asserted in wikivoice without original research. Naturally, this is how his arguments are being received by other editors (i.e., as OR), something which TP does not seem to understand nor to engage with in the broader discussion. TP has been here for ~15 years, but has only made ~1700 edits in that time [193], which may explain why he has such a poor grasp of core content policies. However, that wouldn't be so much of a problem if only he would take a more collaborative approach. There's no point in being right if you can't convince fellow editors that such is the case, and have to resort to aspersions and personal attacks. But how is TP going to learn this? Given what's on their user page, topic-banning him from polling, broadly construed, would be more or less equivalent to an indefinite block. If we really want to give him a chance, I think it would be much more appropriate to issue a time-limited block (perhaps a partial block from Opinion polling for the next Austrian legislative election, since that's where most of the disruption seems to have taken place?) that would show in his (now still clean) block log and that can be escalated if similar issues should arise in the future. It seems to me that he would benefit from a wiki-break at this point, and he may do better next time. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • But how is TP going to learn this? ... If we really want to give him a chance ... I so strongly oppose this type of thinking at ANI. As proposer, I do not want to give him a chance. He already had a chance. This isn't about TP learning anything, or about rehabilitating TP, it's solely about preventing disruption. That is, it's about protecting other editors from TP's disruptive editing. I don't care if TP learns anything or not. If they can't edit productively, then they can't edit. Remember, this is the guy who reverted people with "go back to Spain" as an edit summary. Nobody should have to put up with that. When someone acts like that, our response shouldn't be, "well how do we teach them to be better?" This is not therapy, this is not a school, etc., we should not "reverse the victim and the offender". It doesn't matter if TP has a point on the content dispute or not, and it doesn't matter if polling is all TP is interested in: they risked their privilege of editing when they were uncivil, and then after being warned, went right back to edit warring. The goal here is to protect everyone else, not to teach TP. The way TP would get a tban lifted (if it passes) is to prove to the community that they can edit productively, by editing in another topic area. This gives the community the chance to review TP's editing before deciding whether it's safe to lift the tban. A time-limited block would not give the community this very important information. Levivich 20:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support This user is clearly problematic in this area, their response here gives me no confidence it is likely to stop. Hopefully a topic ban can be effective in preventing them from this disruption and allowing them to be productive in other areas. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• Another problem: copy-paste machine translation - I've noticed that The Pollster is copy/paste-ing machine translation of newspaper articles into 2021 Graz local election. Special:Diff/1051428847 = [194], and Special:Diff/1055038402 = [195]. I've removed it from that article but haven't looked further to see if there are other instances. Levivich 17:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support as per the argument I already made in the initial post. I also wish to thank Levivich for their kind words and for having taken the time to look into the matter. I was both surprised and disappointed at how the first admin immediately closed down the thread on a technicality (though I take full responsibility for having messed up the diffs in my post), and I am glad to see the consensus in the subsequent thread in line with Levivich's summary of my post. Parallel to this discussion, there is ongoing harassment as many of us involved in this situation have seen heavy attempts to hack our accounts since this thread was started. At least DeCausa, Impru20, HighInBC and myself have seen multiple attempts to hack our accounts (we receive a wiki-notification of this; in my case it informs me there have been 65 attempts to hack my account). None of us ever experienced this before, and this thread is the only thing that connects us so while I don't want to speculate on who is behind these attacks, it passes WP:DUCK that it is because of this situation. Jeppiz (talk) 18:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC) In line with keeping the focus only on the TBAN, for which there seems to be broad support, I've struck the part about the hacking attempts as the CU showed it to be unrelated to this.Jeppiz (talk) 02:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:DNFTT. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
That happened to me, too, over 20 attempts in the last day or so. Although without knowing how widespread it is, hard to say if it's related (we might be 5 of 500 who this happened to, or 5,000). Levivich 18:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC) That is true. Had it just happened to me, I wouldn't have thought about it. The fact that it never happened to me before in over 10 years (and apparently never to DeCausa or Impru20 either), and suddenly all of us are targeted, well, it makes me suspect a link. Jeppiz (talk) 18:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC) I confirm this happened to me as well, having never suffered anything like it before. I spoke with DeCausa and we both confirmed that the attempts on our accounts were at similar times of day and that those matched the editing patterns of TP. Further, HighInBC confirmed that the attempts on his account was made following DeCausa's approachment to him on the issue. So far, it looks like circumstantial evidence, but all people affected as of now has been involved on this issue and has opposed The Pollster's stance. Impru20talk 18:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC) Well, if the five of us go on a vandalism spree, we'll know why. Levivich 18:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC) Just want to say a quick "me three" about unauthorized login attempts. Circumstantial, but interesting. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 18:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC) I too finally became part today (around 00:30 UTC) of the not-so-select (?) club of people who've gotten the infamous There have been multiple failed attempts to log in to your account from a new device message (6 attempts). I've been involved in a lot during the last few days (reporting in two separate SPI cases and opening two ANI threads), but this is perhaps more than a coincidence. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC) Err, 7 of us who contributed to this thread have had multiple login attempts on our accounts over this weekend? HighnBC gets it just after I post about it on his talk page? Other than tt’s just bonkers, how obvious can this get? DeCausa (talk) 19:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC) It's happening to me as well. Paul August ☎ 19:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC) So it's 8 now. If this is really him, then a TBAN may not be enough. Impru20talk 20:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC) To be clear, I have experienced this many times over the years. The timing is suspicious though. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 00:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support. If he didn't pay attention to the last thread, then he needs to face the consequences. Assuming he (or someone on his behalf) is also intentionally failing password checks, I would consider this a bad attempt at harassment. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 19:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Strong support. Despite my having advocated for a pro-forma wait-and-see approach in the previous discussion, I felt the writing was clearly on the wall with ThePollster's massively IDHT screed at the end of that thread, which evidenced not a shred of understanding of the significant an expansive concerns about their conduct raised by literally every other community member who commented on that thread, but rather (quite to contrary) expressed their opinion that everything about their approach had been vindicated--a view that nobody operating from anything less than complete confirmation bias could have possibly taken away from that discussion. In fact, I would have certainly struck and revised my !vote on the behavioural issues (and suspect I would not have been the only one) after that troubling post, had the discussion not been closed somewhat hastily, immediately thereafter. At that point, based on the clear pattern of behaviour and utterly complete lack of ability on this user's part to recognize (let alone attempt to address) community concerns, it was a pretty foregone conclusion that we'd be back here in a matter of days.

Indeed, I'll go one further: probably we should just be indeffing this user right now: they seem to have very narrow interests on this project (their username is literally the subject matter we are now TBANning them from engaging in...), and they have 1) demonstrated clear WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR issues, 2) evidenced attitudes towards open collaborativeness that are fundamentally at odds with this project's values and processes, and 3) adopted a disregard towards feedback which makes me virtually certain that they will not respect the TBAN. Based on the level of refusal to either take community concerns on board or to adjust their approach, I can't imagine this doesn't end up the indef regardless. If this discussion closes with only the TBAN as a sanction, it is my hope that the closer clearly summarizes the end of the rope on community patience and makes clear any violation of the TBAN should be met with an indef. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• This discussion has been confused by a potential Joe job. Checkuser found that The Pollster is not connected by technical evidence to the failed login attempts. That activity could be any long term abuser who watches this board and feels like a little giggle. It would help to refocus discussion solely on any disruptive edits after the warning. Jehochman ^Talk 15:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• That doesn't change the fact that this thread overall is about a topic ban, and that thus far there's a lot of support for it regardless of Architect134's impotence. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 21:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, I disagree that it’s been “confused” by the CU. I opened a separate thread on that specific issue for that purpose. The TBAN position n this thread is clear and unrelated to the other issue. DeCausa (talk) 21:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree completely with both Jéské Couriano and DeCausa above. Jeppiz (talk) 01:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support. I voted oppose when the indef proposal happened, but it looks clear the user hasn't improved their behavior since then. JellyMan9001 (talk) 21:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• On a more procedural note, how is the discussion closed? Apparently there's a clear consensus (the only 'oppose' is the user concerned) and discussion seems to have ended. Jeppiz (talk) 23:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
• Just for your interest, The Pollster has attempted to (once again) introduce his edits into the article under a misleading edit summary. They have also reverted an IP user's edit at 2022 Austrian presidential election as "vandalism" despite there being no trace of vandalism in such edit. Impru20^talk 06:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

MFG had a wrong value: 3% instead of 5%. I corrected it based on the source in my summary from the pollster Unique Research. It was also corrected on German Wikipedia. Also, in the 2022 article, Sebastian Kurz is NOT running for President, that's why I reverted the edit as vandalism.--The Pollster (talk) 08:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• 1) No, you took advantage of a minor error in the article to once again re-introduce edits that had no consensus (which you yourself acknowledged the second time you reverted Mvbaron, as well as in this reply in your talk page). 2) No, just because someone has made a wrong edit does not turn such edit into "vandalism". It was not the revert itself that was criticized, but your coming down like a ton of bricks on what was probably just a good-faith edit by a newbie. 3) Thank you for acknowledging that you are keeping track of everything that's being said in this discussion and that, despite that, you are still going on with the behaviour that brought you here in the first place. Impru20^talk 14:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support: Per Ravenswing's Second Law. (shaking his head) Ravenswing 10:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support Special:Diff/1056753190 shows they are not here to work in a collaborative manner. Slywriter (talk) 14:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
• Wow, can't believe The Pollster is edit warring today over this same content: [196] [197] [198]. Levivich 17:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
• In light of the latest developments, can I move a close with an indefinite block. It's perfectly clear by now that The Pollster views any lack of block as a carte blanche to acts as he pleases. As Levivich explained at the start of this thread, after the previous ANI discussion closed with just a warning to The Pollster, they immediately returned to both personal attacks and edit warring. Now, this thread has been running for eleven days already. Eleven supports for a TBAN, nobody opposed. And despite this, as Levivich also points out above, The Pollster goes on edit warring actively, three reverts already today. So with that in mind, I change my 'vote' from a TBAN to an indefinite ban. The Pollster has been given more WP:ROPE than any user I've seen in eleven years here. Jeppiz (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
• Just to be clear that not only is The Pollster edit-warring today per Levivich, he is yet again restoring his edit stating that certain polls were “fake” (sic) despite inadequate and WP:SYNTH citation (as highlighted to him by multiple editors) on the talk page, by using edit summaries that disguise what he’s doing. The problem with deceptive edit summaries (as well as the fundamental sourcing issue) has been highlghted to him multiple times in recent weeks. The Pollster has made it clear that he just thinks he’s right.[199] Either this is extraordinarily brazen behaviour or it’s WP:CIR. No idea which, but either way there’s no place for him here. DeCausa (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Failed login attempts

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

CU says no connection between the user and the failed login attempts. Jehochman ^Talk 15:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

---

At time of writing 8 editors have reported in the above thread that they have had unauthorised attempts to login to their accounts over this weekend. This is unusual. 6 of those editors supported The Pollster being made subject to a TBAN. The remaining 2 made what could be considered adverse comments about his editing behaviour. Circumstantially, it’s reasonable to believe that this may be WP:HARASSMENT by The Pollster. I’ve asked The Pollster to respond here. Subject to seeing his response, I believe there is grounds for an indef CBAN by reason of their WP:HARASSMENT of those he’s decided he has a grudge against because of this thread. DeCausa (talk) 20:12, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• As one of the eight users targeted, I must still oppose an indef CBAN unless there is proof. If a CU reveals who is behind this harassment, as we have asked of EdJohnston, I'd support a CBAN for that person whoever they are. I cannot support a CBAN without proofs. Devious minds could start similar harassment directed at users who have disagreed with someone they dislike, to paint that user in a bad light. I don't believe for a moment that that is what's going on here, but we must consider what precedent we set. So at the moment, I continue to support the topic ban, for which there is ample proof, but withhold support for any CBAN in the absence of proof. Jeppiz (talk) 20:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

  OK, but just to be clear what I said was “subject to seeing his response”. In other words I’m not proposing it now - I’m asking him to respond first. And it’s a different response to the issues raised in the TBAN discussion. DeCausa (talk) 20:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

  Note that even without the WP:HARASSMENT-bit (which nonetheless seems quite evident as of currently, barring any other explanation), we have a new WP:COPYVIO issue now (relating to a series of edits that came after the TBAN was proposed) that joins the existing list of issues. Impru20^talk 20:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

  (ec) I've seen joe jobbers do all sort of bizarre stuff before. This would not be out of character for a certain LTA I'm thinking of. I'm more interested in seeing what CUs have to say. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, a CU is the optimum solution. I asked EdJohnston if that’s possible here. But what I don’t know if our usual checkuser process has access to IP addresses of Wikimedia failed logins to do that. If anyone else knows, please comment. DeCausa (talk) 20:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

  @DeCausa: Yes, checkuser has kept records of failed login attempts since 2018. see Phab:T174492. To flag down a checkuser on an admin noticeboard you can use {{Checkuser needed}}. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 21:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks. So i just flag it here like this? {{Checkuser needed}}. DeCausa (talk) 21:17, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

  @DeCausa: Yep, just like that. If you wait 5 to 10 minutes for the bot to update the table the request should appear at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 21:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

  Ah, that just takes it into SPI. I hadn’t thought that was the right forum as it’s not actually socking. DeCausa (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

  @DeCausa: It's technically a "Quick Checkuser request", which are what you use when you need a checkuser to investigate something other than sock puppetry. The bot that clerks the SPI page only edits the table though (because it's kept in its own user space and therefore doesn't need a bot approval), so it's easier to stick it at the top of that than at the bottom of the page in the proper section. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 21:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

  Thank very much. I’ve been trying to find out what the right process was since this came up yesterday. DeCausa (talk) 21:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, but the check I ran revealed nothing suspicious. Salvio 23:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

  From the looks it above, users in another dispute in the Banana Republic case also reported attempts on their accounts, perhaps a CU can see if it was the same people that tried both, possibly to stir up trouble at ANI? OmniusM (talk) 01:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose CBAN based on lack of evidence. This could just as easily be someone who want to see them CBAN'd. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose CBAN based on lack of CheckUser evidence; see Salvio giuliano's response above. The circumstantial evidence is too weak for a CBAN on just that alone. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 00:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• I created {{Checkuser needed}}. I'm glad you all find it useful. If there are WP:COPYVIO problems, I think we should indef the account until there is a convincing promise that the account will start being productive and stop being disruptive. Where are the relevant diffs to establish COPYVIO? I don't like it when my assumptions of good faith prove wrong so quickly. Jehochman ^Talk 02:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

  Levivich pointed them out above. Basically, TP copy-pasted a machine translation of newspaper articles into 2021 Graz local election (relevant diffs can be found in the provided link). Impru20^talk 06:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• I can guarantee you that I didn’t try to hack anyone, because yesterday was Sunday and I had other things to do (in real life) and I am way too stupid to do this anyway. I have never tried to hack anyone, so it must have been someone else. --The Pollster (talk) 04:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose CBAN for now, would still support an indef. I oppose CBAN because of the lack of CU evidence; circumstancial evidence points to him, but it's still circumstancial (note that I had another attempt about 5 hours ago btw. Don't know if this may be helpful to someone in order to solve this weird issue). Nonetheless, the evidence for other misconducts is there already, IDHT issues have been widely commented, and The Pollster's latest comment above in which he suprisingly uses as an argument for excusing himself that he is "way too stupid to do this anyway" (when you only need the other guy's username to attempt (and fail) to log in through their account using random passwords, which is a really simple task to accomplish) again points out to a serious CIR issue at the very least. At this point, I think a TBAN will only delay the inevitable. Impru20^talk 06:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Don't you think that I am way too stupid to do this anyway was rather meant as 'I'm too stupid to know how to do stuff like hacking an account, so I wouldn't even think of trying anything like that'? Anyway, given the fact that these things are almost impossible to prove, and that they're an ideal target for joe jobbers, I think it's best not to focus too much on it, as they may distract from the real issues. If the combined WP:CIR, WP:IDHT and WP:COPYVIO are enough for an indef, I'd recommend proposing that in a separate section. There was already some hesitating support for that above. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 09:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh? So, do you think that that now getting a message that I have had 627 failed attempts to log into my account from a new device since the last time I logged in, happening to me ever since I got involved into this issue, is something that I should not focus too much on? It is a real issue for me. TP should probably be indeffed at this point, but that still leave us with the issue of how to stop such massive barrage of hacking attempts... Impru20^talk 15:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Close this sub-section. No hard evidence as a CU stated. The CBAN proposal was made solely based on now-unprovable hacking suspicions. This sub-section is now a distraction to above discussions. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 13:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

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

I realise this discussion has been closed, but I think this is an important addendum, based on checkuser evidence. The following failed login attempts over the past week (and frankly I suspect any others) can be definitely attributed to the troll LTA known as Architect 134 (the number of attempts in parentheses): 7&6=thirteen (30), Apaugasma (6), Banana Republic (25), Connorguy99 (51), DeCausa (24), Dumuzid (12), HapHaxion (69), HighInBC (12), Impru20 (12), Jeppiz (18), Jéské Couriano (6), Levivich (28), Montanabw (33), Paul August (24), TheDoctorWho (6). One suspects mischief rather than competence, but do make sure your passwords are secure, eh. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for pinging me. I was wondering why somebody tried to break into my account.

I have a high degree of confidence that my password is strong enough that unless billions of attempts are made, my account will not get broken into. Banana Republic (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I was wondering why I was getting so many failed login notifications. Changed my password just to be sure. Many thanks for the heads up! HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 20:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I also received at least 45 attempts to break into my account last week. I am involved in a dispute with Banana Republic (as can be seen above) so I would believe it if the reason for trying to break into my account was to use it to disparage them. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

They're certainly reading the thread, since those 6 failed attempts happened after I commented above. I'm not concerned, given I have a strong password. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 21:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I changed my password to a stronger one a couple days ago, so I feel relatively secure. However, the number of attempts I see in general does not match the assault I suffered today (the 627 figure was not an exaggeration, I had to took a screenshot of it as I did not believe my eyes). Has anyone else experienced such a large number of attempts? Impru20^talk 21:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Definitely more than I received. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 21:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

As the discussion above shows, checkuser can sometimes be a bit of a hit and miss affair, and I wouldn't claim I've provided a complete picture. Some of us have seen tens of thousands of failed attempts in a day before. My advice: stay secure, then ignore it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. As Impru20 notes, mine is way way more than 24. I also don’t feel an actual security concern because of the strength of my password. It’s more of an uneasiness about imagining hundreds of unhinged attempts of the person desperately tapping away in a basement somewhere with no hope of success. DeCausa (talk) 21:35, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The Foundation has asked me to confirm the security of random editors' passwords. What's yours, please? EEng 22:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I mean, when I say that this is not normal, it's because this-is-not-normal. Impru20^talk 21:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

So thankful that this has been cleared up. It has never happened to me before but over the course of a few days I must have had a couple of thousand (the highest at one time was about 650+ and I had a few of those, then loads of smaller numbers). Don't know why I was targeted when I am not such an active user. Connorguy99 (talk) 21:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I kept getting the notifications, at one point I think it said there were 87 failed login attempts. Wasn't really sure what was happening, but I changed my password that day. TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning for those who are unfamiliar with the concept, that WP:Committed identity can add an extra layer of peace of mind. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 11:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Massive deletion of Woody Woodpecker films

user:Trainsandotherthings has taken the result of one AfD and justified removing 100+ Woody Woodpecker films, simply redirecting all of them. The first two I reviewed both had reliable references and claims to notability. I am not bonded to the subject but feel that this absolute massive deletion effort removes a lot of referenced content. It's not merged, not saved, and the history shows only a minute or two in-between redirects. Not enough to read/analyze each article. The user says "most" are not well referenced, but I am not a fan of tossing baby out with bathwater. The user will not self-revert and before I go back and revert 100+ redirects manually, I would ask an administrator to have a look. Thank-you, in advance. Ifnord (talk) 03:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

This is a total waste of time. As I explained on my talk page, the vast majority of these articles utterly fail WP:N. I brought one of the articles in question to AfD before doing anything, and it closed with a clear consensus to redirect. To quote one user who posted at the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puny Express "Like most WW cartoons, it has no stand-alone notability but redirects are cheap". Can you see why I was motivated to make redirects? The two examples this user brought up were actually the two I was not 100% sure about redirecting, the rest were very clear and obvious. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

You know why there's only a minute or two between each redirect? Because almost all the articles were nothing but a plot summary, random notes like "Woody's neck was green in this cartoon" and nothing but 1 ref to an encyclopedia which covers all the Woody Woodpecker cartoons. Some were completely unreferenced. When there's that little, it's obvious there's not enough content present to support a standalone article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:23, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Since I'm being accused of not doing due diligence, feel free to review any of these diffs, all of which I stand by: [200] [201] [202] [203] [204] [205] [206] [207] [208] [209] [210] [211]. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm with Trainsandotherthings on this one. While redirecting all of them might have been a biy excessive, the articles in question are very poorly sourced, and don't fit the General notability guideline. Per WP:NOTE The man from Gianyar (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I will say that the two examples identified initially were edge cases (and that's why I left them for last, and why they were the first two examples Ifnord found). They are not typical of the remainder. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

This really needs to go to AfD if it's contested, and it appears that this is the case. A WP:BEFORE check should be done on each of the films that are being redirected; it's often better to expand poorly sourced articles that might wind up having SIGCOV rather than redirecting them on sight. I understand the desire to create redirects if there's poor sourcing, but if this is rapidly happening, this can make it a bit more difficult to undo in the case that there wasn't a clear community consensus in favor of mass redirects. In general, before making lots of changes across a great number of pages that are tedious to undo, a consensus should be reached before doing so. There is, of course, the risk that the AfD will turn into a WP:CLUSTERFUCK with over 100 articles if people aren't careful about doing a WP:BEFORE on each one, but it's the proper way to do this procedurally. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

From a quick sampling, I'd say that Trainsandotherthings suggestion that the articles 'utterly fail WP:N' looks plausible. Making this look like a content dispute to me, and not a subject for ANI. There are several Wikipedia:Dispute resolution options available, and perhaps Ifnord should try one: I'd suggest that rather than expecting people to look through the whole lot, Ifnord selects the best-sourced examples, and explains how they meet notability requirements. I'd also suggest that if the cartoons are actually individually notable, the relevant article has to explain why - what was the critical reception etc - and then cut back the ridiculously over-detailed plot sections to a short single-paragraph summary. That, or copy them (properly attributed) to Wikia or something, where fancruft belongs. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

As an appreciator of animation of that time period, I'm going to also have to agree that these redirects by Trains are appropriate, most of these shorts fail notability. That's not to say that a list of WW shorts, following the general principles of MOS:FILM/MOS:TV for short premises and adding any interesting notes to that "episode list". A few should probably be kept as articles if they have some type of production section with sources (eg The Barber of Seville (1944 film)) but the fact the plot is almost half the article content for a 7 minute short is extremely problematic per WP:NOT#PLOT. And as simply doing redirects rather than deletion that can be undone w/o admin intervention, this is not really an ANI issue, as mentioned above. There should be discussion going forward before back and forth reversion happens. --Masem (t) 03:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Reminder to the OP that WP:BLARs work similarly to WP:PRODs in that you can contest them. There is no need to "have an admin take a look"; if you truly think that any of the BLARs were wrong, then revert them yourself. Mlb96 (talk) 08:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

After reviewing several articles, there a few WW entries that could probably be deleted. However, having an appreciation for classic animation, quite a few are classics that deserve individual entries. Yes, the plots need some trimming and some articles need better sourcing. Rather than outright deleting a wealth of information by redirecting, tag the article for improvement and start making them. Also, Trainsandotherthings seriously failed the WP:FAIT test. Redirecting on a whim is lazy. And as one user stated, they are cheap.Wk3v78k23tnsa (talk) 02:08, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• My overwhelming experience with this sort of complaint is that the complainant has no genuine policy ground upon which to object other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT; if there were actual sourcing on individual articles sufficient to meet the GNG, there wouldn't be a problem. Redirecting rather than going for AfDs or PRODs is the better option, in that if anyone does want to do the work to source the articles, it's easy to do. It certainly is no lazier than a vague mass objection because of, well, hrm, reasons. Instead of filing ANI complaints, or POINTy reactions such as mass reverts, I'd be interested in what work Ifnord has done -- or proposes to do -- to adequately source these articles. Ravenswing 03:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Thus far, User:Ifnord has been totally unwilling to discuss the issue further after their initial post here, though I can see they've been active on wiki as recently as half an hour ago. I'm obviously biased, but I think this should be closed with no action other than a reminder to Ifnord not to bring content disputes to ANI. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

My original point was that 100+ articles were deleted by redirection in one fell swoop, minutes apart. When I looked at the first two, they were well sourced with claims to notability established. Other editors who have reviewed those two articles concur. My direct request to self-revert the mass deletion by Trainsandotherthings was refused. So, my options appeared to be either revert manually 100+ deletions (which may have appeared disruptive) or to seek more opinion. I am not bonded to the subject in any way; if the claim that every other article, deleted minutes apart, had the appropriate WP:BEFORE performed, then I would accept it and consider the matter closed unless a more concerned editor steps in. Ifnord (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I strongly object to your continued use of the word "delete". Multiple editors have pointed out to you that it is wrong to say I am "deleting" articles, so please stop using that language. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I object to your limiting my vocabulary in a discussion. Multiple editors have agreed that deletion by redirection is correct, the content is no longer available to the reader. Ifnord (talk) 19:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Clearly you aren't interested in actually discussing the issue, or the comments that have been made in support of my actions by multiple users, including at least one admin (though you've also been told this never should have been brought to ANI in the first place). You've made zero arguments to support the notability of the vast majority of the articles I redirected. I have not objected to you reverting my redirects on a few articles that actually have some signs of possible notability, bur you assume that just because two of them you reverted were potentially notable, all of my redirects are bad and I must revert them all. I would object to that premise whether it was 1 redirect I'd made, or 100. With only a few exceptions, which you've already reverted, these were nothing more than giant plot summaries, and a few minute details. Wikipedia is not a mirror of iMDB, nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information. If you had actually done your research before making this ANI thread, you'd know that these articles were created en masse by a user who's been banned for socking and copyvio, which puts all of their article creations under scrutiny. You would also know that, per Masem's comments, these all violated WP:NOTPLOT. Nothing has been deleted, despite your POINTy insistence on using that term. If someone can actually demonstrate notability for anything I've redirected, I have no objections to them reverting my actions. But you've failed to make any case for the notability of the articles as a whole, or any of them individually, other than the same two examples you repeatedly trot out again and again, which I have already admitted were mistakes on my part. Either provide some rationale that the articles I redirected have notability, or drop the stick. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I have no "stick", with or without a point. I have made my point; with all due respect to User:Ravenswing, it's not that WP:IDONTLIKEIT. While patrolling recent changes and finding 100+ articles were redirected without content merging, I checked the first two and found both had valid references and claims to notability. I pointed this out to the user, who refused any self-reverts. Rather than appear disruptive, I bring this for another set of eyes. I would like to see those opinions. Ifnord (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Alright, I'll bite. Which two? Ravenswing 00:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Ravenswing, the first two checked were The Barber of Seville (1944 film) and Ace in the Hole (1942 film), see diff. TSventon (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• https://woodywoodpecker.fandom.com/wiki/The_Woody_Woodpecker_Wiki does exist. No active administrators. Does anyone want to adopt it, then use the import function only administrators have to important over all these articles? Is there a way for every single article that got turned into a redirect to be put into a category called Category:Woody Woodpecker Redirects so that all of them could be grabbed at once at Special:Export? Dream Focus 00:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
• Generally, I think redirecting a set of articles isn't a big problem as long as individual films can still be considered on their merits. For example, The Dizzy Acrobat claims an Academy Award nomination, so perhaps some extra care should go into determining whether we should have a standalone article. Given that there has been no AFD on that article, anyone should feel free to find sources and expand it to show it should be treated standalone. —Kusma (talk) 10:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

  In any case, if the redirects stick, the self-links at Woody Woodpecker filmography should be removed, they are very unintuitive for readers (and annoying). —Kusma (talk) 10:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

  I'd have removed them myself if my actions here weren't under dispute. An IP mass undid many of my redirects, some of which were returned to redirects again by other users, while others are now articles again. In the interest of not escalating this further, I have not reverted any restorations of the articles, not by Ifnord, or by anyone else (I actually agree that the two examples Ifnord identified have a plausible claim to notability). I also will not object if Kusma or anyone else restores The Dizzy Acrobat, if it was in fact nominated for an Academy Award. I have opened up a number of AfDs on some of the restored articles which are really lacking in notability, to gain consensus before acting further. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

  • I would be happy to work with Ifnord to find legit sources to back up some of these articles. It is unfortunate that more has not been published on the series, as it is quite notable. Many films deserve their own pages, but to Trainsandotherthings's point, they need some serious work (but the blanket redirect was a bit rash). I do not mind revising the self-links once a consensus has been reached. My thinking is to restore anything prior to 1955's The Tree Medic, as the series lacks any real notability after that. Convict Concerto deserves to stay based on the fact it is part of a series of notable cartoons to feature Franz Liszt's "Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2" (like The Cat Concerto and Rhapsody Rabbit). Thoughts? I am glad to put in much more time, frankly, than the series probably deserves. Thoughts?Wk3v78k23tnsa (talk) 16:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

As I said above, I have no objection to people restoring any of the redirected articles, provided they are willing to improve them and demonstrate notability. Some are just clearly not notable enough for standalone articles, however. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:15, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Some? I have not said much as I do not think my original point was addressed. The content of all those articles are no longer available to the reader, by the actions of one editor. To say some of these 100+ articles are non-notable puts the obligation on others to look through them one by one. I only did the first two I saw, found them entirely notable and referenced, and thought that the editor, once aware, would self-revert and then move cautiously to perform a WP:BEFORE. A good faith commitment from the user to look through each one and return only those which are marginal and then either WP:PROD them or AfD them, would also be acceptable. Any article which is simply, "Woody has a green neck," can be left as redirects. I am neither looking for sanctions nor a debate on the notability of a plethora of articles on which I am not an expert. I am looking for conformity to WP:FAIT and not my perception of, "I deleted over a hundred articles, most are bad - you go through look at them all and return the ones that are good." Ifnord (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

If I have to take every last one of these articles to AfD to get you to leave me alone, I will, mark my words. I've already done so for 4 of them. I don't understand why you're incapable of looking at a single one of the dozen examples I gave, or listening to any of the comments by other editors that supported my actions. I don't even care that much about the subject matter, but you've wasted enough of my time that I will make sure all of the non-notable cartoon articles are taken to AfD, one by one, until every last one of them is either a redirect, or closed as keep (but that won't happen, because the vast majority are NOT NOTABLE). And maybe then you'll leave me alone and allow me to actually do something productive for a change. People have even offered to work with you to improve the articles, but you don't care about that, all you care about is demanding I revert everything because you don't like it. Your "original point" has been thoroughly refuted by numerous other editors, though you've ignored that in favor of repeating the same argument over and over again. I will summarize for you:

• This is a content dispute, not appropriate for ANI
• Blanks and redirects can be undone by anyone, it does not require an admin to get involved
• You've made no attempt to demonstrate the notability of any articles other than the original two that even now you still obsess over
• The general consensus of editors here is that my actions were appropriate, and these short cartoons are not notable enough for standalone articles
• Redirects are not the same as deletion, and again, no admin involvement is necessary to undo them
• I already said that the two examples you identified were the last two I converted, that I was not 100% sure about them, that they are not representative of the remainder of the articles, and that I have no objections to them being reverted. I'm repeating it again here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:47, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• Just to add my unasked for opinion, it's pretty rare that a cartoon short is notable enough to warrant a stand alone article. So redirecting them is fine IMO. If there's any blame to be place it should be on the person who mass created the articles without considering notability. There's zero point in clogging up AfD with a bunch of articles that are just going to be deleted. That said, there's still talk pages to redirects where people can post references and have the ones that are notable restored. My guess is that the number of articles that will be is extremely small, but people are free to research it and restore the articles that deserve to be. The burden to do so isn't on the person who created the redirects though. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:32, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

IF an AfD were held for each of those films, or held for all of them at once? I probably would've opted to keep. Always was a fan of old animation. GoodDay (talk) 04:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• Which is not an acceptable reason to vote keep. In general, if you don't have anything substantive to add to AfDs, it's much better not to vote at all than to add a vote which will in the end be discounted anyway but until then usually only serves to make the AfD discussion worse, not better. Fram (talk) 09:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

It might be true that most of the articles are not notable so not worth keeping - and therefore should be redirected or deleted. But "most" is not "all", and the onus is on the person doing the redirecting to check. Based on the discussion here, Trainsandotherthings seems to have the attitude that the onus is on other editors to sift through his edits in order to identify and rescue any articles that he incorrectly redirected, and that is clearly wrong. On the flipside, since these are redirects and not deletions, there's no need to have an AfD discussion about any subjects that clearly fail WP:N - they can be dealt with via redirects or, if no redirect is appropriate, via WP:PROD. But I think it's clear that at least some of the redirects Trainsandotherthings has performed should not have been done, and our conventional response to an erroneous bulk action is to undo it, and ask the editor to be more careful. WaggersTALK 11:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Basketcase22; refusal to adhere to RfC consensus

This is a behavioral issue from two editors. At Julian Assange, a widely reported event brought about extensive discussion involving several editors (mostly from here onward). A RfC was launched "Should we include..." [a specific text]. The consensus for inclusion was overwhelming: eleven !votes to include, from both involved and uninvolved editors, with reasons given; two !votes against - Basketcase22 & Specifico. Since that time time both editors have sought to ignore that consensus and impose their own preferred version. They were reminded at Basketcase22's talk page of the need to abide by consensus, by both me and another editor. Both simply ignored this, and continued to insert their preferred version despite their undoubted awareness of the RfC at the time and the reminder yesterday. They have made no attempt to obtain a new consensus for their preferred version (in fact they haven't discussed the content at all since starting to try to force their preferred version on the page). I seek a reminder from admin to both editors that the consensus from an RfC is binding; failing that having any effect some kind of temporary article ban is probably in order. This would not be the first occasion of a topic ban on this article for Specifico, who has a history of disruption on it. Diffs:

3 Oct Following wide discussion, RfC launched on a specific text (the text is already in the article by edit consensus)

5 Oct Ninth !vote for inclusion added. Despite this clear and growing consensus for the proposed text, earlier the same day Basketcase22 starts deleting sources (Sydney Morning Herald, The Times) that support the text.

24 Oct eleventh !vote for inclusion of the proposed text.

2 Nov RfC expires

14 Nov Basketcase2022 reverts to their preferred version. Their edit summary says "You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus" - they are surely aware that this same edit is contrary to established consensus. They and Specifico are reminded on Basketcase2022's talk page of the need to abide by consensus (with a link to the RfC). Mr Ernie reminds them that editing contrary to established consensus is disruptive. Both Specifico and Basketcase2022 have read this reminder of the consensus version.

15 Nov Specifico ignores this, changes to his preferred version again. Basketcase2022 does the same.

This is quite flagrant disruptive editing to ignore an RfC that these two were the only editors to !vote against. Cambial — foliar❧ 04:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I dispute that the referenced RfC resulted in consensus for inclusion. A headcount by an involved editor does not establish consensus. On 2 Nov 2021, Legobot removed the expired RfC template, but the RfC was never formally closed. Basketcase2022 (talk) 04:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Who carries out any "headcount" is not the issue. This was not a close-run RfC: there was only you and one other editor !voting against, and a large consensus for a positive answer to the question "should we include this". If anything it was undercounted, as that tally does not include my comments which I did not cast as a formal vote. Your argument that the discussion was not a consensus, despite how obvious it was to other editors at the time, verges on the ridiculous, and starts to stretch credulity that you are Wp:HERE to collaborate in building an encyclopaedia. Cambial — foliar❧ 05:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

As best as I can tell, you are basing your complaint here on two edits I made to Julian Assange.

• 14 Nov 2021: The following discretionary sanction applies to all people who edit this article: You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article.
• 16 Nov 2021: Undid violation of Wikipedia:Edit warring 1055450268 by Special:Contributions/Cambial Yellowing – see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julian_Assange&diff=prev&oldid=1055247431

I have made 351 edits to our Assange BLP. I trust that in determining whether or not I am here to collaborate in building an encyclopedia, administrators will consider the totality of my edits, not merely the two that stretch your credulity. Basketcase2022 (talk) 05:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

What I am basing it on is laid out in detail above. Your misleading edit summaries – in which you admonish against the exact type of sanctions violation you are committing in that edit – do serve to aggravate the issue. But your attitude and the content of your edits, including the other that I reference above, are the problem.

In light of the above comments from Basketcase2022, I propose a short topic ban. Basketcase2022 clearly has little interest in seeking or abiding by consensus on the article where it conflicts with their preferred version. Cambial — foliar❧ 05:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Aside from the two I bulletized, please remind me what other of my edits did you reference above? Your complaint here is so much about a different editor than me, that I must have missed your diffs pointing to my other "disruptive" edits. Basketcase2022 (talk) 05:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

It's about you just as much as Specifico. All the relevant diffs are under "Diffs" in my post immediately above. Some other edits you made in the past are not relevant. It is not your two edits that stretch credulity - it is your absurd fantasy that you and one other editor were the consensus out of 13 editors, the rest of whom took the opposing view. Cambial — foliar❧ 05:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I've already disputed here that the referenced RfC resulted in consensus, and have never claimed elsewhere that it did. Please don't put words in my mouth. Basketcase2022 (talk) 05:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes - but your dispute of the obvious fact is utterly baseless and without merit. Even if we remove one vote - for Yes - because they modify it as “weak” - it’s still 10 editors supporting that text to your two opposed. You also both invent the same nonexistent policy - and this is pointed out to both of you with no refutation. Cambial — foliar❧ 06:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Has anybody put in a closure request for the two said-RFC? PS - The second one begins with an unsigned post, so I don't know what the starting date is. GoodDay (talk) 05:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

There’s only one on this particular issue. Cambial — foliar❧ 06:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I see two RFCs that aren't officially closed. One about "Yahoo" & the other about "AP2". GoodDay (talk) 06:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

The relevant one is - the one I link to above, about Yahoo. Cambial — foliar❧ 06:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I've put in a request for closure for both RFCs. GoodDay (talk) 06:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

There is clear disruptive editing here by SPECIFICO. I've a little more faith to excuse Basketcase2022, who appears to just be following SPECIFICO's (the much more experienced editor) lead. A few weeks ago they removed the text under discussion at least 3 times (probably more but I can't find all the diffs) [212], [213], [214]. They insisted there was no consensus for this text, but it was basically only SPECIFICO and Basketcase2022 who were disputing this via reverts. There was a lengthy talk page discussion with overwhelming consensus for inclusion see here, but apparently this was not good enough and SPECIFICO insisted on an RFC in this section. You can read through the RFC here. Despite the overwhelming consensus in the previous discussion, and the obvious consensus in the RFC, SPECIFICO again altered the text saying we need to wait for the RFC to close. I don't like to go to AE but it is now inevitable unless the disruptive editing against consensus stops. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• Ah, Talk:Julian Assange — everyone's favourite 562,540 bytes talk page. For comparison, Joe Biden is at a sleepy 16,072 bytes, while Donald Trump is at a ____ 69,969 bytes(!). As I recall, there was a moment recently when someone told me something to the effect of 'see talk page.' It was funny. El_C 15:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

El C is right about Talk:Julian Assange being overlong, but his byte count is misleading. Of the grand total, 35% (195,288 bytes) is accounted for by one humongous section, which is a scrapbook being kept as a "social experiment" by a single user with few contributions by other editors. So please show some respect. Wikipedia must make room for social experiments. Basketcase2022 (talk) 17:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I think @El C: showed exactly the right level of respect. Someone has to keep a sense of humour around here. What I wanna know is: was the use of the adjective "sleepy" within 10 characters distance of the words "Joe Biden" - always a contentious move - intentional? Jungian maybe? Show some respect El C! 🤡 Cambial — foliar❧ 18:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

At his user talk page, SPECIFICO has suggested that ANI is the wrong forum for the present complaint: This is a discretionary sanctions issue regarding BLP and AP with the page under "Consensus Required".… DS issues are reviewed at WP:AE. However, although SPECIFICO has been an editor for nine years, he is not an administrator. So I request clarification by an admin: is ANI the correct forum? Basketcase2022 (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• The correct forum is when there is a disagreement over an RFC that never received a closure is WP:RFCL. It's silly to talk about sanctions and the like before that. If the RFC is closed with an overwhelming consensus then maybe people can swing back around to talk about people who insisted otherwise, but obviously the first step when there's a dispute over an RFC's outcome is to obtain a formal closure. --Aquillion (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

No. The requirement to follow consensus is ubiquitous; it is not contingent on whether a RfC has been hatted and closed - it is not even contingent on holding an RfC (though they serve to make the consensus more obvious - very obvious, in this case). Cambial — foliar❧ 18:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but when editors dispute whether a consensus exists, we have procedures in place to resolve that, the first of which is a formal closure. Leaping straight to ANI is not helpful, especially since the subtext of the request is "remove these editors" rather than "resolve this dispute over consensus." Per WP:AGF, your focus should be on resolving the dispute first, and only escalating here when it's irreconcilable; coming to ANI before even bothering to get a formal close for the disputed RFC is obviously a waste of time. Nobody is going to support any sort of sanctions based on a single RFC, which has not yet even received a formal closure, when you yourself are unwilling to take even the most basic steps to resolve the things beforehand. As I said, if the closure determines that the consensus was so clear that their refusal to accept it was egregious, you can always come here after that, with that to back you up; but rushing to ANI without even taking such a simple and obvious step isn't going to go anywhere. --Aquillion (talk) 01:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

This is the correct place to discuss 2 editors who have been consistently editing against consensus. Consensus was first established in the discussion (see here) and has now been cemented by an RFC. There's no requirement that we need to wait for a formal close to codify what is easy enough to just quickly check. Basketcase and SPECIFICO have been continuously removing this material by falsely stating no consensus and they need to stop. It would be helpful if uninvolved editors checking in could look and provide a 3rd opinion about when consensus was established, or what it would take to establish such consensus. For example, if an editor doesn't accept consensus from a normal talk page discussion, is it acceptable to demand an RFC? Or once consensus is clear in said RFC if it is acceptable to demand everyone wait until it is formally closed? To me it just seems like stalling. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie: I deny your use of consistently and continuously to describe my alleged "editing against consensus." Neither you nor anyone else has produced diffs to substantiate those words. My two recent edits, which I bulletized above, do not constitute consistent or continuous violation of Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Basketcase2022 (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

You reverted it on 14 Nov, long after talk page and RFC consensus has been reached. You reverted it on 4 Oct, after the talk page discussion had clear consensus for inclusion. You reverted and reverted it earlier. We've had to waste a tremendous amount of time now because you and SPECIFICO have reverted this time after time after time after time. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie: Your reply contains 8 diffs, only 4 of which point to edits of mine. The others point to a different editor. Of the diffs relating to my contributions, all 4 such edits were made in accordance with the discretionary sanction in place at Julian Assange: You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article. None of those 4 edits violated Wikipedia policies or guidelines. You're barking up the wrong tree. Basketcase2022 (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not saying you are violating a DS. I'm saying you are editing against a clearly established consensus. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

All four of your edits that Mr Ernie points to violate behavioural policy, which is why we are here. The fact you are unable to recognise this is why a fixed duration topic ban is the proposed remedy. The two most recent edits violate both Consensus Required - as you are changing to your (or Specifico’s) new version which does not have consensus, and removing a version which has been shown by formal process to have a strong consensus - and the more general prohibition on disruptive editing. Consensus is always required. It has been very clearly established to support the version you removed. You’ve made no attempt to gain a consensus for you new version, and you have seen what editors’ views are in the RfC. That is disruptive editing. Pretending that obvious consensus doesn’t exist won’t change that. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Stalling? What's your rush? On a page that seems to get updated several times a day with the latest Assange internet chatter, a deep breath seems like a very good way to let the dust settle and sort the day's urgent WP:NOTNEWS from the enduring significant facts. At any rate, the page is under the Consensus Required DS page restriction, which OP violated at least twice by reinstating this content that's been disputed from the first day it appeared. So with respect to ANI, this is a content dispute, and as to AE -- nobody has reported it there. SPECIFICO talk 19:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Don’t lie Specifico, it’s uncivil. You know full well that it is you who violated Consensus Required. Multiple times. Your new version inserted 14 Nov has no consensus. Furthermore, you haven’t even tried to gain consensus for your new version. The version that you sought to remove that has been on the page for ~ 6 weeks prior has been put to RfC with a very clear consensus. Simply fabricating things to suit your narrative is not a good look. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

The original poster of this ANI complaint, Cambial Yellowing, now blatantly accusing a fellow editor of lying, violates both WP:AGF and WP:NPA, and neatly illustrates what SPECIFICO and I are up against here. This is really neither a content dispute nor disagreement over the interpretation of policies and guidelines. It's a clash of personalities. As such, it's very disappointing. Basketcase2022 (talk) 02:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Basketcase2022: This was not an accusation, but a simple statement of fact. You can show it not to be a fact by posting the diff in which I broke the "Consensus Required" rule, and explaining how Specifico could be unaware of the eleven !votes for the consensus for that content against your and his two (despite responding to messages in which they were directed to that consensus by multiple editors less than 18 hours earlier, and responding to multiple threads in the RfC that arrived at it). What’s disappointing is your transparent and failed attempt to dress this up as something other than what it is: inappropriate behaviour on your part being discussed at the appropriate venue. Cambial — foliar❧ 09:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

FWIW the RfC discussed in this ANI section has now been closed with the conclusion: Overall, there was a rough consensus that the text is WP:DUE for inclusion in the article. (Emphasis in original.) I accept that conclusion and have restored the text in Julian Assange to the version that gained rough consensus. Basketcase2022 (talk) 04:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

The RFC close was for this material to syat, I do not agree, but that is what the close said. Thus that is what we must do.Slatersteven (talk) 12:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Whether or not an RfC was properly closed, this is clearly editing against consensus which is disruptive and particularly egregious in a biography of a living person. SPECIFIO makes no attempt to hide his dislike of Assange and wants to use this article in order to disparage him in the hope that he will be imprisoned in the United States. Since they clearly are not here to improve the encyclopedia, they should be blocked indefinitely. TFD (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Please clarify your comment. After singling out SPECIFICO, you invoke the plural pronoun to say Since they clearly are not here to improve the encyclopedia, they should be blocked indefinitely. (Emphases added.) I realize we live in an age where plural pronouns are increasingly applied to an individual so as to maintain gender neutrality. However, as the titular subject of this ANI section, I am concerned that your use of "they" may deliberately include me. If so, please confirm in plain language that you believe I should be blocked indefinitely. Basketcase2022 (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I used they instead of he or she because that is the recommended usage when you don't know. i am unfamiliar with the other editor, so did not comment. TFD (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Query (in its own subsection)

@Cambial Yellowing: like with Talk:Julian Assange, I've only read fragments of this report. But in light of Basketcase2022's self-revert, just checking in with you to see if we're good to close this thread and move on. Thanks. El_C 14:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@El C: When you close it, please consider warning OP to lay off the aspersions and personal attacks, a small sample of which can be seen above. I won't get into all the diffless misrepresentations in their complaint and subsequent replies.. SPECIFICO talk 14:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Will do. It's probably worthwhile to note that "lying" is worse than being "uncivil," but ironically, Cambial Yellowing's Don’t lie Specifico, it’s uncivil is uncivil (more than just uncivil, in fact). El_C 14:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Is it uncivil to say someone is lying if they are lying? Please don't warn someone for behavior that you haven't fully investigated. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Lying is exceedingly difficult to prove in such matters. So AGF'ing on the side of an error (of memory, ideological blinders, confusion, etc.) ought to be the default assumption. If one is claiming that AGF no longer applies to a veteran editor (i.e. within the realm of WP:PACT), that deserves more than a passing comment. El_C 15:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm all for AGF, but it has nearly been exhausted with this topic, especially for editors who've been sanctioned for behavior similar to why we've had to waste more than 6 weeks discussing this topic. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie: If by "editors" (plural) who've been sanctioned for similar behavior, I hope you are not including me. I've never been sanctioned for any behavior. Basketcase2022 (talk) 15:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie: so report it accordingly (i.e. focused, coherently), but again, it's problematic to do so in passing. El_C 15:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@El C: I have no objections to closing the thread. With regards Specifico's false accusation of aspersions, personal attacks, and misrepresentations I'll only point out the obvious: my thread open contained numerous diffs backing up every claim. Despite accusing me of violating a sanction, Specifico is yet to provide a shred of evidence for his false accusation of improper action, nor any of his other manufactured attempts to frame the problem as sitting with someone else. This is understandable: the actions he describes never took place. Specifico claims, again inaccurately, that non-existent misrepresentations are "difless".

Evidently Specifico, when casting his own aspersions, considers himself above the obligation he wishes to place on others to provide evidence for claims of impropriety. I consider false, evidence-free accusations of sanctionable behaviour contrary to WP:5P4, whether deliberately inaccurate or not. Repeatedly making the same false allegation without evidence particularly so. After he pinged me to make his false allegation the first time, I responded, pinging him with a link to the overwhelming eleven-two (with considerable explanation from editors) consensus to include the text. He responded by appearing to imply that his opinion on the content was more important than the consensus of eleven other editors.

I accept your suggestion, El C, that in principle when an editor makes a false allegation, factors other than intentionally communicating mistruth could explain it. In this instance Specifico made an accusation of me violating an AE sanction. As they reverted my edit back to their new version, there is an implicit suggestion in their accusation that their action was not a violation of the AE sanction. (Presumably, Specifico does not consider himself above arbitration enforcement). Can @SPECIFICO: explain, logically, how he managed to maintain the following beliefs? That the version I reverted to, identical in meaning and, bar the replacement of "plotted" with "developed plans", identical in word to the text discussed at great length at article talk that was the subject of a decisive RfC with an overwhelming majority, was a violation of the Consensus Required sanction. But at the same time that his own version, a version that has never been discussed nor even raised at article talk nor anywhere else on this website, that deletes one third of the content, reframes the section with in-text attribution, and rewords the first sentence to accommodate these changes, was not a violation of Consensus Required. If he can offer such an explanation of how he believed both of these to be true, together with some evidence that his undiscussed version had somehow gained consensus, I will gladly strike my remark, and apologise here and to Specifico personally. Perhaps El C can briefly hold off immediately closing the thread to allow Specifico an opportunity to explain this. In the meantime I withdraw it, accepting the possibility, however remote, of Specifico's forthcoming explanation. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Cambial Yellowing, are you unable to better condense? I'm sorry, but the length of your reply comes across as filibustering. It is not helping you advance your position, in my view. I don't see SPECIFICO mentioned in your OP, in any case. El_C 10:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@El C: The consensus for inclusion was overwhelming: eleven !votes to include, from both involved and uninvolved editors, with reasons given; two !votes against - Basketcase22 & Specifico. Since that time time both editors have sought to ignore that consensus and impose their own preferred version. (emphasis mine) The word "both" is used throughout the OP, so your assertion that SPECIFICO is not mentioned in the OP is false. Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 15:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah, SPECIFICO was in lower case, now I see it. Thanks. El_C 15:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO accuses me here, again in edit summary here, and again here of violating a sanction on the article. This accusation is untrue, and he provides no evidence for it. He then unselfconsciously accuses me of "diffless misrepresentations", again without providing any evidence (the multiple diffs in my post above it contradict this claim). When he pinged me to first make his accusation, I responded, pinging him with a link to the strong 11-2 !vote consensus of the RfC he took part in, and he saw my response (but gave no reply to the facts). But he went on to repeat the false accusation twice more anyway. Specifico's initial edits that started this problem reframed, reworded, and deleted roughly one third of the text, which has a strong consensus from RfC, that has been on the page for the last month. His version has never been raised on the talk page. He repeated this edit a day later. Then he decided to falsely accuse me again of violating the sanction.

Specifico's baseless accusations here are representative of an ongoing pattern in which he falsely accuses editors of this or that breach of protocol (example), and that pattern is starting to look like a tactic to intimidate some of the less experienced editors on the page. I consider his false accusations either an accusation of bad faith without evidence (WP:AOBF), or an attempt to Wp:SANCTIONGAME by mischaracterizing my actions; neither follows WP:5P4. You suggested such behavior should be focused, coherently discussed. I hope the version above better summarises it. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Well said, Camibal. The shorter the text in which you express your ideas, the better. You may be interested in WP:Principle of Some Astonishment. Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 15:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Cambial Yellowing. In light of that, maybe it'd be best to just WP:ABAN (WP:TBAN's little cousin) SPECIFICO from the article and the talk page, then... There's been quite a bit of friction on their part in this topic, I've noticed recently (example), so we've probably reached critical mass there. El_C 16:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say that OP posted no diffs. There were many. But the diffs do not support OP's allegations, and the additional insinuations about me only further muddy the issue. I note that the content issue is now resolved by the closure that OP could have requested at any time, and that this complaint garnered negligible interest on this board. This controversial BLP and AP content was contested from its first appearance at the article, and in light of the many issues raised in the course of the discussion, and the overtly inappropriate and personalized conduct of several editors on the talk page, closure of the RfC was the appropriate measure of consensus. There is one remaining BLP item: Several editors agreed that the attribution of the illegal schemes to CIA director Pompeo was inappropriate, but it happened to be in the version that was copied to the RfC and to my knowledge was not noted in the RfC discussion, which focused on the WEIGHT issue. SPECIFICO talk 17:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

The phrase "diffless" appears to be constructed to indicate a lack of diffs, but OK. That aside, anyone curious to follow the diffs provided can see that they fit my description to the letter. There are of course no insinuations, I indicated all of the behavioral problems in plain terms.

With regards the proposal @El C: It would not be the first time for such a ban. There was discussion on this page of a potential ban quite recently ([215] [216] [217]) because of highly selective pinging of editors (2 of 8), and decidedly non-neutral notifications at RS/N, BLP/N and NPOV/N. This turn to more problematic actions (alongside Specifico's stubborn refusal to accept any responsibility for their misbehavior) gives further impetus to this proposed remedy. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@El C and Minkai: FYI, the first article text appearance of the Yahoo story was here on September 26 it was challenged by reversion here on Sept. 28 The issue was discussed on the article talk page beginning here on September 26 in a broad and multi-faceted discussion that was nowhere near any consensus two days later when OP violated the "Consensus Required" restriction by restored the content here on September 28. I'll also note that anyone, including OP, who is deeply concerned about incivility on the article talk page can review that Yahoo thread and find several egregious examples, but not from me. SPECIFICO talk 18:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC) @JulieMinkai: SPECIFICO talk 18:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

There was no "Consensus Required" DS restriction on the page at the time of that edit. It was applied on the 8 October, more than ten days after. You are tying yourself in knots to continue trying to misrepresent my actions as improper. That's the exact problem I outline above, and you're continuing to do so below it. I note an earlier statement by @El C: about this exact behavior: I'll make it clear, though, that if it becomes obvious that someone is invoking the CR with flimsy reasoning (i.e. their objection lacking substance, etc.), then that could be addressed accordingly. At this point, in the face of Specifico's intransigence, I request that appropriate action be taken in the form of an article ban longer than that previous; it apparently had little or no effect in encouraging Specifico to modify his behavior. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I checked that. You are correct, my mistake. I fact I checked that before seeing your post and returned here to correct my statement. Your accusation that I purposely lied about something easily verified is uncalled for. The key fact is that you aggressively reinstated your edit instead of using the talk page to discuss a reverted content already under discussion there. That's best practice on any article. I wonder why you did not report other editors who also removed your preferred content? Also, as would not be clear from your narrative, I did not remove the mention of the Yahoo story entirely after the many !votes in favor. I conformed a few words to the cited source and I removed a trivial bit about a congressional committee that came to nothing. The BLP violation I had also objected to was no longer in the article, although it's back in there now -- presumably overlooked in the RfC after someone correctly removed it earlier. SPECIFICO talk 19:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

In no sense is that a key fact. It's neither relevant, nor is it a fact. First let's state the obvious: you're talking about something that happened seven weeks ago to try to defend the, now five, serious misrepresentations of my actions that you've made in as many days.

Secondly, what you call reinstating [my] edit does not accord with reality: I made two separate small edits to pre-existing material. You deleted all of that pre-existing material with an edit summary claiming it is "weakly sourced". I restored that pre-existing material with additional sources from WP:RSP#The Daily Telegraph, WP:RSP#The Times and WP:RSP#The Guardian. The absurd suggestion that this edit was aggressive, presumably drawn from your fertile imagination, is yet another example of the behavioral problems that an article ban will serve to address. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

i really think it's time to move on, To specify one aspect of my concern: For any reader who does not do exhaustive research on the diffs, your narrative gives the impression that both Basket and I reverted wholesale the text that has now been established as consensus by the RfC. But that's not what happened. First, because there was no closure (which you or any other editor could easily have secured) and second because Basket and I were making adjustments that did not remove or impair the key content that was at issue and under discussion. Your complaint about a minor content dispute that was subsidiary to the main question (whether to use the Yahoo story) has attracted scant interest here from the community. And I wonder how closely any of those who did comment have examined your complaint. For example, your diff to the RfC does not go to the RfC about this matter Your diff goes to an entirely different bit of content. So I guess we all can make mistakes with histories an diffs, eh? 🙆‍♀️ SPECIFICO talk 19:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

You think it's time to move on from a discussion of your ongoing inappropriate behavior and a remedy that would serve to prevent and hopefully modify it. Mandy Rice-Davis applies here. We are discussing your repeated mischaracterising of other editor's actions as improper, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, on article talk or user talk. You continue to make excuses for it, which suggests that an article ban is the only remedy that might bring about a change in your behavior. The main question was "Should we include [the text now in the article]"; anyone who investigates just one diff can see that you misrepresent even this minor detail. The diff to the RfC goes to the correct place. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Aquillion and Slatersteven: not to put you on the spot (but to put you on the spot) — what do you guys think about the utility of a page ban on SPECIFICO? El_C 20:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Article talk notified of discussion. Cambial — foliar❧ 08:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I think (given the general lack of adheance to the DS (incivilty, soapboxing, ect)) that has gone on over there that it would be wrong to single out one user.Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay, that gives me pause. El_C 14:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven and El C: Slatersteven's comments are concerning, and I would be interested to see examples of breaches of the discretionary sanction (presu you mean Consensus Required) that have gone unaddressed. I fail to see how that relates to the behavioural problem that gave rise to this discussion: continued, repeated false accusations of violations against other editors. This is not something I have seen from other editors. You and I have had disagreements in the past, and both of us have placed erroneous messages on each other’s talk. When the error was pointed out, you admitted your mistake, and similarly I admitted my mistake. In this case, Specifico inaccurately accused me of sanction violation - no-one can be offended by this, presumably a simple error. The error was pointed out with evidence. He saw the response (but gave no reply to the facts). Then he repeated the false accusation in edit sunmary - this is merely annoying, so he is pointed to the evidence a second time. He is later brought to AN/I by notification, and makes the false accusation again - now it is a behavioural problem. He continues to "double down" falsely accusing me of various breaches of protocol, and refusing to acknowledge his actions - now the problem is serious. There are at least two examples of other accusations made against editors he disagrees with, and he’s given no indication that he intends to change his behaviour in any way. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

It is a general issue of tone and has been going on for a while, but edits like this [[218]] and [[219]] contain material about users, not content. and this [[220]] snarky soapboxing (which to be fair it was removed "on reflection"). As I said, the issue is not just one user, it is very complex and need some invinviolved oversight to decide who is at fault.Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Cambial: Your timeline says "Oct.3 the RfC is launched..." and gives this link: about which you wrote "3 Oct Following wide discussion, RfC launched on a specific text (the text is already in the article by edit consensus". When I click on that link it does not go toi the RfC about the 2021 Yahoo! that is the subject of your complaint. Interestingly, and confirning the near total disinterest the community showed wrt your complaint, no other editor pointed this out or asked about it. SPECIFICO talk 16:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO that link you posted is Slatersteven launching the RFC. That occurred on Oct 3, as the text you quote from Cambial correctly states. You can find the closed version here. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

The overall behavior at the page can be examined in a separate thread if needed. This thread is focused on the behavior of 2 editors who have been editing against a clearly established consensus by saying there is no consensus. This has been going on for weeks and is disruptive. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I am confused

Request for comment on Yahoo report

S hould we include

"In September 2021, Yahoo! News reported that in 2014 in the wake of Snowden's leaks, "top intelligence officials lobbied the White House" to designate Wikileaks as an "information broker" to allow for more investigative tools against it, "potentially paving the way" for its prosecution. However, the White House rejected this idea. "I am not the least bit surprised," journalist Glenn Greenwald told Yahoo! News, "that the CIA, a longtime authoritarian and antidemocratic institution, plotted to find a way to criminalize journalism and spy on and commit other acts of aggression against journalists."

In the body?Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Seems to be the RFC referred to as "Oct.3 the RfC is launched", which is there the link take me.Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

But the RfC about the text that I and numerous others edited is about the 2017 plots, which appears here at this link. SPECIFICO talk 16:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Your singular focus on this irrelevant detail that you continue to get wrong, SPECIFICO, is concerning. The link I provided and which you copied several times is the correct link to the correct diff that opened the RfC I refer to. Slatersteven modified the RfC a couple of times including here. Focusing on a minor detail about which you are also wrong, but refusing to even acknowledge your serious misbehaviour in repeatedly making false accusations, even when shown otherwise, against other editors, on user talk, in edit summaries, and here at AN/I, is indicative of your attitude which is why an ABAN of some duration appears to be the only method of obtaining some alteration of your inappropriate conduct. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:44, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I’m also confused. You’ve posted something about a (hopefully resolved) content issue. How does that relate to this discussion of your repeated and ongoing false accusations of violations of one kind or another against me and other editors, in the face of highlighted evidence to the contrary? - a habit that you’ve given every indication you intend to continue with. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:16, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Directly above you again accused me of lying by pointing out the incorrect link. My post immediately above yours here is specifying the links, which I presume you posted as a result of an error. SPECIFICO talk 16:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Those are the same RFCs SPECIFICO. You post a link to Slatersteven opening it. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Ahh I see, it would have ben nice if Cambial Yellowing had specofced what RFC they were talking about.Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Directly above - where? I said you inaccurately accused me of sanction violation - objectively true. You were pinged with evidence showing this not to be the case. You responded without addressing that evidence, instead giving your opinion about why your non-consensus version should be included anyway. You repeated the false allegation. The evidence was linked to again in the edit following. You came to AN/I and made the false allegation a third time. You’ve made similar false allegations against other editors. Once or twice is an error, but when you continue to insist on it in the face of evidence to the contrary, it is a problem. This needs to stop. An article ban would serve to achieve this in the short term, and hopefully encourage you to modify your behavior in the longer term. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I don't recall there having been an RfC on the wording in OP's link for Oct. 3, by you or anyone else. SPECIFICO talk

I doubt they forged it.Slatersteven (talk) 18:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Full arbitration case recommended

I'm coming to realize that this is unlikely to get sorted in the usual places. El_C 19:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I came late to this ANI, but am aware of the article history, and as I said I think it is way more complex than any single user. Yes I think this is the way to go, but it is such a huge talk page, and so active trying to remember who said what and when is not always easy, and will be a lot of work.Slatersteven (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@El C: As the titular subject of this ANI complaint, I concur with your recommendation. However, being an editor of less than 4 months' standing, I'm unsure about the process. Since you've already placed Wikipedia's Julian Assange BLP under discretionary sanctions, does proceeding to full arbitration mean submitting it to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, and is the OP of this ANI section the only one who can do so? It strikes me that framing the case properly might have a lot to do with its outcome. Basketcase2022 (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.224.217 (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)  

An arb case is not needed and a request would certainly fail. This specific issue is quite simple. What we need is an admin to look into this and answer these questions: When was consensus established? Was it established in a discussion summarized by this comment (link) on October 3rd? Was it established at the end of the early activity in the RFC by Oct 6th or so (link). Or was it not until it was closed on Nov 17th? If consensus was established prior to the RFC closure, were the reverts reported in the OP (by Basketcase2022 here and by SPECIFICO here) disruptive Mr Ernie (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, thank you for crystalizing the issue. Rereading the two diffs you provided (by me and by SPECIFICO), those edits seem more trivial than disruptive, and certainly do not justify this sprawling 60K-byte ANI section full of more heat than light. Basketcase2022 (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, heh, a magical admin from the sky. Sounds good. ;) El_C 22:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Less seriously, I don't think an RfAR about disruption in the Julian Assange page overall will fail. This "specific" incident is hardly its alpha and omega. El_C 22:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Sorry, I'm confused. In recommending a "full arbitration case" did you mean one addressing disruption in the entire Assange BLP but not focused on this section's accusations of misconduct? That leaves me wondering how we can settle this particular episode, which seems unworthy of a massive official inquiry. Scoffing at Mr Ernie's call for an admin to look into this does not help us move forward in resolving the ANI case at hand. Basketcase2022 (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Basketcase2022, it's not a scoff, it's a wink — this page seems about as radioactive as the MEK. I doubt there's an admin that wants to touch it. In fact, for the last couple of years, looks like I'm just about the only admin who even breathed in its direction (Example: protection log). As for resolving the dispute outlined in this ANI case, an RfAR would be the way (part of it). But I'm not gonna file it. I'll leave that to others. El_C 23:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

What a depressing situation! An ANI case that can't be resolved because admins are afraid to touch it. As the party accused of misconduct, I was hoping for a dispositive acquittal. That's obviously not in the cards. Basketcase2022 (talk) 23:41, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure "afraid" is the best descriptor for that. Though I suppose we can say afraid of making a major time commitment that may well end up being for naught, seeing as another incident would likely be just around the corner. So to restate my position: I think this is a nipping-in-the-bud an assortment of problems sort of thing. El_C 10:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

You used the term radioactive. That's not normally applied to a problem that is merely time-consuming to clean up. It suggests dangerous handling—something of which to be rightly afraid. Basketcase2022 (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

As to the question of blocking SPECIFICO from TFD above, I fully support that. Here are a couple of diffs to show they are not trying to be NPOV as far as the article is concerned:

[221], [222]

and here is a recent response to me showing they and others join in trying to stop constructive contrributions they don't like by straight non constructive obstruction

[223]

NadVolum (talk) 16:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Now that discussion seems to have concluded (or at least subsided), out of idle curiosity I fact checked two observations made here on 18 Nov 2021 by SPECIFICO.

• At 17:53 he noted, This complaint garnered negligible interest on this board.
• At 20:23, he added, Your complaint about a minor content dispute that was subsidiary to the main question (whether to use the Yahoo story) has attracted scant interest here from the community.

Could that really be true—and if so, did it remain true for the duration of this complaint, which is now nearly five days old?

The answers are yes and yes. Of the 95 contributions by 11 editors (including one administrator), just one user hadn't previously participated at Talk:Julian Assange.

This is my first experience of being accused at ANI of wrongdoing. I have to say, I'm disheartened that only a single uninvolved user was moved to consider and comment on my case. Basketcase2022 (talk) 02:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm completely uninvolved, and I intend to stay that way -- I have no intention of reading everything on that 500KB talk page. There is enough disruption (and this ANI discussion has been so ineffective) that the committee would need to seriously consider a case. I don't think either American Politics DS or BLP DS are really intended to address the points of disagreement here. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@Basketcase2022: I made an attempt to read the discussion (it was extremely long and confusing); it seems that many people were in the same boat. That isn't exactly a glowing endorsement of the idea that there's no issue here and everyone should just move along. jp×g 17:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• BTW, SashiRolls: of course I took a screenshot! File:FACT! - 69,969 Donald Trump.jpg. El_C 16:36, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• The discussions in question appear to have been closed by an uninvolved editor. Is that close being adhered to now? If so, unless someone can succinctly state an unresolved conduct issue, it's not clear what conduct problem still exists such that ANI (or ArbCom) intervention is required. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• ProcrastinatingReader, I'm not gonna provide painstaking documentation about the chronic conflict that plagues this article and its did-you-click? talk page. You're free to not/believe me. El_C 18:07, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• ProcrastinatingReader, Mikehawk10 closed the RfC at 04:14, 17 November 2021. Twenty-three minutes later, I conformed the text to the closer's decision. There have been no attempts to alter that text in the four days since. Basketcase2022 (talk) 18:12, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: The content issue that this originally related to has been resolved, and the relevant discussion of it largely ends before the Query (in its own subsection) subheading.

The discussion was related to Specifico’s conduct, and raised an issue that I summarise in this comment (in the Query subsection), and in this comment above. The couple of other examples I refer to of this pattern of behaviour are here and here. It remains the case that Specifico has given no indication they intend to change this behaviour, and have given every indication they intend to continue with it. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:55, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• What I'd like to know is why exactly do editors like User:SPECIFICO and User:Jack Upland be allowed to edit Assange related articles when they explicitly demonstrate that they can't adhere to npov. There is no doubt that Assange is a notorious criminal. One of the most noted criminals of the past 100 years. On a very widely watched and edited article, "silent consensus" on WP is very strong. Of course, those who favor the change can launch and RfC and test their view. - diff and Removing slab of pro-Assange slab of text - diff. - hako9 (talk) 15:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I've wondered the same thing for years. Levivich 15:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

  That's a great question. Apparently it's better left unsolved. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

  I think one of the problems with the article is that a lot of usual editors have very inflexible partisan positions, pro and anti-Assange, which makes it hard to resolve discussions. The comments above imply that the anti-Assange editors are alone in violating NPOV. Anyone who looks at the discussion can see that's not true. I think I'm one of the more independent editors regularly involved with the page. I think it's unfair to suggest that I should be banned because of a bad edit summary I wrote on another page.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Jack Upland: You're downplaying the issue. You removed a sourced and good faith addition to an Assange related article with the sole reasoning that it was "pro Assange". You then go on to write on the talk page pro Assange tone doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia - diff. You also need to be specific when you say that there are pro-Assange editors with equally blatant disregard of npov as you and specifico. Please provide diffs or don't point fingers. All I see is neutral editors and a fringe anti Assange group who doesn't respect npov. - hako9 (talk) 02:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

  Was this exchange neutral editing?--Jack Upland (talk) 04:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

  Yes 100% neutral. I even acknowledged and thanked you for that edit. I invite any uninvolved admin to take a look and see if I made any pov edit on main or talk page. The fact that you bought this up shows you have nothing except to waste time. Compare the diffs that I provided above with what you have given. I think I'm one of the more independent editors regularly involved with the page. Lol. Give me an effin break man. - hako9 (talk) 04:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Basketcase2022 blocked

I have given Basketcase2022 an indefinite break from Wikipedia (without talk page or email access); based on behavioral and technical evidence, I am quite confident that they are a block-evading NedFausa (who is currently CBANned by the community and blocked without talk page or email). I am happy to elaborate further on the specific behavioral details in private, but I believe this interaction analyzer report is rather convincing even without the specific behavioral evidence or the technical evidence. I don't have the patience to read through the above discussion to figure out if this block solves everything or not, so not closing the discussion. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:05, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy ping El_C as the admin who seems to have chosen to involve themselves in this mess. Hot potato! GeneralNotability (talk) 01:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I reckon that closes this entire ANI report. GoodDay (talk) 01:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Lol. I guess we can close “SPECIFICO and a sock puppet waste 2 months of everyone’s time.” Maybe the topic ban from a year ago should be reinstated. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think they were the only ones wasting time.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

GN, in the overall context of this article, Basketcase2022 is a bit of a minor aside. Again, a 550K talk page is a page in crisis, as I note above, just as the MEK was prior to the conclusion of WP:ARBIRP (its talk page currently has almost 50 talk page archives to Talk:Julian Assange's 32, so getting there). I don't think we need new DS, because WP:AP2 pretty much covers it. But we didn't really need new DS with ARBIRP, either, because WP:GS/IRANPOL had a similar toolset (I mean, it helps to streamline, but it wasn't a necessity). No, likely like here, what was needed was a major page overhaul that only arbitration can really deliver. Anyway, I hope it all works out somehow. Doesn't hurt to be hopeful. El_C 05:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I do not think it will and note the general low-level incivility and personalization of disputes continue. It may cut down the clutter of umpteen random links a day, but not the overall tone issues.Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes, the general tone. Editors responding on your talk to repeated evidence-free accusations you place on their talk page is not harassment, Slatersteven. Quite the reverse. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Gosh, no issues with low-level incivility or personalization of disputes here! --JBL (talk) 13:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

That is a response on my talk page, not the articles talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

edit war brewing over overblown hidden comment being mass-added to articles without consensus to do so

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

---

• Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Th78blue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WilliamJE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Relevant discussion: user talk pages of WilliamJE and Th78blue, and also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline#Notable people sections of towns/cities all across the US.

So, today I checked my watchlist to find that quite a number of articles I watch on places in Alaska had had this added to them: [224]. In the example linked, the hidden comment is quite a bit longer than the list it was added to, which consisted of exactly one entry. The article has no history of problems in this area. So, I removed it from that article, and from several others, and commented on Th78blue's talk page about it. As of this writing they have not responded, but it seems likely they are using the above-linked discussion as a rationale for adding this ...thing... that they are calling a template in a robotic fashion, along with adding {{dynamic list}} in the same manner. WilliamJE reverted all of my removals without further discussion, including here [225] where I had been very specific about why it did not belong, and where the exact subject has been under discussion on the talk page for some time. Drmies, reverted WilliamJE, and he restored it again [226]. He seems particularly upset that I said the hidden comment was obnoxious, as if I'd insulted someone personally by saying so.

I do not think orders from on high in the form of a repetitive, overblown, badly formatted hidden comment are helpful in any way, and I do not believe there is a consensus to mindlessly spam any such notice on every article on a named place. I also don't want to edit war, so here we are. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

No explanation? See here[227] which Beeblerox fully knows of. Use of obnoxious in violation of WP:ESDONTS in edit summaries by an administrator who should know better and then filing this incorrect complaint. Why shouldn't there a boomerang headed back here? Is this really the behavior expected from an administrator and arbitrator?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

This is why I mentioned WP:BRD on your talk page. You only joined the conversation after you reverted me. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Another incorrect edit from the complainant. I took part part in TH78's thread long before Beeble and even got a barnstar for it. Oh and notice how Beeble avoids taking responsibility for his actions. Does ESDONTS apply only to the little people and not to administrators?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@WilliamJE: Not to get off topic, but would you please fix up your signature? It's tad distracting the way it appears. GoodDay (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: - whilst WilliamJE's signature is a little unconventional, it complies with WP:CUSTOMSIG/P and has been in use for a long while. Mjroots (talk) 19:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) This notice is clearly overkill, and should not be added pre-emptively. If a "notable people" list is a frequent target for problems, it's fine to add a small, neutral notice. The length of the notice and its giant capital letters and asterisks smacks of WP:POINT-making and these kinds of notices should only be added when needed, and not spammed across articles willy-nilly. --Jayron32 19:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
• Wouldn't an edit notice be sufficient? In addition, there's also an Edit filter that catches a lot of this. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
• I think the spirit of the notice goes against Wikipedia's core policies, and is creating a de-facto policy which is stricter than WP:CSC. Editors shouldn't be discouraged from adding people to lists with sufficient references, anyone deleting their entry should surely check whether an article exists, and make a good faith search to see if the person added is likely to be notable first? JeffUK (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi all! I will not continue to use this template! Was just trying to help, but obviously I stepped over myself here and for that I do apologize to all involved for wasting all of your time. I will not use this template again, and will undo it anywhere that I placed it! I will continue to update just the birth and death year on "Notable people" lists if that is alright, since that was the core and original piece of information that I wanted to be helpful in adding. If it is cited and can be found on the original article with a RS? Can we all take a moment to breathe while we are at it? Remind me not to run out and grab groceries mid-edits! Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk) 19:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• (ec)Agree fully with Jayron32's comments. I would much prefer to see a general clarification on the requirements for inclusion on any lists of notables, that can be linked to when necessary. rather than a piecemeal spamming of articles with a heavy-handed notice such as this. I take a fairly hard line about proof of notability for such entries, but it's simply not correct that an article must exist. Even I accept that there are some cases of presumed notability where it is clear that the subject would qualify for an article if one were written. Meters (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm mildly amused that William s insisting that describing an edit as obnoxious is appallingly egregious behavior not befitting an admin. Obviously I do not agree, I described an edit, not a person. Th78blue seems to me to be entirely reasonable, responsive to criticism, and even agreed with my point. As far as I'm concerned the only matter left is William's aggressive reverting to add it back in. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• As a general rule, a hidden comment is only needed if there is a history of problematic editing in that area. If there is persistent addition of non-notable people to a list against WP:CITSTRUCT's guidelines, then a hidden comment can be added. However if there is no observed issue, then lets not presume there's a problem and put it in. In general they're only added anywhere in the encyclopaedia after an observed pattern of editing against guidelines etc. Canterbury Tail talk 20:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I was not aware that Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Settlements: Article structure explicitly requires an article for inclusion in lists of notable people. Thanks for the link. Meters (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't have time (work tomorrow) to peruse the revision history for how, when and why this changed, but it contradicts long-standing consensus that either a standalone article or reliable source would suffice. WP:CCC shouldn't provide an easy excuse for people to change consensus on a whim to suit their personal POVs, yet it's happening and it's happening a lot lately. Creating these sections everywhere further skews our coverage for several reasons. They're already often clogged with people who were merely born in one place while the entirety of their notability revolves around another place, which often goes unacknowledged. Case in point: the main page currently contains an RD link to Young Dolph, who was born in Chicago and moved to Memphis at age two, where his career and death (the sum of his notability) occurred. Going over that article, we're still attempting to give the greater weight to Chicago in terms of categorization and talk page tagging merely because he was born there. Bringing up a current example being afforded lots of attention is ultimately a waste of time, because this exact same thing has been going on for years and years and years unchecked (I'm met with the usual passive-aggressive bullshit whenever I bring it up) and there are innumerable examples throughout the encyclopedia. Furthermore, as this project has made no progress in recognizing or tackling the breadth of notable biography, these sections are also clogged with people who are not contextually representative of the community's history. Anyone reading any given section and familiar with the topic will easily deduce that it's the personal opinion of a person or persons who edit Wikipedia instead of anything remotely credible. The current effort seems to amount to ensuring every article has such a section, even if the article is little removed from boilerplate census data from 20+ years ago and obviously could use attention on more important facets. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• (ec)Completely agree with the above (Meters, JeffUK, Jayron32, &c). Also think, for what it's worth, that WilliamJE has over-reacted a little (which i think was the point of Beeblebrox's original post); apart from anything else, he's incorrectly accused Bbx of being in violation of WP:ESDONTS multiple times, whereas the word "obnoxious" only occurs in Bbx's summaries once, and it's not a violation of ESDONTS anyway. It's fabulous to see Th78blue respond so positively here; i hope WilliamJE can take a small lesson from it. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 20:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  • How is a word defined as 'odiously or disgustingly objectionable : highly offensive' neutral? Beeble also used it here[228]- "I cannot stress eoiugh how extremely obnoxious I find the attempt to plaster this "template" all over articles about places in Alaska." Again he called an editor's work disgusting. Even extremely disgusting. How does that not violate CIVIL which reads "belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgemental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen", "snipped crap")"? Calling another's edit extremely obnoxious fits the bill...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Like many words in the English language with multiple definitions, context is important. "Obnoxious" is also a synonym for "very annoying" and that is clearly the context in which it was intended here. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) From what I can see, Th78blue obviously acted in good faith and was responsive to objections. WilliamJE may need a WP:TROUT for the weirdly confrontational behavior and incivility on the project talk page and here; you should be discussing edits, not editors in an edit dispute. WP:BOOMERANG for Beeblebrox is obviously off the table. Now, could you all please go back to the talk page to iron out consensus for this edit dispute? AlexEng^(TALK) 20:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the thing, his objections feel oddly personal. For example, getting on my case because I forgot to sign a post and implying it was deliberate, and repeatedly bringing up that I am an admin in a discussion about content. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

You're accusing me of personal? I didn't refer to another editors around here as obnoxious. Not once, but twice. You have made multiple misleading comments about me above and you can't be bothered to admit that you violated CIVIL but you want to turn this against me and you have support for being in violation of civil....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

It's troubling that you are apparently unable to see the obvious direction this discussion is going in, and that you seem unable to grasp the equally obvious distinction between criticizing an edit and criticizing an editor. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

My apologies to all for starting this mess, but maybe, just maybe, I can end it?! How about we all just bury the hatchet and go about our day or night wherever we are? We are all working to build the best darn encyclopedia that we can, and I think that a great encyclopedia like this must be built with love. So how about it? I'll bake "digital" cookies and send each participant on this thread a cookie if we can agree to disagree, agreeably, and go about the rest of our respective business amicably (wherever we might be)? ♥ Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk) 20:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I see now that all of this behavior fits a very long-term pattern. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

So unfair -- he didn't get blocked even once in 2015! --JBL (talk) 18:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I know, but nothing's ever done. I can't even get the community to give me a two-way iban with WilliamJE, and I've tried several times now.—S Marshall T/C 01:15, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• There's a template called {{List criteria}} for this (which could easily be modified so it doesn't specify "stand alone" lists). Levivich 18:28, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

So when is one of these discussions formally closed and I can "bake" and hand out "digital cookies" to all involved (see my above comment to this end)?? Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk) 02:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• AN/I discussions last for a completely random amount of time depending on the number of impassioned pleas, passive-aggressive walls of text, images with humorous captions from people who think they're funny, and five-line poems which are usually formatted like the Burma-shave adverts on US roads in the middle of last century but their content will be the moral from an Aesop's fable expressed in ghastly doggerel. After it seems to a self-selected person that the discussion has died down, they will enact what appears to them to be the consensus, which in the case of established editors, is always either "no action" or else a mildly-worded application of the frowny face and waggy finger of administorial disapproval.—S Marshall T/C 10:56, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

AESOP'S FABLES,
WHERE TO BEGIN?
PERHAPS WITH THE ASS IN THE LION'S SKIN?
THE LION GROWN OLD
BECAME THE MISER AND HIS GOLD—
IT'S LEVIVICH THE MISCHIEVOUS DOG AGAIN!
Burma-shave

— Levivich 13:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

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

User:KigToons

Hi. This user has been adding copyrighted material, in this case plot summaries, and removing reliable sources by deeming them "unreliable". They have been warned for edit warring, unconstructive editing and copyright violation multiple times recently, and were blocked last month for edit warring. Their contribution history include suspicious edits such as utilizing IMDb as a reliable reference. ภץאคгöร 19:34, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I was about to raise this as well, having just reverted another copyvio. I would also add that this editor has a habit of blanking their talk page, which to me suggests that passers by tasked with tidying up after their edits don't always get a clear picture of how persistant they are in this behaviour, possibly thinking they're the first people to warn them. It may have allowed this to stay below the radar longer than it should have... EditorInTheRye (talk) 23:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. User is refusing to learn. Going through now and reverting any remaining plot summaries that haven't already been reverted. Wizardman 16:25, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposing indefinite block on User:Maihe101

• Maihe101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am proposing an indefinite block on the editor Maihe101, they have been here for 6 years with 112, indicative of a WP:SLEEPER, & all they have done is create promotional articles on non notable persons. As far back as 2019 Doc James asked them this which they failed to reply today, Infact take a look at the entirety of their TP here which paints the whole picture. The breaking point for me is today they have created yet another promotional article see here I believe they are not here to build an encyclopedia. Celestina007 (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• User:Maihe101, it's really simple. Are you getting paid for these edits? Are any of them your employer, or somehow related to your employer? Do you have a conflict of interest with your subjects in any way? You must answer, here, because from my point of view it looks like you are writing up resume-style articles on people who otherwise wouldn't have gotten them. Drmies (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposal for an Indefinite block per WP:NOTHERE

• Support - As proposer. Celestina007 (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
• The problem for me is jumping straight to a !vote. I looked at this earlier & the presented evidence left the research to me so I was waiting for someone to dissect their contribs. I believe their edits need to be reviewed & discussed, yes, but only then would anyone be willing to discuss any sanctions. The user has replied on their talkpage to you twice, once in 2020 [229] & yesterday [230]. They do have a few extant articles, albeit one is currently also at AfD. There may be other reasons for a sanction as well, but as this editor is writing on Nigerian subjects it makes it harder for me to judge. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
• In all honesty, I don't get paid to edit Wikipedia. I have answered this a number of times. I don't have any affiliation with any of the subjects. If anything, it does seem that the person that nominated me for indefinite ban has a thing against me. I understand that we are all passionate to contribute to the growing pool of knowledge on Wikipedia in a fair, ethical way, but hounding me makes me feel like I don't deserve to be here. I only just found out that CKay, one of the subjects I made that was speedily deleted now has a namespace. For the sake of clarity, let me restate that I don't have any incentive to make edits on Wikipedia. Thanks. Maihe101 (talk) 19:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Maihe101: I would suggest one thing, when you create a new article you might want to use Wikipedia:Articles for creation instead of creating them in main space. Would this be OK with you? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 21:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Similar account, similar commenting about Egyptair Cargo

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

I don't know what to say but, this user has a similar name, but the edits are quite similar to the comment of this Zyrrrrr talk comment which is quite interesting because both or (one) user defending himself/herself about Egyptair Cargo terminated it flight to Cologne/Bonn and was transferred to Düsseldorf Airport. I mean, this two user which is possible to have 2 accounts that the names are similar. This is what I comment tho but I mean, having multiple accounts is not allowed. So yeah, I hope y'all check it. Thanks! Cornerstone2.0 (talk) 06:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Admins are unlikely to do anything if the user has simply stopped using the earlier account, Zyrrrrr (talk · contribs). The account with the longer name, Zyrrrrrrr (talk · contribs), has been editing since November 5 while the other one has been inactive. In effect, Zyrrrrrrr is a successor account. EdJohnston (talk) 18:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• Per the above, if the accounts are not being used abusively, are not trying to hide the fact that they are the same person, etc. then there isn't any need to do anything. --Jayron32 13:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

(158.255.212.162) IP user vandalising

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere.

• IP user 158.255.212.162 (talk · contribs) is creating spam articles, please delete all. - *•.¸♡ ℝ𝕒𝕞𝕛𝕚𝕥 𝕋𝕦𝕕𝕦 ♡¸.•*^{𝕋𝕒𝕝𝕜} 07:51, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia. The IP in question has no edits here, and is in fact blocked from editing. The link you provided goes to the Santali Wikipedia, which is a separate project. You need to report the problem overt there as nobody here is equipped to deal with it. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ramjit Tudu: You may want to try meta:Global sysops/Requests as well. –FlyingAce^✈hello 05:22, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

And while you're here, please note that animated GIFs in your signature are generally frowned upon. I suggest you remove the bouncing Wikipedia logo.--WaltCip-(talk) 16:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Antiochian Greek Christians page

• Antiochian Greek Christians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am currently dealing with an article that is being watched and monitored a zealous group of people, possibly socks, that has no reliable sources and is trying to use WP:SYNTHESIS to try and esablish a "Greek" as in Greece ethic connection to Christians in the Levant, with the only reference in the lead a 'Genetic disorders in Lebanon' paper. There is no reliable sources in the lede, and all the population figures and personalities are being adopted for this narrative. They seemed to appear after Nassim Nicholas Taleb was notified on Twitter. Please can I get some attention. The article borders on articles to be deleted, I am trying to improve it. JJNito197 (talk) 12:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

It looks like they have taken control of the article, that is, their word decrees, stopping anybody trying to improve the article. The majority of those personalities and populations do not use "Antiochian Greek" or "Rum" - they identify as Arabs. They include all Antiochian Orthodox and Melkite Christian communities in the Levant, yet dismiss communities in Egypt, Israel, Palestine and Iraq, also dismissing the fact (if we are going to include the population stats) that they don't speak modern-day Greek, hence it shouldn't be in the lead. This is beyond a content dispute, they have taken ownership of the article and are putting foward a position into the public sphere with no pushback allowed. They don't even have citations. It is a deliberate misuse of Wikipedia. The article is a mess with NO reliable sources. Users are stopping people (me in this case) from trying to improve the definition and readability of the article. They have reverted my citation needed tags. JJNito197 (talk) 12:56, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I do not find the description above correct. The arguments are largely in violaton of WP:NPOV, aiming at classifying a minority according to a certain point of view, when more than one can prevail. Things are complicated in the Levant. Some do identify as Arabs, others don't and "Greek" here is for "Rhomi", the old classification until a century or so ago. The personalities above are easily referenceable; it would suffice to attach a {citation needed} to it. But I agree that zealots can appear to disrupt an argument. PopulationGeneticsLevant (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@JJNito197: I'll watch this for you and participate. It'd be hard for me to not get involved seeing as I as this is actually my ethnicity we're talking about. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Stalled content dispute gets consumed by editing behavior concerns

Same editor listed from multiple IPs below:

• 2607:FB91:1006:544C:41AD:44C5:8D35:BA09 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• 2607:FB91:100B:6017:F4FF:50E5:88FA:F8B7 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) - notified

At Talk:Cedar Point, a discussion has devolved into an editing behavior concern (namely by the IP about my actions). They tried a series of edits, which were mass reverted, and after realizing that some of the edits actually weren't harmful to the article, I restored a portion of those edits. Discussion then ensued on the talk page, which initially began over content but has since devolved into an unproductive editing behavior concern. I tried one last push to focus on content, but those efforts have failed, and the talk page continues to be consumed by the IP editor's focus on my actions. I removed one personal attack and ignored others (such as this one), and the editor has made it clear the only outcome here is going to require 3rd-party involvement.

Here is the sequence of edits that occurred:

• diff1 – Blanket removal of images by IP
• diff2 – Other IP edits, some of which were ultimately contested
• diff3 - My mass revert, which should have been more carefully performed or taken directly to talk
• diff4, diff5 – Precise restoration of edits that shouldn't have been reverted, much of which was performed soon after the revert

Talk page discussion begins here (forewarning, it's very long):

• Talk:Cedar Point#Multiple concerns regarding article content

I admit, I should have been more precise when reverting or simply gone to the talk page first, but this page does get a considerable amount of vandalism, and that was likely a knee-jerk reaction on my part. I was quick to engage on the article talk page, however, but unfortunately I think the initial actions I took derailed any chances for productive discussion. The personal attacks were not helpful either. My concern at this point is that further comments on that talk page are only disruptive. This seems like a more appropriate venue at this stage, and I would appreciate any additional insight others may have. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• • There is a lot of vandalism from the /32 range, much unreverted, mainly BLP. Some good edits also. One IP wrote " ==strange I'm allowed to edit from t-mobile. Maybe Redwood City doesn't have the heavy-handed AmandaP block." Some good edits too. Some certainly looks like it's coming from a school. Doug Weller talk 10:39, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Doug Weller. This comment was added shortly after being notified about this discussion. Aside from more unproductive rambling without any real substance littering the talk page, they point out that this will be their last post until after the holidays. Further indication this is a student in school? --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Wikicontributor318 and User:Alphamotorcorporation

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

---

COI edit warring and socking on the Alpha Motors Corporation page. [231], [232], [233]. WP:NOTHERE. Mako001 (talk) 07:06, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Editor disparaging improvements as 'vandalism'

Sapedder is regularly disparaging improvements to Religion in the Punjab as 'vandalism'.[234][235]

I told him a couple of times that he should stop,[236][237] strengthening his commitment to continue calling my edits vandalism.[238]

His contributions on Talk:Religion in the Punjab#Requested move 28 October 2021 can be described as WP:BLUDGEONING.

I should not even mention the general incompetence in understanding sources since this person is restoring unsourced sections and using Notion Press (self published source) for their content. 110.226.28.89 (talk) 11:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

This is projection. This IP is operating under a personal dogma that folk religion is some kind of imaginary, even separatist concept (not kidding, no other user has even come close to agreeing with this), and has gone on a rampage. They have upended weeks of careful discussion over the article title, not the content, and unilaterally reinstating POV that does not adhere to sources (which favors their ingroup). They are not, as they are trying to imply, trying to improve the article but crusading against folk belief in favor of their own religion. And see this regarding the one self-published source. They have not discussed any of this in the slightest. Sapedder (talk) 12:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

The user has also broken WP:3RR by stealth. Sapedder (talk) 12:48, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Sapedder, when someone objects to being called a "vandal," maybe don't respond to them with ...you alone don't like it, vandal (diff). That looks bad. Have you read WP:NOTVAND? El_C 12:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

El_C, That's fine, I accept the distinction. But this is certainly disruptive editing, and reinstating POV content without discussion that does not match sources, repeatedly replacing sourced content to do so, comes awful close, no? Sapedder (talk) 12:55, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

El_C, seeing as the page is locked, can you at least revert to the last stable version in the meantime? I am also preparing a report for the IP for breaking 3RR. Sapedder (talk) 12:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Don't bother with that WP:AN3 report. You've warned the IP about 3RR after their last edit to the page. I'm not currently in the position to determine whether that ("certainly disruptive editing") is so. At a glance, it seems like a content dispute that should be resolved on the article talk page or at WP:RSN, without you attacking your content opponent by calling them a vandal repeatedly. Let me also ask you this. Yesterday, you said rv unsourced pov vandalism by ip sock — who do you claim is the master or otherwise 'socking'? Sorry, I don't see a convincing reason to override the imperative of m:Wrong version atm. El_C 13:06, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

El_C The edits and combative conduct of the IP were identical the user EditorKamran from the previous discussion, though perhaps I jumped to conclusions in the heat of the moment, though I would certainly not rule it out. I submitted the report already, but you can do with it as you see fit. The stable version of the article is the one that the weeks-long discussion in talk in based on. The IP has disrupted the careful discussion with their undiscussed edits, in order to disrupt the voting. Sapedder (talk) 13:23, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Sapedder, I already declined it. Please don't WP:FORUMSHOP further, either. Unless you have a convincing WP:SPI to make — but Editorkamran (first edit Dec 2018, last edit Oct 15 2021) isn't nor have they ever been blocked, so I'm not sure how editing logged out helps them. IP, are you them? If so, please login. El_C 13:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC) Strike: I see that the IP denied this accusation already previously: accusation → denial. El_C 15:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

El_C, just for the record, I did not deliberately "forumshop." It had already been prepared when you told me to not bother. I've only filed one report. I've been on wiki for three years and have never had to do anything like this, as I am not in the habit. Anyway, would you at least restore the stable version, as that is the version that the talk discussion is based on? Sapedder (talk) 13:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Sapedder, I already said that I'm not gonna do that right now, so I'm not sure why you'd ask again. El_C 13:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

El_C I was under the impression that you had declined the report, not the request. You had asked for a "convincing reason," to which I mentioned the ongoing talk discussion. I couldn't do it myself, to not violate 3RR. It's based on that article version and has been going on for 3 weeks, fruitfully. I just don't want it derailed. Anyway... if/when you are inclined to look into it, not demanding it right now. Sapedder (talk) 14:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Sapedder, 'see talk page' is not a convincing reason. El_C 14:16, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

There is an open vote under way there. Does it not matter? sigh... Sapedder (talk) 14:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

No, not really. Just because there's an RM to change the title from Religion in the Punjab to Folk practices in Punjab does not mean that editing about folk practices (or lack thereof, whatever) are not allowed in the meantime. El_C 14:41, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

It reintroduced considerable self-glorifying OR that does not follow the attached sources, specifically in reaction to the RM. This disruption to this old page started in June and has intensified. The original page move in June did not even go through RM as it should have. I suppose I ought to have moved the page back to its original title "Folk religion in Punjab" just as unilaterally, instead of being the sucker whose careful consensus-building procedure is now compromised. What's more, if the RM was closed after a week as it should have been, it would have been successful and closed by now. And now, an IP shows up, suddenly starts edit warring, breaks 3RR, and gets rewarded, and actually minding policy is again meaningless. But it looks like the disruptors keep catching breaks, all without having to discuss any of their changes beforehand, or follow any procedure, or secure any consensus. Sapedder (talk) 15:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Sapedder, you've expressed naked hostility against the IP so many times, it really takes me back a bit that you're still unaware this isn't okay. El_C 15:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Just giving you the background to all this, it's just the latest in a series of events. To everyone in the RM that disagreed respectfully, I reciprocated. Did you not see this IP's behavior and "arguments" in the RM? No reasoning based on policy, just "folk practices are a lie!" and "the article is garbage!" Some IP lurker can sweep in, do as they please, act as they like, and get their way, whereas if my restraint finally falters momentarily, I get told that I think it's "okay," whatever that means. When did I express whether I thought it's okay or not? What does it matter? There's no recourse anyway. Sapedder (talk) 16:02, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

The recourse is this very thread where you're welcome to make your case (with evidence in the form of diffs). But the IP is entitled to express their position vigorously without you attacking them. Also, please attach diffs to quotes. I couldn't find where the IP had said "folk practices are a lie!" El_C 16:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

"Irrelevant, ZERO followers" [239]. These are arguments worth a vote? I think one could be forgiven upon reading such ravings for momentarily making a connection (whether true or not) with someone who said that there was "no such thing" as folk beliefs in a similar hostile tone, and called me a secessionist for talking about their existence in the prior discussion. This is the level of "discourse" that I've had to deal with, from people of a certain worldview (I'll leave it at that, lest I have to explain myself for calling a spade a spade) who feel threatened by the existence of folk belief for daring to remaining distinct from their religious tribalism. What discussion can possibly be had here? And yes, some can utter "positions" as freely and vigorously as they like and benefit, while others get to offer thoughtful arguments and subsequent long explanations all for nothing, that's clear. Sapedder (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Sapedder, the IP's !vote reads (in full): Oppose Per everyone above. Irrelevant 'folk practices' with ZERO followers deserve no parking on Wikipedia. Aside this, the article read like garbage. One should compare it with the earlier versions. I have added the Cleanup tag so that problem can be addressed (diff). I'm not quite sure what that means, tbh (perhaps it isn't a factual observation, possibly even grossly so, I dunno), and I concede it isn't the friendliest tone, but that works both ways. Regardless, please only use quotation marks for, well, quotations. It's confusing. Use apostrophes to 'paraphrase.' Anyway, if you refuse to engage in discussion with the IP based on the available sources, as you appear to be (diff), then you can be seen to effectively have forfeited your position (until such time when you're willing to engage, at least). El_C 17:53, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Re: quotes and paraphrase: Noted.

Re: factual observation: "perhaps"? Where's a hint of fact? It's strident ranting, which apparently qualifies for a vote.

Re: RM: It's closed now anyway (weeks after it should have been while there was hard-earned consensus from neutral editors leaning my way, for which I have had to carefully formulating arguments for the better part of a month). An old, unique article is now overridden due to foot-dragging apathy. Why wasn't the RM closed punctually after a week, did anyone care or would it have dragged on until a flare-up was noticed, keeping whichever version landed last by breaking 3RR, because wgaf?

Re: my comment: If you've read it, I ask again, which of their "points" can I engage with exactly? How would they engage ('I know there are zero followers and it's a conspiracy because....' 'The article is garbage because....')? If anyone has intellectual curiosity, or gives a hoot about saving the article since its hijacking in June, go through the sources of my version and the current "version" and see what has happened. It's not forfeiting, but I can only do so much while others can stomp all over the article and never answer for it, facing no adversity.

So one slaves away under procedures like RM and careful discussion like a sucker and establish topic notability with sources properly used. While others can move the title without any consensus (check the edit history since late June), they can glorify their in-group while attaching sources that say nothing of the kind, they can re-add contested additions without discussion, they can do whatever they like, say 'nah it's fake, it's garbage, it's a conspiracy,' edit war, break 3RR, and now we are equal peers in encyclopedia-building, using their version as default? Sapedder (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Sapedder, WP:NOTAVOTE. Also, you call the IP's comment strident ranting, but what is much of your post above if not that? I'm not saying it wasn't said in exasperation, but it's still too much. Either way, you do not WP:OWN this page and there are no shortcuts, like getting the IP off the board, which it looks like is what you're still trying to do. The IP said that the article needed cleanup (and added the cleanup tag), so now they need to explain that (i.e. what is it that needs to be cleaned up). If they fail to present this, methodically, then they forfeit their position. But you saying off the bat: 'I will not engage, there is nothing to engage about and no one serious to engage with — that's a dead end, too. El_C 21:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

El_C, did you read the so-called "cleanup" tag? It reads, "The article is mostly about irrelevant 'folk practices', contrary to the article's title." So first the article title is changed from its 11-year-old title "Folk religion in Punjab" to "Religion in Punjab" without consensus or RM in June, and now they seek to purge the article of its folk content by pointing at the new title, in favor of glorifying their own specific religion. The article is in the grip of a bizarre agenda against the existence of folk beliefs, with no interest in making a good article.

Take a look at the "Background" and "Historical religion" sections. They use the exact same sources almost in the same sequence, but are completely different. That's because "Background" is an reinstated old POV version of "Historical religion." I implore you to check those sections and see for yourself, there are only a few sources to check. The lead as well. The article is now a mess. That is what the IP did. Not sure how else to convey the dishonesty of what is being done, or if anyone cares.

And yet again, how would I engage? "No IP, the article is in fact not garbage and lies as you people have so rationally pointed out, because these sources and that content etc..." They are trying to purge said content entirely. My good-faith efforts have been going on for weeks, and are now obliterated by those who have now shown up, broken like every rule, and have it their way. Sapedder (talk) 22:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Sapedder, I'm trying to get across to you that your broken like every rule approach works against your own interests. Try to stay dispassionate and avoid hyperbole. I'm not that familiar with the study of religion or folk traditions, in general, certainly not in that part of the world. Nor can I turn back time, though had you reported the undiscussed move (like on this noticeboard), you'd likely had seen the original, longstanding title retained (at least pending an RM for the contending version). But, for whatever reason, you chose to conduct an RM, one which saw 2 supporting against 5 opposing. That can't be helped. It is what it is.

Anyway, about the "cleanup": it comes down to the details. The specifics of what should be added/removed/modified need not be aligned with the (new) title in the way that the IP's tag contends. That's up to the editorial process; through collaboration with editors who (unlike me) have a grasp of the material. If, in the end, two clearly competing versions crystalize, then an WP:RFC can be held about which is the better one. The regulars at WP:RSN could be consulted about disputes over sources. But you need to dial it down, from "lol" dismissals to "vandal" attacks. Above all else, it still feels like you're looking for a quick fix —that certainly how it appeared when you filed the report at WP:AN3 while this thread was still live— but I just don't see that in the cards. Best then to be realistic about that and to fortify yourself to what, from your perspective, needs to be done (what can be done, how it should be done). HTH. El_C 00:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

El_C, I understand that you may not be familiar with the topic and such, I know you are trying to help and it's not apathy. But it just seems like the ip can just blow in like a tornado, wreak havoc, and come out on top. Even now, have they been typing away trying to explain their reasoning as I have? Their engagement has been limited to calling the article "garbage," then going in to restore POV without discussion, then filing a report and dipping out, while we're stuck to explain the convoluted situation to each other. They haven't demonstrated a grasp of the content either, they are seeking to get rid of it because it offends them. Honestly, given their few RM contributions, do they seem like they're here to engage in good discussion? Seeing that the page now has divergent duplicate sections from the exact same sources (which the IP didn't even write, it was just the version they favored from earlier), how is the page not harmed? Point taken about "vandal," but was it so off the mark, given the state of the page now?

Also, I initiated the RM at the word of the original page mover (in the discussion before the RM). I could have simply went and undid his move when I learned of it (probably should have), as it had no consensus or RM itself, but in deference to the right way of doing things, and not risking a revert war (that turned out great...), I opted for the RM. I managed to maintain majority support for not one but two weeks, but it dragged on and degenerated as the early neutral, reasonable editors gave way to ideologues, instead of ending punctually.

I'm not a noticeboard denizen who knows my way around these parts. Discussion usually yields good results and works well for me the vast majority of the time (some might think that's a plus). If I could develop a stronger instinct to cheaply run to a noticeboard at the first chance (unusually familiar with wiki ins and outs for an IP, no?), point fingers and file reports, entangling users and admins in long discussion while I stay quiet, and have it work, sure why not. But I had never had a need to figure out my messageboards and file a case on anyone before in my three years here, so that option went unused. Oh well. Sapedder (talk) 01:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

You both broke 3RR though. Mvbaron (talk) 13:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Mvbaron It doesn't look like I have. Perhaps check the dates, if I am not mistaken? I think you may be counting one from yesterday, which was separate from the reversions just now.Sapedder (talk) 13:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

You're right, sorry. 4th revert was just outside the 24h period. --Mvbaron (talk) 13:57, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Zippybonzo appears to have the same problem, user has only been here for only 1 month and he looks suspicious when he already seems familiar with the tools and policies. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out to be a sock also. 119.203.157.44 (talk) 13:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I am immune to irony, IP with zero edits outside this one comment. El_C 13:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• Note that I have closed the RM as not moved (diff). El_C 15:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Strange account...maybe compromised?

A strange account left a message on my talk page, so I thought I'd report it here. Virginia beltan (talk · contribs) first edited in 2013...and came back this month to spread a bit of gibberish around the encyclopaedia. I don't know the meaning of this, but I'm pretty sure either someone should keep an eye on this account, or just block it as WP:NOTHERE for avoidance of doubt. RGloucester — ☎ 13:52, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Truthfully seeing the edits from 2013, they could have been blocked back then. Blocked now however for WP:NOTHERE. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Talk page misuse?

Special:Contributions/2003:E1:E700:0:0:0:0:0/41 is posting to a lot of talk pages, almost never contributing anything useful, it rather seems like trolling. The range got more active in enWP after it was partially blocked in deWP for similar behaviour [240]. You might consider blocking the range in enWP as well. Best wishes --Johannnes89 (talk) 20:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I definitely recommend a block for almost exlusively using WP as a personal blog... —PaleoNeonate – 05:53, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Yikes. Rangeblocked as what appears to be a static IP that is WP:NOTHERE. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks, I think the 1 year makes sense. This reminds me of an LTA doing the same, also apparently German but they used to include an email address. Unfortunately I cannot remember who it was at current time. In any case, good block, —PaleoNeonate – 12:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The IP is just posting nonsensical auto-generated texts; clearly WP:NOTHERE … AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 16:53, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism on Wikipedia person page for Chelsea_Rustad

Hello,

I originally created a new dispute on the dispute resolution page, and was advised that this would be the more appropriate venue for incidents involving clear vandalism of a page.

The page in question is Chelsea_Rustad. The user SneaselxLv94 submitted a deletion request of the page based on the following false claims: - That the page is written from a non-objective POV. This is false as there are no opinions on the page; only cited objective facts. - That there is no public interest in the page. This is false as there is public interest in the subject matter because this person, Chelsea Rustad, was featured in the new 48 Hours film "A Killer in the Family Tree" which debuted last night, and clearly the SneaselxLv94 user googled it themselves due to this public interest and is now obsessed with targeting and defacing the page for unknown reasons. In addition, there are plenty of other pages on Wikipedia about individuals with fewer link citations and/or less notoriety than the person described on this page. - That the person described in the page just wants attention as a "celebrity" and thinks Wikipedia is "social media" because there is a photo. These are false, sexist, unfounded claims and personal attacks from the user SneaselxLv94 who is not acquainted with Chelsea Rustad(Personal attack removed). Plenty of Wikipedia pages about individual people have photos, and this photo has already been properly verified as being permitted under Wikipedia's copyright in the page edit history.

I'm not sure what courses of action would be available, but perhaps a warning to the SneaselxLv94 user who is using the "delete request" function to try to have a page removed for false reasons, and to defame and personally insult a public figure whom they are not acquainted with, would be appropriate. Or some kind of edit protection against this particular user SneaselxLv94 for the time being.

Thank you for your attention.

Nemesis 03:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pikachelsea (talk • contribs)

There is no "vandalism" inherent to suggesting that a page be deleted, or nominating the page for deletion. Personal comments about the motivation for creating the page are not necessarily helpful and should be discouraged, but also do not constitute vandalism. Having reviewed the page, I also don't feel the subject is a candidate for an encyclopedic biography - seems to me a classic case of people notable for only a single event. Thus, I have nominated the page for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chelsea Rustad. Your comments are welcome there, but do not remove the deletion nomination tag until the discussion is closed by an uninvolved administrator. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)[...] and has been before on multiple occasions for the past 3 years since it was not a "one time event". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pikachelsea (talk • contribs) 03:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Stop it with the personal attacks, Pikachelsea, or you'll find yourself on the receiving end of sanctions. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 03:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Uh, I haven't seen an episode of 48 Hours in probably two decades, so no, how about not?

Judging by your username, you are the article subject - is that correct? If so, I would strongly suggest you read WP:AUTOBIO, WP:ABOUTME, and WP:COI. People writing about themselves on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged, as that creates an obvious conflict of interest. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be neutrally-written, based upon independent reliable sources, and are not intended to be promotional of the person in question. Article subjects are not entitled to control content on their Wikipedia biographies. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

They have admitted to being the article subject, if you look at the trail of the photo in the article it's clear and stated that the OP is the article subject and is therefore just self-promoting. Canterbury Tail talk 13:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The Original Poster filed a request at the dispute resolution noticeboard, stating that another editor was vandalizing the page by requesting its deletion, and also that the other editor was trolling. I said that DRN does not deal either with deletion disputes or conduct allegations, and told them to read the boomerang essay, and that idle allegations of vandalism and trolling are personal attacks. I then advised them either to report the vandalism and trolling here at WP:ANI or at the vandalism noticeboard, or not to report it. I apologize to the community if I did not sufficiently caution them against making a useless report. I think that I did already warn them against personal attacks. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Did the OP aim at a kangaroo that doesn't exist? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• Happily, the OP's vanity article is racking up a SNOW delete at AfD, and perhaps she'll seek out other sources of self-promotion other than Wikipedia in the future. Ravenswing 16:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Edits reverted

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

---

Admin with username Fowler&fowler: a) reverted edits b) has not responded to dispute resolution via Talk

Request left on Talk page is below: Seasons' Greetings & Namaste.

I am encouraged to engage you in a discussion. You are a prolific editor here and I am honoured.

This pertains to your removal of one of my edits on the Hindutva page. The sole point of contention is: 1) Furnishing a context: My only submission relates to furnishing the context of the British Colonial Rule during which Hindutva as a political idealogy is deemed to have been formulated. Please note that this is consistent with the Idealogy sub-section of the History section of the wiki. Therefore, its inclusion is suggested as an edit.

I do appreciate you considering engaging me in a talk.

Best, wirefree101 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wirefree101 (talk • contribs)

Fowler&fowler isn’t an administrator. You haven’t notified them as is required, nor did you take the basic step of asking again before coming to this noticeboard, which is for significant and intractable problems. This is not a matter for ANI. Acroterion (talk) 04:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

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

2021 Waukesha Christmas Parade Attack

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

---

I haven't found a source yet that describes this incident as an attack. The media uses "plow" to describe the incident. Using "Attack", especially in the article's title, seems to me to be very inappropriate. I've made note of this on the article's talk page, but it hasn't attracted much interest. Ordinarily I'd let this matter run its course as a matter of routine, but I'm especially concerned that this unsourced and speculative description has made its way into the article's title. Thoughts? Rklawton (talk) 04:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• My thought is that this is a content matter unsuited for ANI. Nothing prevents you from a page move to a more neutral title, such as using "incident" instead of "Attack." Ravenswing 05:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Ravenswing: the on-going RM makes moves immediately challenged. I do think BLP is at issue here because "attack" suggests motive. We have no info that this was an attack. I think " incident" should be used until we know more. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

  Absolutely and obviously needs to be renamed. --JBL (talk) 13:34, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

  I was reading an article earlier that said the guy was fleeing a prior incident, went the wrong way, and then decided to go through the crowed instead of doubling back into whatever he was trying to escape from. So the articles title should be renamed. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:05, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

  The article has now been renamed to the embarrassing but BLP-compliant 2021 Waukesha car crash. (Actually first it got renamed to 2021 Waukesha Christmas Parade incident, but I assume the close timing of the two moves indicates that Fuzheado didn't see that.) --JBL (talk) 14:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

  The article has been renamed, and the BLP issue closed. The requested move has been closed as well without prejudice. As noted in the close, notable articles with similar names are not unusual, such as 2017 Times Square car crash and 2021 Imperial County car crash. - Fuzheado | Talk 17:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• Since this is already posted here, I think it would be helpful to have some additional admin eyes on this article's talk page. Because the article itself has been semi-protected, at least one troll has turned their attention to the talk page and I suspect there will be more, as is usually the case with any event like this. Aoi (青い) (talk) 07:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, lots of rev-delling needed; semi-protection wouldn't hurt, either. --JBL (talk) 14:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

HonestWikiCitizen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) needs to be indefinitely blocked per WP:NOTHERE; see the user's attack draft page plus comments being left on the talk page. --MuZemike 15:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

+1, obvious trolling. Levivich 15:50, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: User_talk:HonestWikiCitizen#Indefinite block. El_C 16:09, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

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

User:ACtiling

ACtiling. This is a newish editor, who is solely focussed on making changes to one article - List of people from Merseyside. They probably mean well. However, I have never before come across an editor who is so unable to listen to advice on basic editing skills - for example, they appear to believe that it's only possible to add a name to the list while removing one at the same time. They have been repeatedly advised, and occasionally warned, by several editors on numerous occasions, and directed to places like WP:Teahouse, but appear to be completely unable to comprehend what makes an edit allowable, and seem unwilling to learn. I would far prefer that they were not blocked but rather improve their skills - but sheer inability to achieve a modicum of competence appears to be an unresolvable problem. Any advice? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The editor is either unwilling or unable to add list entries in alphabetical order despite countless warnings. Another editor suggested Adopt-a-user but there is no sign of any attempt to learn. Probably not malicious, but the lack of basic competence means definitely an unacceptable time sink. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

He's still having trouble understanding WP:INDENT, but hopefully he's finally learned 'not' to keep creating 'new discussion' headings within the same discussion. GoodDay (talk) 14:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd guess that the editor is now asleep. If they return, I'd want to see both an end to the truculence and evidence of competence. If the latter is missing, enough: CIR. -- Hoary (talk) 23:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I've since left a few detailed messages for this editor on their talk page. Hopefully, they're beginning to see the problems they're causing by their carelessness and poor communication skills. I will continue to watch this user's edits and take steps if necessary. Others are trying to help too, and I do feel they're trying to act in good faith. I was initially concerned this user was also operating with a promotional username as there happens to be a tiling company of that same name on Merseyside. But their lack of WP:COMPETENCE is hardly likely to ever win them any customers, and I feel they've enough to contend with without us soft-blocking for potentially spurious reasons. (There are enough genuine ones if we need them!) Nick Moyes (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Lucifernam

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

A rather new user (since Mid of October), Lucifernam, whose statement on his user page "Hello from hell" [241] is obviously his programme, for example here [242], [243], [244] and here [245]. [246] and so on…

He or she doen't discuss matters, see Talk:List of Pontifically crowned images#Recent changings, where there was no reaction although the user has been online multiple times since then, the user just set back to his preferred version and with another foul-mouthed comment [247] As he or she seems to be a very busy bee this complete loss of composure is almoust sure to continue to happen rather often.

Before reporting, I consulted @User:Anupam, in order to find out what to do. Thank you. --Medusahead (talk) 08:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Not to promote or impede any current admin action, but I've left a warning at the user's talk page since they were apparently not warned enough before. If this report results in no action, a future one is more likely to be effective if the behavior persists despite warnings. —PaleoNeonate – 13:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely: User_talk:Lucifernam#Indefinite_block. Now off I go to revdel the multiple instances of ethno-religious hate speech. El_C 13:52, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lucifernam —PaleoNeonate – 02:08, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

User BilCat's claims of false personal attacks

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

---

BilCat has repeatedly accused me of personally attacking him, saying I directly called him lazy, saying I attacked him by asking him to stop reverting my edits without proper reasoning, saying I falsely accused him of following me etc. On top of that he's threatened to have me deleted if I "don't stop taking reversions personally and don't stop personally attacking others [here]. He's has me banned once already for edit warring even though my edits were determined to be legitimate anyway. And his edit history is just full of unjustified reversions and pointless content removals [here], [here], [here] . His superior status on Wikipedia compared to mine I feel is putting me at a severe disadvantage when it comes to defending myself or accusing me of breaking Wikipedia rules. If this report is unsuccessful I'll probably be banned anyway for false claims myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GansMans (talk • contribs) 09:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) You are required to notify the user you filed a complaint about. I have done so for you. On an unrelated note, beware the Australian airfoil. Kleuske (talk) 09:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG Here's a thought that doesn't appear to have occurred to you, you have one of the most prolific editors on military topics offering you help and advice. Now imagine what an awesome wikipedian you could be if you listened instead of convincing yourself you're being persecuted. No one has a superior status on wikipedia, we just like to write an encyclopedia for fun, without constant interruptions from people who let their ego get in the way. WCM_email 10:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh dear, this PA immediately following an offer to work constructively together. Perhaps a WP:NOTHERE block might be appropriate until this user gets it? WCM_email 10:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been going over both his edits and the edits others have made to him: [248] [249][250][251] ... GansMans is being routinely caustic, combative and nasty to others, and seems to believe (from his vast experience of 39 edits over a few weeks) that the rules don't apply to him, because, reasons. WP:NOTHERE indeed. Ravenswing 10:50, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

It seems that User:GansMans is just disruptive and WP:NOTHERE. We need to thank him for bringing the issue here, but he needs an indef block. - Ahunt (talk) 12:09, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely: User_talk:GansMans#Indefinite_block. El_C 13:24, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

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

User:51.6.138.90 reported by Alexander Davronov

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

---

All of sudden the British IP popped out of nowhere in a WP:MOS discussion (below) and blatantly attacked me for no reason. I didn't care until a day later when he reverted 2 of my edits under pretext of bad grammar. Not sure what's the point but I suspect that this behavior has nothing to do with the grammar, language or anything.--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 14:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Request

I request to consider WP:IBAN or any sanction at your discretion.

Pages involved

• Wikipedia talk:WTW#MOS:AWW example (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Coco/R (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Rasterisation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

ANI Notice on his talk page: [14:04, November 22, 2021]

User who is reporting

Alexander Davronov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's misbehavior

• WP:UNCIVIL / WP:NPA violation:

  22:51, November 21, 2021 - «‎MOS:AWW example: comment on the user who added the absurd "example"»

  14:29, November 22, 2021 - «‎User:51.6.138.90 reported by Alexander Davronov»

• WP:UNCIVIL / WP:HARASS violation (the diffs belong to different articles)

  12:02, November 22, 2021 - «Undid revision 1056516782 by Alexander Davronov talk) try again in actual English, if you can»

  12:07, November 22, 2021 - «undoing edits which introduced multiple grammar and syntax errors»

Your English is extremely poor. You are harming articles by adding text that is full of grammar errors, sometimes to the point of incomprehensibility. Meanwhile, "this page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." Your post does not seem to be an appropriate use of this noticeboard. 51.6.138.90 (talk) 14:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked for 72h, WP:BKFIP.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

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

User:S11141827 WP:NOTHERE; poor-quality, not-an-improvement edits to a number of musical instrument-related articles

S11141827 (talk · contribs) seems to be making a number of poor-quality edits to musical instrument-related articles, mostly adding sentences or paragraphs with odd capitalisation and unencyclopedic language - abbreviations, contractions, etc. It seems they're an WP:SPA, and that they have been warned about this behaviour many times before. I've gone through a number of their edits and redone things, but musical notation and terminology is not my skillset, making it harder to sort the wheat from the continually-added chaff. I'd say they're WP:NOTHERE and would propose an indef.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 15:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: User_talk:S11141827#Indefinite_block. El_C 15:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Coming back to this - I think I've spotted two other IP editors making similarly poor-quality edits to music-related pages - like "almost the exact same weird capitalisation and addition of "essentially a [X]" or "like a [Y]" sentences edits; 24.129.3.206 and 150.176.145.147. Maybe this could be, idk, looked into? They've not been active recently but their edits seem to be within the same late 2020 early 2021 time frame. They're not egregious but they are tendentious edits that don't seem to add anything.----Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 12:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:24BB:9FE5:EE96:7C05

Hi. This IP editor keeps adding unsourced information, and then accuses me of edit warring multiple times, and then says that they are going to add references for their unreferenced contribution. Strange reactions despite their edit history. ภץאคгöร 16:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh and now they are saying that I have "low-level incivility" because I wrote that unreferenced information can't stay on the page until it is referenced and that their reactions were "suspicious". Nice interaction. They claim to know "article development" but don't even cite refs. ภץאคгöร 16:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Please try and remain truthful. When I called you out for low-level incivility, it was - as my comment makes clear - in response to you referring to "Suspicious IP activity", with no justification for commenting on me, rather than the article. It's rather odd that a very minor content kerfuffle which is being discussed on the talk page and being cleared up in the article needs to be discussed at ANI. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:24BB:9FE5:EE96:7C05 (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

It was just Wikipedia:DDE at first, now incivility/NPA keeps growing ("try and remain truthful"?). ภץאคгöร 16:42, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Why have you posted a misleading comment above? "I have "low-level incivility" because I wrote that unreferenced information can't stay on the page until it is referenced" is not truthful, as I have pointed out. Why did you start by throwing mud on the talk page by referring to "Suspicious IP activity", without any proof or justification? Why do you think it acceptable to open an ANI thread just because you were reverted and I asked you to hold off for a little while as I updated the Reception section? (That's done, by the way, and the lead now is correct again). If you want to start throwing mud at people and then posting misleading statements at ANI, I do shake my head in disbelief... 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:24BB:9FE5:EE96:7C05 (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nothing is misleading. This editor is continuing to distort the facts. And apparently they thought adding one review for cinematography and three for costume design was enough for their unreferenced contribution. Instead of constantly dissing the editors, review whether your supposed work is complete. Also, stop the disturbing behavior. I kindly request the admins to take necessary action for this editor. ภץאคгöร 17:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

If you think "they are saying that I have "low-level incivility" because I wrote that unreferenced information can't stay on the page until it is referenced" isn't misleading, I can't take you seriously. My comment was extremely clear "As to "Suspicious IP activity", please comment on the content, not the editor - such low-level incivility is too common and always unwelcome." I am not dissing anyone and my behaviour is not "disturbing". I have updated the Reception section of the article so the lead is a proper reflection of what was written. That's not "disturbing", or even disruptive. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:24BB:9FE5:EE96:7C05 (talk) 17:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SchroCat/Archive, this is the same IP range. - MrOllie (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I am SchroCat (or was before scrambling my password). I do not hide that at all. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:24BB:9FE5:EE96:7C05 (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Looks like Schroedinger's cat is simul­ta­ne­ously retired and not retired.

-EEng

I wasn't going to continue to reply because of this person's behavior. Clearly this incivil editor thinks they own the article, basically calls me liar (see above) in addition to other things and then accuses me of "throwing insults", and their edits are disruptive. They continue to add unsourced information. The fact that they use their "oh I scrambled my password" as an excuse to use multiple IP accounts and do whatever they want is confounding to me, especially given their past behavior and attitudes. I believe a block is necessary at this point. ภץאคгöร 08:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Please stop referring to other editors as "disruptive" when they are clearly not. You have done so here and here. This is throwing insults at people, as you are not commenting on the edits being made, just on me (and I an not an "incivil editor" - or even an uncivil one). Please stop. I am not sure how adding sourced material (from reliable sources) to an article is "disruptive". There is a talk page you are ignoring and any questions or comments can (should?) be addressed there. I do not "use multiple IP accounts": I am on a dynamic IP that automatically changes or updates and I have no control over that. Use of such IP systems is not outside Wikipedia's policies, and neither is editing as an IP. I have again left a message on your talk page this morning asking you to use the talk page to discuss, and I hope you manage to make your way there to discuss what you think is "unsourced information" that I have added, or what you think still needs sourcing in the article. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9 (talk) 08:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

You clearly are. One can use static IP. Pointing a mistake out even though you spelled "am" wrong yourself is hilarious. ภץאคгöร 08:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

"One can use static IP". No. One can't. One uses the system of one's provider, which in this case is dynamic. Again, I'll stress, this is not against any Wikipedia policies or guidelines. I'll ignore the renewed dig. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9 (talk) 09:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Agathyrsi page

The user LuUkus has been carrying out disruptive editing on the Agathyrsi entry by constantly adding information rejected as ideologically-motivated historical revisionism by researchers on the topic and is now edit warring with me. Can I please obtain help to prevent them from doing so again? Antiquistik (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I am copying my comment on this issue from your other report. I also wanted to ask the same and had the same concern about you. Deletion of sources is truly a bad habit. And declaring them as belonging to ideologically-motivated historical revisionism even more. You cannot prove your words and you are mixing to much up. This is also a bad habit. (last edit I wasn't logged in) --LuUkus (talk) 16:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

LuUkus your source was removed because it is contradicted by the presently published and verifiable peer-reviewed research on the issue, which is contained in the numerous citations I have added to the article. It's not a question of habit or of my opinions, but of whether your source holds when compared to the presently published and verifiable peer-reviewed research on the issue. Antiquistik (talk) 17:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@other editors, this page confirms my point. It's not certain that Agathyrsi were one of the Scythian tribes, they are described as non-Scythian: https://books.google.com/books?id=ST6TRNuWmHsC&pg=PA103 (there is no consensus among scholars)--LuUkus (talk) 16:50, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The Agathyrsi were not a tribe of the Scythians proper, but a member of related peoples of the Scythian cultures. The sources on the Agathyrsi page, especially Olbrycht and Batty, which are more recent that the Cambridge Ancient History, do confirm that and attest of members of the Agathyrsi having personal names in an Iranian dialect belonging to the Scythian group. Antiquistik (talk) 17:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

What I see, on that page, is that Herodotus claims they're non-Scythian, but that scholars are not convinced they're in fact non-Scythian. I don't know if that is a distinction without a difference, but when you say "they are described", it seems to me that you are eliding the fact that it's Herodotus who does that describing. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: The article at Agathyrsi contains more recent published information gained from further linguistic and archaeological research in the years and decades after the Cambridge History of Early Central Asia was published. The present consensus is that the Agathyrsi were not a tribe of the Scythians proper, but were nevertheless still a Scythic, and therefore Iranic, people closely related to the Scythians, which is what the info in my edits say since they use the presently published and verifiable peer-reviewed research on the issue as source. Antiquistik (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Antiquistik, this edit is so huge you need to explain what parts were removed on which grounds. Removing Herodotus, cited as if it were proper historical information, I get that, but there is more in that big edit. LuUkus, it seems to me you are not being very precise here or in your edit summaries: take it to the talk page. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: In addition of quotations Herodotus, the rest of the article consisted largely of similar direct quotations of Pomponius Mela and Ammianus Marcellinus, which in the context of this article are pieces of raw data. I removed these citations because the information based on that raw data was already present in shorter condensed form in the information from Olbrycht and Batty. As for the section on the Akatziri, it contained too many details not relevant to the article, so I trimmed it and kept only the parts relevant to the Agathyrsi. I will of course re-check if anything important was deleted during my edit and I will add the information back with the proper sources in that case. Antiquistik (talk) 17:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Antiquistik, ANI is not for arguing content or explaining edits; that should be done on the talk page. If you want US to help enforce an edit you made, that edit should be well explained, preferably on the talk page, and should really have gotten consensus on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: Alright, I am adding an explanation on the article's talk page. Antiquistik (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers: harassment, hounding, disgraceful conduct

So, I'm accused by Wiki Page Polisher here of harassment, hounding and disgraceful conduct; I'm not entirely clear if I'm also accused of misuse of admin privileges. I'd appreciate some feedback on these fairly serious accusations, which – as I'm very short of time right now – I will not at the moment discuss or deny.

Wiki Page Polisher is a paid editor who has chosen completely to ignore our guidance (policy?) that "paid editors ... are very strongly discouraged from directly editing affected articles, but should post content proposals on the talk pages of existing articles". I have reverted several large-scale additions made by this editor (Maddy Dychtwald, Charley Hughlett, Jayde Riviere).

Similar accusations are also levelled by the same editor against Timtrent and Theroadislong. Those I will immediately state to be completely baseless, an unjustifiable slur against two of our most valuable and indefatigable editors. Wiki Page Polisher, please withdraw those unacceptable accusations forthwith. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I am grateful to Justlettersandnumbers for raising this here. I had just issued a level 1 AGF warnimg to WPP, and was considering leavig it at that and awaiting their further actions. I'm not keen on accudsatioins, but I'm old enough and ugly enough to have a thick hide. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

  As a volunteer editor I have a very precise expectation of paid editors.

  It is that their work should be perfect in Draft space and that a draft should be immediately acceptable at first review. Once an article is in Main space, or of they are paid for making additions to an existing article, I expect them to use the article talk page and behave properly at all times.

  I do not expect to have to educate them, either myself, or for someone else to need to educate them

  I expect these things because they are paid. To be paid they must be worth their fee. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 18:34, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment My only involvement at Jayde Riviere was to add the paid editor template, when User:Wiki Page Polisher repeatedly made direct edits to the article. I have never edited Charley Hughlett. Paid editors should request changes on the article's talk page not add vast swathes of paid for content unchecked. Theroadislong (talk) 17:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
• In most cases, the proper response by paid editors to comments made by long-established and experienced editors should be "yes ma'am" and "no sir", or less sexist equivalents thereof. I see no evidence of hounding, and the suggestion of tag-teaming is likewise in very poor taste. Moreover, paid editors are supposed to write neutrally, and Maddy Dychtwald proves this hasn't happened. Look, for instance, at the huge section on Women and Financial Wellness, which is (just) a research study and gets six paragraphs of promotional material, based on primary sources and, via synthesis, on a Forbes article which cites the author but doesn't even discuss the study. In addition, look at the last paragraph, starting "This study and its findings have been featured in prominent media discussions...". As far as I'm concerned, this editor is not abiding by our guidelines. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. The highlighted comment is from a behavioural guideline, not from a policy. However, such is the strength of the community feeling on this matter, that it should be considered to have significant weight. I concur with Drmies that this editor is following the policy but significantly deviating from community expectations on the bevhaviour of paid editors. I see nothing wrong with other editors' interactions on this matter. QuiteUnusual (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
• I have blocked this editor for one week for their personal attacks. Cullen328 (talk) 18:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
• Cullen328, Thanks for blocking accordingly. Justlettersandnumbers, Timtrent, & Theroadislong, so sorry you all had to go through the pain of personal attacks and other deliberate disingenuous comments from that editor, I too just experienced something similar here. I think the wording of WP:PAID & COI are in themselves partly responsible for incidents such as this, phrases such as strongly advised should be changed to should not, the former leaves a window for the paid editor to wiki-lawyer or use linguistic ambiguity to maneuver their way out of due diligence after all they are merely strongly advised I’m not big on starting RFC's and whatnot but the wording does need a revamp. It is my belief that even the concept of acceptable paid editing be scrapped entirely but that’s a cumbersome discussion for another day. Celestina007 (talk) 23:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Celestina007 There are good paid editors. They are only obvious in that they trouble no-one and write well. Then there are the others. They make themselves obvious by writing poorly, using WP:BOMBARD, and wikilawyering. They are usually surprised when they hear the sound of running water and discover it is the toilet, flushing them away. Often they are next seen evading blocks and at SPI. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 23:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

  I think the point of the wording is that a paid editor shouldn't be required to make an edit request just to fix a typo or remove an egregious BLP violation. Mlb96 (talk) 06:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Those who are interested may wish to consider the unblock request. I confess it is tl;dr but I have skimmed it. Cullen328, as blocking admin I imagine you get first right of handling it? I make no comment on it save the length. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 23:52, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• Reply. I just read every word of it. I think that it is best practice to let another administrator handle it, so I will quite intentionally say no more than that I read it. Cullen328 (talk) 23:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The user continues the accusations and personal attacks on the user page. In a fit of "mob mentality" I suggest the block be extended, perhaps indefinately, in order to prevent further disruption. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Grilando

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

---

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

I came across a page by this user Criticism of Gonzalo Pérez Jácome, which I tagged as G10. This user, at Felipe VI, added the content Several users also wondered if Queen Letizia was sitting on top of Felipe, in the form of penetration. [252]. I think this user is clearly NOTHERE. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 19:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: User_talk:Grilando#Indefinite_block. El_C 20:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Judy Garland fans(?) in Cardiff

Two IPs in Cardiff are repeatedly inserting files uploaded to Commons by "Lobods123" which get quickly deleted for having bad permissions.[253]

• 2.99.184.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.3.41.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• E.g. the first of these IPs (2.99.184.110) twice inserting a photo of Garland with crossed eyes into Judy Garland as a gay icon. Diffs: [254] [255]

• E.g. the second of these (86.3.41.180) repeatedly replacing images in JG-related articles with less-good and soon-deleted images from Lobods123. Diffs: [256][257][258]

• E.g. both of these making unconstructive edits to article text. Diffs: [259][260][261][262]

Could somebody please block these 2 time-wasting IPs? HouseOfChange (talk) 21:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

5.37.200.126

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

---

5.37.200.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This IP has repeatedly engaged in weird content removal from the article of Salalah International Airport, and replacing it with strange URLs. See their contributions for more info about this. After warning them all the way to level 4, I don’t know if this IP should be blocked. Thank you. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — SANDBOXES — LOGS — 22:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Page semi-protected for 2 days. IP blocked for spamming for 31 hours. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, good administrator, for addressing my concerns. This should relieve some pain within all of us. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — SANDBOXES — LOGS — 22:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Christopher Chope article

On the WP:BLP article for Christopher Chope, I have requested in recent days that consensus be gained first on the talk page of the article for the inclusion that another politician described Chope as a "selfish twat" in a text message on a private WhatsApp group. I have described my reasons on the talk page why I feel it's not vital to include this content on a neutral BLP. The article already contains a substantial amount of criticism of Chope. The reference for the "selfish twat" comment is a tweet by a journalist contained in a "as it happened" live blog at theguardian.com

I don't have an issue with stating in the article that Chope's actions in November 2021 led to strong criticism. There's no problem with including that he was criticised, but I've requested that consensus be gained first on the talk page for the specific description of him in a text message as a "selfish twat".

However, an IP editor (or possibly two IP editors with different IP addresses) continues to revert and inserts the "selfish twat" comment from a text message on a private WhatsApp group without yet gaining consensus on the talk page. I don't feel this is editing in a spirit of collaboration and consensus should be gained first for the inclusion of the contentious description. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 02:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• This should probably be at BLP/N, but I'd just point out that the "selfish twat" remark was also reported on in a full article in The Times [263] and the Independent [264], as well as less well-respected papers such as the Express [265]. Black Kite (talk) 12:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

User:ManaliJain

There is an issue with respect to this account user. It seems they are following WP: OWN and WP: COI in the article Ankit Gupta. They are constantly inserting unreliable sources such as "the bulletin times" & "bollywood hungama" as these [266] & [267] in the subject's article. When someone is removing them saying they are unreliable, they are being adamant to have these sources in the subject's article and constantly reverting the other editors edits giving a vague and invalid reason Unconstructive and disruptive editing. Plus, they have inserted the same unreliable sources twice or thrice in the article. They're not even allowing the others to remove the extra unwanted unreliable sources and improve the article. Please check all the diffs between: [268] and [269]. Also, the subject has not acted in the web-series Bekaboo 2 as Shaurya which is clear from the article [270] But this editor is so adamant to accredit Ankit Gupta a role which he hasn't done and an award nomination which isn't his. It shows how the editor is following WP:COI. Can someone please stop them from constantly causing WP:OWN & WP:COI type of editing in the article of Ankit Gupta? Thank you. 117.243.23.71 (talk) 07:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Ponyo & Liz Can you please do something about this editor because they are confidently continuing their absolutely disruptive and unconstructive edits everywhere all because some Wikipedia Administrators are turning a complete blind eye to their behaviour and not taking required actions. I can't understand how such a disruptive editor was even given reverting back rights in Wikipedia? Please check all the discussion in their talk page in the past 2-3 months. Almost everyone is fed up with their behaviour. Still they are going on doing it even now. Also they have removed the Administrators'noticeboard notification from their talk page giving a reason of cleanup. Please it's a request, stop this disruptive editor by taking strict actions of blocking them Ponyo & Liz 117.243.23.71 (talk) 03:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

POV and minority view problem at Genetic history of East Asians

A recent editor tries to replace sourced content with personal/outdated minority views regarding the origin/routes used by Ancestral East Asians at Genetic history of East Asians. I have already explained that minority views, especially outdated ones, do not have a place in such extent, per WP:Weight. I reverted and included inline citations, than started a talk page section, explaining why this specific minority view can not be implemented in such way. The editor seem to not care about these Wikipedia policies and again replaced the whole "Overview" section with his personal view (a sentence of a 2015 study, which was not well received by later studies). I have already warned him, that making misleading edit summaries will result in consequences, but I think it will not stop him from making unconstructive edits again. Take a look at the talk page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genetic_history_of_East_Asians#Southern/Northern_route_models_recent_unconstructive_edits

I hope this dispute can be settled now.2001:4BC9:911:EE16:7145:5476:354C:9D9A (talk) 11:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Legal threats by Ryan Kavanaugh

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

---

User:Knightedblog0934, who claims to be Ryan Kavanaugh here, and appears to be a sockpuppet of User:RK777713 (investigation currently taking place at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RK777713), who has recently been banned for making legal threats against editors, has made a legal threat against me in this edit, accusing me of being paid by a third party to edit the Ryan Kavanaugh article and threatening to include me, among other editors, in "the third action [against h3 and Klein]". Throast (talk | contribs) 17:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Irrespective of the SPI, this warrants an immediate block. Based on the history, you've been trying to bring it in line with policy. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 17:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked for the legal threats and am taking a look at the sockpuppetry aspect now. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

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

User:DorothyCrittenden

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

---

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

For a while now, DorothyCrittenden has been adding unsourced genres and changing genres to music articles, sometimes ignoring explicit instructions. Just to name a few diffs, [271], [272], and [273]. I was going to warn them, but then I came across this hostile message on their talk page. They have been warned multiple times in the past to stop their disruptive behavior, deleting these warnings as well, and I think the aforementioned message warrants action from an admin. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 00:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indef, with a supplemental explanation on their talk page.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

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

CIR/COI editor

Moved from WP:COIN

• Robert Corich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Osibisa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• McMalcolm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Despite denials on their talk page, the above user's edits are suspect. They seem to mostly be interested in plastering this person's name all over the place (see my recent series of reverts, ""Mike Brown and Robert M Corich" - spammed across multiple articles without a source"), without reference to reliable sources or anything (going as far as even to try to keep criticism of their edits away because, apparently, they're an authority on the subject and others are not). I suspect there is some WP:UPE at play here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

McMalcolm's at my user talk page is open to interpretation, but suggests the possibility of COI. They said "Knowing the band history, members, producers (who have all commented asking wtf is going on with the deletions on additions they themselves have supplied) I really don’t get where this Random Canadians head is." It certainly suggests a close connection the band, but it's possible McMalcolm is just aware of public comments the members and producers have made. It would help for McMalcolm to where the members/producers have "commented asking wtf". Firefangledfeathers 19:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Addendum/move to ANI : further comments by this editor indicate they are simply not able to understand the issues with their edits, despite explanations (that they need to cite sources, not just make vague references to "artist websites" without citing them), as their latest post demonstrates: In my opinion I view their recent actions as petty and malicious,. Enough is enough. Their edits show they're an WP:SPA mostly interested in the topic of the two pages linked above; and the connection looks like COI/possibly UPE, a good example being the spammed edits of theirs mentioned in my first comment. A topic ban seems like the absolute minimum here, if not a good ol' regular NOTHERE indef (given they don't have any constructive edits elsewhere). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Their editing history points pretty strongly to a COI with the subject and their comments and edit history indicate an obvious SPA. I would support a NOTHERE. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 03:12, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

BradfordXxx is adding links to his own website from celebrity related articles

User:BradfordXxx was on IRC Help recently asking why their changes had been reverted. I noticed that many of this user's edits were additions of links to latestceleb.com. This editor informed me that they were an editor of that web-site, and just wanted to "add useful information" to Wikipedia. --Salimfadhley (talk) 10:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

This user attempted to revert a discussion at WP:SBL in order to prevent his web-site from being added to our spam blacklist. [274] --Salimfadhley (talk) 10:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I've notified the user of this discussion on their user talk page. Conflicts of interest are always a little concerning but we do have robust policies around this. BradfordXxx has declared that they are a contributor to latestceleb.com and other publications on their userpage. Provided those publications are reliable sources and the citations don't add undue emphasis, WP:SELFCITE allows editors to cite themselves. BradfordXxx is, however, guilty of adding inline external links which is against policy, and that revert at WP:SBL is absolutely outrageous, so it certainly looks in this case like they are not here to build an encyclopaedia. Now that BradfordXxx has been properly notified of this discussion, let's see what they have to say. WaggersTALK 12:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Waggers: There is no way that latestceleb.com is a suitable source for BLPs. Their about page claims that they were founded in 2020, states that they publish "gossip and opinions" and compares their reporting to a chat in a coffee shop. It also makes it clear that most of their content comes from "contributing writers" and that they are owned by "The Boring Agency" which appears to be an online advertising agency in the Netherlands? Their terms and conditions page claims that the webite is owned by "Creators Studio Lab", another internet advertising agency, this one seems to be a couple of years old and is based in Nepal. I had a look at a couple of biographies that they have and they seem to consist primarily of text copied from wikipedia. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 13:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)