Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Jacquesparker0 and User:Nofoolie

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

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

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

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

- Rich^T|C|E-Mail 23:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you Rich_Smith. I am sure there are things here that I don't see, about content and connections, but what I can see is that this, "As of June 2023 Catalyst's own website fails to state Baldwin's qualifications or association to any therapeutic professional body's code-of-ethics", is completely unacceptable, it's editorial commentary, it's not neutral or backed by secondary sources. I'm looking at those and other edits, and by the time it's done Nofoolie might end up with a partial or full block. At the very least, Nofoolie, your line of questioning is not acceptable--even if the other editor has a conflict of interest, which they deny. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
• I restored Graham Baldwin. I reverted the editor on Ian Haworth, though that article needs serious pruning. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  I'm sure Jacquesparker0 will have zero problems with cleaning up the WP:REFBOMB - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 01:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for your help Drmies and everyone else. I would like to point out that the WP article on the Cult Information Centre had a similarly large removal of material occur on it by Nofoolie, which I would like for someone to evaluate as well. I am still pretty new to WP all things considered (only been on it for about a year), so I am happy to learn about how I can improve my articles and others. Jacquesparker0 (talk) 06:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

After reviewing the links you provided... wow. Just wow. Nofoolie better have a pretty good explanation for this behavior. He has completely disregarded WP:AGF, and WP:CIVILITY. While I understand his criticism of Jacque's citation, him insisting there must be a CoI, and the way he acted was unacceptable. Professor Penguino (talk) 01:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

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

• This has been pulled out of the archives (thanks Drmies) to allow @Nofoolie: to response to the above - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 23:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I’ve swept contribs for both, but to keep it relevant to the wonder of if WP:HOUNDING is in play, Toollabs checks on Foolie return 11 ‘User Talk’ edits on Jacques’ Talk Page. Jacques’ TP is the most visited one by Foolie, besides his own. This is as opposed to Jacques’ 24, where he hasn’t touched Foolie at all. Big difference on 24 (with no; shall we say, controversial? edits) versus 67 (with 11 of same controversial-possibly, edits), no? MM (Communicate?) ^(Operations) 08:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

No, that isn't really evidence of hounding. All 11 of those edits were made within a single thread in a two-day span [1]. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. Mistake noted. No problem with being Minnowed if so felt. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 10:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Meh. We all make mistakes from time to time and I've never felt that trouts/minnows serve a useful purpose (in the Wikipedia context, that is; I'm not anti-fish). LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

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

ANI flu, I like it, just hope it's not contagious. Appreciate the noarchive - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 19:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

It's a well-known ailment; there's an essay, WP:ANIFLU. Narky Blert (talk) 05:58, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

A piece of advice for @Nofoolie : If you dont reply here, it will not make this go away. Your actions will be reviewed in absetia where you will lose the opportunity to explain yourself, apologise, or otherwise seek to improve the result of this discussion. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I removed citations to the subjects own youtube channel and non-reliable sources.

I also removed citations for reliable-sources where no article can actually be found where there is a maintained news-archive.

I removed assertions not affirmed by the citations.

It appears these poorly constructed articles have been restored.

Is it Wikipedia's place to assert someone is a therapist when there are no known qualifications and no known professional-body membership?

I have also requested that page numbers be offered for offline sources which has been refused. There must be some effort when citations are offered to show the contributor has read the offline-source. I am astounded that this request has been refused. Nofoolie (talk) 09:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Additionally the subject has a history of self-promotion, using his "clients" to publicly declare their "expertise". I have consulted with "fellows" of this expert and none assert it. You will note the comment in the article made a long time ago of the litigious behaviour of the subject. Additionally one might ask reasonable questions as to the debacle that happened on 2007.

There is much more I can contribute on this subject. Nofoolie (talk) 09:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Good that you have chosen to reply now @Nofoolie. I must now direct you to answer this question posed earlier:

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

Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I am not going to post evidence here on Wikipedia.

See the long time comment in the source of the subject's article.

I do not take your condescending tone to be constructive or appropriate.

I seek for the page numbers of offline-sources to be provided -- has the contributor read the books? How are others contributors to confirm these sources?

Additionally, the page is littered with self-promotion.

I have no interest in a worsening situation that you are suggesting. Nofoolie (talk) 10:52, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

AFD and judges appointed by Joe Biden

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  @Star Mississippi

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

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

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

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

  @MIAJudges: While I can't speak for Star Mississippi, it seems fairly obvious to me someone who is not an American so frankly doesn't know that much about how the process works, that what they are saying is that the article was only moved back to main space about two days ago without any form of discussion and based on a statement that goes directly against the guidelines and AFD [2] by User:Frenzie23. However despite this, because the judge has reached a stage of the process where their nomination is going to be confirmed very very soon, there is no point fighting this. Any attempt to reverse it other than simply moving it back without discussion is likely to take longer to resolve than the for this nomination to be confirmed. Again I don't know that much about US federal judgeship nominations and politics but from what I do know this seems an entirely reasonable assessment of the situation. It reflects the fact that Star Mississippi, unlike the editor who moved the article back to main space, understands that Wikipedia operates by consensus and discussion and so an editor cannot simply force their way through unilaterally. As for Frenzie23, while their actions are not good, as a single instance no one is going to support sanction against them based on this single misstep so we are where we are. It's better to discuss the general problem rather than concentrate on one specific action by one editor. Nil Einne (talk) 05:20, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Thanks again & have a great day

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

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

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

  @Ravenswing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Thank you & have a nice day all

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you all

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment: As a primary contributor to WP:USCJN, I see no actionable issue with these nominations. AfD nominations of pending judges will always, of course, be restricted to the president currently in office, since any judicial nominations by past presidents would have expired upon that president leaving office. This is really not a tremendous number of nominations, and can be disposed of through regular AfD processes. I would tend to agree that a deep dive will find evidence of notability for anyone who ends up getting nominated for a federal judgeship, but that does not translate to automatically keeping articles in mainspace where that deep dive has not been made. BD2412 T 02:44, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment (potentially involved?): I see that I voted to draftify on the Tiffany Cartwright AfD last year, and it's an unpleasant surprise to see that popping up on this board. I will say essentially what I said then, though; the guideline for articles here has almost always been WP:GNG. WP:USCJN provides an exception to that when judicial nominees are confirmed, but not before. If, though, a nominee is notable or has garnered significant coverage in reliable secondary sources (e.g. Dale Ho before confirmation and really before his nomination too), that plainly qualifies the subject for an article. I see a lot of WP:BLUDGEONing here, for which I see that MIAJudges has been advised to avoid. The main thrust of the arguments against draftification then in the AfD and DRV and now are inconsistencies with other extant nominees' pages; here, these inconsistencies seem to be remedied through discussion. Even that runs counter to site deletion policy wherein extant consensus and guidelines, not inconsistencies in application thereof, hold sway. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 06:39, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
• I've got a considerably more disturbing bit to report. We've already seen that @MIAJudges is deeply resistant to answering questions about what actual notability criteria are represented in their keep advocacy, and deeply resistant to providing evidence of their assertion that no article on a judicial nominee has ever been deleted, and is now digging in heels over their revelation that they are operating under an alternate account. With that. See, a SPA has arrived to toss in Keeps on some of the AfDs in question, and while looking those over, the SPA had tagged one of the nominee AfDs I hadn't looked at before. So before chiming in on the discussion, I looked over the sources to see if they met the GNG (without exception, they hadn't.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Thank you

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

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

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

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

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

  Thank you

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Were you going to let any of us at this discussion know you had posted this [[4]]? Let'srun (talk) 13:42, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion for judge nominee articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal: temporary TBAN

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

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

Recurring personal attacks

• Jyomon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sneha996 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Jyomon is personally harassing other editors who disagree with their disruptive edits. Have noticed two incidents so far: User_talk:Revirvlkodlaku#Sreelala, [5] Sneha996 (talk) 09:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

The response/counter-complaint from Jyoman below was originally created as a separate section; I have combined the two threads into one. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 11:21, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Sneha996 is purposefully Harassing me with unwanted and obsessive attention.why this user try to obstruct me here... Don't i have a right to ask if someone asks me or write upon me over my pages... The horrible and shocking thing is that this unbelievable Sneha996 user is still observing me with hidden kind of attitude even I have warned her directly and indirectly several times...how can she be like that???

I definitely feel like she is making trap for me and continuosly observing for suppressing me as an editor...even other editors too questioned her and she keeps silent???what the heck is this?? Please help me to solve this disgusting follow up by this untolerating user Sneha996

Please help me..Jyomon (talk)

Sneha996, if you continue WP:FOLLOWING Jyomon, and if continue to mislabel their edits as vandalism (these edits are clearly WP:NOTVANDALISM), you will be sanctioned. Jyomon, please use normal capitalization and punctuation — this is not a chatroom. El_C 12:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello El_C, User:Jyomon was clearly harassing other editors personally, including me. I provided the links in previous note. I tried to report their personal attacking behaviour only. I was not following User:Jyomon, but tried to revert unexplained disruptive edits which I happened to notice. Also I haven't reverted good contributions they made. It is clear that User:Jyomon doesn't have enough awareness about Wikipedia policies, and implementing their own viewpoints about Wikipedia articles. tagging vandalism was my mistake, I admit Sneha996 (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

You provided a mis-link to a user talk page section (I turned it into an internal link to show that it was not a diff), and a diff that displays their frustration with you following them — which you clearly did do, so I'm not sure why you'd say otherwise. And while that aforementioned comment did contain personal attack, so does you falsely calling their edits "vandalism," which you did repeatedly in the course of following them. You have gone about challenging the quality of their edits all wrong. Please review WP:DR closely, for further "awareness about Wikipedia policies," as this appears warranted on your part, also. El_C 13:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you sir for understanding the reality...I was so worried and tensed about the way user User:Sneha996 trying continuosly to suppress me without understanding her mistake.Still why she is behaving like an attacking mind and eagerly waiting for anything negative from my side...and even though there is no mistake from my side, she is again creating problem pointing out me for previous things...

Will she repeat like this haunting me and my edits.....keeping eye over me ?? Why is she so?? please make sure that she doesn't interupt t me again and again..

Even we said all things to her...she is not ready to hear us...please provide punishment for her lifelong...please appologize me if i said anything wrong...Jyomon (talk) Jyomon (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I came across this topic entirely by accident, because I am apparently following updates to User:Revirvlkodlaku's Talk page, and upon receiving an update email, was reviewing their page to try and remember why. When I saw Jyomon's comments, some of the statements were so confusing out of context, that I've spent a couple of hours reviewing their contribution history and some of these disputes. Obviously the following represents strictly my opinion, but it is a thoroughly-researched opinion from a neutral observer. And my observations do not match your assertions, User:El_C.

Firstly, when you encounter a new Wikipedia editor who is making edits which do not adhere to Wikipedia policy, it is entirely normal to look at other recent edits for similar errors that need to be reverted, and even to watch future edits while they're still learning. That does not represent stalking, suppressing an editor or continuously observing anyone. Sneha996's behavior is common practice and one of the ways we keep Wikipedia articles compliant with policy.

But accusing Sneha996 of "harassing edits," on a completely unrelated section of their Talk page [6], that does come into the realm of stalking another editor. Responding to an edit warning from Sneha996 by creating a Teahouse discussion (linked below), then posting an edit warning on Sneha996's page before the Teahouse discussion comes to any consensus, is also a form of editor harassing. And the already-linked comments on Revirvlkodlaku's page are similarly inappropriate - which were not a mislink when I first began my research.

Intentional or not, Jyomon's comments do represent personal attacks which are against the Wikipedia rules for how one interacts with other editors. Specific examples of personally attacking language include; "have a dignity," "fan based edits," "disappointed and sad", "fan girl," and "disgusting." It is my opinion that nothing in Sneha996's behavior represents harassment - and how they've handled this dispute has been respectful and in keeping with policy - while Jyomon's actions do represent personal attacks as well has harassing behavior toward Sneha996 and other editors they've had conflicts with.

It also needs to be noted that this dispute began because of edits made by Jyomon which violated Wikipedia rules on (for starters) reliable sources and NPOV language - as stated by two other independent editors [7]- yet nothing in their editing behavior appears to have changed. For example, this recent edit to the Lead of an article added POV language with no citation, meaning the language used represents nothing but Jyomon's personal opinion. [8] I would suggest that if Jyomon wants to continue being a Wikipedia editor, they need to commit to learning and applying Wikipedia policies, both in terms of how they edit and how they interact with other editors. If they refuse to do so, then many of their edits will continue to represent ongoing vandalism, even if they are made in good faith. CleverTitania (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok see things from both side...i have already appologized to user sneha...but she is the one who follows me and noticing everything that I do as edits... it clearly shows that she purposefully aiming me.

Anyway i quit from this topic ..and deleting all those things regarding this from my talk page as well as her's page regarding my thing ...

Anyway thank you all who supported and dscouraged me here.... Jyomon (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Even I concluded the topic ....user User: Sneha996 is trying to make the same problem again but reverting all those discussion...

Admin can you make an immediate and permanent solution for her disturbance...she is not even understanding...what to do??? Help me please ... Jyomon (talk) 03:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@Jyomon and @Sneha996, both of you stop messing with each others' Talk pages. Sneha996, editors are allowed to remove comments from their own Talk page (with some exceptions). Jyomon, you're not allowed to edit or remove others' comments (also with some exceptions); what you can do is redact your comments, but it's really not necessary. Woodroar (talk) 03:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Would an IBAN do any good here, do we think? MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 07:12, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

• Noting comment: @Sneha996: may have better understanding of the issue so would like to know more @ Talk:Ayisha (film)#What is happening here?. @Sneha996: Reply is still awaited @ Talk:Ayisha (film)#What is happening here? Bookku (talk) 02:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  my re @ Sneha996's user t/p -- Bookku (talk) 05:09, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  See the way she replied.... it is a bad word in Malayalam.... humiliation...using a bad short cut word as "my re"....

  She can say anything according to her wish ..if I openup or replied to a content over my talkpage become personal attack???? Very well conclusion and team work ...you both bookku and Sneha996

  🙏👏👏👏👏👏😡😡😡🙏🙏🙏🙏 Jyomon (talk) 05:25, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Jyomon Which of her sentence is objectionable? Give link. here none of have reason to be partial. Of course do not make baseless accusations the way you have done against me also.-- Bookku (talk) 06:20, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

• @Jyomon fails WP:NPA again → [9]. @Jyomon unworthy personalization not acceptable. Pl. remove or strike out "...maybe she is a freeky fan of .., whose movies are flops present days...and she is a freeky fan of .... " , you may be nearing a block. You can't make personal aspersions like this again and again. any one's mistakes or differing opinion can't be excuse to justify personal aspersions on fellow Wikipedians. -- Bookku (talk) 03:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  oh was it a planned and team work attack..you guys bookku and sneha996 ...well done to trap me....good team work to attack me indirectly..in the name of personal attack...i said my opinions...i haven't tried to say anything personally...the way you took with your partner sneha999 is wrong....

  Anyway nice teamwork...u always shown affinity towards that her...as she is a lady ...and am a boy ....it personally hurts me anyway..

  Always be withyou favourite partener even they didn't answer you or replied to you or made a mistake...

  Not a good quality... be there where truth and right is there... Jyomon (talk) 05:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Jyomon I advised you in time, since your this certain comment was bordering misogyny. At wikipedia we all see women editors are not discriminated on gender. Your accusations of teaming up are entirely false and provide further proof of your recklessness in making baseless personal accusation hampering good faith mentoring. You don't have any proof, conversely i asked difficult question to @Sneha996 Talk:Ayisha (film)#What is happening here? that proves my impartiality. accusing impartial people of bias is not helpful and may invite sterner action from wikipedia community.

  @User:El C and @Cullen328 my good faith impartial mentoring effort seems not working as expected. You can do the needful as experienced admin I request. -- Bookku (talk) 06:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  It is not easy to make sense out of this convoluted situation and please correct me if I am wrong. It looks like Jyomon and Sneha996 are bickering endlessly, and that neither are acting like level-headed encyclopedia editors, and that state of affairs cannot continue. I do not have the time to delve deeply into this dispute because I need to get some sleep. If someone else can make better sense of this, then great. Otherwise, I will take a closer look in my morning. I urge both editors to refrain from further comment unless asked a specific question by somebody uninvolved. Do not make this mess worse by continuing to argue. Cullen328 (talk) 07:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  Idk detail antecedents of both accounts, since I do not work much in movie articles segment.

  • But recent behavior seem to indicate Jyomon has tendency to unnecessarily go overboard and cross the WP:NPA red line repeatedly with baseless allegations, even after saying sorry once or twice.
  • Sneha996 seem to prefer slow revert wars, some cherry picking, not preferring article t/p for WP:DR. For eg. recent 1/2 july 2023 history of this article indicates Jyomon deleted unsourced content without using cn template. Sneha996 reverted that next day without providing sources moreover termed Jyomon's content dispute edits as 'vandalism', probably El C too seem to have taken note of the same. We do not know since when and how many articles both are doing those things.

  -- Bookku (talk) 12:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  l checked article talk namespace contribs of Sneha996. Out of just 3 first accuses some other users of fan followership, one merger proposal and another GA nomination. No proper participation on article talk page in content DR discussion. Where as Sneha996 seem to have issued multiple warnings on user talk pages. -- Bookku (talk) 14:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  "It is not easy to make sense out of this convoluted situation and please correct me if I am wrong. It looks like Jyomon and Sneha996 are bickering endlessly, and that neither are acting like level-headed encyclopedia editors, and that state of affairs cannot continue." I do not think your assessment of the situation is accurate, based on the comments here and on the linked talk pages. It seems to me like Sneha996 has behaved like a level-headed encyclopedia editor, and engaged with civility and professionalism in all relevant discussions. I agree with El_C that she should not have tagged some edits as vandalism, but she was correct in reverting a few very ugly edits by a beginner editor. Jyomon on the other hand has violated WP:NPA and WP:AGF in at least four comments on this very thread, plus a handful more on the talk pages linked above. He seems to have very little understanding or awareness of WP:PG and is now for the first time running into the community trying to teach him how we do things here... and his persistent reaction has been to victimize himself and personally attack editors for doing so. On top of that, his attacks seem to have a misogynistic undertone to them (calling an editor a "fangirl," and telling another editor to get off the encyclopedia and mind her family matters), which is even more disruptive. Combefere ★ Talk 05:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Reporting User:Anubhavklal

User:Anubhavklal has been unilaterally moving articles against consensus (disregarding WP:COMMONNAME) [10] [11] [12] [13], disregar of WP:COMMONNAME in edits [14] [15] [16] and being disruptive [17][18] [19] [20] [21]. The user was blocked four times for similar behaviour and not abiding by WP:ARBIP. Their editing history and the talk page warnings and discussions is a testament. They either need to take time off Wikipedia or remove themselves from the WP:ARBIPA space. They show a serious WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT mentality. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Now making a plethora of move requests, some of which are obvious POV, like this one, which they did after being reverted here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

what is "obvious POV" for you may be actually NPOV, which you are probably not able to see due to your biased point of view. This is also visible from your comments on the respective talk pages where even many other users have tried to explain you.

All my edits, are in good faith and with intent to make Wikipedia a credible source of information. In some cases, my suggestions have not been able to reach consensus, and I believe that is ok. But in many cases your intent is just to block the consensus and push your point of view. Anubhavklal (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

THere is a reason you were blocked for your disruptive edits (4 times), and you still continue to do that, despite countless warnings. All you have to do is follow policies, which seem to be lost on you. You contravening rules of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RM is a testament of that. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Note edit warring against WP:CITYSTRUCT policy [22] [23]. Also note personal attacks and assumptions here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Admins can see in the example quoted by you that it was you who unilaterally removed the content. I only reverted it and requested to discuss on talk page. Anubhavklal (talk) 15:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

How is it wrong to make move requests on respective talk pages?

Agree, once I made page move directly, but that was because I didn't believe anyone will disagree with it. Once disputed, even though I wS not convinced with the reason for disagreement, I chose to discuss it on talk page only. Anubhavklal (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

No, you did it even after being warned and reverted. For example, you moved it on 19 June 2023, 11:25, I warned you at 11:52, same day, you moved the article again on 30 June 2023 without consensus. You also disregarded WP:COMMONNAME is a lot of articles meanwhile and edit warred. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

That's what I said earlier. I did it for one article because I was not aware that anyone will object. But when you reverted it, I thought it is act of vandalism by someone and reverted again. But after suggestion by another user I posted move request on talk page.

Your complaint is that I am "making a plathora of move requests", which I don't think there is any restriction.

Anyways, this doesn't seem to be a place for this debate. I have explained my position. Rest is for admins to decide. Anubhavklal (talk) 18:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Repeated Bludgeoning by .Raven after P-Block

• .Raven (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Killing of Jordan Neely (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Relevant talk page link 1

Relevant talk page link 2

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

dif 1

dif 2

dif 3

dif 4

dif 5

Multiple editors on that talk page again warned .Raven that this pattern of behavior was disruptive, but .Raven has continued. In general, it seems their attitude is to respond to every comment that expresses disagreement with their positions (and frankly many of these positions are so ludicrous that they stretch one's ability to AGF, so virtually every comment on the issue is in disagreement) in an attempt to wikilawyer [24] [25] their perceived opponents into submission, or at least get the last word.

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

This incessant argumentativeness has also characterized Raven's recent conduct here at ANI (see [26] and [27]). At one point, in light of their limited experience, I tried to encourage them to step away from ANI and spend more time familiarizing themselves with community norms [28]. This suggestion was rebuffed [29]. Honestly, in light of the impressive rapacity with which Raven has acquired a reputation for battleground editing, I'm not sure we owe them much more patience. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for including those cites, Lepricavark. Your first link takes us to the case about Randy Kryn, where one of my comments said "Now this is a plain content dispute, not even edit-warring" — and others said the same, and the case was closed accordingly. Your second link takes us to the matter of Freoh and Gwillhickers, where again I argued against sanctioning Freoh, and the closure did not sanction him. Another editor called your comment to me "pulling rank" (conveniently outside the snippets your links show), and on yet another editor's also using that phrase, I noted the impression I had received. But I hadn't argued with or "rebuffed" you for that comment. Odd that these are what you cite as my "battleground editing". It had seemed to me that others were using AN/I as a way to throw those they disagreed with in content disputes off Wikipedia, and I was one of those saying 'slow down'. Perhaps it shouldn't be surprising that I soon thereafter was targeted in the same way. – .Raven  .talk 22:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, Raven, taking issue with someone else's perception of argumentativeness is a bit of a self-refuting strategy, but to each his or her own. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Dumuzid is one of the people who came to my talkpage. That my replying to Dumuzid's and others' comments on my own talkpage is being charged against me as a conduct offense seems to me to be the odd thing. – .Raven  .talk 22:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you, Raven, but I have no interest in becoming ensnared in one of your patented protracted, pointless, pedantic debates. I trust that the admins who frequent this board will be quite capable of evaluating my evidence accurately despite your ill-disguised and amusing attempt at interfering. Have a lovely day, LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

> "attempt at interfering"? — Responding to accusations against me is an attempt at interfering? – .Raven  .talk 22:58, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

> "...simply replying to every comment insisting that other editors take their view." -and- "their attitude is to respond to every comment that expresses disagreement with their positions" — Such exaggerations, "every". As though I hadn't also agreed with other people; answered questions; encouraged AGF all around; replied to comments pinging me by name (e.g. here and here); and finally withdrew from such a conversation when the repetition of already-answered questions appeared to be sea-lioning.

> ".Raven got into extensive heated arguments with nine other editors on their own talk page defending their behavior" — my goodness, they came to my talk page to argue with me. I didn't ping or otherwise ask them to do so. Replying to them is an offense? Disruptive? Of what, on as the OP says, my own talk page? If nine people had each posted one lone comment to me, just by replying to each once I would be posting nine times and they could say I was a nine-times-more-frequent commenter. Of course their average was higher than one each, which only increased my replies. Now one of those arguers wants to make that an offense.

> "hatted and archived the discussions on their talk page" — In order to stop the arguments. That's an offense now too?

This is lawfare, WP:SANCTIONGAMING. It's been used by the same person before. – .Raven  .talk 21:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

If nine editors comment on your talk page asking you to reflect upon and change your behavior, it may be constructive to view that as an opportunity to reflect upon and change your behavior. Viewing it as an obligation to start nine new arguments may be rather unconstructive. Combefere ★ Talk 03:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I am not the one who lawfared / sanctiongamed our content disagreement to try silencing you, Combefere; a behavioral note. – .Raven  .talk 04:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Always happy to consider the feedback! If there's a community consensus or an admin ruling that my actions were lawfaring or gaming, then I'll be sure to think more carefully about filing similar ANIs in the future. Cheers! Combefere ★ Talk 05:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

When an editor continues behavior that previously got them blocked, it is not inappropriate to bring this to administrator attention. Please don't allow yourself to be bullied into thinking that you did something wrong. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 06:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While I'm unbothered by your feeble attempts to refute my evidence, someone needs to speak up against this troubling new development. It seems that Combefere's point was so airtight, you've decided to lob aspersions instead of conceding that maybe it's true that you don't need to argue with everyone who asks you to change your behavior. This unwarranted attack on Combefere's integrity is unacceptable and blockworthy in its own right, everyone if we ignore the fact that your entire approach to editing is incompatible with a collaborative project. But I don't expect you to start listening now. Everyone who disagrees with you is wrong, and some of us are apparently conspiring to silence you by driving you off the site. The criticisms in this thread stem purely from malice on our part and have nothing to do with your tendency to take over conversations, argue implacably over minutiae, and feign moral outrage over comments that you never even tried to understand. Please, tell us more about how you're the victim and we're the big mean baddies. Do you really think we're going to just put up with your behavior indefinitely? Or is it more likely that something else of an indefinite nature is in your future? The charitable side of me wants to urge you to reign yourself in before it's too late, but the very slim part of me that cares about Wikipedia thinks you might save us all a lot of future drama if you just keep talking your way into a permablock in this thread. Besides, I already tried the charitable approach and for my trouble you accused me of pulling rank. I've no patience for your continued silliness, and any further insults directed at Combefere will result in a formal proposal for an indef block. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 05:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and just to make it abundantly clear, I continue to refuse to waste my time trying to reason with someone who will not listen to reason. So don't expect me to engage with whatever version of reality you invent for your next salvo. Again, I'm not particularly concerned with how badly you pretzelize my words. I've endured far worse treatment than that. But the cheap shots at Combefere were your big mistake and they are to stop now. Believe it or not, there are some people on the internet who are willing to stand up to a bully. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 06:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

> "willing to stand up to a bully." — That's good. How about people who take content disputes to AN/I to try throwing those who disagree with them off Wikipedia? – .Raven  .talk 06:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I see no indication from OP's comments that they are trying to get you thrown off the site. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

> "you've decided to lob aspersions" -and- "insults directed at Combefere" — What aspersions or insults?

Per WP:ASPERSIONS, "It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch his or her reputation." -and- "It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause. Legitimate concerns of fellow editors' conduct should be raised either directly with the editor in question, in a civil fashion, or if necessary on an appropriate noticeboard or dispute-resolution page. Although broad leeway is granted to allow editors to express themselves in their interactions with one another, particularly in dispute resolution, a consistent pattern of making objectively unsupported or exaggerated claims of misconduct can necessitate sanctions or restrictions even if the editor subjectively believes that they are true." [emphasis added]

Cf. making exaggerated claims of misconduct like "...simply replying to every comment insisting that other editors take their view." -and- "... their attitude is to respond to every comment that expresses disagreement with their positions (and frankly many of these positions are so ludicrous that they stretch one's ability to AGF...)" [emphasis added] — those "ludicrous positions" being that such policy as WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPPUBLIC should be followed. – .Raven  .talk 06:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Y'know, L., I was done posting at WP:VPP and Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely, but here your accusations are dragging me back into the morass. I'm done with you too. – .Raven  .talk 06:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

If you can't figure out that you are casting aspersions by inventing the claim that the OP is trying to throw you off the site, then I can't help you. You seem determined to be the victim here even though you're the one creating disruption almost everywhere you go. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

If a community consensus or admin ruling determines that I have violated WP:ASPERSIONS, I will gladly face the consequences and adjust my behavior accordingly. As of yet, I just don't see such a consensus. I do stand by the comments you quoted. I don't think either of them are unsupported or exaggerated, but I am always happy to hear other opinions on the matter. I have indeed already noted yours, .Raven and there will be no need to restate it. Cheers. Combefere ★ Talk 07:55, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• Yeah, maybe a walk away from the Neely page is a good idea .Raven. You are right in that Penny's name should not be used if the title of the page includes the word 'Killing' instead of 'Homicide', but remember that this is Wikipedia where anyone can have an opinion (and anyone does) so at times the "wrong" opinion gets traction. Wikipedia certainly should not lose you as an editor, so again pushing the incorrect to a point of ANI discussion gives more fuel to those who disagree with your commonsense. Too many bring ANI concerns too quickly, but again, many hands make this cake so give them some slack so other articles become better because of your knowledge. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks, Randy. I just would prefer that our being incorrect in print be about minor issues, or even major-but-innocuous issues like getting wrong the diameter of the Earth or the population of nation N, rather than jumping the  gun  court verdict in declaring X-killed-Y as "fact" in Wikipedia's voice — too many bad things could result, and it sets a terrible precedent for future cases, in addition to flatly contradicting policy. But I think I've made my point clearly enough, despite the hatting there; so I'm done. – .Raven  .talk 00:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• Taking this complaint seriously and looking at my comment from June 30 on, at Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely (the page and date range Combefere references), I replied twice to !votes / left-edge (non-outdented) comments:

• Here, beginning "Thank you Chrisahn.", in reply to a cite-heavy comment I was happy to see, and adding a policy snippet (quoted verbatim) in furtherance of its point. Clearly neither a "heated argument" nor "bludgeoning" — because I certainly was not trying to change his mind nor to dissuade him from commenting.
• Here, on a different thread ("City and country in lede?"), saying in full "Agreed, Yes, on main point. On parenthesized point: perhaps  'the F train of the subway'  — since 'the F train' by itself might not communicate 'subway' to people unfamiliar with NYC; not 'universal knowledge', as you put it." Again clearly neither "heated argument" nor "bludgeoning", for the same reason.

For replies inside already ongoing discussions, i.e. indented more than once, I take note of Loki's comment below:

"The classic form of [bludgeoning]  is responding to every !vote to try to convince the editor in question to change it. Raven is not doing that, and I'm very clearly not doing that: most of my replies are deep in a thread and several of them are to people I !voted the same way as."

– .Raven  .talk 05:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Since Raven mentioned me, I'd like to clarify: "in furtherance of its point" – that's incorrect. Raven apparently misunderstood my point. I very much disagree with the claim in Raven's reply (about "alleged"), and it didn't have much to do with my point. — Chrisahn (talk) 20:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Broader bludgeoning issue?

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

Including multiple comments to ping previous RfCs' participants to participate, as a fix for another editor's attempt which fell afoul of the 50-pings-per-comment limit. Oddly enough, after my first such ping-group (for #51-to-end), BilledMammal advised me that the first 50 listed names hadn't received pings either, so I posted more pings (in 2 comments) to finish the set; then answered a question for one of the responders.

And in response to ScottishFinnishRadish's small note about the dash Wikipedia often requests (ndash) not being on our keyboards, I suggested a browser add-on ("AddAccent") which simplifies typing non-keyboard characters.

Provided links and reference quotes of the MOS, the UCoC regarding respect, and the previous RfC's closure; even tried to encourage an editor who'd asked "Can I just point out...?" with "You certainly can...." (and not because I agreed).

'Bludgeoning', hm. That term conveys a more discouraging attitude, e.g. telling people they mustn't comment. Like this section. – .Raven  .talk 04:40, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that you shouldn't comment, but when the number of comments you have made are getting close to triple digits - and the next most prolific commenter has made less than half the number you have - you should seriously consider stepping back from the discussion.

'Bludgeoning', hm. That term conveys a more discouraging attitude, e.g. telling people they mustn't comment. Like this section. I am concerned by this comment; it suggests you don't see an issue with bludgeoning and thus will continue doing it, despite community consensus that it is disruptive. BilledMammal (talk) 05:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Note that WP:BLUDGEON isn't measured sheerly by quantity of posts: "In Wikipedia terms, bludgeoning is where someone attempts to force their point of view..." — of which pinging more participants from prior RfCs to discuss the topic, and encouraging new commenters, is rather the opposite — and to do which "sheer volume of comments" is not the only possible method. For instance, silencing dissenters by trying to get them blocked or banned is another technique. – .Raven  .talk 06:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

You're right; in theory, it is possible to make 78 comments to an RfC and not be bludgeoning. In practice, though? I've never seen it. I'll note that it's a little inaccurate to suggest that most, or even just many, of your comments there were procedural and not arguing your position.

I'm also concerned that rather than taking the concerns other editors have raised here about your behavior onboard you have instead assumed bad faith and suggested that three separate editors are trying to silence you; Lepricavark, Combefere, and now myself. This suggests a problematic level of tendentiousness and battleground behavior. BilledMammal (talk) 06:55, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• Raven's comments here give the impression that he he hasn't just failed to realize how much he's commenting, but rather refuses to accept that bludgeoning is a form of disruptive editing. He is instead trying to wikilawyer what "bludgeoning" means. In the Newimpartial AN/I thread in February, I proposed the following sanction, which was subsequently enacted: no more than two comments per discussion per day, except replies (of reasonable length) to questions or very brief clarifications of their own comments. Perhaps the same should be imposed here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 07:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Someone posted in DGG's obituary that he had cultivated the practice of holding himself to two comments per thread, trusting himself to make his points with clarity and persuasiveness. If he expressed himself well and had a cogent argument, other people would agree and back him up. If not, it's Wikipedia. Consensus isn't always on our side. Ever since reading that I've always thought an enforced DGG% thread cap would be a good novel restriction. No comment on the particulars here, just support for the idea behind the restriction in the general case. Folly Mox (talk) 11:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  What?? DGG died? Oh, good god, this is getting to be an intolerable sequence of losses the last couple of years. :( SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:58, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  Pretty close.

  On one of the two discussions at issue, WP:VPP#RfC: Proposed addition to MOS:GENDERID - when to include deadnames: During July 3 (UTC), I posted 3 comments in reply to comments not directed at me, and 5 in reply to comments directed at me. During July 2, zero. During July 1, zero. During June 30, zero, During June 29, zero.

  On the other discussion at issue, Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely#What to include from assailant's video statement: During July 3, I posted 1 comment (in reply to a comment not directed at me). During July 2, zero of those and 7 (in reply to comments directed at me), respectively. During July 1, zero and 4, respectively. During June 30, 1 and 1, respectively. During June 29, zero. (The period of the P-Ban was the week of June 21-28.)

  Clearly I've been failing to match the expectations made for me above. – .Raven  .talk 11:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

[30] - I am one of the editors who engaged with .Raven on their talk page regarding bludgeoning at WP:VPP after the partial block. There was a resultant argument, of course. I went to the talk page to try to ensure that this ANI report would not occur. I did not succeed. starship.paint (exalt) 12:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• Just jumping in here to say as someone who's following that VPP thread closely that I don't actually think that Raven has a problem with bludgeoning generally (commenting a lot is not the same as bludgeoning), that this is pretty obvious from reading that VPP thread, and that I find it very suspicious that the person who brought up this issue is also someone who has repeatedly had their ideas shot down, and not just by Raven, at said VPP thread. Or in other words, I suspect the point here is to eliminate an opponent and is not a real concern over wrongdoing. Loki (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  I'm growing tired of these aspersions against the OP. There's no evidence that they are asking for Raven to be eliminated, whereas there is abundant evidence (including the very recent p-block) that Raven's behavior has been deemed problematic by uninvolved editors. Really your reading of the situation is extraordinary. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  @LokiTheLiar: I have no idea what is meant by this comment: "I find it very suspicious that the person who brought up this issue is also someone who has repeatedly had their ideas shot down, and not just by Raven, at said VPP thread." I was not involved in the VPP thread. Combefere ★ Talk 16:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Not you, BilledMammal. Loki (talk) 16:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Still a personal attack that you make without evidence, and one that ignores that I'm not the only editor seeing a problem with Raven's behavior. Please strike it; if you need evidence against your allegation to do so, please consider that when I first called out this behavior I was careful to avoid mentioning any editor directly, in the hope that we could avoid any drama or ill-feeling. BilledMammal (talk) 17:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  You're right that it was unfair to target you specifically, so I've struck the parts of the comment about you specifically. However, I still think that Raven is obviously not bludgeoning in that thread and that the idea they are is indicative of ulterior motives. Loki (talk) 17:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Mmm, "there is an element of bludgeoning going on, with the most prolific contributor having made 70 comments" sure seems to say that the one who had made 70 comments is "bludgeoning". – .Raven  .talk 17:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - My initial instinct was to oppose sanctions, but seeing Raven's conduct here, I can't do that in good faith, so I am resolutely neutral. But Raven, a thought or two, if you will indulge me. I fear you'll keep getting dragged here unless you can deal with one of two editing tendencies. The first is to assume, axiomatically, your own correctness. We all believe we are right, of course, but at least at the Neely article, you seemed to scoff at the idea that there could be any other reasonable interpretation. That would be a bit irksome, by itself, but when combined with the second factor, is more problematic--and that factor is somewhere between a distaste for disengaging and WP:LASTWORD. In the linked diffs above, I think it was pretty clear that I was trying to say "okay, nothing more to be done here" but you kept hammering away at essentially the same point. Part of being WP:CIVIL is learning to disagree and disengage. Again, either trait is suboptimal (as are we all in this sublunary world), but it's the synthesis between the two that seems to me keeps dragging you back here. Finally, you really need to take on board the idea that if multiple editors comment to you about your behavior, you need to do some self-reflection. That doesn't mean you need to agree, but something you are doing is problematic in some regard. I would never have asked for sanctions here myself, but I absolutely understand why this section exists. I have tried to deal with you both collegially and in good faith, and I hope I have done so. Whatever happens, sincerely, all the best, and because I don't want to contribute to the problem, I won't be responding further here. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  > "you seemed to scoff at the idea that there could be any other reasonable interpretation."

  In our exchange (starting with your comment, ff.), I pointed out that what you called my "interpretation both of the substance of the relevant statements and the application of policy thereto" was my linked verbatim quotes of both, and invited you to find where I'd misquoted either... which you declined to do. So I think this is yet another example of misrepresenting what I wrote. – .Raven  .talk 05:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

• While I opposed the sanction idea below, upon further review it's kind of clear this editor isn't learning anything. The TALK page where editors have attempted to steer the editor in the right direction has been greeted with excuse making and finger pointing. There's really no acknowledgement that their might be a problem. When an editor is seemingly incapable of listening to others something should probably be done. I would support an indefinite or temp block. It would nice if the editor could acknowledge the issue and attempt to modify their behavior. Nemov (talk) 23:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: daily page comments restriction

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

• Support Tamzin's proposal, although I would replace "discussion" with "page" and remove the exceptions, because I do not trust that .Raven will abstain from debating and lawyering over the definition of "a discussion", "reasonable length". or "very brief clarifications". --JBL (talk) 17:40, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  For clarity, this is JBL’s proposal: no more than two comments per page per day. starship.paint (exalt) 23:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Wow, JBL, and I even cited two discussions above by section link. – .Raven  .talk 23:55, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  I don't understand what this comment means. --JBL (talk) 00:13, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  Have I failed to demonstrate my understanding of "discussion"? Or do we mean different things by that? – .Raven  .talk 01:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  My objection is not to your ability to understand things, it is to your relentless style of argumentation. For that reason, I think restrictions on you should not have clauses in them that are possibly subject of interpretation (hence of argument). I also strongly agree with what Folly Mox says below about the general principle here. --JBL (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  > "should not have clauses in them that are possibly subject of interpretation"

  Hm. I had thought policy WP:BLP's sections WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPPUBLIC had clear unambiguous statements, yet at Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely I was told (in response to my word-for-word quotes of policy and RSs) of disagreement with my "interpretation". Any text is subject to word-for-word quote, which (using that approach) can be called "interpretation".

  Please notice that my reply to the linked comment was not in agreement with that approach. – .Raven  .talk 04:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  I think it would be a good exercise for you to re-read my comment, and perhaps my other comments in this thread, and consider what I might think of this most recent response. (E.g., whether I would find it responsive to or engaged with the points and concerns I've raised.) I also think it would then be a good exercise for you to not respond to this comment, if merely as a proof that "not responding" is something you are capable of. --JBL (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  Support Tamzin's proposal with JBL's modifications above. Combefere ★ Talk 17:52, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support The proposal with JBL's modifications. Display name 99 (talk) 22:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• I still prefer my wording, because admins are perfectly capable of blocking users who wikilawyer around sanctions, but JBL's is acceptable to me. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:10, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, nobody as active as .Raven deserves such a restriction. Two comments per talk page a day? That could be used up as a post and a reply, and then if one more comment is posted people who will be keeping gleeful track of their comments will jump up and down and demand a block. Two comments a day in a discussion is almost absurdly limiting towards an active editor. If the goal is to block .Raven then this would do it, and that should not be anyone's goal on Wikipedia - a "got ya" trap set and approved at ANI. Just let everyone involved here edit freely and give each other the latitude to fully express themselves. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  There are definitely certain circumstances in which two edits per discussion per day is very limiting, like the common "what should we do about this issue?" → "ok I'm going to do a thing" → "ok I did the thing everything look good?". The general case is to compose with more thought, reread and rewrite your post, and resist the urge to respond to edits containing claims you feel like refuting. Even if there are a bunch of errors, you can save them up for your next comment and address them in a batch, AE-style. I'm definitely guilty of not thinking through my initial edit to a thread sufficiently thoroughly, but it's possible with self-restraint and patience.

  And again here I'm arguing for the principle of the restriction. I haven't looked into all the discussions linked from this one and have no desire to weigh in on whether this sanction should be applied in this case. Folly Mox (talk) 04:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support either Tamzin's or JBL's proposal. Raven's comments above demonstrate that they aren't willing to avoid bludgeoning discussions, and indeed reject that such behavior is disruptive. Both of these proposals will allow them to continue contributing to the site while also preventing this disruptive behavior.

I would also support adding two common sense exceptions; comments made on their talk page and comments made in noticeboard discussions about them don't count towards the limit. BilledMammal (talk) 00:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

> "Raven's comments above demonstrate that they aren't willing to avoid bludgeoning discussions.... / ... comments made in noticeboard discussions about them don't count towards the limit."

This *is* a noticeboard discussion about me; yet you say my "comments above demonstrate"... — on what basis? The numbers you just said don't count? What did this comment demonstrate? – .Raven  .talk 01:17, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm referring to comments like 'Bludgeoning', hm. That term conveys a more discouraging attitude, e.g. telling people they mustn't comment. Like this section. BilledMammal (talk) 01:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Which was in a post above linking to comments that had been counted toward "bludgeoning", yet did not "attempt to force [any] point of view", e.g. pinging more participants from prior RfCs to discuss the topic, and encouraging new commenters. I don't consider those to be "bludgeoning" at all, and I think WP:BLUDGEON's definition excludes them too. Which makes using raw comment-counts (without examining content) not particularly useful as a guide. The hostility or absence of it matters too. We're supposed to welcome differing viewpoints — which those comments did — rather than the reverse. Yet now that's counted as "bludgeoning"? – .Raven  .talk 02:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose sanctions, as I again see no evidence that Raven is bludgeoning discussions generally. Loki (talk) 00:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support any and all sanctions. This is probably the worst case of serial bludgeoning I've encountered in all my years on Wikipedia. It has to stop somewhere, although for whatever reason some editors inconceivably refuse to see the problem even when it is this blindingly obvious. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:04, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  Are actual numbers blinding? – .Raven  .talk 01:19, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  What's blinding is how obvious it is that you frequently bludgeon threads and turn them into battlegrounds. Your style of communicating is inconsistent with a community that values listening. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  > "frequently", now? Are the two threads brought up here a fair example of this "frequent" behavior? – .Raven  .talk 02:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  I could respond further, but I see no point since you're never going to let up no matter what evidence is presented. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  What "evidence" of "frequently" has been presented? Two discussions were brought up; you've refused to respond to (and possibly even to read) the actual comment-counts from those discussions after the P-BAN ended.

  Per WP:ASPERSIONS: "Although broad leeway is granted to allow editors to express themselves in their interactions with one another, particularly in dispute resolution, a consistent pattern of making objectively unsupported or exaggerated claims of misconduct can necessitate sanctions or restrictions even if the editor subjectively believes that they are true." [emphasis added] – .Raven  .talk 05:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  Raven, you're literally bludgeoning a thread about how you bludgeon threads. I strongly suggest you just stop typing for a while. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  It is, in my opinion, literally impossible to bludgeon an ANI report of yourself. You're expected to respond to many or most comments in an ANI about your own behavior, because you have both a right and a duty to defend yourself. Loki (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  I have seen AN/I reportees criticized for insufficient response to the discussion. – .Raven  .talk 17:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  I've definitely seen people sanctioned for over-replying to ANI, because it veers from defending themselves to browbeating everyone who speaks up. It's possible to respond collectively to concerns, rather than every damn last comment made in the ANI thread. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  Oh come now. What does duty have to do with anything? We're writing an online encyclopedia; this isn't a war or something. Besides, nobody has the duty to defend themselves against every form of criticism however mild it may be. It is quite possible to bludgeon an ANI report about one's self, and it is untrue that there is some expectation that the editors will respond to many or most comments in such a thread. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  > "defend themselves against every form of criticism however mild it may be"

  When the accusations are severe enough to move for sanctions, that's not "mild". – .Raven  .talk 04:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  Of course not. But the reason we got to this point is because you argued with the mild criticisms too. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 12:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  Accusations of "bludgeoning", aka "incessant argumentativeness" or "patented protracted, pointless, pedantic debates", are mild criticisms? If not, then what? – .Raven  .talk 21:09, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

• Editors need to be able to engage in dialogue with each other to discuss questions that may arise with mainspace edits. If one participant is limited in the frequency of their edits, this hampers them from participating fully as a mainspace contributor. I appreciate the intent of the proposal, but I feel the desired goal of inducing greater concision and less repetition should be achieved with a different method. isaacl (talk) 05:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  Note I am not saying that no restriction is warranted. Although I can imagine situations where a mainspace talk page restriction might be workable, in most cases I think if an editor is unable to be productive in discussing their mainspace edits, they may as well be restricted from editing articles rather than just limiting their mainspace talk page edits. isaacl (talk) 16:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  Someone who prefers discussion to edit-wars will tend to comment more than someone with the opposite preference. If comments are stopped but article-editing is not, doesn't that encourage the B and the R without the D? – .Raven  .talk 17:19, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure how your response relates to my comment, as I explicitly said that editors need to be able to discuss their mainspace edits. To me, this is an off-topic response which illustrates the issue of posting more responses than necessary. isaacl (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  I was not *disagreeing* with you, but suggesting a point in *favor* of your "they may as well be restricted from editing articles rather than just limiting their mainspace talk page edits." — thus, "If comments are stopped but article-editing is `not, doesn't that encourage the B and the R without the D?"

  Is that still off-topic, or does it relate mow? – .Raven  .talk 04:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  The first sentence in your initial reply is unconnected. The second sentence is phrased as a question, which thus appears to ask me if I agree with something I already stated as my viewpoint. Both of these are detrimental to the topic of discussion I feel you should be focused on: illustrating that you can be concise and avoid posting more often than necessary. isaacl (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  Not so much to ask you, as to pose a rhetorical question to the readers we share. – .Raven  .talk 21:05, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  When you ask a question in response to my post, it sounds like you're asking me a question, rhetorical or not. Since you're ostensibly agreeing with me, it's not clear why you're asking this question. If you're trying to initiate a dialogue with other, unspecified people, it would be more effective for you to set the appropriate context, and often it is better to do so in a separate thread. (Note I'm not asking you for any further response or explanation; I'm just explaining the effect of your initial reply.) isaacl (talk) 03:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  User:Isaacl - I agree on both counts. Editors need to be able to fully contribute to a consensual discussion, because it is fully intertwined with boldly editing. One does not work without the other being fully available. - jc37 23:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose JBL's proposal – 2 edits per talk page a day, without being able to make corrections or reply to questions posed to you, is too restrictive in any case in my opinion. No comment on Tamzin's proposal – I haven't looked in depth into this case. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 06:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
• I agree with Randy Kryn that this extreme limit is just setting the editor (or any active editor it's put upon) to up to get gamed and blocked ('look, it's only been 23 hours since the person's previous two!'), and having just seen another editor in this topic area get similarly gamed and blocked, I'd rather we not add to the pile... especially since it is noticeable that there is a specific pile; I've seen a lot of suboptimal editing in this topic area, and can't avoid noticing that in the last few months four of the editors who are trans or are 'nonhostile' to trans people have been dragged here, banned, blocked, or restricted by crowds consisting of many of the same people, while wp:nothere SPAs who do nothing but wikilawyer or troll in the other direction continue to operate : as Black Kite said even when it was just two, it ain't been subtle. OTOH, Raven's replies to this very thread make clear some kind of warning is necessary. On a balance I oppose either two-edit restriction (although Tamzin's is better than JBL's), but Raven, as Dumuzid said, you will get dragged here again — eventually the editors who are angling to get you blocked, no matter how incorrect or invalid you think their actions are, will succeed — unless you take to heart that commenting this much is indeed viewed negatively and learn to rein it in; you don't have to have the wp:lastword, you can say your piece and leave it at that, and just because another editor keeps repeating their own point doesn't mean you have to keep engaging. -sche (talk) 15:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support either proposal editor is bludgeoning a thread about how they're bludgeoning threads by demanding someone provide evidence of them bludgeoning threads. I wonder what completely novel information they'll respond to this !vote with. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I was surprised to see that LokiTheLiar wrote: no evidence that Raven is bludgeoning discussions generally. Perhaps no one has presented evidence. I shall present a comparison in the green boxes below - to Loki, who also participated in the RFC. starship.paint (exalt) 16:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

70 posts by .Raven in the WP:VPP RFC, initiating replies against 19 editors, while only 3 editors initiated replies against .Raven without .Raven initiating them first.

[initiating replies against 19 editors] - Cunado, Only in death does duty end, Mitch Ames, North8000, BilledMammal, Iffy, Locke Cole, Kusma, FOARP, Graeme Bartlett, Folly Mox, JoelleJay, Ravenswing, Blueboar, Huggums537, Adoring nanny, Cavarrone, Visviva, SmallJarsWithGreenLabels - bolded later re-engaged .Raven in later discussions [3 editors initiated without .Raven initiating] - SMcCandlish, Jerome Frank Disciple, EddieHugh Survey section Discussion thread 1: Initiates reply to Cunado 23:57, 12 June 2023 04:00, 13 June 2023 07:33, 13 June 2023 16:36, 14 June 2023 Thread 2: Initiates reply to Only in death does duty end 07:36, 13 June 2023 Thread 3: Votes (no one replies) 05:48, 14 June 2023 Thread 4: Initiates reply to Mitch Ames 16:00, 14 June 2023 Thread 5: Initiates reply to North8000 16:51, 14 June 2023 18:22, 14 June 2023 Thread 6a: Initiates reply to BilledMammal 18:22, 14 June 2023 Thread 7: Initiates reply to Iffy 23:33, 15 June 2023 Thread 6b: Responds to reply by Iffy 01:45, 16 June 2023 Thread 8a: Initiates reply to Locke Cole 07:35, 15 June 2023 Thread 9: Initiates reply to Kusma 10:20, 18 June 2023 16:15, 18 June 2023 17:16, 19 June 2023 Thread 10: Initiates reply to FOARP 16:58, 22 June 2023 Thread 11a: Initiates reply to Graeme Bartlett 16:27, 22 June 2023 Thread 11b: Responds to reply by Cunado 19:31, 24 June 2023 Thread 12: Initiates reply to Folly Mox 01:20, 24 June 2023 Thread 13: Initiates reply to JoelleJay 02:24, 24 June 2023 Thread 14a: Initiates reply to Ravenswing 01:49, 24 June 2023 07:15, 24 June 2023 Thread 14b: Responds to reply by Mitch Ames 03:38, 24 June 2023 04:31, 24 June 2023 09:23, 24 June 2023 19:43, 24 June 2023 Thread 14c: Responds to reply to Locke Cole 05:26, 24 June 2023 05:36, 24 June 2023 05:47, 24 June 2023 05:54, 24 June 2023 06:46, 24 June 2023 06:53, 24 June 2023 07:00, 24 June 2023 07:03, 24 June 2023 07:10, 24 June 2023 09:09, 24 June 2023 09:10, 24 June 2023 09:12, 24 June 2023 19:05, 24 June 2023 19:49, 24 June 2023 Thread 8b: Responds to reply by SMcCandlish 09:36, 24 June 2023 Thread 8c: Responds to reply by Jerome Frank Disciple 19:18, 24 June 2023 20:12, 24 June 2023 21:08, 24 June 2023 21:30, 24 June 2023 Thread 15: Initiates reply to Folly Mox 07:18, 24 June 2023 Thread 16: Initiates reply to Blueboar 19:49, 24 June 2023 Thread 17: Initiates reply to Huggums537 17:01, 28 June 2023 18:21, 28 June 2023 06:36, 30 June 2023 Thread 18: Initiates reply to Adoring nanny 06:36, 3 July 2023 10:06, 3 July 2023 Thread 19a: Initiates reply to Cavarrone 10:06, 3 July 2023 Thread 19b: Responds to reply by EddieHugh 20:44, 3 July 2023 Thread 20a: Initiates reply to FOARP 16:07, 3 July 2023 Thread 20b: Responds to reply by Huggums537 16:18, 3 July 2023 17:13, 3 July 2023 15:16, 5 July 2023 Thread 20c: Responds to reply by Blueboar 20:11, 3 July 2023 Thread 20d: Responds to reply by FOARP 15:00, 4 July 2023 Thread 20e: Responds to reply by Locke Cole 00:59, 5 July 2023 01:04, 5 July 2023 Outside of the survey section Thread A, part 1: Initiates reply to Visviva 23:18, 14 June 2023 02:17, 15 June 2023 Thread A, part 2: Responds to reply by SMcCandlish 23:18, 14 June 2023 Thread A, part 3: Responds to reply by BilledMammal 06:51, 15 June 2023 Thread B: Initiates reply to Huggums537 19:56, 24 June 2023 Thread C: Initiates reply to SmallJarsWithGreenLabels 02:28, 24 June 2023

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

There are diffs, but, well, trust me on this. starship.paint (exalt) 16:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC) Survey section Votes Initiates reply to -sche, once Initiates reply to Sideswipe9th, once Initiates reply to Huggums537, once Initiates reply to North8000, once Initiates reply to Spycicle, once Responds to reply by Locke Cole, once Initiates reply to JoelleJay, once Initiates reply to Blueboar, once Discussion section Initiates reply to SMcCandlish, once Initiates reply to Sideswipe9th, once Initates reply to SnowRise, once Initiates reply to Adam Cuerden, once

• Perhaps, editors can make a decision whether either Loki or .Raven, neither, or both bludgeoned. Skarmory may wish to take a look. Note that .Raven had three bursts of activity (12-16 June, 22-24 June, 3-5 July). The second burst stopped after warnings by myself and Dumuzid. starship.paint (exalt) 16:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

The list is inflated by including replies to comments directed at me. Nifty. – .Raven  .talk 17:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• See, this is the whole issue I have with this report in a nutshell. Replying to comments by itself is not bludgeoning. Replying to comments a lot is not bludgeoning. You cannot prove anything with just pure frequency of replies, you need some kind of reference to the content and the structure of the replies.

WP:BLUDGEONing is not just commenting a lot, it's trying to overwhelm the discussion by sheer volume of comments. The classic form of it is responding to every !vote to try to convince the editor in question to change it. Raven is not doing that, and I'm very clearly not doing that: most of my replies are deep in a thread and several of them are to people I !voted the same way as.

In general, if Editor A asks an open question and Raven responds, that's not bludgeoning. If Editor A says something, Editor B disagrees, and Raven responds agreeing with Editor A, that's also (generally) not bludgeoning. Raven sure is commenting a lot on that discussion but only relatively rarely with the sort of combativeness that is necessary to be considered bludgeoning. Loki (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that replying a lot is not necessarily bludgeoning. But .Raven has been bludgeoning. Per WP:BLUDGEON, "In Wikipedia terms, bludgeoning is where someone attempts to force their point of view by the sheer volume of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own. Typically, this means making the same argument over and over, to different people."

In my experience, .Raven certainly has a tendency to contradict every viewpoint different from their own, and to make the same argument over and over to different people. Furthermore, I typically find their comments to be combative, unconstructively dismissive (see WP:IDONTHEARYOU), and overly reliant on proof by assertion. This leads them into a lot of situations where they respond to comments just to say 'nuh-uh!'

On the Neely talk page, they came back from their block with the rather silly argument that all statements from RSs are no more than allegations (based on the wikitxt definition of the word "allegation"), and therefore we cannot include information in the article without the qualifier "alleged." They made this identical argument to four editors in four separate threads. When all of the editors disagreed with .Raven's interpretation and offered clear and succinct explanations as to why, .Raven persisted by simply repeating the argument over and over, by asking condescending questions, by linking to diffs of their own comments when they needed a fresh way to repeat them, by claiming that other editors agreed with them when they did not, by accusing other editors of trolling, and generally by having a "debate me!" attitude.

And this was in the course of only two days, after they were already blocked on the same page for bludgeoning discussion. Their behavior which led to the first block was similar, but lasted for weeks and weeks, spanning dozens of discussions. It was this previous block that led me to file the second ANI so quickly – repeat offenders do not have the same leeway as other users. Combefere ★ Talk 17:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I cited policy, WP:BLPPUBLIC, which I had no part in writing, to several people who were either unaware of it or unwilling to follow it. That gives the "Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should state only that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred. / If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too." Several other people's comments have stressed the "alleged", e.g. "A 'crime'/felony IS alleged by e.g. the DA, and thus e.g. BLPCRIME policy applies and the allegation matters now" -and- "... Serious BLP concerns. It is still alleged." -and- "... there's a distinction between describing an event as a killing and naming an alleged killer." — so to say that "all of the editors disagreed with .Raven's interpretation" is incorrect, unless you mean those four. Here's the start of one circling thread in which an editor insists I cite and quote from recent high-quality reliable sources that use such explicit language, specifically that ""Penny allegedly killed Neely"" etc.... apparently unaware that one needn't use the word "allege" in order to allege something. For that editor I provided links to both definitions and synonyms, showing that the newspapers stating X-killed-Y were alleging it. On such a matter, WP:BLP has us wait for a court verdict, not the newspaper headlines ahead of trial. This much should have been uncontroversial. We're not supposed to rush to judgment like newspapers; we're WP:NOTNEWS. – .Raven  .talk 19:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

When I said "all other editors" I did mean all four other editors engaged in that discussion about BLPPUBLIC. I assure you that we, all four of us, were fully aware of the policy, fully understood your interpretation of the policy, and were fully aware that one needn't use the word allege in order to allege something when we responded to you. But I do appreciate you taking the time to demonstrate both how eager you are to continue repeating yourself, as well as your unshakeable belief that anybody who disagrees with you must not have heard you the first six or seven times. Combefere ★ Talk 19:38, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

> "all four of us... were fully aware that one needn't use the word allege in order to allege something"

Requiring "explicit language, specifically that 'Penny allegedly killed Neely'", indicates otherwise. – .Raven  .talk 21:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps a less condescending explanation is that we all simply disagreed with your interpretation of BLPPUBLIC. My humble advice is to consider that this type of explanation is often more constructive than the explanation that four other editors didn't hear you the first seven times, and that you must repeat yourself an eighth time. But if you'd prefer to ignore that advice and repeat yourself for a ninth time, then by all means keep digging. Combefere ★ Talk 23:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

My goodness, "condescending"? *I* haven't told anyone they shouldn't comment (or !vote) at all if they weren't commenting the way *I* wanted them to. – .Raven  .talk 03:25, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I've only interacted with Raven on the Neely talk page. Unfortunately, Combefere's description of Raven's behavior on that page matches my experience very closely. I think Raven should take to heart the following sentence from WP:BLUDGEON: The more often you express the same ideas in a discussion, the less persuasive you become. — Chrisahn (talk) 19:13, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support either. Tamzins version leaves more space for constructive editing, while JBL's version prevents the exploitation of loopholes with more wikilawyering. From the evidence submitted I was already leaning towards support, but the amount of spammed replies with little meaningful additions of content in this very thread sealed the deal for me. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose on principle. - Ok, So I haven't looked at the diffs. And I don't think I've ever encountered the editor in question. But I'm reading through a "discussion" with huge blocks of text (noting that I can write huge blocks of text with the best of them : ) - where there are more than a few cases of people talking past each other, all while accusing someone else of "bludgeoning" a discussion. Anyway, all that aside, picking some arbitrary number is just another form of edit-counting, and I oppose editcountitis out of principle. If there really is an issue with bludgeoning here, then perhaps someone can come up with some other creative idea to reduce the disruption. But I don't think this is it. - jc37 19:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  It is certainly possible for reasonable people to disagree about whether the proposed restrictions are necessary or appropriate (or, obviously, on the precise details) but this comment is just incoherent -- what is {[tq|picking some arbitrary number is just another form of edit-counting, and I oppose editcountitis out of principle}} even supposed to mean? Maybe you could make some attempt to investigate the specifics of the situation under discussion before opining? --JBL (talk) 19:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  "If there really is an issue with bludgeoning here, then perhaps someone can come up with some other creative idea to reduce the disruption. But I don't think this is it" I don't think this suggestion is really constructive. As Tamzin pointed out, this proposal has precedent; it was used in the ANI for Newimpartial earlier this year. A similar proposal was unanimously supported to sanction user Bus Stop at an ANI thread in 2021, and was only overruled because editors on that thread ultimately decided a site ban was more appropriate.

  If you have a better proposal, then by all means, put it forward. As is, your comment seems to oppose on principle the idea of sanctioning disruptive users at all. Combefere ★ Talk 20:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  Arbcom is not bound to precedent, and neither are we. Just because someone else did something does not make it the correct thing to do in every situation.

  As for a different proposal? there are more than a few, but it depends on the situation. There are plenty of creative minds here who I presume are more informed about whatever the disruption is, than I presume to be.

  But whatever is decided, editcounitis is for the birds. Edit quantity over edit quality is almost always a waste of community time.. And if you have read WP:BLUDGEON (and I presume that you have) you'd know that it has little to do with the quantity of the edits, but what the edits consist of. Hence: editcountitis is for the birds. - jc37 20:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  it depends on the situation. Yes. There are plenty of creative minds here who ... are more informed about whatever the disruption is, than I presume to be. Also yes. Perhaps you could restrict your commenting to situations about which you are informed. --JBL (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  It's interesting to see you attempt to cherry-pick out part of my comments while seemingly intentionally ignoring what I was actually saying, and then trying to use that as an attack, and then to try to push me away. There's an interesting irony here.

  Anyway, you're welcome to disagree or not like what I'm saying, but you not understanding what I'm saying (by your admission above) does not mean you should use your lack of understanding to attack me.

  Speaking of things that this discussion would appear not ot be, I think I'll add "Collegiately Civil"... - jc37 22:04, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  I already expressed above that I find your point obscure; your decision not to explain yourself clearly (either initially or in response) is a decision you've made, not a personal failing of mine -- you are welcome to explain. Separately, I do not think the principle "don't make votes on ANI threads without investigating the actual situation" is particularly difficult to understand, and I'm also not sure why you think it's a good idea to disregard it. (Unlike the first point, I don't want you to explain this bad choice, I just want you to either stop commenting on a situation you aren't familiar with or to familiarize yourself with it and adjust your comments appropriately.) --JBL (talk) 22:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  I believe the word you used was "wikt:incoherent". Which, based upon your words, means that you could not make sense out of my comments.

  And I absolutely can "opine" (as you put it) that I think that this "solution" is inappropriate to address a situation of bludgeoning. My comments are pointed at the suggested solution. Whether the editor is guilty of bludgeoning is immaterial to whether setting an arbitrary number for allowed edits should be deemed appropriate for any editor, especially since that's not the intent of WP:Bludgeon, and not what it states. As I stated above. You can continue to try to ignore my words, but it doesn't change their applicability to this request for comment.

  Again, you apparently keep attempting to dismiss what you don't understand. I'm happy to try to continue to clarify, but please, go ahead and repeat your comments again stating the same thing you've now said twice. As I said, it's an interesting irony... - jc37 22:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  I'll just say that I agree with JBL that your comment is rather incoherent, and unconstructive. It strikes me as asking others to do your homework for you. If you think there's a better sanction for bludgeoning, then propose one. If you think there should be no sanction for bludgeoning at all, then admit it outright. But if you simply want to chime in just to chime in, other editors are bound to wonder what the point is. Either add something constructive to your comment, or stop commenting; no need to go around this circle again. Combefere ★ Talk 22:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  I have "done my homework". I've read WP:BLUDGEON. Above, I had presumed that you had too, but perhaps I was mistaken. But I will agree that the two of you seem to want to "go around this circle". Your focus seems to be so much on sanctioning the editor's behaviour, that you are apparently not looking at the pages you are linking to, to see if the proposed sanction is appropriate for the deemed offence. To wit: If the issue is bludgeoning, a restriction of quantity of edits is inappropriate. It's not rocket science. But it does require you to read the page you're referring to. - jc37 22:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  Wouldn't doing your homework include looking at the diffs? Look, maybe you haven't encountered this editor before, but I have. And I have consistently found that their bludgeoning, battleground approach is disruptive. There are several other editors with similar experiences in this thread. But you've brushed aside those specifics, without substantive acknowledgement, to oppose this sanction 'on principle' as if the details don't matter. You can hardly blame us for being annoyed.

  As far as the editcountitis aspect is concerned, I'll happily concur that bludgeoning is about more than mere quantity (personally, I'm concerned less about Raven's quantity and more about his tendency to pick out one or two things in a comment to disagree with, disregard everything else, and then argue ad nauseum about the one or two points). But this sanction will still be a serious step forward toward reducing the ongoing disruption, so it is a clear step in the right direction. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  "...looking at the difs?" - sometimes. And I have spent a lot of my days poring through page histories and edit histories. But sometimes, it isn't necessary in order to see that there's an issue - which, in my estimation, was the case here.

  Look, the situation may very well require sanctioning. I don't know, because I have not looked. I have been honest about that. And I appreciate that you would like what you see as an issue, resolved. But, at the moment, I'm fine with leaving that specific behavioural assessment to another admin, and am merely addressing the policy/guidelines issue that I was looking at.

  But, I will admit, that the seemingly intentionally obtuse responses above were definitely nudging me to take a look at everyone's edits. But I tell you what. How about this: The editor "thanked" me for some of my comments above. I'm going to take that opportunity to go drop a note on their talk page. Maybe it'll help with what you're concerned about, and maybe not. But I suppose we'll see. - jc37 23:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  For what it's worth: while bludgeoning is not about edit count, it is about persistently replying to someone who's not interested in arguing with you. Which seems to me like exactly what the three of you are doing on this very thread. Loki (talk) 00:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  Hence my comments about "irony" above... - jc37 00:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  Although I support either proposal above, I do find this comment rather perceptive. Two wrongs don't make a right, and all that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  This is the catch-22 of trying to raise a complaint against a serial bludgeoner. Invariably, the bludgeoner will talk you to death. Indeed, your definition of bludgeoning clearly applies to Raven's action in this thread. Meanwhile, the bludgeoner's defenders will show up, as will a couple of well-intentioned editors who want to err on the side of no sanctions but don't really understand the disruption that prompted the report. If you leave these comments alone, other neutral observers will conclude that you have no rebuttal. But if you try to counterargue, inevitably someone will try to turn the bludgeoning accusation back around on you. It's an exhausting situation to deal with, and the implications of bad faith are a delightful icing on the cake. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

•  Oppose sanctions. The numbers do not convince me that .Raven's behavior is particularly disruptive, and the argumentative comments that I have seen look more like a typical content dispute rather than a real conduct issue (though I have not looked at every single one, as this conversation has gotten quite long). Sanctioning a particular editor because it is difficult to reach a consensus gives the impression of a sham consensus, which is far more disruptive (in my view) than any of Raven's behavior. Perhaps the solution is to take this to WP:DR/N so that everyone is subject to the same commenting restrictions.  — Freoh 10:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
• WP:BLUDGEON is a blunt instrument that misses the point. It's very easy for Wikipedia discussions, especially RFCs, to turn into a series of dialogs, different editors each engaging with the same one editor. It's not strange – real-life meetings do it too – and when each dialog's sustained by both people in it, it can seem hard to blame anyone. But it means we don't get an open discussion among several editors, and the RFC or whatever is the worse for it. One "side" is largely represented by one editor, the dialogs delve ever deeper but we don't get fresh perspectives from that side, and it all becomes less productive, less rewarding and more frustrating – so we wind up here. Opening up discussions and letting other voices in needs self-restraint and acceptance from all that sometimes it's better to step away, without anyone being persuaded to change their mind or concede something. .Raven, will you do that? And if you say you're already doing it, will you do it a lot more? NebY (talk) 12:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  Goodness, I thought I'd documented what I had and had not done in the original discussion during the time period mentioned. Now even my comments here are being counted against me as "bludgeoning", which would include this reply to you. Should I not reply at all? That would be "stepping away more", but in my opinion rude. Which would you prefer? – .Raven  .talk 21:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  @NebY: What do you think, is that a yes or a no? --JBL (talk) 22:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  I meant it more the way "How high?" relates to "Jump!" – .Raven  .talk 23:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - Raven is on thin ice and clearly attempts by well meaning editors has fallen on deaf ears which is why this has escalated. However, the OP here was also beating that Neely article like a dead horse. It's time for all involved parties to go in their seperate directions. Finally, Raven... if you're brought here again with similar issues I suspect the community will support stronger sanctions. I wise man once said nothing. Nemov (talk) 00:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose JBL's proposal on principle largely per isaacl and jc37. In general, these kind of sanctions fail to address what bludgeoning is, which is the mere repeating of the same argument over and over again. Sure, limiting Raven to two posts per page per day would prevent bludgeoning, but it would only do so in the same way that blocking him would, by simply preventing him from participating at all. Per isaacl, we need to allow people to defend and discuss their edits, and they can only do this by participating on the talk page without bludgeoning. Limiting Raven's talk page editing would stop the bludegeoning but also the participation, which has effects on their ability to constructively edit the article. Looking over the edits, I see definite bludgeoning by Raven, and I would support sanctions targeting this behavior rather than raw edit count. Tamzin's proposal comes much closer, but it's still fundamentally based on edit count, and I fear it will lead to unnecessary gaming/lawyering by one or both sides due to the difficulty of defining reasonable length comments and brief clarifications. Pinguinn 🐧 11:28, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support JBL's proposal. Every single discussion I've encountered .Raven in he has had the most, or at least the densest, comments (and that's saying something coming from me!). But more problematic than the bludgeoning itself is that the points he is bludgeoning are often so unsupportable and/or accusatory and/or aggressively captious that, as Lepricavark somewhat alludes to, they inevitably derail the thread after other editors fall in the trap of attempting to explain a PAG or clarify a misinterpretation or defend themselves from snide comments (see the interminable riveting discussion collapsed in the diff above). This happens even when responding to editors who broadly agree with him. .Raven made a combined nearly 100 comments at the Randy Kryn ANI and the associated page in contention, many of them arguing from an off-topic, fatuously-contrarian position. I see that he has repeated this behavior at multiple other pages since then and collected numerous warnings from it, with no apparent restraint even after a p-block. A comment limit is the minimum sanction needed at this point, but I wouldn't be surprised if a NOTHERE block was brought to the table in the future. JoelleJay (talk) 01:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  > "... 100 comments at the Randy Kryn ANI and the associated page...." [emphasis added]

  Ah. Now the scale is not by discussion, but by the entire page, with all its discussions? Noted.

  > "... contrarian position." — Thank you for clarifying that my offense was holding minority opinions in those discussions, sufficient cause to complain... especially since I was quoting/citing WP policy, established by wider consensus, majority opinion which many in those discussions wished to disregard. – .Raven  .talk 06:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  Literally all your edits to that page are in the one discussion.

  And your severe miscomprehension and misapplication of P&Gs is well-documented by now. JoelleJay (talk) 03:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  > "Literally all your edits to that page are in the one discussion." — Which one discussion?

• Discusstion?   -or-
• Like space embryos scattered to the stars, we seek a new beginning?

> "your severe miscomprehension and misapplication of P&Gs" — My direct verbatim quotes with cites/links?

> "is well-documented by now." So it's documented that I misquoted or miscited them? Where? Links, please. – .Raven  .talk 07:36, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support. It's a bit a beyond the scope your typical editing restriction, but I'm convinced it's warranted: .Raven's conduct across policy spaces in particular over the last couple of months has been deeply (if unintentionally) tendentious and disruptive. Prior to that timeframe I had never encountered them (that I can recall) anywhere on the project, but the sheer volume and tenacity of bludgeoning has really left an impression. They seem to have a compulsive need to respond to every single person they perceive to be arguing against precisely their preferred take on an issue, typically adding more content to a discussion than the next few most vocal participants combined. These issues are additionally compounded by a non-standard formatting/response scheme--which is not a brightline violation of policy per se, and would not be as big an issue with a less loquacious contributor, but combined with the bludgeoning, it does tend make standard discussion tracking all the more strained.

Further, the bludgeoning is not just by virtue of the number of responses, but also results from tonal issues: every subpart of every dispute must be disputed to the hilt, and no quarter given--even those agreeing with 90% of what .Raven has to say in a given instance can still find themselves on the receiving end of vociferous deconstructions of how wrong they are about the other 10%. And rather than indicators of a strong developing consensus resulting in their taking their foot off the gas, it typically just seems to encourage .Raven to double down at exponentially accelerating rates. It's a deeply non-collaborative discussion style which .Raven has been approached about repeatedly here (and apparently on their talk page) over recent weeks, with little to no evidence that much of this feedback is ever taken on board by them as indication that there might genuinely be something wrong with their approach.

All that said, I do believe .Raven is trying their best to follow and promote respect for policy as they interpret it. But whatever value they might potentially bring to discussions is currently being undermined by a severe deficit of restraint, as well as poor perspective on what a reasonable ratio of contribution to a discussion is, relative to everyone else participating. I know it might sound like lip service, and they might reasonably feel it is patronizing, but I honestly think some sort of participation restriction is highly in their best longterm interests here--as well as the shorterm value of their arguments, for that matter. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

> "a non-standard formatting/response scheme" — Do you mean adding quote marks, italics, and the >?

Not everyone has color screens (even my wife's handheld is monochrome), and some of those who do have some form of color-blindness — green is one of the colors often affected; it doesn't stand out well for me at my age. I'm trying to provide multiple cues about quotations for such situations. The > is a traditional quotation-line mark in Usenet, and like bullets at the left helps mark a new item in the response. Please disregard whatever cues you don't need. – .Raven  .talk 07:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

References

• Strong oppose JBL’s proposal replying to comments is generally not bludgeoning, nor is pinging participants in past RFC’s on similar topics, as long as it is done in a neutral manner. I could potentially support Tamzin's proposal if the exceptions were objectively stated, as there is a lot of gray area as to why a reply of “reasonable length” or “very brief” comments are. I would suggest an objective limit of five sentences per response (or more) as most genuine responses are shorter than that and most walls of text are far, far longer. Removing the exceptions rather than clarifying them is a non-starter in my opinion. But as written I oppose Tamzin's proposal as well. Frank Anchor 12:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Marines RfC, and two-week site block proposal

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

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

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

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

• @Combefere, Lepricavark, Dumuzid, Chrisahn, Randy Kryn, LokiTheLiar, BilledMammal, Tamzin, Folly Mox, Snow Rise, Nemov, and JayBeeEll: starship.paint (exalt) 08:04, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
• @Display name 99, HandThatFeeds, Isaacl, Jc37, -sche, AirshipJungleman29, Captain Jack Sparrow, Freoh, NebY, Pinguinn, and JoelleJay: starship.paint (exalt) 08:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
• @.Raven: starship.paint (exalt) 08:07, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
• @CapnJackSp: starship.paint (exalt) 08:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support something. Clearly this is untenable; .Raven has demonstrated a problematic level of tendentiousness with their bludgeoning, with it being strongly on display in the linked Marines discussion, and it appears this extends to RfC's as well; when an RfC goes against you the correct response is not to plan to open another RfC on an almost-identical topic as soon as the first RfC is closed.

I don't know if that "something" is a block, but something needs to be done - .Raven is not interested in listening to the concerns of the broader community and perhaps a short block will teach them that they need to if they wish to prevent a longer block being applied.

By the way the pings didn't work properly; they took me to the top of the page, not this discussion section. (Uncollapsing the pings appear to have fixed it. 08:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC))BilledMammal (talk) 08:14, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

> ".Raven is not interested in listening to the concerns of the broader community" — My goodness, one opens an RfC specifically to request comments from the community. I did that rather than "boldly" make changes myself to all the various pages with uncapitalized "marine". Once again, my choosing to D[iscuss] rather than BRRRR/edit-war is held against me. – .Raven  .talk 08:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

The issue isn't choosing to discuss marine capitalization rather the edit warring. The issue is not stopping discussion when it is clear that consensus is against you. BilledMammal (talk) 08:27, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

The RfC is still underway, and at Randy Kryn's suggestion, on July 6 I notified two pages more thematically related to the topic than WT:MOSCAPS. It's far too soon to guess the outcome. – .Raven  .talk 08:45, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

"my choosing to discuss rather than edit-war" – You seem to think that you only have two options: 1. edit war, 2. intense discussion. That's a false dichotomy. You have many, many other options. — Chrisahn (talk) 08:33, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Stay away entirely is another option. But I'm here to improve an encyclopedia. – .Raven  .talk 08:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

You now seem to think that you only have three options: 1. edit war, 2. intense discussion, 3. stay away entirely. That's progress, but still a false dilemma. You have many, many other options. — Chrisahn (talk) 09:12, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I've been following that RfC and am familiar with the arguments of both sides, but I haven't contributed. When I saw the placeholder RfC, I didn't see wikilawyering, but rather a kind of mental organization tactic, like "I see where this is going, there is the possibility of a slightly different approach that could lead to consensus and I want to address it, but more discussion needs to happen and I don't want to forget". It's true that it was unorthodox, possibly inappropriate, and surely annoying to many of the participants, yet adhering to WP:AGF I saw it as a thing that seemed forgivable at the time. I would hesitate to use this as an example of a pattern of misbehavior. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 07:05, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

In the original RfC (just concerning U.S. Marines), several people brought up, in effect, 'what about other nations' forces?' — to which I had replied: "If referring generically to 'seafaring infantry' not of any particular nation, then the generic term 'marine[s]' could apply. For specific nations' forces, we should use their format, e.g. 'A Spanish marine, left, explains how her weapon works to a U.S. Marine....' — and in fact I'm willing to start a separate RfC for that generalization (rather than change this one mid-!voting)."

Then I created the placeholder for such an RfC, not yet open for discussion: "Should the capitalization of titles for specific nations' armed forces members follow their own nations' practices, e.g. 'Spanish marine' but '[U.S.] Marine' and (U.K.) 'Royal Marine' for individuals?" This is a wider topic, which the present RfC does not address.

What should be done with the original RfC? Close it at once summarily, after people have been !voting for a while? Change its question, again after people have already voted on the original question? Or let it continue until closure one way or the other, and then raise the broader question? I'll happily take advice. You're the first person to object to there being the broader RfC at all. – .Raven  .talk 08:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

As to comment-count: those comments include the original short question to open the RfC, my longer exposition, and then several comments containing linked references — plus replies to comments directed at me, e.g. here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here, not a complete list but greater than "4". – .Raven  .talk 08:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

No, the original short question to open the RfC was not counted. starship.paint (exalt) 08:44, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, that's one. – .Raven  .talk 08:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

... and all but one of the above comments were directed at you in response to you directing comments on other people. starship.paint (exalt) 08:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Does that negate comments like "This seems an odd placement for an RfC on the topic, could have been done at the U.S. Marine page. Have that talk page and the talk pages of military WikiProjects been notified? Thanks." (not in reply to my commenting on him) — to which I replied, "Now done. Thanks for the suggestion!"? -or- this comment by Indefatigable, replying to my comment not directed at him — to which I replied in turn? -or- this comment by Parsecboy, replying to my comment not directed at him — to which i replied in turn? ... and another four exchanges after that? Etc. – .Raven  .talk 09:01, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I discounted the Randy Kryn one from the "in response" before you commented. It's crystal clear, you don't see the problem, even though your comment levels are much higher than anyone else. The numbers speak for themselves. Plus this is the 3rd RfC with issues... starship.paint (exalt) 09:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

> "The numbers speak for themselves." — That's what Jc37 called "editcountitis", above, saying, "Edit quantity over edit quality is almost always a waste of community time.. And if you have read WP:BLUDGEON (and I presume that you have) you'd know that it has little to do with the quantity of the edits, but what the edits consist of. Hence: editcountitis is for the birds."

Plus this is the third discussion for which the mere quantity of the edits has been made an issue.

If the essay (not policy or guideline) WP:BLUDGEON is going to be a basis for complaint, could we at least pay attention to what it actually says?

Replying to many questions that are directed to you is perfectly fine. ... You have the right to give your opinion in any open discussion, so long as you aren't doing it in a way that limits others from doing the same.

Where and how have I attempted to limit anyone else's full participation? – .Raven  .talk 09:45, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support some action being taken, as described by BilledMammal. I am casting this !vote with some degree of difficulty, as all the interactions I've directly had with Raven have frankly been very positive - many of them intense and detailed, but positive for that exact reason. I think, by and large, that it is a good thing to have editors who argue adamantly, because having people with strongly held positions (that aren't manifestly absurd or otherwise problematic) is necessary to get less involved participants to see what the options are, even if they refuse to change what they believe to be true.

That being said, there needs to be a point where we pack it in or at least dial it back, even if we believe - or know - ourselves to be right and the emerging consensus to be wrong. I recognize the desire to guide a nascent consensus, but we need to trust that we have articulated ourselves properly and that others will come and be convinced of our positions, or at least that some time in the future, people will show up and form a different consensus.

Secondly, the inefficacy of being too aggressive when arguing is the nature of the beast in a community where consensus is the primary decision making method. It only serves to upset and distract people to answer EVERY or even most/many of the dissenting viewpoints, even when done politely. Just because you aren't necessarily doing exactly what WP:BLUDGEON describes doesn't mean that people don't feel like your behavior is disruptive, and when consensus is necessary, what the community feels is most important. We aren't here to engage in structured debate, in which logic dominates and you can precisely dismantle people's arguments in order to win, we are here to express our opinions and move toward compromise (or acceptance) when the consensus is not emergent.

The bottom line is that right or wrong, a lot of people are taking issue with how you are conducting yourself. That in and of itself is disruptive, regardless of any particular policy regarding a specific type of DE. Nobody is telling you to shut up, just to let stuff go, even if you believe it to be wrong. PriusGod (talk) 09:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

So noted. As a point of information, have I not  "dialed it back" at the two discussions originally complained of here, Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely#Name Inclusion, reopened, and WP:VPP#RfC: Proposed addition to MOS:GENDERID - when to include deadnames? What's my edit-count there for the past week? – .Raven  .talk 09:58, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not too keen on the edit counting aspect of this discussion but FWIW I agree that you've moved firmly into the realm of having dialed it back on the Neely discussion. That being said, I would clock some of your behavior there prior to the aforementioned dialing as bludgeon-y - by which I mean that it substantiates some of the above complaints while also demonstrating that the issue at hand is not unsolvable. Hence, that I think some sanction may presently be warranted, but also may pan out not to be necessary. PriusGod (talk) 10:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, this seems an ANI get-them-blocked-somehow-or-anyway. Has .Raven improved since the complaints? Seem to have, which is the step in the right direction asked for (and by the way, Marines should be uppercased, .Raven has proven it, but lowercasers will likely "win" the RfC by showing up). Everyone has their own way of editing (it's often a process, like art or music) and leeway obtained by "assume good faith" will handle a lot of perceived faults. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Randy Kryn, how has their conduct improved since the start of the complaint? They've literally bludgeoned a thread about how they're bludgeoning threads by adding numerous replies with unclear meaning and little to no meaningful insight. Display name 99 (talk) 13:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello Display name 99. This is ANI, so defending oneself against perceived misinformation and inaccurate descriptors of intent and function seems okay. On other threads the user should hold back a little, which they are doing as far as I can tell (the RfC on Marines, started by .Raven, would seem like bludgeoning until realizing that much of .Raven's response has been providing more good evidence for their position). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

It may be seen as good evidence by Raven, but even substantive replies can become bludgeoning just by their sheer volume. I'll admit that I haven't looked at that thread, but Raven's tone in numerous other discussions has been combative and tendentious. As for ANI, defending oneself is okay, but posting sarcastic replies with unclear meaning that don't add anything to the discussion is not, and they've done that repeatedly throughout this thread. Display name 99 (talk) 13:33, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support something, but preferrably a restriction that still allows them to reasonably partake in discussions. Given they havent taken responsibility, I am compelled to agree with those who seek sanctions; However, I do not think that they do so in bad faith, and as such would want to see sanctions that would not be unnecessarily restrictive to the extent of forcing them from not being able to take part in discussions. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Oppose all sanctions. I fundamentally do not see any of Raven's behavior as problematic and frankly see starship.paint's apparent strong desire to get an editor sanctioned as suspect itself. Loki (talk) 11:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

That comment on my desire being suspect is laughable. I went to .Raven’s talk page twice before proposing this. If I were acting in bad faith, it wouldn’t have been Combefere coming to ANI. It would have been me taking .Raven to ANI even without visiting .Raven’s talk page. Also, my desire to get .Raven sanctioned is so strong that I did not even vote to support the daily comment restriction proposal. Amazing! starship.paint (exalt) 11:42, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

You did promote this ANI thread and ban request at the Marines RfC, which looks a bit like trying to attract the mostly opposed editors who have posted there. Hopefully editors posting here will read that thread as well, which contains many comments by .Raven which present further and, to me, increasingly conclusive evidence that the name Marine, when used in the military context, should be uppercased. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:27, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Whether or not Raven's position is correct is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Being right does not justify a combative and uncollaborative editing approach. Display name 99 (talk) 13:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Randy Kryn, I did promote this thread there, but if I was that desperate for a sanction, don’t you think I would have simply directly pinged all of those mostly opposed Marine RfC participants here? Wouldn’t that be a better way of attracting them, instead of risking them missing my message? I’ve already demonstrated the ability to ping, so why didn’t I do it? starship.paint (exalt) 13:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I know this is a good faith thread, as are your intentions Starship.paint. Promotion at the RfC is a bit much, but not out-of-bounds. You have communicated more with .Raven on this topic than most, and seem both committed and genuinely interested in educating them how not to bludgeon. I think it's taking, maybe they just need to be less wordy. Two weeks seems like a long ban for a short pier, a trout or two may suffice? Randy Kryn (talk) 14:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Good faith editors can disagree on the length and type of sanction merited. Two weeks is not short, and not long either, but .Raven is guaranteed the ability to return. I personally disagree that .Raven is too wordy, I think the issue is knowing when to stop discussing and step back. I've told .Raven before - when you're the #1 commenter in a large discussion, when you've replied to more editors than anyone else, when you've commented more than other 'frequent commenters' put together - have we not heard your position enough? (Note - I am not referring to defending oneself at ANI). starship.paint (exalt) 14:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

If this was a first warning, a trout would suffice, but it isn't. They bludgeoned this ANI thread and were warned there. They've already been paged blocked for a week for similar behavior and refused to listen when editors approached them on the talk page to encourage them to change their behavior, even hatting the discussions. This is a serial bludgeoner who will not listen to polite warnings. Display name 99 (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support-Clearly unacceptable behavior has continued for a long time despite repeated warnings. This alternative will remove concerns about wikilawyering that several editors voiced in response to previous proposals. Display name 99 (talk) 13:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support – a full two dozen editors have asked Raven to change their behavior. It is clear at this point that Raven has fully committed to the decision to not listen. We’ve given Raven enough WP:ROPE. Broad community resistance to their behavior spanning multiple discussions has proven ineffective. It’s time for an admin to step in and do something. Combefere ★ Talk 16:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support it is utterly incomprehensible that anyone, besides Raven of course, still does not see the problem. Raven meets even the slightest disagreement with a battleground approach and displays little to no capacity for self-reflection and course-correction. At this point, how many people have tried to reason with them to no avail? How many more will it take? They are undoubtedly headed for an indefinite block, but we can at least go through the motions of hoping that a two-week block might possibly somehow get their attention. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support - There have been extensive attempts to encourage Raven to participate in a net positive manner, including the one-week p-block from the previous ANI, and a variety of editors offering advice and feedback, but Raven does not appear to be listening. From my view, a two-week block prevents ongoing disruption, can deter future disruptive conduct, and will hopefully encourage "a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms" by discouraging what appears to be a well-documented battleground approach to editing and related discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 16:55, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  > "prevents ongoing disruption" — Query: what "ongoing disruption"? Where?

  > "deter" — Ah... WP:PUNITIVE. – .Raven  .talk 18:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  The 'prevents' wikilink is to WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE, which includes, deterrence is based upon the likelihood of repetition. From my view, a persistent combative approach in response to extensive good-faith attempts to encourage more effective participation in encyclopedia-building is a distinct form of not listening, and indicates a likelihood of repetition, particularly in the context of ongoing disruptive conduct noted in this section, and the overall pattern of disruption, including in contentious topics, documented throughout this discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  > "a persistent combative approach in response to extensive good-faith attempts to encourage more effective participation" — I have thanked (via button) numerous good-faith comments, without commenting to do so (because my commenting at all increases a count held against me); how is that "combative", let alone persistently so?

  > "in the context of ongoing disruptive conduct" — Again, what "ongoing disruption"? Where?

  See PriusGod's "... FWIW I agree that you've moved firmly into the realm of having dialed it back...." – .Raven  .talk 00:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  That's a red herring. Nobody has claimed that it is combative for you to use the 'thanks' button. But those few examples of non-combative responses hardly negate the numerous instances (incl. many of your responses in this thread) where you have repeatedly demonstrated a chronic inability to stop, reflect, and adjust in spite of dozens of editors expressing their concerns. Do you seriously believe that you are right and that almost everyone else is wrong? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  I look at PriusGod's "... FWIW I agree that you've moved firmly into the realm of having dialed it back...."

  I look at Lepricavark's "you have repeatedly demonstrated a chronic inability to stop, reflect, and adjust"

  And I don't see how they're referring to the same thing.

  Below Lepricavark says: "your ongoing disruption this thread ... self-defense must be conducted within prescribed norms"

  Hm. So where (link please) is it prescribed that I mustn't respond to accusations or misstatements? – .Raven  .talk 00:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  You've cherry-picked a small part of PriusGod's comment that was favorable to you and ignored the rest of it, which was somewhat less favorable. If you did dial back at the Neely article, it is presumably because you have been expending your battleground energies at other pages instead. Your closing question is yet another red herring, and I feel no obligation to answer it given that you ignored my questions. There are dozens of us telling you that there is a problem. Figure it out. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:42, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  > "it is presumably because you have been expending your battleground energies at other pages instead." [emphasis added]

  Hm. Presumption of guilt, no actual pages linked to show this purported behavior.

  L >>> "self-defense must be conducted within prescribed norms"
  R >> "So where (link please) is it prescribed that I mustn't respond to accusations or misstatements?"
  L > "Your closing question is yet another red herring, and I feel no obligation to answer it...."

  So. Prescribed nowhere, then. (As the saying goes, 'Links, or it didn't happen.')

  You're trying to get me blocked for breaking a rule you won't (or can't) point to. – .Raven  .talk 00:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  The pages have already been linked by other editors. I would agree that there is no policy prohibiting you from responding to accusations. But then, I never said that there was, did I? You misunderstood me, just as you did in your latest reply to me below. You misunderstand me a lot. I suspect that's because you read my comments not with a desire to understand but with a desire to disagree. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  > "The pages have already been linked by other editors."

  So. Not the Neely talkpage (since you said "other pages" than that). The RfC I started? You've not answered either how my posting evidence to it was "disruptive" nor why I would "disrupt" an RfC I started, having just invited two more groups to participate. WP:VPP#Survey (GENDERID addition)? Last comment over three days ago; is this what you mean by "ongoing"?

  > "I would agree that there is no policy prohibiting you from responding to accusations. But then, I never said that there was, did I?"

• "... non-combative responses hardly negate the numerous instances (incl. many of your responses in this thread) where you have repeatedly demonstrated a chronic inability to stop, reflect, and adjust...." [emphasis added]

• "... your ongoing disruption this thread ... self-defense must be conducted within prescribed norms..." [emphasis added]

["Prescribed norms" you have explicitly refused to cite/link.]

This begins to look like WP:GASLIGHTING. – .Raven  .talk 01:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, we're all aware that blocks are supposed to be preventative rather than punitive. The concept of deterrence pertains to prevention; eg. the block will hopefully deter you from future problematic behavior. This grasping at straws does you no credit, and hopefully even your most obstinate defenders can see how silly this is becoming. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  A block would stop ongoing disruption. Where is the ongoing disruption? If only in response to past comments over a week ago, how is that "preventative" rather than "punitive"? If referring to my comments here in response to accusations or misstatements by others, is that not "deterring" (punishing) self-defense in a hearing? If referring to an RfC I started... I'm now supposed to have "disrupted" the process *I* began? By posting evidence in it? – .Raven  .talk 00:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  Well, aside from your ongoing disruption this thread (even in a formal legal hearing – which this is not – self-defense must be conducted within prescribed norms), there's that MOS thread that you've been disrupting (which you've also failed to explain away). Then there's the fact that a two-week block will prevent you from disrupting any more threads for a couple of weeks. And then there's the foolish hope that the block will get your attention and cause you to curtail your disruptive tendencies in the future. So yeah, preventative. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  Do you mean WT:MOSCAPS#Capitalization of "Marine", the RfC I started, and to which I've been posting evidentiary links about off-wiki usage? How is that "disruptive"? Why would I want to "disrupt" a thread I've been inviting people to comment upon? And the "disrupting" of which would meant I'd wasted my own time?

  > "a two-week block will prevent you from disrupting any more threads for a couple of weeks." — Including the thread of which PriusGod said "... FWIW I agree that you've moved firmly into the realm of having dialed it back...." and the RfC I started and to which I'd been posting evidence. Hm. Again, where's the "ongoing disruption" needing "prevention"? – .Raven  .talk 00:43, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  Get back to me when you've meaningfully engaged with the rest of PriusGod's comment. Or any of the dozens of other comments pointing out why your behavior is disruptive. One person said one mildly nice thing, and you've decided to seize on that and ignore all the haters, as you undoubtedly think of us. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  Kindly speak for your own emotions and opinions, not mine. That's strawman argumentation.

  Meanwhile you've neglected to point out any "ongoing disruption". – .Raven  .talk 00:51, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  Oh, I'd love to, but I refuse to give you the satisfaction. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  Of NOT strawmanning? – .Raven  .talk 00:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support - the individual has a battleground mentality, and as far as I can tell from the brief interaction I've had with them in this discussion, behaves tendentiously. Parsecboy (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support with the hopes that the block will cause Raven to consider that their tendentious bludgeoning and battleground mentality is considered disruptive by the vast majority of the community. Although honestly this seems a vain hope, since it is blindingly obvious from their responses in this thread that they see absolutely nothing wrong with their behavior. Almost every response in this thread has been to argue that everyone else's viewpoint is wrong. There has not been a single response that indicates any self-awareness or understanding that their behavior is the problem. So ultimately an indef block seems inevitable, but a two week block at least gives them a opportunity to reflect on their behavior and hopefully to change. CodeTalker (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  > "battleground mentality" — Honestly, I was providing quotes and cite/links with the friendliest intention of helping to improve the encyclopedia, by D[iscussion] rather than BRRRR/edit-warring. To be verbally attacked and accused for that has come as a surprise; to have edits-per-page offered instead of comments-per-discussion (thereby inflating my contributions two different ways) does not seem to me how people have scored others or would like themselves scored. It really seems to me that "battleground mentality" better describes this mobbing of what was minority opinion in some discussions — even though I advocated abiding by policy which the wider community's consensus had established. – .Raven  .talk 23:57, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support. We have independent discussions in a wide variety of topics where .Raven's bludgeoning, battleground, time-wasting, IDHT behavior has been noted:

• Randy Kryn ANI - 47 comments
• Killing of Jordan Neely - 83 comments, 131 edits, 52,107 bytes added
• Eight-circuit model of consciousness - 56 comments, 113 edits, 55,233 bytes added
• deadnaming RfC - 81 comments, 114 edits, 50,000+ bytes added
• This ANI - 47 comments so far.

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

Wow, now we're counting "edits", including fixes to existing comments — again to inflate my purported offense.

> "making anti-consensus edits in mainspace" — where I was invited on the talkpage to edit: one content edit restoring deleted text and fixing it to address some complaints about it by others (putting refs where {{cn}} had been, etc.), plus right afterward one fix to my own edit. Immediately reverted by others who apparently had not seen the invitation. After that, invited to edit in sandbox, made the same restore-and-fix, and was ***thanked*** for it. But now an offense to be reported here? – .Raven  .talk 23:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

You wholesale restored material that there was strong consensus to remove, added references to sources that were deemed unreliable or otherwise unsuitable, and added a paragraph of SYNTH(/fabrication?) totally unsupported by the source you cited. You were invited to draft content that complied with WP:V, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:FRINGE, not dump the same junk back into mainspace. JoelleJay (talk) 03:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

1. Unsourced material (filled with {{cn}}s) had been removed; I filled in refs; you then removed it again anyway.
2. The published sources explaining the model were "deemed unreliable or otherwise unsuitable" precisely because they did so, as your group had declared it "fringe", unworthy of coverage. Therefore ditto the sources covering it (labeled "adherents"), which meant the material inherently could not be referenced, thus must be deleted as unsourced. A perfect circle of reasoning, except that WP:FRINGE's section WP:PARITY itself allows articles on "fringe" (not mainstream) subjects to include the views of their "adherents":
   Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia. [...] Likewise, views of adherents should not be excluded from an article on creation science solely on the basis that their work lacks peer review. [...] Fringe views are properly excluded from articles on mainstream subjects to the extent that they are rarely if ever included by reliable sources on those subjects.
3. "... added a paragraph of SYNTH(/fabrication?) totally unsupported by the source you cited." — What I added was the sentence "That blend has sparked criticism from some as 'fringe' science or worse.[9]", with the footnote:
   Cultural historian John Higgs argues that Leary's idea of the mindmap exemplified by his book Neurologic is "arguably Leary's most important work", but was greatly diminished by newspaper accounts of his prison escape and related travails. Journalist John Bryan said that Leary sounded "like a Raving Madman from Outer Space. It was at this point that many of his former followers decided that Tim had overdosed—both on acid and on life." (Higgs 2006, p. 209.)
   Yet for some reason I was accused of being WP:PROFRINGE, go figure.
4. Might you possibly be referring to the rest of the paragraph before that sentence? —
   This model doesn't restrict its sources to just mainstream psychology or neurology, but uses concepts or metaphors from diverse modern sciences, transpersonal psychology, and Eastern spiritual traditions which perceive all objects and phenomena as various interrelated aspects of a single supreme reality.
   Perhaps you hadn't noticed that this merely adapted (but removed fluff from) the pre-existing text, not by me:
   Bringing the Eastern spiritual traditions, which perceive all objects and phenomena as various interrelated aspects of a single supreme reality, transpersonal psychology and modern sciences together, contemporary philosophers are able to design and develop a new approach to a human that will bridge the gap between different interpretations of a human being.
   The references were in the detailed sections where these components were brought up separately.
5. "You were invited to draft content that complied with WP:V, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:FRINGE,"
   And moved the article in that direction — my "first attempt", as I commented — but you folks weren't paying attention to little details like that. You wanted the whole article gone, no matter what.

And this content dispute you report to AN/I. – .Raven  .talk 05:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support as second choice if the restriction in the previous subsection does not gain consensus. --JBL (talk) 00:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support - It bums me out that it has come to this, but several editors really tried to avoid this and steer .Raven in a more productive direction. Even the slightest amount of effort to listen and this could have been avoided. I support whatever the community decides. Nemov (talk) 03:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  Do you think I didn't listen to the comments I thanked their authors for? Or was it necessary for me to post comments replying to them to indicate that? After I've been repeatedly criticized for replying even as often as I have? And having "moved firmly into the realm of having dialed it back" doesn't indicate "listening" either? Wow! – .Raven  .talk 06:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• Neutral. I haven’t read the diffs, or the RFC, just the ANI thread ^{(hey, my train’s only an hour and 15 today, cut me some slack)} However, I am seeing folks above, saying that .Raven is working on it. Now I may be being suckered (some people can be convincing, when they want to be), but if .Raven didn’t get the boot already, then he’s clearly being a net positive somewhere on the encyclopaedia, right? We don’t toss someone just because of their attitude, if their contribs are good. BrownHairedGirl’s recent thread? EEng’s humour? Fram, to an extent (yeah, ArbCom DeSys’d him, but no block / ban)

• Give .Raven enough time to prove that he can knock his old behaviour on the head. If not? As somebody else said, he’ll be back at ANI, and the community might not be so divided. I, for one, will support sanctions, if .Raven is back here for the same problems. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 10:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

HazaraHistorian

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

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

I suspect it's mainly thanks to their false belief (this is not even close to the mainstream consensus in scholarship, not sure where they're getting it from) that the Hazaras are basically "Turks" [31] which have led to much of this disruption.

• Yesterday they added that this Hazara tribe was descended from the Karluk Turks under the guise of a citation, except the citation mentioned no such thing. I.e. they inserted their own personal opinion/interpretation.[32]. They previously attempted to the same here without a source even [33]. Simultaneously, a random IP tried to do the same here [34]. That same IP tried more or less to add the same WP:OR POV edit of HazaraHistorian [35] here [36], trying to connect the Hazara to the Khazar Turks. Moreover, a mere day after I reverted HazaraHistorian for inserting a primary source [37], the IP conveniently knew of the rule, removing info about the Mongol connection of the Hazara [38]. In other words, that IP is probably theirs.
• [39] Once again their own words under the guise of a citation.
• [40] Removed info that was heavily sourced in the body of the article.

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

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

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

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

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

When I told them (again) to stop attacking me [41], they acted like any other mature and collaborative Wiki user and responded with a head exploding emoji [42] --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Today was yet another WP:OR POV addition made by HazaraHistorian, continuing their attempt to connect the Hazaras to certain Turkic groups and vice-versa [43] --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

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

And yet you were reverted again by another user for WP:OR and non-WP:RS [44]. I would advise you to stop commenting on me. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

User:HiLo48 and incivility

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Personal attack removed)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HiLo48: courtesy break

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(edit conflict) I also found these:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I was introduced to the move discussion through this ANI and I have to agree that HiLo48's general attitude towards those with whom they disagree is problematic.[50] It's weird to me that a simple move discussion is contentious, but HiLo48's comments certainly haven't helped the tone despite multiple editors asking for people to tone it down. This behavior shouldn't be ignored. Nemov (talk) 13:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

IPs padding the accomplishments of audio engineer Greg Fulginiti

• 2601:8A:4000:7D6:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone has been adding the audio engineer Greg Fulginiti to album projects that do not list his name anywhere. This practice started in late 2005 with User:ANGLESEA (example), and continued in early 2006 with Philadelphia IP Special:Contributions/69.249.183.169, for instance, the IP adding Fulginiti to the Who album It's Hard, which instead credits Doug Sax for the original release, and Bob Ludwig for the later remastering job.[51]

(Fulginiti has plenty of excellent album credits already. No need to fluff up the career with falsehoods.)

Two weeks ago I noticed this problem. New Jersey IPs had recently been adding Fulginiti to albums that listed other mastering engineers. As an example, this addition of Fulginiti is contradicted by AllMusic saying that the mastering job was by Joe Yannece, not Fulginiti. I started running through related articles and pruning the unsupported listings,[52] but the New Jersey person reverted me.[53] Some of the additions appear to be anecdotal, a violation of WP:No original research.[54] I think there's enough evidence here to block the range Special:Contributions/2601:8A:4000:7D6:0:0:0:0/64. And I still need to comb through all the Fulginiti listings to make sure he's really credited on the album liner notes or in other published sources. The problem extends to Discogs.com where Fulginiti's name has been added here and there by a user with an obvious conflict of interest. Binksternet (talk) 23:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• I blocked the /64 for one month. Let me know if the problem continues after that. EdJohnston (talk) 12:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

User making inflammatory comments and threats regarding an edit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:78.18.189.77

User here was told to stop making unhelpful edits to the List of Shortland Street characters page. Proceeded to violate WP:Civil twice and threw in an attempt at intimidation. Following this, they made the same edit to the page once again. SkylerLovefist (talk) 09:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked them temporarily, for this next part please take it as advice, but the immediate response to a disruptive editor can be to WP:DISENGAGE. I appreciate the fact that you reported them here. --qedk (t 愛 c) 12:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

The resumption of the edit war in the Witch from Mercury, this time bypassing the current discussion

Anonymous user who previously blocked for exceeding 3 bounces (for the same page and text) wages a edit war in the article for deleting a section bypassing the discussion with a result that has not yet been summed up on the discussion page (The discussion, in principle, took place, but died due to the absence of an administrator who wanted to sum up, so the user summed up himself and began to delete the text with his own hand, along with the part that did not raise questions). Indications that a discussion is not considered a consensus without a summed up by the administrator, or that the discussion is about deleting some text rather than all of it, are ignored by the user in favor of accusations of vandalism and the continuation of the edit war. As a user blocked for the same edit war earlier, He's aware of the rules of the project, plus, I have repeatedly warned them that, as a participant in the discussion, they cannot sum it up and arbitrarily delete the text. But the user simply does not listen to anyone. I've already been banned for an edit war the last time I undo similar monotonous user undoes, so this time when he restart this, I just wrote about things here when he undoes my edit the second time. Solaire the knight (talk) 04:33, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

if the consensus is clear, then "wait for an admin" seems to be a bit of needless bureaucracy. ValarianB (talk) 13:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that he also removes text that was not discussed for deletion and that was found to be directly related to the topic of the article (in the past, his attempts to remove not only the controversial text, but the entire paragraph were apparently rolled back by other users, but now his patience seems to be over or he considers "consensus" justification for any removal). In addition, the user is very much in a hurry with this, as you can see in the past, he has already tried to sum up himself, counting the number of answers, despite the fact that he himself was a participant in the dispute. That is why I and other users wanted the discussion to be summed up by some admin, this would give a formal result that we would all accept without question and could move on. And finally, initially he didn't even try to refer to the consensus, just repeating his favorite comment about "insignificance" or accusing me of vandalism as the main argument. The text itself is absolutely not important to me, I simply cannot tolerate another arbitrariness in circumvention of the rules and regime of Wikipedia.Solaire the knight (talk) 13:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Realityishere making continuous personal attacks, plus other POV disruptions

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

This editor's behaviour should make it clear that they willingly ignore both WP:CIVIL and WP:VERIFY and have no intention of changing:

Before I even saw their edits or interacted with them in any way, they posted a pre-emptive personal attack on my talk page here, which was reverted by another editor. (Their message presumably refers to the multiple sockpuppet accounts of a previously blocked editor who disrupted on the same topic, which at best just raises further questions about this user.) Their simultaneous edits at Karamanli dynasty were indeed problematic and I reverted them with the reasons stated here. They followed with this revert that included another personal attack and provided no source for their claim. I left another direct warning on their user talk page ([55]) and tried to establish a discussion on the article talk page to address the issue here, to which they predictably responded with another uncivil reply ([56]) and resumed edit-warring without addressing any of the issues raised ([57]).

They've also previously made many vandalizing or disruptive/unsourced edits that have been reverted and which seem to be POV-motivated (e.g. [58], [59], [60],[61], [62]). Some newer edits haven't been reverted yet but appear to be more of the same (e.g. [63], [64], [65]). They were given earlier warnings on their talk page about their behaviour, but their recent edits there suggest they plan on ignoring those instead of listening: [66], [67], [68]. R Prazeres (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid that this is a typical situation where a new (?) user just has a criticaly low knowledge of the rules and traditions of the project, so they try to communicate here as in a generic internet forum. Perhaps trying to explain the nuances of the work here will help to downplay the conflict? Solaire the knight (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry but literally every response from them (either in talk pages or in edit summaries) has been a personal attack and/or a dismissal, and not just towards me. They've been advised directly of the policies on their user talk page and have shown no willingness to engage at all. I don't see how the normal attempts to persuade them will yield different results. R Prazeres (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm talking about. A person literally does not know about the rules of the project, so they sincerely think that by attacking and insulting you as in a regular forum, they will be able to achieve something or legally express their emotions. But if this continues even after reading the rules (and they clearly realized that their behavior violates not only the norms of decency, but also the rules of the resource), then yes, any conversations are meaningless. Solaire the knight (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I've posted a new request for them to read policy on their user talk page ([69]), and I've asked them again to answer my basic question on Talk:Karamanli dynasty, as politely as possible. Let's see what they do. R Prazeres (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

*Blocked 48 hours, although I was tempted to indef. No objection to a longer one if someone feels it's needed. Star Mississippi 23:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

And nope, they just dismissed the messages and did more of the same on both their user talk page and the article ([70], [71]). Please block them, this is a clear pattern of behaviour. R Prazeres (talk) 17:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Buu119 NOTHERE

Buu119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Buu119's sole edits to Wikipedia have been to create Crispín Sosa Tapia with nary a reliable source, and then propose a bunch of citations in its AfD (WP:Articles for deletion/Crispín Sosa Tapia) that all turned up to be dead ends. I think that a block is warranted on en.wiki due to persistent hoax activity and lack of positive contributions, but consider myself involved having opened the AfD for CST here and on es.wiki. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Martytanaki

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

I am attempting to add a notability tag to article Adom. As I have outlined on user's talk page, this article does not meet the general notability guideline (WP:GNG) of significant coverage from secondary sources, instead relying on non-NPOV press releases. User has ignored the carefully cited guidelines I have provided and instead has engaged in edit war behavior. Welcoming outside opinions. Rift (talk) 22:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I have pageblocked Martytanaki from editing Adom (artist). The editor is free to make well-referenced, neutral edit requests at the article talk page. Rift, feel free to replace the notability tag and to remove the content referenced to press releases and other low quality sources, such as AllMusic. Please search for actually reliable sources, which may or may not exist since this person seems to have used three different names during their career. Cullen328 (talk) 02:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Much appreciated! Rift (talk) 02:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Ishaq Dar: sockpuppetry

I’d like to reopen Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1130#Ishaq_Dar:_edit_warring_and_potential_sockpuppetry.

As I then wrote,

Extended content

Edit warring. I made a fairly substantial edit to Ishaq Dar (some copyediting, some removal of puffery). The edit summary linked to a comment I had made on the talk page explaining my thinking. The IP user 119.157.101.51 reverted them reverted without discussion. I subsequently invited discussion on the talk page (22:53, 11 June; all times UK time for ease of reference). Fiction2Facts then reverted again again on 12 June at 3:21, and at 6:08 replied on the talk page. I reverted their edit again and pointed out that their comment did not refer to any of the content of my edits or any policy, so it wasn’t a meaningful attempt to engage; and it appeared that Fiction2Facts was using 119.158.101.51 as a sockpuppet: in particular, both used the term ‘mala fide vandalism’. Fiction2Facts then replied on the talk page, again without any specific reference to the content of the edits, but promising a 'detailed response' later. They then reverted again at about midday on 12 June. I replied that a promise of a ‘detailed response’ wasn’t a response itself, and that they had still failed to meaningfully refer to the content of the edits in dispute and/or policy. I then reverted again. I also said I would take this to ANI. I did not have time to write this up for a few days. Today, IP user 202.165.236.224 (another sockpuppet, I believe—see below) reverted my edit in turn. There was no justification in the edit summary or on the talk page; I therefore reverted it. Potential sockpuppetry. The reverts in question were made by IP user @119.157.101.51, @Fiction2Facts, and IP user @202.165.236.224. The vast majority of Fiction2Facts’ edits are to Ishaq Dar. Fiction2Facts also has a history of reverting other edits on the page Ishaq Dar: e.g. [72], [73] which arguably amount to edit warring. All of 119.157.101.51’s edits are to Ishaq Dar and reverted my edits. Both use the term ‘mala fide vandalism’. All of 202.165.236.224’s Special:Contributions/202.165.236.224's edits were to Ishaq Dar. I therefore judge that all are the same user. None of the users in question has directly responded to my questions under Talk:Ishaq Dar#Puffery. Aside. It has proved impossible to elicit explanations for their edits, for which reason I have reverted each edit. Obviously if there had been a meaningful dispute about the content of the edits I shouldn’t have made these reverts. It would also be helpful to have more comment, so I shall request a third opinion at the same time.

Following warnings from @A. B. that were ignored, @Abecedare obliged and blocked @Fiction2Facts indefinitely from editing the article, as well as semi-protecting the page.

This worked for two weeks. Anyway, we now have a new IP edit: [74] by @202.165.236.222 as part of a series of recent edits also involving @202.165.236.224. I’m pretty sure this is just Fiction2Facts again: at [75] they add a new picture which was uploaded by Fiction2Facts, and all their edits are to Ishaq Dar. This seems fairly obvious sockpuppetry.

I raised a question of competence in the original report. In the edit summary of [76] we have the absurd notion that deletions require references. It’s almost like interacting with a chatbot; after repeatedly inviting discussion on the talk page, the revert asks me to use the talk page (despite none of these socks having done so). (N.B.: I did make subsequent edits that weren’t given detailed justification, which were the subject of the revert, but the justifications were largely in the same vein as those I did justify at Talk:Ishaq Dar#Puffery. And we still don’t have any actual reference to the content of my edits.) Anyway, I’m not really sure what to do about this other than continuing to report socks.

Docentation (talk) 03:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Not much to do other than lay down a long term semi protection and see what happens over the next few months. Courcelles (talk) 03:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl's lack of civility in CFD

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

• Examples of Recent Incivility by BrownHairedGirl

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

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

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

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

• Talk Page Discussion

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why did your post above make no mention of my reply[77] to you in that CFD , in which I explained why it was impossible to believe that the nominator has done WP:BEFORE?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You a few others want to amke it about me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  What's going on here?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So the merry-go-round is back.

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

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

BHG is and has been a very prolific editor.

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

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

However...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@RevelationDirect: Aaaargh!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Nederlandse Leeuw: this is significant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To BHG,

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

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

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

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

To the rest:

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

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

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

Wow!

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

This is utterly appalling conduct.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  @CapnJackSp That's just tu quoque.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The core issue of WP:SMALLCAT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@RevelationDirect: Here they are: [78][79]. Please note that LL removed them completely instead of striking them out. This is in violation of WP:TALK#REPLIED. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Smallcat

• Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Small with no potential for growth

Just for those who have not been around CfD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Laurel Lodged at CfD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The side issue of WP:SMALLCAT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@RevelationDirect: again, I remind you that the headline of WP:SMALLCAT says "Small with no potential for growth"'. It had exactly the same headline ten years ago.[80]

Ten years ago[81] the body text of the guideine said "Note also that this criterion does not preclude all small categories". The current version[82] of WP:SMALLCAT uses exactly the same words "Note also that this criterion does not preclude all small categories".

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

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

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

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

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

That is not true, @RevelationDirect.

In the discusion User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Apologies_for_CFD_comment you repeatedly refsued to uphold the "Small with no potential for growth" principle. Instead you retained the position you had taken at WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_June_25#People_by_occupation_in_Northern_Ireland, when you expilicitly !voted to upmerge because, as you wrote in your reply to me Your clarification that you're not planning to populate these categories moves my !vote to Merge.[83]. A I noted in my reply, that both grossly misrepresented my position (I did not say that I was not planning to populate these categories), and also breached both WP:SMALLCAT's empahasis on "no potential for growth" and the "accepted series" clause. Your hostile repsose accused me of refusal to compromise.[84]

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

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

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

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

Secondly, I did not accuse you of being part of a secret tag team. That is a straw man fallacy which you invented, and which I replied to on my talk 8 days ago: I also do no know whether you are a part of the tag team. All I do know is that you both repeatedly endorse the tag team, and that you repeatedly act as their attack dog by piling on me for criticising them.[85] BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:55, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Thoughts about possible restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NL has also made a number of blatant personal attacks on me here at ANI, which include an allegation of lack of empathy, a typo flame[86] (after I challenged it, NL doubed down on it[87]: you could have kept that information private, to prevent people from mocking you for it. Now it's out in the open, and that is on you.). NL also wants to drive me off Wikipedia, suggesting you always have the option of WP:RETIRE.[88]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit-warring by User:Geraldo Perez

Geraldo Perez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has removed the mention of the Mexican background of Anthony Quinn ([89]) from the lede and short description, and repeatedly reverted other editors trying to add it back ([90] [91] [92]). They mention MOS:CONTEXTBIO in the discussion (Talk:Anthony_Quinn#Nationality_in_lead), but of course that is not a ban on adding a previous nationality, it just means it is up to editors to decide if that is relevant to the person. Bizarrely, in the talk page they seem to agree the Mexican background of Anthony Quinn is relevant, but they set an impossibly high bar to meet before it can be included. I am raising this issue here because I think there might be a pattern of behaviour by the user based on his edits to other articles in which I haven't been involved. For example, I noticed he has done a similar thing at Camila Cabello, repeteadly removing any mention of her Cuban background in the lede and reverting other editors trying to add it back ([93] [94]). Again, the user simply mentioned CONTEXTBIO in the talk page (Talk:Camila_Cabello#Nationality_context_in_lead), but instead of trying to reach a consensus, he simple engaged in edit-warring. I think the user should be admonished for that behaviour and not try to simply impose his views of what is relevant for the lede of a biographical article. Vpab15 (talk) 14:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I mention MOS:CONTEXTBIO as that is the justification for my making edits to comply with the manual of style, which is all I have been doing. I justify my changes on the talk page and expect those who disagree to engage in discussion. An assertion that someones ancestry, ethnicity or birth location is something to be mentioned in the intro sentence and lead needs justification based on article content, not just a bare assertion. Per MOS:CONTEXTBIO "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, neither previous nationalities nor the country of birth should be mentioned in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability". Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@Vpab15, sorry, I don't see how this is an ANI (behavioral) issue; it appears to be a content dispute. The same disagreement on two BLPs isn't a "pattern of behaviour" ― "nationality" in the lead is a common area of disagreement on BLPs, and Geraldo Perez is consistently applying his interpretation of MOS:CONTEXTBIO to both the articles you mention. You should both continue the discussion at Talk:Anthony_Quinn#Nationality_in_lead, perhaps inviting editors at WP:BLPN to weigh in so it isn't just the two of you. Schazjmd (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@Schazjmd, I thought BLP is for living people, which doesn't apply to Anthony Quinn. Does WP:BLPN also deal with dead people? Vpab15 (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@Vpab15, only recently dead, so good point, that wouldn't be the best place to solicit other editors' input. Perhaps an RfC? Or a post at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography? Schazjmd (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

It should be noted that an IP was the first to try to introduce the edit in question, so Geraldo only restored the WP:STATUSQUO. As per WP:BRD and WP:ONUS, the IP and anyone else wanting to add the information need to discuss the issue on the talk page of the article in question, and until a WP:CONSENSUS is reached, the article stays in the aforementioned status quo version. In other words, the article, in this case, stays in the version prior to that IP's edit. The OP tried to re-add the same edit without having the consensus to do so. I won't say too much here, as this should be discussed on the article talk page, but I will quickly say that if someone is born in, for example, Australia, but all of their notable work is in the United States, then they are an American actor/actress. Either Australian actor/actress or Australian-American actor/actress would be incorrect, as they have literally done no acting in Australia. The Australian part can be mentioned in the early or personal life section, but in the lead, it should just be that they are an American actor/actress. Same thing here, except replace Australian with Mexican. Amaury • 18:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

That is not correct, the actor's Mexican background has been in the lede in one way or other since 2004 ([95]) until a few weeks ago, when the editor in question removed it. Restoring that to the status quo is what I am trying to do. Vpab15 (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Removal of Jengod's autopatrolled right.

Can the autopatrolled right of former admin User:Jengod please be removed? Anyone who creates the vandalistic or drunk nonsense of Dyer–Brody shouldn't have that right. While based on an apparently not very notable but real case[96], their unsourced article was just atrocious. About this 1866 lynching, they said things like "the antifa-aligned 1st Tennessee Cavalry Regiment", "The refusal to comply was reportedly for the equivalent of being in the wrong pre-line line at Ikea. The cop also said he matched the description." (no idea which description, complete non sequitur), "Brody was sequestered by the thin blue line.", "[...]was a bad day in America in 1866." "Irate at the murder of their friend, apparently fearful he would not be brought to trial, motivated by and above" (and so it ends).

I already had my concerns when they created List of military families of the United States (which I prodded), with lines like "[...]any families whose service was predominantly for the Confederate States of America, which was a treasonous carbuncle and not the United States." (emphasis mine).

An editor who can't write in a neutral, factual, encyclopedic way shouldn't have the autopatrolled right. Fram (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Fram, I'm sure you'll have done this, but to confirm – a checkuser has been asked to confirm that Jengod is still in charge of the account, yeah? — Trey Maturin™ 16:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

This is fine. I'm sorry about Dyer Brody! I really thought it was in my user space! But I am totally losing my mind reading about the American Civil War. But your instincts are probably right that I should be reviewed again. jengod (talk) 16:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Since you said it yourself, I'll remove it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Trey Maturin, no, I haven't done this. Fram (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks and my apologies to all the patrollers and to you and Fram. jengod (talk) 16:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Just posted this on Fram's talk but posting it here as well, for posterity:

I swear thought I was drafting in User:Jengod/Dyer-Brody. I usually start with what's called with a vomit draft and edit my way through it, with citations and NPOV and everything. I hope you'll take a look at User:Jengod#Work: Articles created 2023 and see that it's not my norm to publish vomit drafts. The treasonous carbuncle comment on List of military families of the United States was out of line; I was losing my mind after having written Samuel Wilkeson Jr. (unbearably sad) and after creating Robert Johnson (Tennessee) (a different kind of tragedy) and generally immersing myself in American Civil War horror. Thanks for reminding me to tap the brakes.

Hope to see you all around here in better circumstances on another day. jengod (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@Jengod:, in that case, would you like Dyer–Brody undeleted and moved to your userspace as User:Jengod/Dyer-Brody as a "vomit draft" (interesting term; I do the same when writing something IRL, but I just call it a "stream of consciousness draft")? Or do you think you might not write the article, or that it would be better to start fresh? --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

The problem is I was writing while Fram was deleting, so while I was starting to compile sources in the CMS (ex: https://www.newspapers.com/article/daily-missouri-republican-the-knoxville/127787840/ , https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc2.ark:/13960/fk78s4k57s&view=1up&seq=322&q1=Tracy; ISBN 978-0807133989 epilogue chapter), I think I've got them all available and the words are very reconstructable. (I was writing out the lede to help me grok what was described at the ref Fram linked above as a "complicated" case and then was doing to do bios for the relevant parties and then recount the incident and somewhere in there make the lede not insane), but yeah I don't think any of it needs to be recovered. Thank you so much for asking tho Floquenbeam that's really nice. jengod (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

A former sysop creating an obvious G3 was worth a look on those grounds. With the obvious caveat of the 90 day rule, I didn’t see any reason to suspect compromise. Cross referencing, I think the same person is in control of the account now as was in 2018. Courcelles (talk) 16:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

This is not to imply the account was compromised back in 2018, just to say that’s as far as I can get technically. I find @Jengods explanation, posted after I started looking, satisfactory. Courcelles (talk) 17:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. It was a back-of-the-mind worry that became a front-of-the-keyboard piece of typing. Sorry to have wasted your time. — Trey Maturin™ 17:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Not a waste, @Trey Maturin. Long term established accounts may create an occasional CSD page, but G3s are especially unusual from non-new accounts. Courcelles (talk) 17:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

In case I need to say I need to say it I'm just myself and I have been for all these years. I was de-adminned for inactivity which was correct and good but now my kids are out of diapers etc so I have time to edit while waiting for the kids at various activities and/or while holding very still and willing them to finally fall asleep. jengod (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh! While I've got you all here questioning my sketchy autopatrolled article publications please take a look at Lincoln–Johnson ledger-removal allegation which I felt guilty about publishing because the sourcing is so thin but also it seemed notable on its face. But I've been on an Andrew Johnson controversies streak so maybe I'm biased against Please advise. Or nominate it for deletion? IDK. TIA. jengod (talk) 19:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

For what it’s worth, User:Jengod has just recently made some good edits on East Tennessee Civil War figures, most of whom were Unionists. Invective ran strong in this lot; “traitors” and “carbuncles” would have been the least of their terms for the hostile Confederate armies that occupied East Tennessee. Perhaps she’s just been overly immersed in their 19th century memoirs.

I’ve been meaning to thank her for her edits. I reckon this is as good a place as any.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Gamowebbed

I encountered this user a few days and noticed there some of their edits weren't correct, so I reverted those incorrect edits. This editor has also reverted me without any proper reasoning and still continues to do so. My main concern is this editor is WP:HOUND me. It started off yesterday when I was notified that an edit of mine was reverted by this editor. I check to see what was reverted, and it hit me that the revert seemed to be targeted. They reverted this here: [97] on July 6, 2023. I find it odd that they reverted me because I made that edit on May 21, 2022, also the editor never edited on the page. So I take my concern to their talk page, and they merely said it was a computer glitch, I left it at that. The conservation is here:[98] After a little while I thought things were fine, but then I wake up to see I've been reverted 3 times, by this editor again. It's the same pattern, they've never edited on the article until they revered my edits. 1st revert:[99] 2nd revert:[100] 3rd revert:[101] At this point, I can't keep dealing with the editor. I would just like to edit in peace, but I can't seem to even do that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Btspurplegalaxy (talk • contribs) 18:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

This user had been edit warring see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Gamowebbed reported by User:Lightoil (Result: Declined) permlink but admin action was declined by Daniel Case. Lightoil (talk) 04:17, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Both editors have been hounding me while using rollback privileges to remove all my edits while only justifying one edit. Some examples include reverting my edits where I tagged sources as unreliable. Some more reverts without justification here and here. An anonymous source also provided me with this interesting article 🇬🅰️Ⓜ️⭕🔱📧🅱️🅱️📧🇩 (talk) 04:54, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I am going to repeat what I said on my talk your edits have been subpar, formatting references incorrectly and using the wrong redirect categories. Lightoil (talk) 05:07, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

04:51, July 8, 2023, here you claim you "fixed link and references" but very sneakily and deviously reverted factual information (changing American to Indian-American, which is not how ethnic descriptions works, as Sundai is an American citizen) 🇬🅰️Ⓜ️⭕🔱📧🅱️🅱️📧🇩 (talk) 05:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Your link is Indian American so if you want it to say American it should link to American. People should not click on the link American and get redirected to Indian American. Lightoil (talk) 05:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Why are you bringing up that article when it doesn't have anything to do with the current situation? Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 05:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Clearly WP:NOTHERE and treating every single edits as a WP:BATTLEGROUND and clearly has no interests in working collaboratively. I also been involved with this editor, my experience doesn't differs much from what is stated by Btspurplegalaxy, once you reverted them with valid reason such as violating MOS:SURNAME, instead of reading through the linked guidelines/policies, they will instead revert my revert without providing any valid reason, and also go around to WP:HOUND you. I believe a 1 week block is required here so they will stop hounding and (hopefully) learn from their mistake once they're unblock. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

been collaborating here, using talk instead of reverting. 🇬🅰️Ⓜ️⭕🔱📧🅱️🅱️📧🇩 (talk) 07:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

The WP:HOUND continues with the latest victim being Ïvana after getting reverted at D-Day (album) and immediately what is stated by me and Btspurplegalaxy is exhibited again. This needs to stop immediately, any administrator can intervent. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 10:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Abel and POV pushing

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

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

And to be honest this happens multiple times per day. Extremely tiring. Ymblanter (talk) 18:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Fourth revert on Kreminna now [102]. I guess their attack on Avdiivka is not much better, and this is pretty much theor only contribution. Ymblanter (talk) 19:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Attack? You are attacking by renaming Ukrainian cities. On what basis do you do this? You should be blocked for mystifying and misleading readers

So why do you commit illegal actions several times a day - renaming Ukrainian cities? Are you the government or the parliament of Ukraine? What laws do you follow? Abel (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear, are you implying that adding city name translations is actually illegal? That it's against the law? 〜 Askarion ✉ 19:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Cities have an official name. What drives a person to change their name? Does he have such authority if it is a matter for the government of the country? Abel (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

This comment shows that you either are not aware of our policies, or do not care about them, or, likely, both. Ymblanter (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I've been registered on Wikipedia since 2019, so I'm curious: since when did it become Wikipedia's policy to deceive people, what are you doing renaming Ukrainian cities at your discretion? Abel (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

So why do you commit illegal actions several times a day - renaming Ukrainian cities? Are you the government or the parliament of Ukraine? What laws do you follow? Abel (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Could someone urgently block please? I am not sure why I should be forced to read this bullshit. Ymblanter (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I hope someone blocks you. Because what you are doing is called quackery. You cannot change the names of cities at your discretion Abel (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Cities have an official name that can only be changed by the country's parliament. Are you the parliament of Ukraine that changed the name of Ukrainian cities? Abel (talk) 19:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, four reverts at Avdiivka as well. Ymblanter (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

On what basis are you renaming Avdiivka again? Abel (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Because 1) you may not edit this article, and your edits should be reverted on the spot; 2) I did not rename anything; 3) my edits correspond to a long-standing consensus; 4) you are disruptive user and all your edits in fact degrade the quality of the English Wikipedia. Ymblanter (talk) 19:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Five reverts at Avdiivka. Ymblanter (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Avdiivka is Avdiivka. You keep adding a name to the city that doesn't exist. Stop deceiving people and using Wikipedia for political purposes Abel (talk) 19:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Is there any quality in lies? The city has an official name. What gives you the right to change it?

If I start renaming Russian cities in the Ukrainian manner, this will also "improve quality"?) You are spreading lies and using Wikipedia for the political purposes of the Russian Federation and you should be blocked Abel (talk) 19:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, have you ever looked at Belgorod for example? And this is a clear and patent LIE that I spread anything in the interest of the Russian Federation. It is a pretty clear personal attack, and you have no place on this project. I am a community member in good standing, and you have no right saying this to me. Ymblanter (talk) 19:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

You have a Russian-language Wikipedia, where the rules of the Russian language apply. In English, names are translated from the original language of the country. In English, we write New York, not, for example, Nueva York Abel (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Not sure whether their denial of being new is a sock puppetry admittance, or the 2019 creation date. One week was generous for the RGW. Star Mississippi 02:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

They are talking about their 200+ edits on the UKR-WP since 2010. Though this still doesn't allow them to RGW in EC-protected topic area, of course. a!rado🦈 (C✙T) 15:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

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

User:Victor Freeknight

Victor Freeknight (talk · contribs)

Crosswiki hoaxes, check RuWiki for details. As I can see, user did the same contributions here. Siradan (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Deletion of many images from the storage and permanent blocking.

Please explain what the hoax is, all sources are reliable and verifiable, there are links and footnotes.

You deleted many images, the sites from which they were taken gave permission to publish, also the file - the Order of the Asian Cross is not a hoax.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=340838265 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor Freeknight (talk • contribs) 19:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• Here in en.wiki, as well as in ru.wiki, this User created the articles about Order of Saint Blaise and Order of Saint Catherine with Mount Sinai (see also the draft of the latter, User:Victor Freeknight/Орден Святой Екатерины с горы Синайской) based exclusively on the websites of these orders, none of them is described or even mentioned elsewhere. The information provided by this User is completely false, the photographs uploaded to Commons are self-made hoaxes too (I have deleted all of them and banned the User there). I would strongly propose to ban this User indefinitely and eliminate his entire contibrution. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

   Done, blocked indef. Ymblanter (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Scammer reaching out to AfD article subject

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

Opencooper, this is a common scam. Please read Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Scam warning for more information and how to report it. Cullen328 (talk) 23:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Thanks for the link. I'll email the subject and point them to it. Opencooper (talk) 00:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive editing by Chamaemelum

• Chamaemelum

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

• [103]
• [104]
• [105]
• [106].

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

• Tgeorgescu - [107]
• Draken Bowser - [108]
• Psychologist Guy - [109]
• Valjean - here and here
• acknowledging that consensus was opposed, here, but continued warring on the article and talk page
• encouraging blog trivia and even trying to dispute WP:NOTFORUM with this.

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

• Support WP:TBAN on the aspartame and related articles. Zefr (talk) 03:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

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

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

I repeatedly tried to open a dialog with Zefr, for example regarding the POV tag, but he didn't respond, instead removing it. The edits linked by Zefr [110] [111] show me deleting or rephrasing (to be closer to the source text) a non-independent source written entirely by a current employee of Cadbury about sweeteners. Per the talk page and my edits, I always tried to facilitate discussion to avoid editing disputes. Zefr said I acknowledged consensus was opposed but "continued warring" here [112]. This was in response to the comment "I think it would be appropriate to mention the certain facts, namely that a review will be happening. Just mentioning this fact (which is an "event", not Wikipedia:Biomedical information). . . ," by WhatamIdoing, and my comment intended to indicate a willingness to compromise "if" consensus was reached; it is not a claim about current consensus (indeed, multiple users had a dispute in that thread). I understand and respect the rules against disruptive editing and it's never my intention to go against consensus. I shouldn't have mentioned the trivia [113]; I was just surprised to see a peer-reviewed article about a Wikipedia user. Many of my edits or comments such as this [114] should be read in context of the discussion on the talk page. I left warnings on Zefr's talk page relating to edit warring (many reverts of multiple editors), improper template removal while declining discuss ([115][116][117][118][119][120]), and deleting others' talk page comments that have relevance to the article ([121][122][123]) or article discussions [124]. Because of the widespread nature of Zefr's disruptive editing here, but also with many other users on aspartame, I think it would be wise to consider Zefr in addition to myself in this report. Of course, I am also happy to revise my editing approach as necessary. Chamaemelum (talk) 05:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is very hard to take that final sentence at face value due to a general inability to understand and listen to consensus over the last few days. Draken Bowser (talk) 06:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for Chamaemelum on aspartame and related articles. It seems to me that this is simply classic WP:IDHT. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 06:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
• Why the hurry, Chamaemelum? Just wait a week or two for the report to be published and we can then report accurate information, rather than selective speculation by the media. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I agree. If I remember correctly, only my first edit was an attempt to include this media speculation. Afterward, I wanted to include only the information on the WHO's website regarding the situation (not related to the decision leak), and I still could wait with that, too. Chamaemelum (talk) 08:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support at a minimum whatever it takes to get them off the Aspartame/talk for the next few weeks. They moved from edit-warring on article, to talk-page discussion with substantial comments not directly aimed at improving the article, to now edit-warring on the talkpage over a discussion about a discussion about a disucssion that isn't directly about the article. I have not looked closely at their edits beyond that page and its talk to see if there is a wider problem. But I note that disruption of the article resumed after protection lapsed. DMacks (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support WP:TBAN. Unacceptable behaviour on the Aspartame article and talk-page from Chamaemelum. The same user has also made some bad edits on the red meat article, including copyrighted material. There seems to be a theme here of ignoring scientific consensus and what mainstream health authorities say, and ignoring advice from other users. Off-site Chamaemelum has been doing some research into Zefr's Wikipedia account and pasting in various websites. This is not outing because of anonymous account names but this has been done to me in the past and it is not very pleasant. I do not think that was being done in good faith. The user has also edited articles and talk-pages related to Water fluoridation, Ephebophilia, child sexuality, criticism of Islam, the age of Aisha, irreducible complexity, Innocence of Muslims, Richard Lewontin and articles related to race and intelligence. I have never edited any of these articles, I find it odd a brand new user would start editing all of these controversial topics within the space of a month. The user has posted that they had an older account on Wikipedia. This is definitely not a new user. My advice would be to edit non-controversial topics for a while and stay out of drama and edit-wars. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  I absolutely did not post Zefr's name into any offline website in any shape or form. It's offensive and wrong that you accuse me of that, and I would never react that way over a simple disputed edit. Chamaemelum (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  I think you might have misread that sentence, it says pasting not posting. Draken Bowser (talk) 22:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  Pasting implies posting: for the paste to be published it must be posted. I mean "in any shape or form" which means no even tangentially related activity that could in any way be construed as something close to pasting Zefr's Wikipedia account in various websites. Chamaemelum (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  You have misunderstood what I wrote. I was referring to websites you pasted onto Wikipedia, I never claimed you were writing stuff off this website. I would agree with others users here including the user below. This is a massive time sink. Lot's of time has been wasted addressing concerns about your editing. I also have a bad feeling you are a returning banned user. I will not be responding again. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. Rschen7754 and I have called this user out for WP:PRODding 1/3 of the Nigerian road articles and, when that did not work out, WP:BLUDGEONING the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A236 highway (Nigeria). The latter discontent was only expressed by me, unless I missed something. Chamaemelum's behavior at the Nigeria national roads and the problems indicated above are extremely time consuming for the WP community that can use its time much better elsewhere. gidonb (talk) 00:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

That's interesting, gidonb, about a month ago, in my regular activity at AFD land, I noticed two editors who were focusing their attention on nominating bios of Nigerian people for deletion consideration. Undoubtedly, there are frequently a lot of poor sources in those articles but it seemed like a very specific focus. I wasn't sure what to make of it and when I contacted one of the editors about an unrelated AFD issue, this activity stopped. I kind of filed it away in case there were problems in the future but your comment brought it back to mind. I'm not suggesting coordination, it's just an odd coincidence. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for being vigilant, Liz, against such threats! In general, the more people AfD or PROD, this affects precision. The only possible exception I presently notice is a user who always addresses sports and refrains from arguing. Someone who compensates the negative effects of quantity by being a subject matter and standards expert. When WP:BLUDGEONING is thrown into the mass PRODding or AfD mix, and it often is, the combination will become a brutal nuisance. This in general. As I mentioned in my responses at the Nigeria A236 AfD, specifically for Africa and many other regions, it is difficult to maintain good coverage, while balancing both quality and quantity. gidonb (talk) 06:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi gidonb,

My comments there (and the PRODs) were due to my not knowing that a local consensus existed, having never interacted with road articles before. I know more now, but at the time I saw it akin to having articles for every individual tollbooth. That was my first deletion discussion and I'm more aware of the best practices now, like not responding to too many comments. I hope we can edit and discuss collaboratively in the future. Chamaemelum (talk) 06:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I reacted to what I saw. If the next encounters will be better, that would be good. gidonb (talk) 06:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

request for service fee

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

See two threads above, there is already a thread about the same scam. --Cavarrone 07:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah, yes I see. Thanks for pointing it out @Cavarrone Dutchy45 (talk) 08:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@Dutchy45 Extremely obvious and very common scam that falls apart with any kind of research or even just reading the email carefully. I'm sort of amazed that someone fell for it, let alone creating an entire reddit post over it.

Among the more obvious things wrong in that email chain:

1st email

• Tom is not an admin, and has not been an admin for 4 1/2 years.
• Tom has not edited the site since 2019, their talk page contains a large banner that they've MIA.
• Tom has not disclosed their surname and does not use the name "Cooper" anywhere, their account used to be called User:Tomf688 so their surname actually probably starts with an F.
• The email has been sent from the very obvious fake address "thewikipedians.com", wikipedia's url is, of course "wikipedia.org".
  • According to WHOIS the domain is registered via a proxy to hide who actually owns it.
• There is no such thing as a "senior administrator"
• There is no such thing as the "spam list", and there is no 5 year/lifetime block after a page has been deleted.
• Per the WP:COI guidelines we would not be recommending that the subject of the article add references themselves.
• We do not resolve deletion discussions by "removing the tag" from the article, they are resolved by evaluating consensus in the discussion.
• We do not do any "clearing [of] our records" after a page is deleted, what does that even mean?
• What on earth does "sent over the deletion log" mean? It's utter nonsense.
• Page titles can be reused once a page is deleted
• Page content can be restored, it doesn't become blacklisted/unusable because it was part of a deleted page.
• If we delete a page we would not tell someone to recreate it at a different title, the page would just be WP:G4'd

2nd email

• There is no such thing as a moderator
• AFD's are not votes or surveys
• Bureaucrats do not close AFD's or delete pages
• You do not need to get a "certain amount of keep votes" to stop a page being deleted, you need to demonstrate that the page meets the inclusion criteria.
• There is no such thing as a "certified wikipedia administrator"
• Anyone can contribute to AFD's, you don't need to be certified.

It's very clearly a paid editing company impersonating an inactive admin to try to sign someone up for paid editing services, the entire email is full of nonsense that doesn't make any sense. 192.76.8.82 (talk) 13:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

> "It's very clearly a paid editing company impersonating an inactive admin...."

Or an individual without any company doing that exact thing, in the hope of getting paid. 🙄🤥 – .Raven  .talk 02:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Whit Hertford (Chronic and Intractable)

• User:Whit Hertford
• User:Whithertford43

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

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

A trip through the page history is a rather interesting one. Revealing several other accounts with very similar names and a ton of single minded anons. The other accounts seem to be abandoned and stale, so I'll just leave those out of this, but it does indicate this is a long standing (think 2009) habit. Kleuske (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Akash Mukherjee Edits and UPE/spam sockfarm

User

Akash Mukherjee Edits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · central auth · global contribs · filter log · block user · nuke contribs)

Pages

Brindavan Express (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Evadi Gola Vaadidhi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Munir Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Ankita Chakraborty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Monica Sharma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Draft:Krishna Singh Thakur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Mahalakshmi Pavani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Baldev Batra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Prior checkuser results

Results on Commons

Description of issue

The user has been repeatedly warned on his talk page for conflict of interest editing and UPE, but denied that they were engaging in paid editing. However, Commons Checkuser results tell a bit of a different story, with the user being part of a fairly large socking ring, and this appears to be a clear case of paid editing/spam. I'm asking that the account be blocked as likely part of a cross-wiki UPE/spam operation based on both behavioral evidence and the Commons checkuser results. I'm filing here, rather than at SPI, because they don't appear to have violated EnWiki's policy on sockpuppetry based on a behavioral evidence or the Commons CU results (I don't have any socks that have made edits on EnWiki to tie this to, despite their socking elsewhere). Nevertheless, they do appear to be here for reasons other than to build an encyclopedia, so I do think a block is warranted.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

See also:

• simple:User talk:Akash Mukherjee Edits

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

More joy:

• commons:User talk:Akash Mukherjee Edits
• commons:User:Hariramaswami
• commons:User:Kamal Raha dsq
• commons:User:Amsterdam warner
• commons:User:Shabal-gang
• commons:User:Haram-naveen
• commons:User:Ramneek-dhaliwal
  • edited other wikipedias

Active AfDs underway here:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baldev Batra
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Munir Khan (2nd nomination)
  • likely notable due to coverage of scandals

Page created on multiple Wikipedias:

• Aripirala Yogananda Sastry

Articles on Simple Wikipedia that may be headed here:

• simple:Aparajita Bhuyan
• simple:Anmolvir Singh Sidhu
• simple:Mahalakshmi Pavani (Indian Lawyer) (deleted)

This page turned into a real boomerang:

• Munir Khan - fluffy spam version
• Munir Khan - current version which now details scandals

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

More Simple articles:

• simple:Krishna Singh Thakur
• simple:Garima Agarwal
• simple:Ahmed Haque (may be notable)
• simple:Abhinav Gupta (deleted)
• simple:Bharat Katyayan (Entrepreneur (deleted)
• simple:Falak Naaz (Hair Stylist) (deleted)
• simple:Dr Seema Midha (deleted twice)
  • first version was created by simple:User:Topwikieditor

Topwikieditor created hi:Dr Prem Kumar Sharma about the astrologer. Our own Dr Prem Kumar Sharma article was deleted.

simple:User:Topwikieditor is blocked on Simple as a sock of simple:User:Wikibaji who has also edited here (User:Wikibaji).

Wikibaji has been very busy here on en.wikipedia:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikibaji/Archive

After stumbling across that extensive length of Wikibaji sock puppets, I'm going to stop digging through more contributions - this just seems to go on and on.

Recommendations:

• If possible, I suggest putting all these article titles into the edit filter.
  • I think these people often start an article on other wikis, especially Simple, first.
• An admin should block any user names from other projects that aren't already blocked here.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

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

I posted about this issue here on this noticeboard but nobody responded to my post: [125]

This user (User:Harmanjit Singh Khalsa123s) continues to disruptively edit Sikh pages, see: [126] , [127]

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

Looks like long-term WP:DISRUPT. It believe it might be better if an admin indef blocked the account as it has been going on for months and the user has not engaged on the talk-page and ignored previous warnings. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Having seen this edit [128], this is vandalism. This is a case of WP:NOTHERE. I would support indef block. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Harmanjit Singh Khalsa123s (talk · contribs) from editing articles and left them a message asking for a response. Johnuniq (talk) 05:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

user ip: 86.187.235.184 vandalism, personal attack, conflicts

on wiki page Tredegar 86.187.235.184 is reverting edits made to include a Welsh language voiceclip to the Welsh pronunciation despite giving reference from the BBC's own company; (S4C, which is a Welsh language channel).

86.187.235.184 added remarks (on the page's edit history page) such as;

- "utter bollo**s (as usual)"

- 'shove that in your big fat Cymdeithas warrior pipe and smoke it mate'

in the page's talk page; |https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tredegar he/she mentioned;

- "And please give up with all this pathetic Welsh Nationalistic b*ggery boll*cks. Cheers"

- "but it's a load of fucking arse w*nk mate"

So he/she used xenophobia against me because I speak Welsh, assuming I was a nationalist (using 'cymdeithas' referring to Welsh_Language_Society), he/she used profanity, he went into an edit war after being confronted with evidence, I also have a feeling the user is using sockpuppetry to make these remarks and edits which is also against terms of use.

I'd very much appreciate someone looking into this please, best regards.Hogyncymru (talk) 23:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

User treating an article as a personal list project

User Peter39c appears to be treating European Rally Championship as a personal project, listing 'winning cars' for each season in a table, in a section previously called "Champions" they have now renamed to "Winners". There were no such awards, prizes or championship titles awarded to cars, only titles of champion awarded to drivers, and there are no sources to back their edits up. Despite this, the user is reverting the edits made to remove their content, ignoring the points in edit summaries about sources being required, and choosing to include citations that have been explained on the article talk page do not mean what the user believes, alongside notices that what they add will have to be removed, it being unsourced.

Since first adding this content, the user appears to have now accepted that these 'winners' are not champion manufacturers, but persists in re-adding the disputed content in peculiar fashion with nearly 100 edits in one month, presenting winning cars as equal status to the champion drivers. There are sources at table level for who the champion drivers are, but cannot add this whilst bogus content keeps being added.

The user refuses to engage in dialogue about why they are doing these edits. Rally Wonk (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I should add that perhaps English is not their first language; they have were previously briefly blocked on Commons for copyright violation, although it did not seem like they understood why. See c:User talk:Peter39c. Not a valid excuse for refusing to communicate, however. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 00:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Europa: The Last Battle

Captain Pingu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has now crossed firmly into WP:NONAZIS territory, insisting that Europa: The Last Battle is a legitimate documentary (spoiler alert, it isn't, it is anti-semitic, Nazi apologist, Holocaust -denying, Hitler glorifying propaganda). Their earlier history was concerning in itself, but this latest development leaves no doubt, they shouldn't be editing here. They have also engaged in socking, and so I have opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Captain Pingu. Posting here to get some quicker attention. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 00:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

In May, Captain Pingu made edits in a similar style to Kanye West 2024 presidential campaign (and last year to Alex Jones). I do think Captain Pingu believes he is "removing bias". I don't think Captain Pingu has ever actually read WP:NPOV, nor does he appear to understand that we summarize what the sources say; we don't censor the views of independent reliable sources to hide their "bias". Schazjmd (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I kinda though the same myself, but what really sealed the deal was: It also engages in historical accuracy to show that Zionists started World War I (and caused Germany's defeat, commonly referred to as the stab-in-the-back) and World War II as part of a plot to establish Israel. So, they are saying that the film was accurate to say that "Jews did WW2", "Jews did WW1" and "Jews betrayed Germany in WW1". (Of course, using the convenient alternative term "Zionist", which everyone knows is usually intended to be replaced with "Jews" when reading). Given that believing in the stab-in-the-back myth is a founding part of Nazi ideology, this falls under NONAZIS in more than just a general way. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 00:58, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I think Captain Pingu has been around enough and had enough interactions at User talk:Captain Pingu to know the community's rules and consensus. I believe that Captain Pingu thinks that others are wrong and they have to fix it, whatever the cost. I'm not sure there's much explaining left to do.

Captain Pingu's made 11 tech-related edits; 19 to N.O.V.A. Near Orbit Vanguard Alliance and the remaining 33 mostly to controversial topics like as Alex Jones, this movie and Kanye West.

What are the prospects this person will be a productive editor going forward?

On a separate topic, the article asserts this movie is 746 minutes long. Mind-boggling if true.

-- A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Regarding prospects: Virtually zero. Regarding length: It probably is, it's a ten part film. After all, lunatics can produce lengthy ravings. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 02:42, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I've expressed before that I'm very uncomfortable with NONAZIs generally, but this is the sort of case where IMO it's a good practice. It's one thing to have horrible views, it's another when you taint articles with such views. So INDEF. And yeah this is one of those cases when INDEF is probably permanently but at least likely to be a few years. Nil Einne (talk) 08:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if Captain Pingu is the same person as Special:Contributions/24.109.173.122 and Special:Contributions/Remy Gambit Labeau. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

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

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