Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sgweirdo (talk | contribs) at 18:32, 8 February 2023 (→‎Disruptive editing, sockpuppetry, and uncivility by User:Sgweirdo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    Disruptive editing by Hawkers994

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    References

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

    User:MrsSnoozyTurtle

    Hi. I want to discuss MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) editing history as they are clearly violating multiple Wikipedia guidelines and policies for a long time and despite many warnings they continue to do this (as they keep no talk page archive to avoid scruitny).

    • They have been draftifying reviewed articles (older than 90 days and sometimes six months old articles) despite numerous warnings. It seems like they are using it as a backdoor route to deletion which is not allowed per WP:DRAFTIFY. Per WP:ATD-I, older articles should not be draftified without an AfD consensus, with 90 days a rule of thumb. but MrsSnoozyTurtle has done it dozens of time per their filter log and is continously violating it.
    • Their grasp of WP:GNG is so weak that recently they tried to PROD Tufts University and a defunct (but very notable) jewelry company, Michael C. Fina.
    • Usually assumes bad faith and accusses users of stalking who disagree with them, e.g. User_talk:Jfire#WP:STALKING?, [18] and canvassing ([[19]]).
      • Deletes/removes sourced content without use of talkpage, for example, Sozo Water Park and Discover Pakistan TV were improved during AfDs, yet they still try to destroy the work done by good-faith editors.
    • Previous warnings
    • Above warnings are already too much and still they haven't improved their behavior. They are doing more harm than good so, I propose some sort of topic ban to stop this, especially related to draftification issue. They have avoided scrutiny because there is as such no record of all these warnings (complained by User:David Eppstein and others). During the ban, they can learn about the guidelines, and possibly work on creating actual content that improves Wikipedia, rather just destroying/deleting notable content from Wikipedia.

    82.45.23.31 (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    •  Comment: I find it absurd that my quiet note and conversation pointing out an error can be characterised in any way as a warning. This is the conversation. MST accepts a genuine error. Every editor makes errors. By no means all admit them.
    Having explained that conversation, I am not sure that I need to take any further part in this discussion, but will respond if asked. I can say that I encounter MST rarely and have always found them to be collegial and a decent editor. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This has made me look again at Colors TV. Interested parties may see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colors TV. I should probably have followed through with that at the time. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • IP, am I missing an explanation of who you are somewhere? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • ... tried to PROD the Tufts University article? What the pluperfect hell? That has to be either one of the most dramatic WP:POINT violations in Wikipedia history, or else the editor is profoundly clueless. That being said, I'd have to say that over eleven years after registration and 31,000 edits, MrsSnoozyTurtle has learned all the guidelines she cares to do, and can be trusted to follow them about as far as is practical to do. Which does not seem too bloody far. Ravenswing 17:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      (As a postscript, I just looked over both MST's talk page and the Tufts talk page, to see if there was some attempt at apology -- "oops, I hit a PROD button by mistake." Nope. What I did see was her slapping a maintenance tag on the article, it being removed with an exhortation to discuss her problems on the talk page, and her repeatedly restoring the tags while declining to respond to that and further requests. Doesn't look very collegial to me.) Ravenswing 17:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      How does one accidentally suggest TNTing an article on the basis that the article is Promotional and poorly referenced to the extent that WP:TNT is the best option for the encyclopedia? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      For what it's worth, the PROD rationale was basically WP:TNT. I don't think it's a particularly good rationale for an article on such an institution (surely converting the article into a stub or simply removing some promotional sections would be incredibly less disruptive than deleting the whole article), but that's something for AfD (where this would probably be SNOW kept fwiw) rather than through WP:PROD, which is supposed to be for uncontroversial deletions. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      For what it's worth is damn near nothing. Going straight for the TNT on the article for an institution of the prestige and impact of Tufts University is at level best profoundly blinkered. This diff represents the state of the article at the time the PROD was issued [36]; everyone here can judge for themselves whether the article needed extensive editing to meet our standards.

      Not, mind, that MST attempted to do so. That PROD was her first edit to the article in at least five years. She has never put in an appearance on its talk page. If she's indeed one of those rare editors who will admit error, this is a fine place to start. Ravenswing 18:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm mentioned in one part of the filing above, and I have, indeed, been watching at least some of what has been going on. Although I've been a long-time critic of the WP:ARS, I also think that fair is fair, and I do believe that there are some significant issues here. If you look at this sequence of two edits: [37], [38], you will see the most recent single incidence of something that has been happening repeatedly, to the point where it's difficult to conclude anything other than that MrsSnoozyTurtle is knowingly trying to annoy the other editors at the project, without particularly compensating for it with anything constructive. There have been a couple of times prior to that where I reverted her: [39], [40] during edit warring over whether or not to include the closer's name. I also observed an incident where she falsely and hurtfully accused another editor of canvassing: [41]. I'll add that there has been inappropriate conduct going the other way: [42], but that was an isolated incident, whereas here we are dealing with a lengthy pattern. I'd support a topic ban from anything having to do with ARS. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The notion that deleting Tufts University would be uncontroversial is simply mind-boggling, and certainly calls this editor's competence into question. This is a serious problem and I am not sure what the best solution should be, but we need to find one. Cullen328 (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The Tufts University article is horribly promotional in parts, with significant amounts of it being very close paraphrasing of the university promo material (with no citations, naturally), but that could easily be fixed by taking an axe to those sections. It's not even close to being in TNT territory. Black Kite (talk) 19:04, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The best solution is easy to find. It would simply be to block this editor to prevent any further disruption. We seem to be reluctant to block disruptive editors when they are prolific, but that's even more reason to block them because they prolifically make disruptive edits. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Yet this editor has a clean block log, so no admin appears to have found any of their 31,000 edits before this report particularly problematic. A solution such as that discussed below is perfectly adequate. Meanwhile, like HEB above, I would also like to know the actual identity of the OP. Black Kite (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      There is a difference between "problematic" and "block-worthy". I have certainly found their edits problematic before, and have said so on ANI. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      This ANI discussion from October 2022 concerned actions by MST [[43]]. This includes @David Eppstein highlighting a long term pattern of bad draftications. ResonantDistortion 08:24, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another example: 4 days ago MST sent to draft this article: Draft:Sergei Mirkin. This is nearly 13 years old and the article creator is no longer active. This very much appears to be backdoor deletion and the warnings referenced above have not worked. ResonantDistortion 19:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • MrsSnoozyTurtle: this would be a really good time for you to show up here and say something along the lines of 'Yikes, OK I get it, I will never again use draftification in cases like this.' Seriously, draftification is a valid outcome of an NPP review, but it's not OK for long-standing articles. If you think an article that has existed for years is chock full of promotional crap (lots of them are), then you should (a) look for a better version to revert back to, (b) improve it yourself, (c) cut away the rubbish, even if that means stubifying it or (d) nominate at AfD. Please indicate that you understand this, or suggest other options if you can think of them. Girth Summit (blether) 19:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Hello Girth Summit. Thank you for the advice. Yes, I understand that draftification is not suitable for long-standing articles. That was a mistake and I will be careful not to do that again. (Just to clarify, I haven't read this thread fully, but will do this soon when I have time). Thank you, MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      You have promised to pay more attention to the rules of draftification more carefully before, for instance in this February 2022 thread where you professed to be ignorant of the rules against draftifying the same article more than once. And yet as recently as December 2022 we find you repeat-draftifying an article three hours after a previous draftification was objected to. What reason is there to believe that this time, your promises to actually obey the draftification rules will be kept? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Upon a brief look at the move log, while many are valid, there seems to be many other such invalid draftifications in the recent days as well 1 Jan 2023 after a de-prod, 25 Jan, 29 Jan. One thing in common, it appears, is that she tags the articles with COI/Advert/POI maintenance tags and then moves to draft. I also see edit warring [44], [45] (including a bizarre failed verification tag) — DaxServer (t · m · c) 23:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • At minimum, it feels like a ban on draftifying should be enacted here, since that appears to be the primary disruptive activity being done (though there are several others too, that Tufts action is just ridiculous). SilverserenC 19:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I would support a ban on draftification. I think that would eliminate the worst of the problems. The mistake of prodding Tufts University is more spectacular, but the inappropriate prods and maintenance banners are more easily dealt with, and draftification can easily turn into stealth deletion with fewer checks and balances. (One might hope that whoever reviews the speedy deletion six months later would notice the problem, but I don't trust that to happen in all cases.) —David Eppstein (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I’d support a ban on draftification, PROD, and speedy deletion. — Jacona (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Noting for the record that I have just warned MrsSnoozyTurtle about edit warring with respect to WP:BLAR at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 21#Élodie Chabrol. -- Tavix (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      That goes beyond drafts, PROD, and CSD. I noted earlier that there are also problems with ARS. It really might be best to ban from all deletion-related activities, broadly construed. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I'm starting to lean towards an all deletion activity ban as well, since all of their editing seems to revolve around trying to delete articles and remove whatever content they can get away with, regardless of the appropriateness of such an action. SilverserenC 21:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm mentioned by the OP here as one of the users that has been accused of stalking by MST. My first encounter with this user was on Sam Wasson, where I contested MST's prod (rationale: Promotional article) because the article was salvageable and the subject is notable. The article got draftified by another user, I cleaned it up and moved it back to the mainspace per WP:DRAFTOBJECT, and MST and two other users edit-warred over draftification [46] [47] [48] [49]. Subsequently MST edit-warred to remove the bibliography, which included not only the books Wasson has written, but review citations that help establish the subject's notability [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55]. So I concur that the issues go beyond draft and deletion activities. Jfire (talk) 20:56, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've re-added in the bibliography with some minor changes. The edits by MrsSnoozyTurtle there are a bit bizarre. It almost seems like they are purposefully mixing together proper removals of content with improper removals on purpose, in order for the former to obscure the latter. Stealth vandalism, if you will. SilverserenC 21:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm reluctant to attribute actual malicious intent. I think it's more likely an overzealous anti-WP:PROMO attitude combined with a miscalibration on what constitutes promotional content and how to best deal with it (e.g. reaching for TNT rather than cleanup as we see with Tufts). The edit-warring is of course not acceptable. Jfire (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The problem I have with that -- and why I'm leaning to Cullen328's and Phil Bridger's side of things -- is that we're not dealing with a rookie here. These antics, coming from someone with a few hundred edits and three months' tenure, would be (hopefully) correctable by a trout slap and sitting the newbie down for some home truths. MST, by contrast, has been on Wikipedia for approaching twelve years, and she has over 31,000 edits. There is no bloody excuse in the world for "miscalibrations" and such a shaky grasp of the standards and practices regarding deletions and deletion policies. Sooner or later, editors need to demonstrate that they get it, and this is far past the sell-by date on that. Ravenswing 10:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • FWIW If one were to investigate into the articles acted upon by MST with draftification/deletion, I'm confident we will defo find one or more UPE rings — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I believe that many of their draftifications are of UPE. I also believe that many of their draftifications WP:BITE good-faith new editors by falsely accusing them of UPE. Once they have guessed that something is promotional they are very tenacious at fighting to wipe it from the encyclopedia, rather than allowing our processes to play out according to their rules. That is the problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've just withdrawn the proposal below, but I want to express my personal opinion that we really do have a problem, and that the brief reply from MrsSnoozyTurtle in this discussion (followed by this: [56]) is not enough to put my concerns at rest. So I hope that no one will take my closing of the subsection as being a reason to close the discussion as a whole. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • At minimum, I'm going to keep an eye on their editing when they get back from their vacation. If they continue the same draftification, PRODing, and edit warring activity they have been, then I suspect we'll be back here again soon enough. If they stop doing that sort of disruptive editing, then mission accomplished. SilverserenC 21:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd also just like to say that this user has been nuking huge amounts of content in various automobile articles, such as Transmission (mechanical device), glow plug, automatic transmission, and straight-eight engine. I haven't pored over the edits in the detail, however, at a quick glance they've removed the mention of a continuously variable transmission (which is an alternative to fixed-gear transmissions) for no good reason. They've also removed huge sections of unsourced text, which could be easily sourced but I do not wish to revert to a previous version on the basis of taking out good intermediate edits. They also moved Turbine-electric transmission on the basis that they "thinked" that powertrain was the more common term. Aren't moves without discussion supposed to be non-controversial? X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 00:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I want to say that the OP has laid out a pretty good case for a topic ban. Speaking for myself I can say that I feel harassed by MrsSnoozyTurtle. I have not found them to be reasonable or helpful or collegial. Many times they follow the ARS project to ivote angularly, often they do not AGF and I have yet to see them ever attempt to improve the article's during AfD. At some point they have appointed themself the moderator of the ARS group; closing discussions, refactoring edits and accusing editors of wrongdoing. Even after a December 23 discussion where members agreed that we close the items on the ARS with the closer's name, MST obstinately continued to close discussions December 26, omitting the closer. I do not really think anyone needs more diffs than the OP has presented above. ATM it looks like there is some WP:ANIFLU on the part MrsSnoozyTurtle, but I do not their absence should prevent any action or sanction from happening. Everything needed is in the edit history of MST. Lightburst (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • To my eyes, the evidence presented above does look like problematic overuse of draftification. I would support some kind of restriction on draftification for this editor.—S Marshall T/C 17:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @MrsSnoozyTurtle: According to your note, you should be back here in a day or so. Please post a response here, on how you plan to proceed, going forward. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Hello Tryptofish. Thank you for being patient about the delay while I was travelling. This has been a big wake-up call for me, in hindsight I was getting too emotionally involved in some articles, especially when it seemed that COI editing was happening. So I will be careful to not edit in the "heat of the moment" in future. Also, I will read the Draftification and PROD policies each time to check that I am following them, along with doing those actions far less. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:05, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I think that the statement that this has been "a big wake-up call", and the intention to be more careful going forward, are good steps in the right direction. Although I don't think a more detailed reply is required, I don't see a complete acknowledgment of all the concerns that have been raised, and I note that there have been at least a few unkept promises in the past. So I guess the proof will be in the proverbial pudding, in the editing patterns in the future. As Silverseren said a short way above, if there are continuing problems, "we'll be back here again soon enough." --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal for topic ban

    I'm a believer in not wasting the community's time, and it's clear to me that this proposal, despite some support, is not going to reach the point of consensus, so I'm withdrawing it now, rather than waste anyone's time by letting it drag on. Thanks to everyone who commented. I can see some support here for a narrower proposal that is just for page blanking and draftification, but I'm personally not enthusiastic about such a limited restriction, if the expectation is that participation in discussion will resolve the problems. But if anyone else wants to propose it, by all means, and I'll probably support it. I find it a little odd that so much concern was expressed above the section break, and yet there has been little support for doing anything about it. But that's the community's choice, not mine. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Proposal: MrsSnoozyTurtle is banned by the community from page blanking, draftification, and all deletion-related actions and discussions, broadly construed.

    • Support as proposer. It seems to me that the discussion so far has demonstrated that there is likely to be consensus for some sort of action to be taken. In my opinion, we are short of what would justify a site ban, but there does need to be a significant restriction. I believe that the discussion has shown that the problems center around deletion, in multiple forms, and that something like the language I propose will capture what we want to achieve. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as per Tryptofish's reasoning. ResonantDistortion 18:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. This seems to be the locus of the ongoing problems. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question. What is the evidence that the user has abused AfDs? Is there am specific reason why their commenting at AfD or their nominating of articles for AfD has been a problem? Their AfD stats look fine on my end, so I'd want a bit more evidence of AfD-specific disruption before considering a topic ban that includes AfD. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      It's not so much a matter of their keep/delete metrics, as their conduct related to those discussions. For starters, please see the evidence from the OP and from me about things like asserting bad faith on the part of other editors who participate in AfD discussions with them. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      FWIW - there does appear to be a tendency to push articles to AfD as an escalation of edit warring - see for example this nom [57] which happened straight after this diff pointing out her edit warring [58]. Also this AfD nom appears to be an escalated edit war [59] per the talk page [60] and history. ResonantDistortion 19:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Little evidence of them abusing AfD, as RTH has mentioned just above. Topic ban from page blanking and draftification - fine, yes, but this is an overreach. Black Kite (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      How about CSD, PROD, and ARS? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose CSD and PROD maybe, but this is overly broad. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question. Based on feedback so far, I'm receptive to withdrawing this version of the proposal and replacing it with one that's worded differently. At the same time, I think it's important to frame any restriction on an editor in a sufficiently clear and simple way that it leaves no room for confusion about the boundaries. I am wondering about: "page blanking, draftification, speedy deletion, and proposed deletion, broadly construed", although I also feel like that might get to be too long a list. Also, should it include WP:ARS? (I tend to think it should, although maybe some editors feel that it's not worth worrying about.) I'd like to get some editor feedback on that, before I take any action about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a topic ban on "page blanking, draftification, speedy deletion, and proposed deletion, broadly construed", if others feel deletion-related activities is too broad. But the misuse of draftification and CSD/PRODs is the main problem here and clearly needs to be addressed. SilverserenC 05:35, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I find it highly irregular that an IP materializes out of the blue after an apparent UPE has begun stalking MST, in the wake of a pretty contentious Afd which an apparent UPE sock farm lost. I advised on MST's Talk to go to AN/I, advice which the UPE apparently took. I'd guess that a sock farm keeps an AN/I specialist on board for the purpose of avenging their defeats. The above AfD was, for me, a tutorial in UPE socks in action, as every !KEEP came from yet another blind apologist. If anyone would like to look into that bunch, you should find a nice web of 'coincidences'.--Quisqualis (talk) 05:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Not quite - check the timelines - the IP submitted this AN/I 5 hours before your comment on MSTs talk page [61] ResonantDistortion 06:24, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        @ResonantDistortion, wow and thanks; the utter irony for MST. I stand by my accusation otherwise. Losing Biotique, however justifiably, has upset them greatly and they're out for blood. My initial impression of MST was as someone to avoid, but when I saw they were sniping with one of the suspected UPEs, I looked at the AfD and perceived a factory-made piece of unambiguous UPE. These parasites may be Wikipedia's undoing. Now to grab some diffs.-- Quisqualis (talk) 14:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Quisqualis your allegation against of sockpuppetry is unsubstantiated. You are free to to run or request SPI against me. I am writing this because I am not a sock. I stand with my confidence. Twinkle1990 (talk) 12:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        @Quisqualis: These are pretty big accusations to be backed up with as little as you've provided. In lieu of a breakdown of this mess of a comment, I'll ask: do you have anything to back up what you're saying? Because I don't think you actually checked the diffs you point to as stalking, and Twinkle1990 being a UPE isn't terribly "apparent" to me. You're also clearly alleging bad faith. I'd strongly suggest either ponying up some pretty diffs, or striking the greater portion of that comment. GabberFlasted (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        The Biotique AfD has been discussed at SPI, fyi. Beccaynr (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:BeanieFan11 and WP:BATTLEGROUND at NFL AFDs

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

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

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

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

    The difference with canvassing

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

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

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

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

    I'd actually rather have someone less invested in sports writing about the topic, as they are less prone to gushing about it & trying to shoehorn an article about every last player into the encyclopedia.
    We have similar problems with popular media like movies, comic books, and television shows, where people try to make an article about every last character/setting detail, when those would be more appropriate for a project dedicated to that fandom. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Pragmatically speaking, people won't volunteer to improve articles about topics they aren't interested in. Volunteer productivity requires "fans", as it were. That's why our genius system of global WP:CONSENSUS says that the fans can work on the articles but they can't make the rules; the rules are made by everybody, fans and non-fans alike. Levivich (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a world of difference between simply being interested in something and being a fan. Hence the old saying that user page affiliation boxes ("this user likes the Bengals") are COI disclosures because anyone who cares enough about a subject to identify their personality with it has a COI. NFL is also an inherently weird topic area, how many other topic areas do we have for a single private company? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps WP:NFL should be merged into Wikipedia:WikiProject American football. I too, don't know if there's another WikiProject out there, devoted to a single sports league. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Off the top of my head, I can think of WP:NBA. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Any companies that aren't sports related though? A comparable would be WikiProject: Apple but that doesn't appear to exist. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WikiProject Apple exists. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I correct myself, Wikipedia:WikiProject Apple Inc. does in fact exist. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, WP:NBA should (perhaps) be re-named Wikipedia:WikiProject American Basketball. -- GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I highly doubt proposing to merge the NFL into American football and NBA into Basketball would be successful. For football, at least, you would then also have to merge all the nfl team projects, the college football project, the american football league project, the arena football league project, etc. to balance it out. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are projects for the individual teams? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Most are inactive at this point but some are still running, for example Wikipedia:WikiProject Green Bay Packers. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WikiProjects for individual teams? Those should be merged in to related broader WikiProjects. GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, so you say stuff like that across every subject area and I am not sure that you have a Wikipedia left. The Great Resignation was about people leaving their paid jobs because they were no longer interested or engaged in them. Good luck keeping volunteers with the attitude of "The deletions will continue until the morale improves". Again, I hate sports so I can't say who's right or wrong but apparently a significant portion of the NFL editors are upset with WP:NSPORTS2022. Maybe it's time for WP:NSPORTS2023 to fix this PR problem. --Rschen7754 01:52, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is so backwards... Its the wikiproject which has created the problem for the community, not the other way around. Why would we want to make an effort to keep disruptive editors or admins in the project? As for the threats to leave if the community doesn't bow to the will of a wikiproject you apparently left in Wikipedia December when your beloved roads wikiproject was forced into conformance with a community standard[63] but I haven't noticed a difference in your editing activity. TLDR if they leave its an improvement and they're probably just lying about leaving anyway. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, either we treat this as a system problem or we look to punish people. The first option helps alleviate the problems across all of Wikipedia by addressing inadequacies in our systems for dealing with this problem. The second is may placate your sense of vengeance, but does nothing to help Wikipedia grow and become better. I'd rather go with the first option. This appears to be a symptom of the fact that maybe the NSPORTS2022 result did not adequately solve the problem. Saying "Drive people out of Wikipedia until they get in line" is not a productive way to run an organization of this size and magnitude. --Jayron32 16:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you propose addressing the systemic problem? Getting rid of wikiprojects all together? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

    Contacting WikiProjects

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

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

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

    GoodDay, Well said. — Jacona (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Rlendog (talk) 01:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is this discussion happening at ANI? ANI cannot create policy. --Rschen7754 04:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: Beaniefan11 is warned

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

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

    • Support 1,2,3,4,5 as nom. –dlthewave ☎ 16:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose all: Disclaimer: I'm involved with the NFL WikiProject and have worked with Beanie a great deal in the past. (#4) I don't believe it's been established that WikiProjects should not be notified of relevant AfDs in their area of interest. I maintain that notifying any relevant WikiProject of deletions in their area of interest is beneficial and likely to lead to improvements of the articles that have been nominated. (#5) Considering this ANI has been discussing the NFL WikiProject as a whole, and unfairly labelling the group as voting with a herd mentality, I think it's relevant to include the group in the discussion at ANI. (#1) The comments that are being labelled as "uncivil", in my opinion, don't rise a level to be worthy of a warning. (#2) I think this ANI has been enough of a warning to them and others involved (I myself have changed my view of football player notability based on this discussion, striking several of my votes). While there is still a question of whether using IAR at AfD is disruptive, I do not believe they'll be using that rationale moving forward based on their comments on this discussion and them striking their IAR rationale from the currently open AfDs at the American football deletion sorting. I'm also noticing that they're asking for articles to be draftified so that they can work on improving those articles to the point that the community accepts them as meeting GNG. (#3) I think this was done in good faith, given that the user asked for a link to said AfDs. I think it's clear that moving forward it'd be best to link to the relevant deletion sorting page in the future instead of the individual AfD pages. I believe the lashing that's been taken here is enough and we don't need to pile on further. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose all - Nothing BeanieFan11 has done merits a warning. (1) The comments at the start of this ANI thread are hardly of the sort that warrant a civility warning. (2) BeanieFan11 has not disrupted anything by rejected broader consensus. In most cases he has found sources for the subjects in question. If in a couple of cases he claimed IAR that hardly disrupts anything - it takes an admin literally a second to read an !vote claiming essentially "IAR because I like it" before dismissing the !vote. And in every case I can recall BeanieFan11's IAR claim has gone beyond what was explicitly rejected in the NSPORT RfC, i.e., notability claims just for playing a number of games, by adding the fact that they played in a pioneering league. We can agree or disagree that that is enough to warrant IAR but it is not simply rejecting the consensus. (3) An individual asked BeanieFan11 to let him know about AfDs needing rescuing. It is hardly canvassing to respond to that request. In any case, BeanieFan11 now can see that the action was controversial, at least the way he worded it, and can address future behavior without any formal warning. (4) and (5) There is nothing inherently wrong with notifying WikiProjects of a relevant AfD or (especially) ANI, and broadly calling this particular WikiProject a "partisan group" is frankly inappropriate. [Adding - After all, the WikiProject is the place where editors are best positioned to find sources to support keeping the article, which presumably no one is opposed to.] Rlendog (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you talking about? Most discussions are not closed by admins. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What is your point? Rlendog (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That you don't seem to understand what you're talking about. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What don't I understand? And how does that impact whether BeanieFan11 should be warned? Rlendog (talk) 19:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't even understand basics like how AfD's are closed, why are you competent to offer suggestions for how to address AfD issues? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've closed many AfDs myself and none has ever been reversed at DRV. And I am well aware that many AfDs are closed by non-admins (although of course close or controversial AfDs should not be - see WP:BADNAC). So again, what is your point and how does it relate to whether BeanieFan11 should be warned? Rlendog (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not appear that such arguments are dismissed out of hand by the closer, they would include that in their written reasoning if they were doing that and none of the examples we have here mention it (unless I'm missing something, if so please point it out). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you talking about? A closer does not necessarily refer to each !vote in the close. But of the recent AfDs that were NACed as keep: Willie Flattery was clearly based on GNG !votes, I didn't notice any IARs. Joe Williams had some IARs but also many GNGs and no delete !votes, so no need to address the IARs in the close. Ja'Quan McMillian was also clearly closed on the basis of many GNGs and no delete !votes. The other keeps appear to have been closed by admins. Which NACs are you referring to? Rlendog (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, but I agree 1, 2 and 3 are big no-nos. I think a lot of people are doing that, and all should already know that that’s not allowed, so I think an explicit warning to one person is not indicated. We have a chronic Wikipedia culture issue with behavior in AfDs and that should be addressed by responding consistently to that behavior. No need for a special sanctions policy, just better policing of AfD behavior. If getting a Wikiproject involved causes problems, then there’s an issue with that project that should be addressed, rather than banning Wikiproject notification. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Above, BeanieFan11 rejected that there was anything wrong with their actions in relation to 1, 2, and 3. This is why I believe a warning is needed; they should already know that that isn't allowed, but they don't. In addition, warning one editor sends a warning to other editors that this is not tolerated, while failing to issue a warning sends the opposite message. BilledMammal (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, if we come back here with another case involving BeanieFan11 or anyone else whose behavior is discussed in this case, we can act further. I think the discussion here has been clear enough without having to wave a yellow card. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 2, 3, and 4. Undecided on 1 and 5.
    For #2, In the NSPORTS2022 discussion there was a consensus that participation alone was insufficient to establish notability, but despite this BeanieFan11 votes to keep articles solely on the basis of participation, as can be seen at discussions like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Babcock. This is disruptive WP:IDHT behavior, and as BeanieFan11 is unwilling to recognize this and commit to not continuing to do so a warning is required.
    For #3, BeanieFan11 notified a partisan editor of a group of contentious AfD nominations. This is clearly canvassing, and the fact that the canvassed individual request to be canvassed doesn't change that, and if we allow this action to stand without a warning and without the canvassing editor acknowledging their mistake and committing not to do it again we place a loophole in WP:CANVASS that will be abused.
    For #4, WikiProject's aren't immune to being partisan any more than any other group of editor is. Above, I have demonstrated that WikiProject NFL is partisan on this topic and as such a warning for canvassing them is appropriate.
    BilledMammal (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of curiosity, because I haven't seen this addressed by people (or may have missed it), would you be opposed to users linking to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/American football if a user requested a list of related topics at AfD? Or do you think that a request like that should just be ignored altogether? I'm curious how users would view the situation had that been linked instead of directly linking the related discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not ignored, the person who asked to be canvassed should be rebuked by those they asked to canvass them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there would be an issue with linking to the deletion sorting list as informing an editor of a tool existing isn't a problem, but I also agree with Horse Eye's Back that they should be rebuked - softly, if they are a new editor and don't know better - for asking to be canvassed. BilledMammal (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak oppose 1; I don't think BeanieFan chose the right places to vent, but I also don't think the language they chose is sanctionable, especially when complaints like this about more directly insulting language close with no action. Neutral on 2; they may not have chosen the best approach, but I agree with others above that they've already shown they're willing to adjust their votes and that they shouldn't be singled out for voting this way. Strong oppose 3, 4, & 5; no one should be sanctioned for doing anything that is explicitly permitted by a WP guideline (in this case WP:APPNOTE) unless and until the exceptions are noted within. Hatman31 (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The exception being discussed here is already included in APPNOTE: "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions..." If they're consistently only notifying one of the half dozen relevant wikiprojects that's a problem. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They weren't. Throughout this entire thread, you seem to be assuming that WikiProject NFL members have a uniform opinion on these discussions, which is untrue. Hatman31 (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They weren't what? I don't see any AfD notifications at WikiProject Biographies which is the primary WikiProject for all the pages under discussion here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Above, I proved that they did, and that this opinion was out of line with the opinion of the broader community making them a partisan group. BilledMammal (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's as straight forward and easy to claim we're a partisan group. Many members of the project abstained from voting and some of those that did vote were not included in your list, such as Hatman31 and Cbl62, both of whom voted to redirect or delete on some of the AfDs. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You've "proven" nothing of the sort. At best you've expressed an opinion that a majority of editors that commented on it agreed with to some extent. Rlendog (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the comparison to the EEng discussion is a bit misleading, since a major factor for that discussion was that EEng's incivility was in response to a frivolous MfD that implicitly attacked their character. The same outburst in the context of an actual article content dispute or procedurally-compliant AfD likely would have received a sanction. signed, Rosguill talk 17:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It was worth being dragged to MfD and ANI if it means I can act as a benchmark or lesson to my fellow editors. EEng 06:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:APPNOTE does not permit any form of canvassing; it provides examples of what can be appropriate notifications, but it explicitly states Do not send notices that violate WP:INAPPNOTE. In addition, by opposing #3 you are supporting creating a loophole to CANVASS; above JoelleJay made the satirical comment As an editor who is highly experienced in turning 5kb keep discussions into 25kb no consensus shitshows, I hereby publicly declare my interest in contentious sportsperson AfDs and invite editors to link all such ongoing discussions on my talk page. Thank you. that demonstrates the issues creating such a loophole would cause. BilledMammal (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Every editor of any experience, and Beanie has plenty of experience, in spite of one editor's uncivil SPA assertion, knows that incivility is improper, so I oppose proposal 1. We all know about number 2 as well, but Beanie has chosen to express their disagreement. They've done so strenuously, and has probably overstepped to the point of disruption, because we've come to this point, so yes, I support that warning. That doesn't mean that Beanie must totally be silent about their disagreement with the outcome of the RFC, but they need to express it in a way that admits that it is consensus and therefore holds sway, even if they believe the consensus should change. As to 3, 4, and 5, I believe that if we have wikiprojects, they should be used to pass on information about articles that relate to those wikiprojects, and therefore notification about deletion to the wikiprojects should happen, so I oppose 4, and oppose 5. As to 3, it boggles my mind that we have fallen to the elementary-school level where if Suzy talks to Joey Billy won't be her friend. I oppose 3 as being a childish and uncivil proposal. Jacona (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 2, as that's a no-brainer. Simple disruption. Black Kite (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question are we really having a lengthy discussion about whether or not a reasonably experienced editor should be warned?? I'm pretty sure the editor has already gotten the message... and I'm just as sure that any position of support or oppose that I take would not have (and should not have) any bearing on warning another editor. Do it, don't do it--your choice.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Oppose. Although maybe admins should give out WP:CIVIL warnings more liberally at AfD discussions.
    2. Oppose. The WikiProject National Football League should however accept that the RFC happened and if they wish to overturn it then AfD discussions are not the correct location, and continuing is disruptive.
    3. Support. Based on this edit. Giving a "always inform me" is just a way to try and create a loophole.
    4. Oppose. If this was unacceptable there would be another group to look at first.
    5. Comment. I must have missed this, if there is a diff for it then it seems unacceptable. Informing a project about AfDs is one thing, but asking them to join a discussion about a users behaviour seems problematic. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @ActivelyDisinterested: See here for the notification #5 is based on. BilledMammal (talk) 22:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @ActivelyDisinterested @BilledMammal not taking a position but for the sake of full picture, that was their second notification to the project about the ANI. The first is within: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League#NFL_deletion_discussions Star Mississippi 23:06, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, I missed those; for ease of reviewing, the two relevant diffs in that discussion are this and this. BilledMammal (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    thank you. As you well know from prior discussions we've had, I'm far better at content than I am at syntax, hence also the ugly underscores in my URL. One day! Thanks for making it more user friendly. Star Mississippi 23:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Eeh. It was within the ongoing discussion they were having, rather than anything explicit. If they had opened a new section to point towards the fact it would be different. This looks like "I'm exasperated" rather than "please pile on". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @ActivelyDisinterested: They did both; the post I linked is them opening a new section to point to the fact. The diff for that is here. BilledMammal (talk) 00:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The project had been mentioned in the thread by that point, this post was made ten minutes before the post to the WikiProject. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 01:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the bigger problem here is not one editor, but a project spamming AfDs due to an RFC they disagree with. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 01:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, but I'm not sure how to resolve that other than to issue warnings to the worst offenders and hope that other editors engaging in similar activity take notice that the project does not tolerate such activity. BilledMammal (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support 2 and 3 (and support warning Randy Kryn as well for soliciting the canvassing and repeated IDHT behavior); I think 4 needs to be explored on a general basis re: propriety of AfD notifications beyond transcluding deletion sorting and identifying what makes a wikiproject "partisan".
    On a grammar note, I would change "incivil" to "uncivil" and "AfD's" to "AfDs". JoelleJay (talk) 03:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose all The current wording of IAR does imply that editors can apply the principle any time they sincerely believe that doing so will improve Wikipedia. The IAR page should probably be modified to state that it can't override a community consensus, if that's the case.
    Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment on canvassing Given the concerns about WikiProject NFL being canvassed to this discussion, it is relevant to note how the WikiProject members and contributors have !voted here, compared to the broader community. 22 editors have !voted on these proposals; of them, 12 have supported at least one of the proposals, and 10 have not.
    Of the 12, one is an occasional contributor to WikiProject NFL's talk page. Of the 10, six are members of WikiProject NFL, and three others are frequent contributors to WikiProject NFL's talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 03:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am a member of WikiProject NFL but I came to this discussion because I saw it on my watchlist because I have ANI on my watchlist. I had no idea about the note on the project talk page until after I joined the discussion. No one "canvassed" me. Rlendog (talk) 14:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose all Beanie is the nexus of the problem, but is not the cause of it, and warning or sanctioning them is not going to fix the broader issue here. If it were not Beanie and NFL articles, it would be some other person or persons and some other topic. This is best fixed by being systems minded, not vengeance minded. Clearly, NSPORTS2022 did not adequately resolve the problem, so it is probably better to revisit the issue and establish a clearer consensus. --Jayron32 16:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • In what way was the issue not resolved and how should it be revisited? The fact that some people don't like our rules imposed by a large RfC doesn't magically mean the rules are the problem. "But your honor, I don't agree with our country's anti-theft laws. The laws are therefore the problem, not the fact that I like to break into people's houses and steal things." -Indy beetle (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mike Novikoff is removing links and information from the infobox of the Vladimir Putin article.[64][65][66][67]

    The stated reason for removal of links and article content was WP:OVERLINKING. I believe this does not apply here. With other articles concerning world leaders, such as Joe Biden, Chris Hipkins, or Justin Trudeau, their birthplace does contain a link, and also the region they were born in. Additionally, there is not a link to Leningrad, now Saint Petersburg, present in the lead of the article.

    User:Mike Novikoff also has a history of removing links and content without good reason from other articles, as seen in the following diffs: [68][69][70][71][72][][73][74][75]

    There are more examples, but to keep this ANI report short, I won't include them all.

    When I added the links and removed content back to the infobox, User:Mike Novikoff threatened to report me here for edit warring, despite never violating WP:3RR.[76]

    Michael60634 (talk) 05:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Please show him WP:BOOMERANG. — Mike Novikoff 05:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, his accusations are so stupid that he deserves to be punished prevented himself for that, doesn't he? — Mike Novikoff 05:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mike Novikoff: Please see WP:NOTPUNISH. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I was just about to correct it. Of course, the right word is "prevent". :-)) — Mike Novikoff 06:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahem. No, the accusation is not "stupid" -- it is certainly a content dispute, and I'm curious to hear from you why someone else restoring such material constitutes edit warring and worthy of an ANI complaint, while you removing such material doesn't. You want to explain that? Ravenswing 07:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see it as a content dispute. Such a closure would be too weak. We have some rules described in the MoS, and we have a user who wouldn't obey. So it's about his behaviour. And since he had started this topic himself, it's about him getting a boomerang between his eyes. — Mike Novikoff 07:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The MoS is a guideline, and while it should be generally followed, there is no compulsion for editors to "obey" it, nor have you been designated its judge, jury or policeman. I agree with just about everyone who's commented in this thread other than you that your pugilistic I'm-right-and-everyone-else-must-be-wrong attitude is not remotely helpful. Ravenswing 17:25, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is largely a content dispute. On the one hand, I can see why Mike Novikoff wants to remove some of those links, as overlinking is an issue I, at least, am often guilty of. Easter-egging is also a thing we should watch out for, although I would argue some degree of it is almost unavoidable given the nature of this encyclopaedia. Mike [Novikoff]'s contribution in tidying up articles in this fashion is therefore very useful, as not many people take the trouble of checking these 'technical' issues. At the same time, I believe he is operating from too literal (and too strict) an interpretation of policy - some of the links (as well as some of the elements, such as references to the RSFSR) he's removing strike me as useful enough to warrant keeping, something that is subjective and on which some sort of compromise or consensus could be reached. His language in edit summaries, as well as here, is also perhaps too confrontative (I'm not judging, sometimes frustration gets the best of us), and given that he threatened to bring the OP before ANI it is also understandable that this ended up here one way or the other.
    TL;DR - I think this could be solved by civil discussion/through mediation without the need for disciplinary sanctions for either party. Ostalgia (talk) 08:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree this is a content dispute, and should the issue with the links should be discussed. I only made a report here because Mike Novikoff threatened to report me for violating the 3RR, which I did not do. And I would prefer to not defend myself against something I didn't do. I find Mike Novikoff's repeated attempts to boomerang me ([77][78][79]) quite strange and petty, as I feel I haven't done anything to warrant it. My worst offences are most likely not providing enough detail in my changeset comments and/or not discussing a reversion of a content removal. And these ([80][81]) changeset comments in responses to this ANI report are neither helpful nor appropriate. Michael60634 (talk) 10:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree this is a content dispute – but I don't. "A content dispute" means "just close it", and I hope you'll not get away just like that. Mike Novikoff threatened to report me for violating the 3RR – I've never mentioned 3RR, I've said that I'll report you if you don't stop, and you have shot yourself in the foot. Now face the music. — Mike Novikoff 11:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    May be blocking Mike Novikoff for continuous trolling and refusal to discuss anything (communication via edit summaries is not really a valid dispute resolution avenue) during many years would be not such a bad idea. May be they should once face the music themselves. Ymblanter (talk) 14:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, this sort of pugilistic rhetoric on his part does nothing except inflame further interactions, when we all should be working to try and de-escalate. He's not quite at a block yet, but both parties ought to take a step back since ANI does not resolve content disputes and no further good can come from continuing to beat the war drum. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also agreed. This is a content dispute, and the MOS is not a rule or policy, it is simply a guideline - which can often be irrelevant or even incorrect. Mike Novikoff needs to dial back the passive-aggressiveness quite a bit, frankly. Black Kite (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Question the OP and the accused both seem to be Russian/Russian-born/native Russian speakers, and Ymblanter seems to be suggesting there seems to be a long history of similar behaviour by the accused. It might be the ultimate coincidence, but is there some previous issue porting over from Russian Wiki that we should be aware of, or am I reading too much into it? Ostalgia (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to provide some clarification, I am not Russian, nor do I speak Russian. I'm from the US, and I natively speak English. Maybe you made this assumption after reading my userpage. The Russian language quote at the top is from the TV show Chernobyl. I just liked the sound of the quote so I used it. I am trying, with limited success, to learn Russian. At first, it was out of interest, but now it's mostly because it's my girlfriend's native language. My only experience with editing the Russian wiki was updating the name of the De Havilland Canada Dash 8, an airplane I am quite interested in, and creating a move request to change the name of the article for said airplane. Michael60634 (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Guilty as charged - read the quote, quickly scrolled down and saw a userbox with ru, and just made a quick assumption (and a false one at that!) without even checking the level of Russian in the userbox. Just to clarify, I was asking not out of any national prejudice but because not long ago (2-3 weeks ago?) there was a dispute here between two users who, as it turned out, had been duking it out at the Spanish wiki (a language I do speak!) for a while and both had gotten blocked for their troubles. It was important context. The dispute here, luckily, was in the end solved to everyone's satisfaction through mediation. Anyway, my apologies.Ostalgia (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't assume you were asking out of national prejudice. And no offence taken. Michael60634 (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am a native Russian speaker, and as far as I remember Mike Novikoff is blocked indef on the Russian Wikipedia, but I do not think this is relevant for this dispute. They demonstrated similar behavior here for a long time, making edits which are probably mainly good but having very poor communication style, sometimes going to clear trolling. When they get called out, and, especially, when they get dragged to ANI, they typically disappear to under radar, wait until the case gets closed as stale, to reappear and continue in a few weeks. I will try to get some examples later, the ANI notices should be on their talk page. Ymblanter (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[[[reply]
    This is an ANI thread about the user I opened a year ago. They narrowly escaped a block then, and, apparently, did not learn much.--Ymblanter (talk) 02:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    refusal to discuss anything – If you search for my contribs at e.g. WT:MOS, you'll see that I had started some topics there in the past, and had even won some cases, so it's not true that "I never discuss anything". On the other hand, I don't insist on my proposals if there's clearly no one to support me, so "I'm always right" is not true either. — Mike Novikoff 21:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What you should learn at some point, and we are not yet there, is that (i) Wikipedia is not a battleground, it is not about winning or losing (ii) your communication style is not really appropriate. Ymblanter (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    English is not my native, but I believe that "to win a case" is an idiom that has much less to do with military than, say, "AWOL". — Mike Novikoff 00:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you should consider that “battleground” itself is being used metaphorically. (This comment to which I’m responding is a great example.) 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't insist on my proposals if there's clearly no one to support me, so "I'm always right" is not true either – Your comments here contradict this statement. Michael60634 (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    You see, my discussion with OP goes like this: I'm making a lot of effort to describe the rules, then our frined just dismisses it. Please defend me from such style of discussion. — Mike Novikoff 08:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    That's not discussion. That's edit summaries. Use a talk page for discussion. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 05:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Mike Novikoff has finally joined a discussion about the links in the infobox on the article talk page. However, their dismissiveness and poor behaviour is still an issue that should be discussed here. Michael60634 (talk) 09:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    First, note that Michael60634 has continued the edit war: [1], [2].
    Second, in the current discussion I'm trying to base my arguments on the established guidelines (that I'm supporting for some ten years now), while the opponent's arguments seem to be simply "it's not overlinking", "many articles do that" and "MOS is not a requirement". Then, instead of replying, he resorts to going back here and accusing me of "poor behaviour" again. Now what shall I do? MoS is a result of a widespread and long-term consensus, isn't it? I can't believe it's so insignificant that anyone can just ignore it. It worked for many years, and suddenly it doesn't? — Mike Novikoff 23:00, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to note that your second example of me "edit warring" was reformatting the way "now Saint Petersburg" was positioned in the line to bring it more in line with other articles about Russian politicians. I didn't add or remove any links or content. Michael60634 (talk) 02:52, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you have reintroduced a WP:EASTEREGG type of link that was just corrected by the previous user. — Mike Novikoff 04:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Linking to Leningrad instead of Saint-Petersburg isn't an WP:EASTEREGG at all, it's a perfcetly acceptable link to a well-known and historically correct name. People aren't being misled by such a link on the thousands of pages it is being used on, just like they aren't misled by links to Stalingrad. Fram (talk) 11:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Long term ownership at WikiProject Years

    There are currently ongoing disputes at WikiProject Years regarding issues of WP:OWNERSHIP and WP:STONEWALLING in which a few regular users of the WikiProject are enforcing their own local consensus against sitewide policy. I'm not going to try to summarize the whole sequence of events here, but the most relevant discussions can be found below, roughly in chronological order:

    Note that these links begin when I first discovered the issue, but it appears to have been going on for much longer (one user had the same debate with Deb in 2008). I was hesitant to bring this to ANI because I (perhaps naively) believed we could resolve this dispute through discussion, but this has not happened. I'm bringing it to ANI now because, based on the last two links and on this post, it's clear that some of the users involved intend to continue enforcing their tenuous local consensus on year articles after the community has demonstrated clear opposition to this approach, and an injunction of some form is needed. Please let this be the final post made about this dispute so we can finally begin work on this section of Wikipedia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not saying we cannot make changes without Deb. I'm saying that having discussions about major changes to the format & inclusion while she's away is a bad idea. This report is unjustified & she can't defend herself against the multiple allegations against her. She's an excellent long-term editor & admin. She's the best editor of main year articles, which are being flooded with trivia in her absence. Scrubby hasn't done anything wrong. I apologised in regard to the Walters discussion & have left it. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How have I done that? Do you think that Maine adopting a new flag was one of the most important things that happened in the world in 1901, so it belongs on that article? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whom specifically are you accusing of ownership and stonewalling? Diffs would be preferable to linking to long discussions if possible, especially as some of those links just look like disagreement or still-pending efforts to attract wider participation (efforts which look to be succeeding at just that). Putting aside the matter that's already being dealt with at AE, it's unclear to me, as someone who almost never looks at years articles, what I should take away from those threads. If someone says "we shouldn't have a discussion without X" and that's unreasonable, ignore it and leave it to them to make the case. The idea that "it would be good to have someone who's very active on this topic comment on a discussion about that topic with far-reaching implications" seems entirely reasonable to me, and I don't see how having that opinion impedes the large number of participants from moving forward? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Bringing this matter here is a major overreaction. Several related discussions are ongoing & this isn't the place for this. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While Jim and I do frequently disagree on content, I'm not convinced we need an ANI yet. Let's discuss this on other pages for now, instead of on ANI. We haven't gotten to this point yet. If behavior does become more egregious, however, I fully back some sort of wider action. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC) [reply]
    For the purposes of clarity based on the discussion below this on TBANing Jim Michael and Scrubby, I am neutral, leaning oppose, to a TBAN. We disagree on a lot, but we shouldn't purge people from a project for disagreement. TheScrubby and I in particular can often form consensus, especially on the inclusion of deaths when it comes to sports figures. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully, this surpassed "disagreement" when several uninvolved, well-respected users asked them to stop and they did not. Otherwise I would not have escalated to ANI. Even in this discussion, Jim Michael has continued to falsely present a loosely compiled, policy-violating local consensus as true consensus after being asked not to. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The immediate concern is that Jim Michael 2 and TheScrubby are persistently enforcing an "international notability" rule that they made up despite several users pointing out policy considerations and asking them to stop. I think Levivich summarized that particular aspect below rather well. The broader issue is that the WikiProject as a whole is attempting to enforce what may or may not be included in year articles, and I'm requesting administrator/community intervention to prohibit users from demanding that editors seek consensus at the WikiProject before making any edits. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The criteria were decided by community consensus, not just Scrubby & me. No-one is demanding that editors seek consensus before making any edits. Insufficiently notable edits are often questioned or reverted, but that's commonplace on many types of WP articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is paradigmatically not how "community consensus" works on this project, Jim. If you think a given principle is generally advisable and works within the framework of exiting policy, then you make a WP:PROPOSAL in a central community space (by which we mean a space like WP:VPP, not a WikiProject talk page), or on the talk page of the existing guideline you wish to amend. Please see WP:Advice pages: WikiProjects and other editorial cohorts are expressly disallowed from coming up with their own standards via fiat and then attempting to apply that "consensus" to every article they perceive to be within their purview. There have been multiple ArbCom cases unambiguously defining this as WP:DISRUPTIVE conduct and numerous community discussions that have affirmed this principle and it's been in operation from nearly the earliest days of the project. Any conclusion you and your fellow wikiproject editors arrive at on a WikiProject talk page is a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, not community consensus, and any standard approach you decide upon is a recommendation at most, and cannot be presented as standing consensus on individual articles.
    Likewise, any local consensus which (you believe) has been reached on a given issue for a given article is not transferable to another article, even highly similar articles like those for years. If you think you have the right end of the stick on what policy should be on a given editorial issue, then you can take that idea the community via a PROPOSAL and allow it to be vetted. The language you are employing on those articles, and even here, is highly misleading and problematic with regard to appropriate process, and raises serious questions about your understanding of fundamental principles of consensus building as it is meant to operate here. You're far from the first group of editors from a WikiProject to commit to such a walled garden effort at controlling content, but you should be made aware that this never ends well--and combining it in this case with the fact that WP:FY was upjumped (as I seem to recall) from essay to WP:guideline status without going through the proper PROPOSAL process, this continued effort to enforce unvetted standards across multiple pages begins to look very much like like a knowing refusal to adhere to this community's consensus processes--or a massive case of WP:IDHT at the least.
    I would seriously consider dropping the stick and recognizing that you have been operating outside of process and reframing your approach within policy/community expectations, because I really do think the most likely outcome here if you don't is a topic ban: I for one am only barely hesitating from endorsing that course of action with my own !vote long enough to see if you are going to take on board the fairly uniform feedback that you are getting regarding well-established policy here. SnowRise let's rap 20:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd support TBANing Jim Michael for bludgeoning every discussion (not just Walters, also the one at VPP, the one at VPR, this one here already), but even moreso, for continuously wasting editor time by arguing about "international notability" or straw manning (as above: Do you think Maine's new flag is one of the most important things... blah blah blah, nobody said that). I read WP:RY and see this has been going on for at least 5 years. Sure, we can ignore Jim and just work around him, but he really makes it more difficult. Ditto for TheScrubby. Levivich (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You want two editors who are currently upholding long-standing consensus regarding international notability on main year articles to be Tbanned?! There's no strawmanning from me. I removed that Maine entry from 1901 today, just like I've removed hundreds of other trivial, local, domestic & pop culture events from main year articles. If a quarter of the people on these discussions would also do so, they'd be greatly improved. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're not upholding long-standing consensus, you're violating it. This "international notability" concept appears to be the same one from WP:RY that you argued for and that was rejected by the community in 2017. Apparently, a few editors at WP:YEARS revived it in mid-2021, and now you and TheScrubby continue -- despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, namely: nobody outside of your group agrees with you, the same as happened with WP:RY in 2017 -- to insist that this WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is, in your words, "long-standing consensus regarding international notability". It's not. WP:NPOV is the consensus that will be applied to year articles. You need to WP:DROPTHESTICK about "international notability"; your failure to do so is why I support TBAN from year articles, broadly construed. Levivich (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Many editors remove events & people from main year articles due to them being domestic; it's standard practice on them. During last week & this week, several editors have done so on 2023 alone. Your claim that it's only Scrubby & I is clearly proven to be untrue. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ^ an example of the straw manning to which I referred. I never claimed that only Jim and Scrubby remove events & people from main year articles due to them being domestic. I never even mentioned anyone removing anything from anywhere. Sure, we can ignore it, but it will just continue and continue... Jim left the Walters conversation because of the WP:AE filing, only to engage in the same behavior elsewhere. Levivich (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not strawmanning. I'm disproving your claim that no-one outside 'our group' agree with Scrubby & I by noting that many other people also remove domestic entries.
    I'd already left the Walters discussion permanently. I'm meant to be commenting here - defending myself against allegations. I'm also defending Deb & Scrubby because they're not here. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, you and Scrubby aren't the only members of "your group"; there are other editors imposing this "international notability" thing; I guess it's certain regular WP:YEARS editors, but not all of them. However, if you go to Talk:2022 and search on that page for "international notability", there are 56 hits for that phrase, and almost all of them are you and Scrubby. At WP:VPP, same thing, mostly you and Scrubby (though not only). And the problem isn't that you and others believe in an "international notability" standard. If you were like, "I think we should go with international notability but I recognize it doesn't have broad consensus," there would be no problem. The problem is that you continue to push that it is consensus, despite that clearly not being the case, outside of a handful of WP:YEARS editors. The problem is that this has apparently been going on for years. Levivich (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know who else you regard as being part of my group. International notability has had consensus for years on main year articles. It's only during the last few weeks that it's been questioned as many editors who rarely/never edit main year articles have expressed their disagreement with it. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's only during the last few weeks that it's been questioned as many editors who rarely/never edit main year articles have expressed their disagreement with it. You're so close to getting the point. Levivich (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Recent years is not a policy and it is not a guideline. It is an essay. Jim Michael 2, please provide a link to the discussion that established this long-standing consensus regarding international notability. I would like to read that discussion. As far as I am concerned, notability guidelines apply everywhere on Wikipedia, and we should never have separate implicit notability guidelines for a narrow group of articles. In my opinion, this "the event received independent news reporting from three continents" and "if there are Wikipedia articles in English and at least nine non-English languages about the individual in question" stuff would never be endorsed by the wider community. Cullen328 (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    (non-admin comment, my wikt:two penn'orth, not attempting to turn this thread into an RFC). "Internationally notable" "if there are Wikipedia articles in English and at least nine non-English languages about the individual in question" strikes me as a bizarre non-starter. (1) All Wikipedias are independent, and have their own notability standards. (2) It would mean that Satchel Paige (15 articles, not known to all baseball fans) is internationally notable but that Fred Trueman (8 articles, known to just about every cricket fan on the planet) is not. Narky Blert (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I know that RY was downgraded to an essay; no-one in the 2020s has used that as a policy/guideline. However, the requirement of international notability has been the case for years. There have been many discussions relating to it during recent years, mostly on talk pages of main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Jim Michael 2, please provide a link to a few comprehensive discussions that established consensus. Cullen328 (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are many of them across the archives of the talk pages of recent main year articles. We often discuss individual events & people, as well as types - such as sportspeople, politicians & entertainers. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Jim Michael 2, I have twice asked you quite specifically for links to conversations where this ongoing consensus applying to all main year articles was established. Your failure to provide the links is quite troubling and leads me to think that the claimed consensus does not exist. Cullen328 (talk) 20:17, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Other editors & I have repeatedly correctly said that they're on the archives of recent main year articles when you & several other people have asked this. Consensuses on this are across dozens of discussions - they're not neatly in one or two discussions. If you don't want to go through the archives to find them, that doesn't mean they don't exist. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, this is an unhelpful reply. You are insisting that something (the claimed consensus) exists. The onus is obviously on you to provide some proof of the assertion. Dumuzid (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've said where the discussions are. I can't merge them for convenience. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, can you provide a link to one, at least? Dumuzid (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree because I have been reading through the 2010 talk page archives and I see a lot of consternation over the WP:RY essay. I mean, it was being used to stop the Deepwater Horizon spill from being included.
    I shudder to try and search through the archives from recent years to find a consensus discussion after slogging through those archives for 30 minutes. I am at a disadvantage because I'm not involved and don't know where to start. This is why we ask for diffs, so we can at least get started in the proper place.
    Inomyabcs (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The burden is not upon the community to go digging through numerous archives to find evidence that you allege supports your position. Community members are raising substantial concerns about your understanding of the distinctions between policies and guidelines, local consensus, and your own personal opinion on best practice; even if you are absolutely correct about the support you have for this "international significance" principle (which frankly based on what I am seeing, I tend to doubt it is as solid as you believe), it would actually do very little to address the underlying issues with your current approach.
    But to whatever limited extent it would bolster your position, it would behoove you to provide easy access to the specific discussions you believe endorse this standard and support your perspective. No one else is going to do it for you, and telling the community members engaging here to go do your work for you--especially when it would take you a fraction of the time that it would for anyone else--looks very much like either a dodge because you know you exaggerated the supposed support, or (at best) pure chutzpah in expecting others to take time out of their day to dig up that which you are too disinterested in properly presenting yourself. Either way, not helping your case. SnowRise let's rap 21:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to get involved in this, however not only is WP:RY an essay, it's also marked as inactive. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support a TBAN for at least Jim Michael 2 and TheScrubby - the ownership and gatekeeping at year articles needs to end. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 20:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's unreasonable because I've been in line with consensus & will continue to be whatever the consensus is in future, even if it changes significantly. Scrubby hasn't even had a chance to reply yet. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're already violating consensus with this "international notability" criteria that has already been explained to you by a couple administrators now has no basis in Wikipedia policy. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 21:11, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Conditional Support of TBAN, assuming a link to the consensus isn't forthcoming. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support a TBAN for Jim Michael 2 who is either unable or unwilling to provide links to discussions showing consensus, despite being asked repeatedly. Here is a link to a 2017 discussion at Wikipedia talk:Recent years that closed as "no consensus" and we now have zero evidence that anything has changed. Cullen328 (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, even if there had been consensus in that discussion, it would still be, at most, an WP:Advice page: per longstanding community consensus, formalized in a number of ArbCom cases and community discussions, WikiProjects are proscribed from coming up with idiosyncratic standards among themselves and then attempting to enforce those as standing "consensus" on individual articles. No matter how unanimous or large the consensus on a WikiProject talk page, it still operates as a mere suggestion on particular articles, for purposes of WP:CONLEVEL.
    It's fine to reach such a consensus on a WikiProject if the individual articles those editors operate across are mostly maintained by just those editors, and in such cases, having one conversation in one space can make sense. But if there is a dispute on an individual article, then you still have to have a new WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on that article talk page, and the members of the WikiProject are prohibited from presenting their cottage rules as standing consensus that must be followed, and doing so is considered WP:Disruptive (and this goes a long way back--at least to ArbCom rulings following the notorious "infobox wars" of the late oughts, which involved cohorts from WikiProjects attempting to enforce their own standards across vast numbers of articles without first getting these guidelines codified through the WP:PROPOSAL process. The potential for rival groups trying to enforce different approaches on articles where their perceived purviews overlap is just one of numerous reasons why the community long ago decided it is infeasible for WikiProjects to be designing their own content guidelines within their self-perceived mandate: or at least formal guidelines.
    So it's one thing to come to an agreement about a standard on a WikiProject that you agree is appropriate and follow that just editing involving those same people. But once you attempt to enforce that standard on the wider project while working with editors who have not already bought into that approach, you are violating WP:Advice page, WP:CONLEVEL and WP:PROPOSAL, and have unambigously stepped into WP:Disruptive conduct. Looking at how the current WikiProject Years talk page reads, it's pretty clear most of the participants in that space have either no understanding of this principle or else just choose to ignore it outright, so the problem here does obviously extend well beyond Jim Michael 2. Still, starting with the person arguably pushing this approach most aggressively, and currently rejecting all input based on our actual content policies seems reasonable. SnowRise let's rap 22:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are many relevant discussions on Talk:2021, including its archives. That includes discussions resulting in consensuses in regard to notability requirements for people of particular occupations as well as individuals. How can I be wrong to have followed those? We discussed, agreed & followed that. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 23:32, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is still making us do the work. Which conversations would you cite to support your claim of consensus? A quick perusal of both the current page and the archive index didn't make that clear to me. Dumuzid (talk) 23:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As other people & I have said, it's not all conveniently in one discussion; it's across many. There are discussions about many individuals, as well as discussions about inclusion criteria for politicians, sportspeople etc. The specific criteria for politicians are obviously different to those of sportspeople. For example, politicians need to be heads of state/gov unless they have some other major form of international notability. Sportspeople need an individual Olympic gold or to be winners of major international competitions such as tennis Grand Slams or FIFA World Cups. Those obviously aren't in the same discussion. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll stop here because I think this has basically become duplicative with Cullen's comment below. Best of luck whatever occurs. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And as a number of community members uninvolved in the underlying disputes have told you here, that's not good enough. If you want to make the case that there has been some sort of broader community endorsement for an approach which seems to manifestly conflict with numerous basic content policies, you need to present evidence that is more than a rule of thumb that you and a close group of other editors have adopted out of your own subjective perceptions of what content is important. Instead you are trying to present local consensus discussions which you say dovetail with your preferred approach. Best case scenario, that would still not justify your approach and you'd still be facing a TBAN here unless you could DROPTHESTICK and commit to following our normal consensus building processes on Years articles. But at least it would demonstrate to us that your mistakes were born out of following a pattern of faulty thinking among other editors.
    So you could collate a large number of diffs from these supposed consensus discussions and present them here (that's pretty routine for ANI when someone wants to stick to their guns), and it might give those of us who tend to look for any excuse not to sanction a reason to be understanding of your confusion. Or you could just provide a handful of diffs to discussions where such a consensus existed among the editors of a give years article. Indeed, you have also repeatedly been asked to supply so much as a single diff to a discussion where such a consensus arose, so we know you aren't completely fabricating this supposed support, but you refuse to do even that much. We just simply are not going to take your assertions on faith--especially given the overarching context here, the conduct in the diffs that have been supplied by other parties, and your complete intransigence in the face of community feedback. SnowRise let's rap 00:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your last paragraph gives me an idea. Perhaps WikiProject talk pages (whether all of them or on a case by case basis) should have notices that briefly explain local consensus. Something to the effect of "This page is for seeking input from users interested in a given topic. If you wish to propose a new guideline, do so at this other location. Decisions made on this page do not represent consensus." Obviously it wouldn't solve the more egregious cases like this one where users persist after being informed, but it might help prevent some problems that seem to be reoccurring and make users aware of how situations like this should be handled. Is this something worth pursuing? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I like this idea, but make all of them traceable with links to the exact discussion. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there's something more fundamental (and at the same time potentially easier) than adding a disclaimer to every WikiProject, although that could be useful additional step. Where I think we ought to start is by moving the policy language at WP:Advice pages to it's own namespace, and increasing reference to it in other related policies, such as WP:CON, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, WP:DR, WP:CONLEVEL, and WP:PROPOSAL, among others. Although the principles enshrined at WP:advice pages reflect longstanding community consensus, having been codified repeatedly by ArbCom and the community at large, and even though this is the only way the broader project can work while permitting smaller WikiProjects (who we cannot allow to be constantly at war over their own idiosyncratic standards), somehow the guideline never got moved to its own committed namespace, even after all this time, and this means it goes unnoticed by newer editors for sometimes up to years at a time in the engagement on the project.
    I can tell you this much: RfCs are the biggest single chunk of my contributions to community process over the years. I'd estimate I've responded to somewhere between a 1,000 and 1,200 over the last decade in particular. Increasingly over the last few years, I find that a larger proportion of those I am randomly brought to be by an FRS notice tend to be taking place at WikiProjects: probably around 15%, if I had to guess. And in almost every one of these cases it's clear that either the OP or a significant number of respondents are unaware of the existence of the WP:Advice pages rule and the fact that whatever conclusion they reach in that space, it's going to have limited application. Because we didn't position this guideline in a more visible space, every year we end up with a higher percentage of editors who don't understand that WikiProjects are not allowed to come up with default rules which they can apply to any article they perceive to be within their mandate, without concern for local consensus. Invariably this has to be pointed out by someone a decent way in to the discussion, if it gets pointed out at all.
    And it's tricky, because you don't want to dissuade people from generating sensible, straightforward standards where they are unlikely to lead to dispute--especially in smaller wikiprojects where the active cohort might largely be the same editors who would be contributing almost all of the content to the individual article talk pages they work on anyway. But you also don't want people blundering into disruptive behaviour unintentionally (or, in the worst cases, failing to curtail the gatekeeping culture that takes root easily in some projects). Threading the needle is always a headache for the first person who realizes no one is presently paying attention to WP:Advice pages on a WikiProject talk page, and it shouldn't need to be that way. We need to make the existence of this piece of longstanding annd well-accepted community consensus more apparent to the newer editor, or the problem is only going to get worse with time. Indeed, it already has slowly gotten substantially worse in the last ten years. Once moving the language is accomplished though, TBUA's suggestion of putting disclaimers on WikiProjects is not a bad step either: that could be proposed at the WikiProject Council pages. SnowRise let's rap 00:56, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, this all needs to be done. I'd try to get things moving that way myself, but I have zero experience working in P&G. It was actually one of your explanations on an RfC listed above that helped me realize the extent of the issue and convinced me to move the discussion to the broader community. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've changed my mind as I looked further into the situation, and I've come to the conclusion that if little to no further substantial evidence comes from Jim supporting his cause, I will Support a TBAN for Jim, albeit weakly. I retain the position that Scrubby is a competent editor, especially considering the progress Scrubby and I have made on agreement when it comes to athletic deaths, and I oppose a TBAN imposed on TheScrubby. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support tban for Jim Michael 2 or other remedies to address bludgeoning. I find it particularly concerning that JM stated that they would take a step back from the dispute when brought to AE (which I think is procedurally not quite the right venue for these complaints, and is now redundant with the discussion here), only to continue bludgeoning here. signed, Rosguill talk 23:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd already decided to stop contributing to the Walters discussion. I've been repeatedly called here by notifications, so how can replying be bludgeoning? If I didn't reply, I'd be ignoring. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You've responded to almost every subthread of this discussion, despite not being pinged or otherwise asked for comment in virtually any of them. It would have been appropriate for you to make a succinct comment or two in response to this discussion being opened as a whole, and otherwise responding when prompted for comment. That's patently not the behavior on display in this discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 23:37, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've received whatever you call the red square at the top right of the page on several occasions relating to these discussions. I've been asked for details, links etc. Here's a relevant link: Talk:2021 Jim Michael 2 (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Jim Michael 2, I have gone through the four archives and the current version of Talk: 2021, and did not find a single thread that establishes consensus for "international notability". I see you invoking it repeatedly with an authoritative tone, but no evidence for the actual consensus. I do not know whether it is that you do not understand what is required to establish consensus for such a sweeping and unprecedented concept, or that you are actively trying to mislead us. In either case, this whole situation is quite disturbing. Cullen328 (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are discussions which reached consensus for politicians & sportspeople as well as many individuals. Archive 1 of Talk:2021 includes discussions which reached consensus about Walter Mondale & how internationally notable politicians need to be, including the usual requirement to be heads of state. Archive 2 includes individual Olympic gold medals establishing individual international notability. It's clearly there. How could any of us have known we were supposed to seek super-consensus somewhere else? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you show us those discussions? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've said where they are. What do you mean by show you? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You say there are many discussions...you only provided two here. Those are focused on specific cases. What other discussions show the requirement for "international notability"? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:56, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They're not merely specific cases - they include specific international notability requirements for politicians & sportspeople. There are others relating to entertainers as well as many individuals. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 01:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Support TBAN of Jim Michael 2 from years articles and related discussions, but reserving my opinion for TheScrubby and other users at WikiProject Years (and if this does come down to the need for bulk sanctions, arguably this should be kicked to ArbCom, who are better equipped to set and enforce sweeping responses on a project at large). Although I do not regularly participate in years articles, I have occasionally become aware of the issues there through a number of venues. Firstly, RfCs are one of my main areas of contribution to project space, and I've gotten an inordinate number of FRS bot summons to years articles (or to WikiProject Years itself) over the years. And basically every time I arrive at one of these discussions, I am gobsmacked by the sheer volume of opinions on inclusion that are being forwarded which are based in the idiosyncratic personal opinions of the involved editors, and not at all on our actual content policies. It is clearly a problem that is long overdue for the community to address, and this perception is only reinforced by the tone of the discussion at the WikiProject itself, which evidences a complete lack of understanding of (or else disregard for), basic policy considerations like WP:PROPOSAL, WP:CONLEVEL, and WP:Advice pages.

    There's also the background of the fact that this group improperly bootstrapped WP:RY into a guideline (without a WP:PROPOSAL process) which the community then demoted back to an essay. As such, many of the players here were clearly aware of the distinction between the WikiProject's shared perspective and its lack of endorsement by the wider community, and were thus on notice that continuing to try to enforce these standards would be perceived as bad faith, disruptive conduct. That said, we can start by drawing the line in the sand for one particular editor and hoping it catches the attention of the wider cohort in question. Unfortunately for Jim Michael 2, they have essentially volunteered themselves for this role by being the most verbose and problematic enforcer of this un-proposed, un-vetted "international coverage" rule, and then adopting a completely hardened WP:IDHT attitude to all efforts here to point out why this is disallowed and is a big problem. So, with reluctance, I support the TBAN on them as the beginning point for reigning in this behaviour. SnowRise let's rap 23:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't know anything about a lack of endorsement by the wider community. I was going by consensus on main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 23:23, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    With regard to that alleged consensus: a) it cannot abrogate existing policies and guidelines, unless and until it is endorsed through a WP:PROPOSAL and is introduced into guideline itself. This must be known to at least some of the WP Years crew, because someone attempted to re-label WP:RY from an essay to a guideline, and the community demoted it back. Now it seems the WikiProject participants have taken a different tact and simply ignore that there is the need for a guideline if you want to enforce the same rule over numerous articles, which substantially raises the certainty that some participants in this disruption know full well that they are violating process. I have no idea if you are one of these editors: I have not looked at the complete timeline of your involvement in the relevant complex of discussions. But you are clearly the single most aggressive pusher of this un-authorized standard and you're refusing to DROPTHESTICK and accept the fault in your approach here, so our hands are effectively tied at this point: we can't let this go on, and you won't acknowledge there is a problem with your approach.
    And b) even to the (very limited) extent to which some local consensus on the involved talk pages might give you some cover in the sense that you were just following what you thought was tacit agreement, you steadfastly refuse to point us to where this supposed consensus exists, in that vast sea of talk page disputes connected with the relevant articles. Given what we are seeing here, it is all too easy to believe that any such consensus is fictional, exaggerated, or just a product of your own confirmation bias perception of the previous disputes, so we can't spend all day searching for something which may or may not exist and which would only minimally impact the issues with the disruptive conduct here anyway, if you are unwilling to do that work yourself to defend your position. SnowRise let's rap 23:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I only supported RY when it was a guideline. Since it was downgraded to an essay, I haven't tried to use it to back anything. Like I've said, Talk:2021 has Walter Mondale & politicians in general on Archive 1 & sportspeople specifying individual Olympic gold medals on Archive 2. There are very clear consensuses on those things acquiring necessary international notability. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC
    I hope that you are not being deliberately obtuse, Jim Michael 2. We all know now that "international notability" gets tossed around on those talk pages. The issue is how the notion of "international notability" originated in the first place, and where is the discussion that led to a consensus that "international notability" should be implemented as a formal standard on this narrow group of pages? We have a 2017 debate that was closed as "no consensus". Where is the debate that created positive consensus for this concept which exists nowhere else on Wikipedia, as far as I know? If that discussion never took place, then the entire concept of "international notability" is the product of the imaginations of a handful of editors engaging in ownership behaviors. Although not dispositive, the fact that WP:International notability is a red link indicates that something is wrong. Cullen328 (talk) 01:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The first mention of international notability was probably years before I began editing. I can't find out where that was first stated on WP by who or when, but it wouldn't have been me. If you're asking for that, you're being unreasonable. It's mentioned by many people & I'm not the editor who's done the most editing against domestic events. I've said which archives some of the relevant discussions are on, which give consensuses for specific levels of international notability for politicians & sportspeople. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 01:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Jim Michael 2, you are essentially conceding that you have been editing aggressively for years in support of the "international notability" standard, simply assuming that there was consensus for it, and not checking for yourself even though many editors have challenged your forceful editing behavior for years. At this point, unless further evidence emerges, it seems that "international notability" is a figment of the imaginations of the small group of regulars at years pages, a house of cards as it were. Those words should be removed from the Wikipedia lexicon. Cullen328 (talk) 01:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't an assumption. Several editors formed consensuses on the basis of international notability for main year articles. Checking what for myself? How could I have known that there was a requirement to go to other places on WP to seek super-consensus for changes to main year article criteria? No-one mentioned any such thing during hundreds of discussions over a period of many years. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 01:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am trying to figure out how to effectively communicate the concern here. You have shown us conversations where you say "this is the standard," and people acquiesce. Nowhere have I seen a conversation that asks "what should the standard be?" It looks to an outsider like you simply became a law unto yourself. Whatever the merits of the situation, I hope you can at least appreciate that viewpoint. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never been the leader of anything. On many occasions I asked if someone/something should be included, as well as where the inclusion bar should be for particular categories of people by occupation. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 02:17, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN for Jim Michael 2 (definitely), The Scrubby (less obviously), and possibly others This conversation, which was the point at which I gave up trying to contribute to the current year pages, was the main issue (note that a proper RfC later led to Coltraine being included, two of the four dissenting !votes being the two editors mentioned above), but there is no doubt that JM2 and a number of other editors are gatekeeping these articles in a manner that is not in any way conducive to Wikipedia policy. Black Kite (talk) 23:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The consensus on Coltrane went against us, so how can we be have been gatekeepers? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It took an RFC from the wider Wikipedia community to "overcome" the gatekeeper. Same with the other recent RFC on FTX and the ongoing RFC on Walters, which looks like it's going to be an include at present. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was one of many people contributing to the Coltrane discussions, with no more say than anyone else, so how could I have been the sole gatekeeper? If I'd been the only one saying he shouldn't have been included, he'd have been included in the original discussion & there wouldn't have been an RfC. Also, I've never started an RfC in response to a discussion going against me. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We're not focused on one sole dispute; we're just using Coltrane as an example where you had bludgeoned the process or had significantly impeded process. The above discussion has given us substantial evidence. Meanwhile, you haven't provided hard evidence of your own with international notability being the standard; just something that was "built up across many discussions". Show us those discussions. Now's your chance. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done so repeatedly. Consensuses were reached in regard to specific levels of international notability required for politicians & sportspeople. Archives 1 & 2 of Talk:2021. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, now where getting to the nub of where the confusion lay here. Under this project's content and consensus policies, you cannot establish such a position (that international notability is required for all politicians and athletes in all years articles) merely by agreeing to it with some other editors you happen to regularly brush shoulders with and find yourself in agreement with on those articles. There are two separate reasons for this: first, per WP:CONLEVEL and WP:LOCALCON, any consensus you arrive at on the talk page for an individual article (even if it were genuine, unanimous, and uncontroverted consensus) applies to that article only. Even in this case of articles with nearly identical considerations, you are not allowed to take a decision you arrived at one article and transport it to another, without again establishing consensus for it on that additional article.
    Second, in order to generate a firm guideline which applies across multiple articles, the consensus discussion must follow the WP:PROPOSAL process. It doesn't matter how long or how often you and a select group of editors have been agreeing with one-another that a given standard makes sense: in order to cite it as "consensus" that applies to multiple articles, it must first be vetted by the community at large in an appropriately central space (not a WikiProject talk page, mind you: a central community space like WP:VPP if you want to create a new policy or the talk page of an existing policy or guidelines if you want to amend said PAG. This is vital and required in any scenario, but particularly elevated concerns are raised when the standard you are pushing for seems to run against the grain of existing policy. Finding a common rationale with certain other editors may be a good starting point for non-local consensus, but it is a far shot from the end of the process. Until you have met that burden, you don't have community consensus: you have yourself agreeing with a small number of other editors with whom you have a cozy working relationship, and the broader community being skeptical of the rules you are coming up with.
    I honestly don't think your "international notability" standard has a WP:SNOWBALL's chance of being agreed to by the community, given existing policies and community perspectives, but you have every opportunity to make a proposal and see. Failing to do so and still pushing for an approach that runs counter to existing WP:PAGS and presenting your ad-hoc rules as "consensus" is simply WP:Disruptive. SnowRise let's rap 01:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No-one said anything about needing to go to various other places to seek consensus. How would I or the other regulars have known about that? We discussed inclusion criteria & reached consensuses that substantial international notability be required, then specified what that means. You can see that from the discussions. It seems that we were all supposed to know that super-consensus need be sought at other places, without anyone mentioning that. How can any of use be blamed for not going to places on WP we hadn't been to & hadn't been mentioned to us. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Jim Michael 2, how can you possibly write that with a straight face when you were an active participant in the 2017 discussion at Wikipedia talk:Recent years that was closed as "no consensus" regarding "international notability"? You are certainly familiar with that outcome, but sometime thereafter, you started claiming that there actually was consensus for an "international notability" standard and described that with confidence as an established fact hundreds of times. And yet, today, you are unable to link to where that consensus was created. Do you really think that casual chit chat by the regulars at year article talk pages creates consensus that you can use to bludgeon editors who are not year page regulars? Classic gatekeeper behavior, in my opinion. Cullen328 (talk) 02:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That was a RY discussion, which is irrelevant to editing in the 2020s & doesn't mention any of the places that this discussion mentions going to. International notability was already standard for main year articles long before that discussion. The OP in that was seeking to define it more precisely. My contributions to that discussion were to say that all heads of state/gov should be included (which there was already consensus for, but which the OP's plan wouldn't include) & the problem of including high-profile deaths of people who have little or no notability (which weren't usually included). Jim Michael 2 (talk) 02:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been explained to you several times by several users just in the last week alone, but you didn't stop. That's the only reason I escalated to ANI. And even if no one has ever asked you why they should have to comply with "international notability" when there's no written guideline on it (which I doubt), it must have occurred to you at least once in the 10+ years you've been on Wikipedia that a small group of users can't disregard WP:WEIGHT, WP:OR, WP:OWNERSHIP, and WP:CONSENSUS simply because they decided to. And don't say that you weren't aware of these either. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't aware until last month that editors were meant to go to other places in WP to form a higher level of consensus. How could I know? No-one mentioned it in discussions on talk pages of main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 02:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't address the main point I'm trying to make here. Not knowing about procedure is entirely forgivable (albeit a little less so as a user's time on Wikipedia grows). But it seems you were under the impression that users are welcome to ignore policy pages like the ones I listed by just creating a "consensus" that it doesn't apply to them. That's essentially what's been happening here. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was under the impression that consensuses on talk pages of main year articles were valid. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 03:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Jim, I'll take it on faith that you're being on the level about not getting the CONLEVEL distinctions here. And yes, absolutely, the rules on this project can be inaccessible to our newcomers--in fact, they can be downright inscrutable. And no, nobody who honestly operates from a good faith mistake about policy should typically be punished for it. But I hope you will also credit me with honesty when I say you have no presented as being very open to hearing what the community is putting out during the course of this discussion. The relevant policies have been linked for you repeatedly. For that matter, you're not exactly an ultra newbie: looking at your oldest account, you've been here at least 13 years and you're almost 150,000 edits deep in experience. Nor is the distinction between local consensus and community consensus exactly advanced policy: on the contrary it's kind of Wikipedia 101 level material. At some point, we expect you to do your due diligence and engage with understanding those policies, even byzantine and somewhat unintuitive as some of them may occasionally be. Failing to get get a grip on them by this point, especially combined with a concerted refusal to listen to an avalanche of community feedback until the 11th hour could be considered evidence of a WP:CIR shortfall.
    All of that said, I wasn't being disingenuous when I said I look for any reason not to support community sanctions, and though I am not sure it would change the tide at this point, I for one will switch my !vote immediately, should I become of the impression that you accept that you cannot continue to bludgeon discussions on the years article with the assertion that there is "consensus" for an international notability standard unless and until you use a WP:Proposal] to get such language into a guideline, that you are going to discuss on talk pages accordingly, and that you will WP:DROPTHESTICK if you do attempt a proposal and it fails. Much as with blocks, community sanctions should be preventative, not punitive, and I'd much rather be advocating for WP:ROPE than a TBAN here, if I have reasonable room to do so. SnowRise let's rap 02:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't aware of those policies until last month & not aware of consensus levels until yesterday. There are many things I don't know, including how to create diffs & how to copy & paste. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 03:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't aware of those policies until last month & not aware of consensus levels until yesterday. That jumped out at me as so likely to be untrue that I just had to go search Wikipedia for "Jim Michael" "local consensus" "international notability" (results) to see if this has come up before, and of course it has: Wikipedia talk:Recent years/Archive 3#Other Wikipedias, Wikipedia talk:Recent years/Archive 4#RFC: guideline status of this project's inclusion, Wikipedia talk:Recent years/Archive 5#Rewrite to reflect essay status -- expand the collapsed box to find this wonderful gem:

    Jim Michael Diffs please where "everyone who contributed ... wanted most events and deaths excluded from the main articles" please. Shouldn't be too difficult to find. The walled garden of RY is well and truly open to all now, and we're seeing a clear consensus for radical change. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

    Jim, you had the same conversation with TRM five years ago that you just had with Cullen328 today.
    Another: Talk:2013/Archive 2#Kiss nightclub fire
    Jim: "Year articles are for internationally notable events."
    IP editor: "you are flat out wrong - it is eligible by the process you have just voted on - which is 'consensus'".
    That was ten years ago. Levivich (talk) 05:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't remember most of the hundreds of conversations I'd had on WP during over more than a decade. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't about the conversation. It's about the policies you claim not to know of, and the fact you've clearly encountered them before now. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm beginning to think something stronger than a TBAN may be in order here. At this point it's long-term disruption because they just pretend to be oblivious to things they don't agree with or care to acknowledge. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I encountered them briefly several years ago which until this discussion I'd forgotten about. I have a huge number of conversations on WP, other unrelated sites & in real life. I can't remember everything & no-one had mentioned them during any of the discussion I took part in from 2018-2022. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not, it's nothing of the sort & I didn't remember things being mentioned in a discussion in 2017. The same applies to real-life conversations. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Jim, I feel the need to ask: if you were to continue editing in this area, could you throw it open and abandon this "international notability" business in favor of seeking an actual consensus? Dumuzid (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I'll go along with whatever the consensus is. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if it will change anything at this point, but that's what I would focus on rather than rationalizing past actions. Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Saying he shouldn't have been included didn't impede anything. My statements were as important as each of the other contributors'. I've given examples of discussions which reached consensuses for the amount of international notability politicians & sportspeople need. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 01:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I make absolutely zero apologies for believing that figures/events on the main international yearly pages ought to have notability and impact that go beyond one country/region, and for believing that inclusion standards for figures/events from all countries should all be the same rather than arbitrarily having one standard for one/a handful of countries and another standard for everywhere else. Having said that, while I agree with Jim that this report is highly unnecessary, I think it would be wise to consider alternate approaches. Like with the Walters RFC, I understand where Jim was coming from with the concerns r.e. Amanpour, specifically that until now her entry wasn’t listed in the page for her year of birth, whereas users were rushing to include (the arguably less internationally notable) Walters, a journalist whose work and achievements was predominately based and relevant in one country, when she passed away at the end of last year. But I do think that Jim overkilled the comparison, and continuously having done so even after the matter was neutralised with Amanpour being included in her birth year page was something I think was not only not constructive, but also undermined the credibility of himself as well as the other regulars/those who did argue and vote against the inclusion of Walters.
    As for the Walters discussion itself, like with Norm Macdonald and Robbie Coltrane beforehand I have my reservations as to their notability beyond their home country/region and have expressed my reasons clearly on the relevant discussions, but I readily concede to consensus in favour of inclusion. Indeed, as I expressed on the Village Pump talk page, I think the Walters discussion was important and very valuable, and that it’s a positive that the discussion happened in the first place. It’s important that we scrutinise potential inclusions and that figures who are much more significant domestically within their own country are discussed rather than automatically included without question because of the country they happen to come from. I also think many of the participants in the discussion did an effective job in demonstrating that although her career and achievements were predominately based in one country, she had substantial influence within her field of journalism internationally.
    I hope that the final outcome of all this will be that a standard will be established for the years page to the general satisfaction of not only the regular contributors of the year pages, but also to the broader community - one that not only follows the principles of prioritising figures/events who had notability beyond one country/region, and which addresses systemic bias and not having different standards for different countries/regions. It’s still important that we don’t just arbitrarily include without scrutiny a figure whose counterpart from any other country would be scrutinised and excluded. All of these issues were commonplace prior to mid-2021, and led to a significant skew towards Americentric bias because minor American figures whose international counterparts would never have been considered for inclusion… were being added without scrutiny and without anybody insisting on the use of reliable sources to justify inclusion outside of Year In Country. It would be entirely untenable to simply sweep such issues under the carpet and to go back to the deeply problematic standards that we had prior to 2021. I believe, and would be happy to help contribute, that we can achieve such a standard that can also fit into the broader community’s framework - and that we rely on reliable sources from multiple regions and from sources that come from more than one language, in order to sufficiently demonstrate impact and notability beyond one country of an event/figure, and the importance of the figure’s work and achievements beyond one country. Coming together to work on proposals like such would be far more constructive for all involved rather than attempting to blacklist anybody and ignoring concerns they have brought up time and again which the “international notability” criteria (as we knew it up to now) attempted to resolve. TheScrubby (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @TheScrubby: Please explain this edit to Talk:2022/Archive 13 on January 17; particularly w.r.t to how it was appropriate or necessary to edit the Talk page archives in continuation of a previous edit war with multiple editors. And how that edit aligns with the above statement I readily concede to consensus in favour of inclusion. - Rotary Engine (was Ryk72) talk 01:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Somewhere along the line in 2022, it became a practice to include a “result” at the end of the title of each section of the Talk page. The overwhelming majority of “Result” summaries had a simple “Include/Inclusion” (for figures/events whose inclusions were generally not in dispute), “Borderline Inclusion” (for figures/events which are included but whose inclusions are not as clear-cut and were disputed - especially those that resulted in RFCs or long discussions in general), and “Exclude/exclusion” (for those who were deemed to lack substantial international notability; those where a clearly majority of users voted and argued against inclusion). In the case of Coltrane, it was labeled after taking almost two months of intermittent discussion to resolve as “Rough consensus to include” - which was a labelling not used for any other Talk page discussion result, and was essentially a longer way of saying what “borderline inclusion”, which is regularly used, basically sums up. The consensus for Coltrane to be included - borderline or otherwise - was no longer in dispute as the discussion had been resolved. I even said on one of the edit summaries at the time: “I’ll accept the consensus for inclusion, but once again as per how we label inclusion/exclusion statuses here, Coltrane’s inclusion can only be labeled as borderline given how contentious his inclusion was, and how long the debate lasted. Borderline also means that he was included in spite of Coltrane not meeting using notability criteria as we have it here, and means he would not be entitled to an image like more notable entertainers”. TheScrubby (talk) 02:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am glad that you are participating in this discussion, TheScrubby. Perhaps you can answer the question that Jim Michael 2 has been either unable or unwilling to answer: What is the origin of the unique notion "international notability", and where specifically did this concept gain consensus that empowers its use hundreds of times on these talk pages? Cullen328 (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As Jim has actually indicated, the turning point was really the discussions to do with the inclusion of Walter Mondale, whose inclusion was controversial because it blatantly exposed the Wiki’s Americentric bias and arbitrary inconsistency (users attempting to automatically include Mondale without scrutiny and complete with an image whereas nearly all other deputy heads of government/state do not end up included at all) when it came to the inclusion of political figures at the time - especially when one user attempted to justify Mondale’s inclusion by the fact that John B. Anderson, a minor figure of purely domestic significance whose international counterparts would never have been included, was included for years in the main Year page of his death. From there a political figures criteria was established with international notability as a key tenant and the standard that no country has their figures/events treated differently from other countries was applied. It was really after that where, although there was no formal discussion that specifically codifies the standard of substantial international notability, the standard became consensus when it was applied and backed up by regular users (not just myself, Jim Michael, or Alsoriano97 who was the other most prominent user backing this standard at the time) through edit actions on the year pages and through discussions where users used international notability as the main bar for inclusion. Though of course it was definitely an issue that no such formal discussion took place, because a clearly defined and formally codified definition of international notability and what it precisely entailed (for non-regular users to get their head around) was not written - and was only written up belatedly a matter of days ago on one of the WikiProject Years talk page discussions. TheScrubby (talk) 02:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @TheScrubby: Please also explain these edits to the Archives of Talk:2021; which act to close discussions in which you were an involved participant; and which had been archived without formal closure. Why was it necessary to close these discussions? Why was it appropriate for an involved editor to do so? Why was it appropriate for the discussions to be closed in the archives? 1 2 3 4 (particular focus on the edit to the section "RFC : Standards for including people in Deaths", please) - Rotary Engine (was Ryk72) talk 02:09, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ll note firstly that I was not the only regular user (nor was Jim Michael) who went back to the archives after the practice of including the “Result” on the title of each Talk page discussion became a de facto standard. I did so to retrospectively add what was the ultimate result of each discussion to the older discussions, to bring it in line with the “Results” for the newer discussions that had been put into practice. The discussions had long ceased in any case, by the time the results were retrospectively added. TheScrubby (talk) 02:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    TheScrubby, since you declined to answer my original question to you, let me ask it another way: When and where did the "no consensus" regarding "international notability " at Wikipedia talk: Recent years on 19 November 2017 morph into "yes, we have clear consensus for "international notability"? Please give a specific answer. Cullen328 (talk) 02:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have provided an answer above; I’m at work right now and writing up these responses takes time - it’s as simple as that. As for what happened in 2017, I not only had nothing to do with that discussion, but I was not aware of the existence of that discussion until another user brought it up yesterday (and a link to said discussion would also be useful). TheScrubby (talk) 02:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    TheScrubby, your answers have not yet been responsive to my substantive questions. But I will certainly give you some time since you are at work. Please respond in detail when you have the time to my specific questions about when and where consensus was established for the "international notability" standard? After all, you and Jim Michael 2 have asserted vigorously and forcefully hundreds of times that this consensus exists. Where's the evidence for the establishment of that consensus? Cullen328 (talk) 03:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve given you the most accurate and precise answers as I possibly could. The fact of the matter is, this was a consensus that was formed more through edit actions and discussions on various figures and events where international notability was the bar by the regular users of the day rather than an explicit discussion which involved going over every detail and putting it to a formal vote. The closest there was, was with the political criteria we established and put in place in the wake of the Mondale discussions on the Talk:2021 page (it was in all these discussions that you can find the roots of what became international notability as we defined and applied it); indeed from the beginning my own focus was more on creating criteria for figures/events of specific fields - firstly with the political criteria, and then (much later, after a long period with no overall consensus and with the help of InvadingInvader) with the sports criteria. Which all helped considerably with the decision-making process of figuring out who should be included from each various field; beforehand users had the tendency to compare the notability of figures from incomparable fields (“you exclude x politician but you include y musician”) - basically whataboutisms that really wasn’t constructive in the slightest. I believe that had there been a far stronger standard for inclusion prior to 2021 where figures weren’t arbitrarily included and Americentrism wasn’t an issue, there would have been no need to resort to coming up with an alternative - in this case international notability being the main bar for inclusion. TheScrubby (talk) 04:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You've misunderstood. International notability had already been usual practice on main year articles long before that 2017 discussion which was an attempt to define it in a way that the OP thought better. The suggested criteria were rejected, not the general international notability bar. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 02:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have misunderstood nothing and you are Wikilawyering, Jim Michael 2. You have been asked repeatedly to document the existence of the consensus in support of "international notability", which you have relied on hundreds of times to assert your expertise and authority in these discussions, and your response amounts to a blend of "it's lost in the mists of time" and "we've always done it that way" and "it happened before I became an editor 13 years ago, so I have no idea". Not a good look. Cullen328 (talk) 03:26, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't take notes on that long process. I haven't claimed to have authority or to be an expert. It appears to have started in the late 2000s, with consensus being solidified & specified during dozens of discussions, some of which I took part in. I can't remember most of them. The criteria were discussed a lot in 2021, partly as a reaction to some editors wanting to include Walter Mondale in deaths. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 03:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What this tells us is that there was never actually a discussion to form consensus, you just assumed that this consensus existed "during dozens of discussions", without ever actually confirming it. Then proceeded to act as if it had been. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It looked like there had been consensuses on various things, and several long-term editors said there was. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is generally how these rotten wikiprojects work, the newer editors are mislead by the OG's into believing that the OG's personal opinions are actually some sort of consensus and then that "local consensus" becomes dominant despite never actually existing in the first place... Which of course makes it nearly impossible to challenge, ideologues within the rotten wikiproject will just keep repeating "But we have consensus" without actually being able to point to a conversation which can be challenged. This is one of the things that makes these cases so tragic, the people who end up banned or blocked aren't the long-term editors who told the lies its the people who believed those lies to be true and edited accordingly. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I believed the consensuses to be true because they appeared to be. I joined editing & discussions when the guidelines were underway. I was one of many people taking part in discussions to refine those but at no point was I any sort of leader, nor did I claim to be. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Research and comment on "international notability". Looking at the original page for the start of the Wikipedia:Recent years, it looks like international notability was the one of the main reasons driving the essay creation. It listed years 2008 and 2009 as the sources for the target of consistent cleanup as a lot of events in those years could have gone into separate country lists. I then read back through 2008's Archive 1 and located a similar term to international notability, "international concern". Further, in 2008's Archive 2 there is a discussion with even more history which illuminates some of the guidelines that shape the formation of the WP:RY. In reading through the referenced years of 2005 and 2006, I couldn't find any reference to international notability. It might seem as though Archive 2 was the genesis of the term "international notability/concern". Inomyabcs (talk) 02:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is before Scrubby & I began editing, so neither of us could've started it. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tban for Jim Michael 2 and TheScrubby, in line with Black Kite's reasoning, and subsequent posts from TheScrubby do not convince me. This situation mimics what went on at WP:MED for years and years, and the WikiProject never fully recovered from the damage done by a small group of gatekeepers who believed their personal preferences took precedence over sitewide policy and guideline. Stop it sooner rather than later; TheScrubby may be less of a problem here than Jim Michael 2 (so the duration of the Tban might be lessened), but there are plenty of other areas where these editors can contribute, so the WP can recover. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Even though we've both said that we'll agree to whatever new consensus there'll be? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 03:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, because then it shouldn't trouble you to move away for a time period to let others have space and a voice. Sorry, but this is too much like what went on at WP:MED, too many others had already been chased off, it is too hard to recover from, and a period of absence will be better for you, others at the WikiProject, and the WikiProject. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Supporting applying the same standard to figures/events from one country rather than having different standards for events/figures for one country and another for everywhere else…. is gatekeeping and not convincing? Silencing us (especially when we all made clear that we accept consensus, as Jim said above) for calling out the systemic flaws which plagued the main Years page and which the international notability criteria attempted to address would be downright petty and sweeping these issues under the carpet does nothing to help improve things here. I am willing and have indicated that I am prepared to work with the broader community to come up with a new standard that would be more acceptable to all involved and which addresses everybody’s concerns. TheScrubby (talk) 03:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Supporting applying the same standard to figures/events from one country rather than having different standards for events/figures for one country and another for everywhere else…. is gatekeeping and not convincing?"
    It certainly can be if you use certain methodologies for advancing that position, such as presenting standards decided upon by a select group of editors at a WikiProject or in discrete local discussions as if they are binding WP:guidelines which apply by default to all articles you consider within your purview. In order to have anything above local consensus, you have to invite the community at large into the decision-making process, or all you are doing is wasting a lot of effort to set up future conflicts. Take these standards through the WP:PROPOSAL process and prevail, and then you have consensus you can cite in these discussions. But what you have been doing with your insular cohort up until now (even if you disagreed with one-another on the particulars and felt like you were going through a consensus process) is not how we make guidelines that are considered vetted enough to apply to numerous articles.
    Additionally, I think there is an element of a strawman argument to how you present the debate on the advisability of your solution: no one here is likely to disagree that we shouldn't have a standard which applies with equanimity to all subjects, regardless of their national origin. The disagreement, rather, is likely to be with whether your proposed solution achieves that end. Personally, I tend to think that it far more subjective and amenable to the biases of our editors than the obvious alternative of utilizing the normal WP:WEIGHT test that applies to all articles. But at this juncture, we are talking more about a content determination that will not be resolved in this space. If you are not TBANned, please by all means pursue your proposal: you clearly in good faith believe the standard in question is in the best interest of the content in our years articles, and if you retain the ability to contribute in that area, you should be heard out. But it is critical you understand where you went of the track of normal procedure for formulating guidelines. SnowRise let's rap 04:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. If someone asks you for proof of community consensus and you hand-wave at "various talk pages", there's a pretty good chance that we're talking about a local consensus. Now, a local consensus can survive for years or even over a decade, but eventually the rest of the project notices, and then you've got a problem. That's where we are now. Talk:2022#RFC on the inclusion of Barbara Walters in Deaths (Result:) has a certain through-the-looking-glass quality to it. I think topic bans can be justified if only to let someone else get a word in edgewise, though I want to think on it. I have no idea what "international notability" is, and after reading over who did make the "Death" list for 2022, I still don't. Mackensen (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As was defined on the WikiProject Years page, and as was applied from mid-2021 until now, international notability is:
    • Notability that goes beyond one country or one region/a handful of countries, and is not merely domestic.
    • Being the recipient of multiple major international awards, rather than just awards that are domestic and mainly given to those from their native country. In other words, representing their country on the world stage
    • Having an impact with their work in their relevant field beyond their home country/region, and are of international consequence; being an essential, central member of an internationally notable group; or achieving international notability beyond their most famous work (in other words, for example with actors they would be internationally recognised in their own right rather than say, being known as “x character in y franchise” and only being known internationally by fans)
    International notability is not:
    • Measured by international media sources/obituaries. They’re essential on this Wiki for who is notable enough to warrant an article, or for other lists, but not for a page that is focused on the most internationally notable figures and events. Furthermore, using media sources runs the risk of perpetuating systemic bias, particularly in favour of figures/events from the Anglosphere over figures/events from the non-English speaking world.
    • Measured by the number of Wiki language articles or article views. Anybody can create language articles, including hardcore fans of celebrities, as is prominently the case with Corbin Bleu. Page figures can be an indicator of what is trending at the time, but cannot be used as a factor for determining international notability - which is not a popularity contest; nor are the international yearly articles meant to resemble tabloid papers (so we wouldn’t include trendy human interest stories that is not of lasting international significance).
    • Measured by the number of fans somebody may have internationally.
    • Having one set of standards for figures/events from one or a handful of countries, and another set of standards for figures/events from everywhere else. What’s notable in one country is not automatically notable elsewhere, and we would not include figures/events if their international counterparts are excluded. Americentrism or any other form of systemic bias is firmly repudiated.
    • Including people on the basis of quotas, tokenism or positive discrimination.
    As I have already said before, I’m happy to work with the broader community to work on a new standard which could potentially include the central tenants of this while at the same time utilising reliable sources to demonstrate significance and notability beyond a certain figure or event’s country of origin. TheScrubby (talk) 03:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The definition above was posted to WT:YEARS by TheScrubby on January 27. I think it serves as a great summary of their understanding of "international notability", and a decent conversation starter. But I'm less certain that it reflects broad consensus; or that it reflects "international notability" as it has been implemented at the Years pages. It's certainly not a definition that was defined through a consensus process; nor does it pre-date its ostensible application (mid-2021). Rotary Engine (was Ryk72) talk 04:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, but you do understand at this point that the editors of WikiProject Years don't get to make these perspectives into the established standard for inclusion before first consulting the community, to vet the ideas and see if they are found to be both advisable and consistent with the framework of existing policy, right? SnowRise let's rap 04:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I accept that now, as I have indicated when I have said more than once now that I am prepared to work with the broader community on a standard for main Year pages that is in line with established standard and which would rely on reliable sources. Which is decidedly not doubling down, as was accused in bad faith by Cullen328. TheScrubby (talk) 09:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's interesting, thank you. To take people I'm familiar with, that the process produces Jim McDivitt, Hardy Krüger, Wolfgang Petersen, and not Barbara Walters is perplexing, at best. Mackensen (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    McDivitt shouldn't be there. He was added, but not discussed or removed. I clearly stated that Kruger, Petersen & Walters shouldn't be included & gave clear reasons. I expected a large number of Anne Heche fans to push for her inclusion, as her death was one of the most high-profile of last year. However, they didn't appear. Much of the inclusion is based on how many fans want them included, and there needs to be something to combat that. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In other words, the "international notability" consensus is not operative. Mackensen (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's inconsistent & depends who's in the discussion. McDivitt not being discussed or removed appears to have been an oversight. Robbie Coltrane was included because many of his fans turned up to the discussions on him. Heche was quickly excluded due to a lack of international notability, because her many fans didn't turn up. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Insisting who should be listed on rejected criteria, dismissing everyone that disagrees with you as "fans", rejecting media coverage's role in giving weight... Everyone here is trying to give you a lifeline, but you keep doing the things that you're being sanctioned for, and you're doing it in the discussion on whether you should be sanctioned. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm explaining what happened & why in response to someone being puzzled by it; I'm not insisting on it now. I didn't say that everyone who disagrees with me are fans. Many people turning up for Coltrane & Walters, but not the more popular Heche (see pageviews to see the much higher spike for Heche's death) is very surprising. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Deaths list in itself has been very perplexing for me personally as well, and while some people were obvious in their decision, sometimes it takes an RFC to resolve a particularly-perplexing no-consensus decision. This is what happened with Robbie Coltrane and presently with Walters, and the FTX Collapse also had an RFC. The decisions have been difficult to the point where I've had to suggest on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years a near-complete removal of the section entirely with only portraits of the most notable, which in an as-of-yet unresolved discussion got a few editors advocating for not even that but a complete removal. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 07:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Tban for Jim Michael 2, in line with Cullen, Rosguill, Sandy & others above. The level of argument, evasion, and apparently inadvertent blindness to the community's requests and practises ~ if he still denies that it's bludgeoning ~ is quite unusual and provides plenty of evidence that this is an area he should stay away from, at least for a while, until he has had time to reconsider his actions and whether he would like to edit in line with the community. Happy days ~ LindsayHello 06:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I can't remember all the discussions I've had in over a decade. I'll go alone with whatever the consensus is in the present & future. If I am going to be topic-banned, could it be limited to main year articles? I often edit year by country articles & haven't ever been in conflict with anyone on them. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban from years articles for TheScrubby. I had hoped that this editor would back off instead of doubling down on claiming a non-existent consensus, but the editor has freely chosen to persist with spurious arguments lacking merit, in support of an imaginary non-existent consensus. All such editors need to be removed from this walled garden topic area, so that actual policies and guidelines can be applied by neutral, uninvolved editors, and inclusion critetia written that actually enjoy wide community consensus. Cullen328 (talk) 08:01, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Cullen328: Okay, that’s more than a little unfair - I answered all the questions that you had for me as best as I could, and in order to do so I had to be frank about everything, including why we took the actions we did. How can you accuse me of doubling down when all I did was give you an explanation for the actions taken while at the same time I made crystal clear that I now accept that consensus among the broad community does not exist. I have made clear that I am more than prepared to work with the broad community on a new standard that not only addresses concerns with systemic bias that existed prior to 2021, but also work within the framework of reliable sources that you all are insisting upon. At the same time, I’m not going to apologise for calling out systemic bias or insisting on an equal playing field for figures/events of all countries, or to not go back to how things were before 2021, with all the flaws that come with that. However problematic the international notability standard has been as it is up to now (especially r.e. sources), that doesn’t automatically mean how things were beforehand was at all also acceptable - even InvadingInvader has said that how things were beforehand was completely unacceptable. TheScrubby (talk) 08:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      TheScrubby, I do not consider my remarks to be unfair under these circumstances, but I do appreciate your willingness to acknowledge the lack of consensus. If you continue to acknowledge the depth of the problem and propose policy compliant solutions, I will withdraw my recommendation for a topic ban for you. Cullen328 (talk) 09:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      You cannot accuse me of doubling down when you asked for, and received an explanation. I have been compliant with your requests, and as co-operative as possible. For the explanation to work, I had to be frank about our motives, and why the actions taken were made. If your claim of me doubling down is because I posted the international notability criteria again, I posted that because users here still did not understand the concept as was applied from mid-2021 until now, so the repost was necessary for better context of what was in place until now. If I was doubling down, I would still be insisting that a consensus as defined by Wikipedia policy and as supported by the broader community exists or that we should continue to disregard reliable sources. Instead I’m saying we should all come together to work on an appropriate standard of inclusion that addresses concerns of systemic bias while at the same time relying on reliable sources - for a solution that would be satisfactory to all and which would remedy the fatal flaws both of the pre-2021 Americentric standard and the international notability standard only supported by local consensus and implemented from 2021 until now. TheScrubby (talk) 09:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Furthermore, I have been an active contributor to the Year In Australia pages where over the years I have been improving formatting (mainly to do with tables and lists), as well as adding Australian figures to the Births/Deaths sections, of which many of the pages have been bare-boned up to now. I have never once been accused of misconduct or wrongdoing of any kind on the Year In Australia pages, and I remain an active contributor there. My work there has absolutely nothing to do with my work here, and any Tban would also affect my ongoing work on that project. TheScrubby (talk) 10:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Likewise, my frequent work on many year by country articles hasn't been criticised or caused any conflict. I don't think either of us should be Tbanned, but if we are, please limit it to main year articles so we can continue to frequently do good work on year by country articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      When someone pleads for a subset of a topic not to be included in the TBAN it means that subset absolutely must be included in the TBAN. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Why? Scrubby & I are both actively doing a lot of good on year by country articles without any conflict with other editors. The only issues are regarding main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Added to WP:LAWS as "HEB's First Law of TBANs". Levivich (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      That's an essay. The only topic that Scrubby & I are being criticised in regard to is main year articles, so if we're to be Tbanned - which we disagree with due to it being unnecessary - the topic would be main year articles, not year articles in general. We're both good, frequent editors of year by country articles. The disagreements in regard to internationality have never been relevant to year by country articles, which are inherently national. Banning us from those would only make those articles significantly worse than they'd be if we're editing them. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:56, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose TBAN for TheScrubby: I do believe TheScrubby has been editing in good faith and that their contributions have value. They're willing to change it seems, and I'd like to give them the chance to do so. If things go sideways they can always be brought back here. Hey man im josh (talk)
    • Oppose topic bans. In a nutshell, the situation is this: year articles need to have some sort of (fairly high) standard for inclusion, for obvious (I hope) reasons. The group of people who spend a lot of time working on these articles have developed, over time, informally, an in-practice standard that can be effectively applied to settle most inclusion questions in a non-contentious way and seems to yield an acceptable product. To describe this as "a consensus" is completely reasonable, even if it has never had an official stamp put on it (because WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY). Some editors who are not part of the regular group of editors of these articles don't think the evolved standard is good, which is their right. It's completely reasonable to propose changing that standard, or otherwise pushing to formalize (for example via an RfC) what is at present an informal and local consensus. So, do that. It's completely unclear to me in what way topic-banning these two editors will help in any way with this. I don't see any signs of anything inappropriate -- mostly I see a lot of confusion around bureaucratic demands ("where is the place where this was formally decided?") versus informal practice ("we do it this way because this is how things have always been done") that should be settled by good-faith discussion somewhere other than ANI. (In case anyone is curious, obv this is not my regular IP—I'm travelling—but I have never edited years articles.) --128.91.19.27 (talk) 13:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      It's completely reasonable to propose changing that standard, or otherwise pushing to formalize (for example via an RfC) what is at present an informal and local consensus. So, do that. We have. Have you been following the discussion on WP:VPP? It was listed in the OP's post, and that's where a good chunk of the bludgeoning occurred. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A major difficulty is that during the past couple of months, several editors have proposed very different things. In regard to deaths, some want to increase the number listed, some want to reduce them, some want to move them to new list articles & some want them removed altogether. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not oppose a warning about bludgeoning, or narrowly tailored measures to enforce it in one discussion if necessary — but that doesn’t require a topic ban. (The same person, posting from a different IP address.) 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've clearly said in this thread that I'll go along with whatever the consensus is on main year articles in future. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    It's possible, we might have too many ongoing discussions about WP:YEARS. Anyways, I'm confident that we're all in agreement that a consensus is always a requirement for proposed changes to be adopted, no matter what the topic. GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    There are several major current discussions relating to the Years project taking place during the absence of their most prolific (& in my opinion best) editor. I don't think that a good idea, especially as some of them conflict with each other. I'll go along with whatever the current & future consensuses, which the people who want to Tban me are ignoring or not believing.
    Talk:2023 is currently being disrupted by an IP who recently returned after their block last month for incivility & personal attacks expired. I believe that the talk page should be semi-protected to prevent this continuing. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think what most of the people who are proposing a TBAN against you are concerned that your behavior is preventing a consensus from being formed. I have no doubt that you have good faith when you edit articles, but none of us want years articles to be the next infobox wars, which it seems like it has turned into. I personally interpret your assurance as less of a firm one and more so a sentence of weasel words to be honest, as you could lawyer your way through that assurance to stonewall the development of a consensus. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are no weasel words from me. I've made it clear that I'll allow consensuses. I don't know what the infobox wars were, so I can't comment on that. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You haven't assured us when it comes to stonewalling, wikilawyering against, or bludgeoning developing consensuses. From my prior experiences, you've allowed consensuses before, but you won't refrain from bludgeoning or stonewalling developing ones. The FTX debate and the ongoing Walters RFC is still fresh in my memory. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • TBAN for Jim Michael 2. I think it is safe to say that Jim's behavior is disruptive in discussions. I'm also in favor of respective AE sanction regarding bludgeoning separate from this ANI, to apply on all discussions Jim has been involved in outside topic areas. This is just too much. I would support TheScrubby's as well, but not as much as Jim. TheScrubby isn't really as disruptive as Jim in my opinion, but for people involved in the discussions have some concerns for TheScrubby, which repeatedly pointed to mid-2021 "consensus". MarioJump83 (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • In case there's any remaining doubt, I'd like to point out that Jim Michael is still editing year articles while this discussion is going on, including at least one edit where he is enforcing the "consensus" after he promised to stop enforcing it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef block, or TBAN for Jim Michael 2 This is not the first time I've encountered Jim bludgeoning a preferred local consensus against a Wikipedia guideline. Back in the summer of last year Jim was one of a few editors who persistently and consistently advocated and tried to enforce a naming scheme for mass shooting events in the US against the accepted consensus laid out at WP:NCEVENTS. It is also not the first time nor even the second time I've seen Jim unable to answer what should be a straightforward question on where a consensus was established, as in the exchange with Cullen328. Like with Black Kite's example above, shortly after the discussion at the Village Pump, I decided to give up trying to contribute to the mass shooting pages, in no small part due to editors like Jim enforcing a consensus that they could not seem to prove. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:32, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I've not had much to do with these year articles but it seems that the editors in question are being scapegoated for inheriting an understanding that has grown up over a long period. My impression is that this has arisen because of the structure of the articles. You see, you don't just have a single article for each year, such as 2022. You also have articles such as 2022 in the United States; 2022 in film; 2022 in British television; 2022 in Brazilian football and so on. So, as a lot happens in a given year, there will be a natural tendency to put the local highlights into the corresponding local year article. The main article for the year would then just get the most globally significant highlights and a concept of international notability would then naturally follow.
    Now, it's not clear what the alternative is. Are people suggesting that the 2022 article should be an enormous superset containing every death and event in that year? Or that should contain almost nothing? I have no particular preference but think that the solution to this issue is to establish what the supposedly correct method of doing this is. If this is articulated and then written down, then the regular maintainers of these articles would be obliged to follow it. If there isn't agreement on what the correct method is then we have a different problem that won't be resolved so easily.
    Andrew🐉(talk) 22:29, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I rarely find myself nodding to something Andrew says, but this comment strikes the right tone for me. There's a need for WP:NPOV, WP:Summary style, and enough WP:Editorial discretion to establish some criteria for the size and scope of these pages. If they were lists (and they functionally are today, but let's not get ahead of ourselves), we would have established some criteria for inclusion of items on the lists. "International notability" is not inherently a bad starting place, or even a bad ending place, for that discussion.
    The issue is that now that it's been clearly contested by a wider community, there needs to be more than just "enforcement" by "long" say so rather than some sort of guideline page or a specific RFC to point to. Izno (talk) 19:05, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Involved) support of TBAN for Jim Michael for aggressive topic-area ownership and violations of WP:NPOV. I tend to think that WP:OWN is often invoked incorrectly, but this is a case of someone repeatedly saying, essentially, "You're not in our club so your opinion doesn't matter". And, as I've argued at VPP, Jim Michael's feeling here—stated at length across many discussions—is that he and other WP:YEARS members know better than the reliable sources what is worth including. WP:DUE is not some essay; it is part of NPOV, a core content policy. Flagrantly violating NPOV is not acceptable, even if it's not the kind of POV we usually see in NPOV disputes. But there certainly is a POV at work here, for instance favoring mass-casualty events and disfavoring entertainment news, even though many RS take the exact opposite view. Tentatively oppose TBAN for TheScrubby. In my interactions with them at the Walters RfC I found them sanctimonious and condescending in their insistence on the "international notability" standard, but we don't TBAN people just for being wrong, nor for being condescending in their wrongness. They haven't shown, that I've seen, quite the same attitude as Jim Michael of superiority to the community and to RS. But it's a close thing. If broader action is needed, refer to ArbCom per SnowRise. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 23:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Jim Michael 2, just for clarification: are you now accepting that what you were describing as the consensus you were previously following does not actually represent community consensus?
    My concern here is that you keep saying you'll go along with what whatever consensus is, but all along you've been arguing that you were following consensus. You understand now that the community is telling you that what you were perceiving as community consensus was only local consensus, and you won't try to use local consensus that way any longer? Are you now both 1. absolutely clear on the difference and 2. saying you will not make such arguments again? Valereee (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was following what I believed was valid consensus, formed through discussions on talk pages of year articles. I now understand that it was local consensus, which isn't the same thing. In future, I won't think they're the same thing or say that they are. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN for Jim based on his intransigence and refusal to "get the point". They've been asked for days and weeks to present evidence of a consensus for the kind of "international notability" they keeps trying to enforce on the Years articles. I assert that such consensus does not exist and there has never been any broad-based discussion to establish such a consensus. Maybe we should have such a standard. Maybe we shouldn't. That's not what is at issue here; what's at issue is that Jim WP:BLUDGEONs discussions and refuses to acknowledge that such a consensus has not yet been reached. Ultimately, the biggest barrier to having that discussion appears to be Jim themselves; I honestly think we could have a productive discussion about the standards and actually get something worked out there if Jim wasn't involved in those discussions. I only ever interacted with Jim in one single discussion, and given the evidence that others have presented, this kind of behavior seems to be the norm, rather than the exception. I think that the other people brought up in the discussion (Scrubby, et al) have acted by-and-large reasonably, they do express their own opinions, sometimes strongly, but IMHO they all seem amenable to opening things up to wider discussion, and seem willing to abide by any future consensus that may be established. Jim, rather, seems to be intentionally stonewalling that process. For that reason, I support such a TBAN on Jim from all year-article-related discussions; though for the others I do not feel that is necessary. --Jayron32 16:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBANs for Jim Michael 2 (or indef block) & TheScrubby; After careful review & consideration, and with regret. The bludgeoning of the Coltrane & Walters RfCs (and other discussions) and its continuation into the broader discussions at VPP, etc involved both editors; and is sufficient. The long-term intransigence involved (particularly by JM2) is amply demonstrated above.
      There is also a separate pattern of involved closure of discussions at YEARS pages, including in Archives - which, while it did not begin with either editor, ought to have stopped after an early, involved, close of the Coltrane RfC by TheScrubby was reverted. TheScrubby continues to reference sections which they closed as an involved participant, in support of their arguments in current discussions at Talk:2022; despite their arguments in the referenced sections having been disputed (or rejected) by the community. There is disagreement in this section, but it was unilaterally closed, and unilaterally added to two FAQs. Their comments above maintain a view that it is appropriate for individual, involved, editors to determine consensus and to edit war to that effect. Their comments above espouse a view that their (and JM2's) vociferous bludgeoning and stick grasping ought influence determination of or strength of consensus; and that they are individually capable of making that determination. "We have a local standard" is not a valid argument if that standard is contrary to broader community norms; this is true both for "international notability" and for "involved closure".
      As closer of the Coltrane RfC, the emergent consensus was not a near-run thing; it was not borderline; it was clear. The community was asked, and the community was clear both in its support for inclusion, and in its rejection of the purported "international notability" standard. (The consensus for Walters is even clearer). JM2 continues to assert that the community is wrong. TheScrubby continues to assert that the consensus was not clear. Both editors apparently believe that the view of "regulars" trumps the community at large. They need to let it go; and, unfortunately, it seems the community will need to act to ensure that. - Rotary Engine (was Ryk72) talk 05:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      This is a bad faith misrepresentation of my most recent edits over the Olympic gold medalists; which if you read though I blatantly and openly acknowledge at the end that the general agreement by users over the Olympic gold medalists was “not the general community, so it basically constitutes local consensus”. Everything else was to clarify things with the user; I wasn’t necessarily even arguing for or against, I was merely stating that there had been general agreement amongst users on the Talk page over the years regarding Olympic gold medalists - agreement that, as far as I’m aware, has existed long before I started editing the Talk pages regularly. The references were given because the user wanted examples of Talk page discussions over Olympic gold medalists. And I am to be endorsed for a ban for all this? I have also been involved in no edit wars over the last few days, and my sole edit revert in relation to this was because I felt that there should have been a discussion on what I felt was an arbitrary removal that went against years (again, going back long before me and before any “international notability” criteria was written) of practice where individual Olympic gold medalists were included. At this point I’m starting to feel like a scapegoat, as Andrew succinctly described above. TheScrubby (talk) 06:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Furthermore, I’ve made clear since the comment I made on the 27th of January (specifically with the comments I’ve made on this page and since) that I now accept that what I had viewed as consensus was in fact local consensus rather than that of the general community, as required by Wikipedia. And when I say borderline, what was meant at the time and how we labeled results was that when the inclusion of a particular figure or event proved so controversial/led to discussions and dispute that led to it not being included for months, then it can only be labeled a borderline inclusion once it is added. TheScrubby (talk) 06:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]


    Additional discussion

    Just a heads up, both Jim Michael 2 (1, 2, 3) and TheScrubby (1, 2, 3) have resumed enforcing their criteria on years articles. I've provided three examples for each, but there are more. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not reinforcing past criteria; in the case of the Olympian there had been a status quo for inclusion for individual gold medalists that has been around long before any of our actions from 2021 on. It didn't seem to make too much sense to arbitrarily remove one Olympic individual gold medalist while retaining all the rest, and that at the very least it merited a discussion. As for the rest, without relying on past criteria I have been clearing blatantly minor figures who have been added over the years and whose exclusions can be hardly described as controversial. I don't think figures like Johnny Paycheck, Bing Russell or Miss Elizabeth would be deemed by most users as having sufficient notability for inclusion on the main pages, nor are such examples likely to be backed by reliable sources that demonstrate sufficient significance - including on end of year RS summaries. TheScrubby (talk) 04:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And to be fair to Jim Michael, there was a Talk page discussion that did end with most users voting against inclusion for Nichelle Nichols (I was in favour of borderline inclusion in this case, and otherwise stayed out of the fray after giving my two cents). TheScrubby (talk) 04:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A few things: 1) The "discussion" to exclude Nichelle Nichols occurred here. 2) However, in the section directly above, there was some additional discussion which Jim Michael also participated in, that included additional comments to include her. 3) Despite this, 4me689 (talk · contribs) closed the discussion they were involved with (see here), ignoring the comments from the editors in the preceding section (despite 4me689 also participating there). On the subject of 4me689 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), they seem like a WP:SPA, their entire edit history (nine months, from last March until this past December) is to years articles (and related pages) seemingly, and I have to wonder if they're a sock for another editor. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have just returned from a four-week absence, and am horrified by this report and the suggestion that Jim Michael 2 or The Scrubby deserve some kind of ban for their efforts to achieve consistency and impartiality and to eliminate systemic bias. For the record, I oppose any such ban. The complaints by User:Thebiguglyalien seem like a continuation of his/her campaign to try to change the guidelines to what s/he prefers, in the course of which s/he has made several unfounded accusations against me, as can be seen in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years#RfC on prose in year articles. I can understand the accusation of ownership, since I created many of the year articles early in my time on the project and it's quite understandable that newer contributors should question the way these pages work. However, wading in and changing the basics without any serious attempt to achieve consensus is not the way to achieve change. I would add that, like Locke Cole, I have long been concerned about the activities of 4me689. Deb (talk) 16:20, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd like to note that I have not heavily participated in the community-wide discussion after initiating it, largely limiting myself to updates and clarifications when appropriate. It was the community as a whole that decided the way WikiProject Years was being run was inappropriate (at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Create Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Years) and that continuing as things previously were after a warning amounted to disruptive editing (this discussion). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh sorry, and there was me thinking that you were the one who raised that "issue". WikiProject Years is a collaborative project. It is not "run" by anyone. Deb (talk) 17:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Its a good thing you think that, because Jim Michael 2 was suggesting that you run WikiProject Years. They tried to pause all discussion until you came back from wikibreak. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The complaints by User:Thebiguglyalien seem like a continuation of his/her campaign to try to change the guidelines to what s/he prefers
    Which guidelines are being referred to here? Because at the moment, community discussion has led to the view that the guidelines being enforced at YEARS do not exist. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It already seems like that we've reached a situation on WPYEARS' guidelines being comparable to Universal v. Nintendo (or if I wanted to be dramatic, The Collapse of "International Notability", only in theaters this summer). The question is on what to do now. The removal of deaths from main year articles seems to be getting a lot of traction already based on an ongoing RFC at the Village Pump, and international notability as previously enforced doesn't seem to be upheld by future RFCs. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @4me689 has not been active on Wikipedia since December 1st of last year, so his/her/their whereabout are a mystery. Since nothing has came out from that account, I am unsure if it was just abandoned or 4me689 has generally left the wikipedia community in general. We can only speculate, but given that they haven't edited in such a long time, I don't think we need to be too concerned about them unless they continue the behavior Deb and Locke have been concerned about. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The concern with 4me689 is if they're potentially a sockpuppet being used abusively. I'm not sure if it's worth researching it further however and opening an WP:SPI as with no edit since early December, I don't think they can look back that far to see if it's one editor using two accounts. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Deb: Quick question Deb. You state above that someone is seeking to change the guidelines regarding the matters being discussed here. Can you point me to two things 1) The place where those guidelines are written out so that anyone can review them and more importantly 2) The discussion page where the proposal for those guidelines was discussed and agreed upon? Thanks! --Jayron32 14:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      In Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years/Archive_15#Wikipedia:WikiProject Years you'll see that I raised the issue of User:Thebiguglyalien having made substantial changes to Wikipedia:WikiProject Years, particularly to the Example year section (notably removing content s/he'd previously supported), without prior discussion. If you like, you can tell me off for referring to this section as "guidelines". As far as I can see, the most recent change to that section prior to those s/he introduced was this one by User:Wrad in 2008, following this discussion. There are of course guidelines at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Dates,_months,_and_years, which deal with style rather than substance. As far as I'm aware, Thebiguglyalien isn't interested in changing these. Deb (talk) 17:01, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, Deb, I'm afraid you have both not answered a question I asked, and also gave a response to a question I didn't ask at all, and am not particularly interested in. Maybe I wasn't clear. Let me rephrase my question, so that it makes it easier to understand what I am looking for. You stated that there were guidelines. What I asked for was a simple link to those guidelines so I could learn about them. Specifically in this context, we have assertions (from this discussion) that there are guidelines regarding how a particular entry on the articles about specific years qualifies as an entry; there have been claims made that guidelines exist, I just wanted to read those guidelines myself. Presumably, such guidelines are located at a page that starts with the prefix "Wikipedia:", but possibly also "Wikipedia talk:" or maybe at a Wikiproject, or in the MOS, or somewhere, there must be some guidelines to tell us how to answer the question "How do I know what information should or should not be added to a an article about a Year"? Also, if such a guideline exists, it would likely exist because there was a discussion that established it; somewhere people proposed the guideline, they discussed it, there was some kind of pseudovote where people supported the guideline, and it was thus encoded as such for all of us to read. Now, when I asked the question above, that's the information I was seeking from you. Your response, which claimed that I was "telling you off" (I did no such thing, I merely asked a straightforward question!) and also linked to some discussions and pages that really had nothing to do with answering my question. Can you please answer my question directly. It's also okay to say you don't know the answer, or don't have one. But please, my question was straightforward, and I expect a similarly straightforward answer. --Jayron32 17:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Additional discussion: One more point

    There is one more relevant matter that seems not to have been previously raised in this discussion, and that is the fact that only referenced/cited entries can be included in Wikipedia articles. As far as I know, for Year/Month/Day, this is explicitly stated only in Wikipedia:Days_of_the_year#Direct_citations. However, the principle seems to have been agreed in this discussion from 2018. At the time I opposed, but subsequent experience brought me round to the view that User:Toddst1 had right on his side. We should consider how this may affect the Births, Deaths and Events sections of Year articles, and is the topic that first brought me into contact with User:Thebiguglyalien (what seems like a lifetime ago). Deb (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    user possibly creating hoaxes and adding hoax content to drafts

    Hoaxes deleted, user warned that any further hoaxes will result in a block, which is probably enough at this point since it's their first case of violating this. Sergecross73 msg me 18:04, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    This came out of this thread at the help desk. After looking into a number of their drafts, I am having trouble confirming the existence of the upcoming albums these drafts are referring to. I would ask GrandePOV to address this concern here. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, while Draft:Is There Someone Else? is a very real song, on the other hand Draft:Heartless (Ariana Grande album) is very fake, with this "fanon" (completely fake creation by fans) entry being the only hit I could find. I'd be interested to hear if this was an intentional effort to create a hoax, or just an overzealous fan trying to be first one to create an article by using unconfirmed info, but neither scenario is acceptable. Sergecross73 msg me 23:35, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gone ahead and nominated the Ariana Grande hoax for speedy as G3. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 23:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    GrandePOV created a parallel draft at this OID for Draft:Is There Someone Else (note lack of "?" in title) which has some genuine content plus the statement that an Ariande Grande remix "was [sic] released on May 19, 2023." Clearly a hoax. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:53, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Hanoi vandal back in action

    Can we get a block on the Hanoi IP Special:Contributions/113.190.134.61? It's the Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Hanoi vandal coming back to familiar articles such as music by Supertramp.

    An example of the vandal's disruption is this false song credit which is not matched by credits listed on the album label.[82] Binksternet (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 48 hours....on to the next one.-- Ponyobons mots 20:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The person popped back in with the range Special:Contributions/2402:800:610D:32EA:0:0:0:0/64, reverting to the exact same edits as the previous IP. Example 1. Example 2.
    Related IP ranges that have been active recently include
    Let's shut this vandal down. Binksternet (talk) 04:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also using Special:Contributions/2402:800:610D:ECEA:2CF6:DD9:A15B:742A. Binksternet (talk) 13:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Katie's blocked the most recent /64 range. Perhaps it should be extended to the /48 with account creation enabled? The only other editor on that range edits figure skating articles and could create an account. Katie, thoughts?-- Ponyobons mots 17:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, widened to the /48. Katietalk 17:55, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You rock! Binksternet (talk) 06:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    European Windstorm Season

    A range of IPs starting with 2A02 have been extremely disruptive on this years windstorm season. They have removed comments, changed my comments, risen unneeded issues, and insulted other editors.

    I have also been a bit snoopy and found that me and this article is not the only area he has disrupted. Most dealing with European weather. ✶Mitch199811✶ 13:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I am personally not sure what to make of this User. The edits seem to be sound greta and fair. However, their instance on removing the word Unknown because its supposedly immature and attacking editors who disagree with him make me wonder if we are dealing with either a Sock Puppett, a Troll or both.Jason Rees (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not only that, but they're still blaming another user for their "vandalism", when it was a good-faith edit. Is this a CIR or IDHT concern? Tails Wx 14:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A mix of both, not understanding maturity and being convinced everyone who doesn't use their grammar is out to get them. Also, being disruptive by messing with comments, dunno where that'd go. ✶Mitch199811✶ 14:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Original Poster for this thread made a (reasonable) request for dispute resolution at DRN a week ago. I asked the parties, including the subject unregistered editor, whether they would agree to moderated discussion subject to the usual rules (such as not editing the article). After there was no response from the subject unregistered editor, I closed the DRN request as apparently declined. The subject unregistered editor does not appear to be willing to discuss, and is making personal attacks. I recommend that, at a minimum, the article page be semiprotected for at least a week. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree that the article 2022–23 European windstorm season, its talk page, and possibly others, should be protected for a while, restricting edits to registered editors. The ip editor has been quite disruptive and degrading to other editors, frequently asserting their own superior skill at writing in English (which I fail to see), substituting their own opinions, biases (including gender bias), assumptions, personal judgements, and even cultural superiority for WP policy and guidelines. (Numerous examples can be found on the talk page of the 2022–23 European windstorm season article.) As the editor is unregistered, I'm not sure what else could or should be done, but the environment created on the talk page has been made hostile and dominated by this user. I think the problem is evident in the ip editor's comment below, beginning with "No, I’m not a sockpuppet." It seems clear the editor does not understand how WP works, what standards we follow, or the importance of consensus. I've seen no comment in which the ip editor has been referred to as stupid or an idiot, or treated in a racist way. I did not describe the editor as egregious or comical, though I did describe some of their disruptive edits in that way. There seems to be a lack of understanding coupled with a lack of willingness to learn. Dcs002 (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]


    No, I’m not a sockpuppet, I’m not a spammer, I’m not a troll, and I’m not stupid. I’m sick and tired of people thinking I’m an idiot. And I have been harassed multiple times by many editors. And your alls “help” is unnecessary, I don’t want help, and I don’t need any help! I’m tired of your alls so called “help”, just because you all think I’m dumb as dirt! (Greyzxq (talk · contribs), Dcs002 (talk · contribs), Mitch199811 (talk · contribs), LilianaUwU (talk · contribs)). And I’m not egregious or comical (Dcs002 (talk · contribs). I’m not snarky (Mitch199811 (talk · contribs)). I’m not incompetent (Greyzxq (talk · contribs), Mitch199811 (talk · contribs), Tails Wx (talk · contribs), EuropeanXTwisters (talk · contribs)) And I’m not a bigot (LilianaUwU (talk · contribs), Robby.is.on (talk · contribs)) I’m absolutely disgusted and violated by these false accusations. And to make it even worse, I’ve been getting harassment messages from Mako001 (talk · contribs), Mitch199811 (talk · contribs), Greyzxq (talk · contribs) and many others. And (I don’t like giving away private information) but I’m actually a secretary for one of Denmark’s biggest companies, so yea, I’M NOT STUPID! I don’t really know why people think I’m stupid, it’s probably based on racism, because I’m not American or British. But just Stop being racist! And Stop thinking that I’m stupid! I have made a list of editors I dislike, and there are 46 usernames on that list, and 0 IP’s. So from now on, I only trust IP’s. If you all want me to release the list, I’ll do so gladly! And if you all want me to describe myself to you all, I’ll do so (maybe that’ll deter others from discriminating me) But just Stop thinking I’m stupid!

    And excuse me while I vomit my guts up, because all this harassment and discrimination is making me physically ill!

    2A02:A44C:6682:1:C538:D0BA:D6DC:CF44 (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding all the ones I have been involved in,
    I never called you dumb as dirt, maybe implied it slightly as I have no clue what you mean by mature grammar and you never cited any policies or guidelines backing you up.
    I called you snarky after you started correcting every "mistake" I made and took my language literally and then at the end of the message you left a ";)".
    Incompetent I'm a bit less sure of. You definitely don't own a perfect command of the English language, for example saying scenerio's as the plural (I think). But I do not think that you should be barred from editing for it.
    I sent you three messages:
    1. Warning you to stop removing comments in talk pages.
    2. Telling you about the dispute resolution board so we could get another opinion on Unknown V Unspecified.
    3. Alerting you to this.
    If this is not the person we want, I would highly suggest creating an account. ✶Mitch199811✶ 19:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I just checked Robby.is.on's and Greyzxq's talks and it seems like your harassing them just as much as they are you. The heading on Robby's talk is literally "You are exceptionally immature" and on Greyzxq's you say he's on your hit list. ✶Mitch199811✶ 19:55, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I just checked Robby.is.on's and Greyzxq's talks and it seems like your harassing them just as much as they are you. Huh? There was no harassment from Greyzxq. Their replies were admirably calm in the face of the IP's bullying and rudeness. My only interaction with the IP was saying they were behaving rudely. How is that harassment? Robby.is.on (talk) 20:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Talking back I guess; I mostly meant if thats considered harassment, they have harassed as well. ✶Mitch199811✶ 21:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The only thing I did was revert you once because you were being mean to people. How is that "harrassing" you? If you don't want me to talk to you (or the many IPs you went through), just say so. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 20:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that diatribe is blockworthy, in and of itself. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How are we being racist? And how do we think you’re dumb? That would just violate WP:NPA. Just thinking that you have CIR concerns doesn’t mean we’re discriminating or thinking you are stupid. Tails Wx 20:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have blocked the IP's /64 range for 72 hours for personal attacks/harassment. I will confess that I haven't read through all of the discussions linked from here, but (a) posting on someone's talk page that they have been added to a list of people one dislikes is weird and uncivil, and (b) accusing people of vandalism when they aren't vandalising is a personal attack. The the IP, if you read this: I am British, but I am not 'racist' against Danish people. I have many Danish friends; I know many Danish Wikipedia editors who are excellent contributors; hell, I live in York/Jorvik, which is proud of its history of being a Danish town on English soil. The block will expire in three days: be nice to people, and they will be nice to you. Girth Summit (blether) 20:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you for taking this step. When the ip range is restored, if the editor returns, and if the editor resumes the same pattern of disruptive editing, what should other editors (like me) do? I have been through a mediation process once (2009?), and now a dispute resolution process (in which this ip editor didn't participate), and I have no idea what to do if this step isn't enough. (I really do hate conflicts like this, but I value what we have here.) Will Admins be monitoring the situation, ready to take further action, if it becomes necessary? I hate to see a range of ip's blocked, but I consider the hostility, particularly against people who might be young editors, to be potentially very detrimental to participation, and I want to do my part to proceed carefully yet effectively.
      I still see the potential for this passionate editor to become a valuable contributor once they understand and accept how WP works, especially if they are young. People who come across as overly critical of others can sometimes become effective teachers and leaders if they channel their passions constructively. Thanks again. Dcs002 (talk) 01:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Girth Summit (blether) - unambiguous vandalism by ip editor:
      The ip editor, identified as 2A02:A44C:6682:1:D5E3:BE7E:7D27:3FF1 talk, has made several edits today. I believe for many reasons this is the same disruptive editor we have been discussing here (many edits over a short period today on many of the same pages, in what I think is the same style). This editor also made one edit that was promptly reverted as vandalism (unambiguous in this case). Here is the edit | diff and the reversion | diff.
      It seems such a pointless act of vandalism, but it comes on the day the ip editor's block expired, just two hours after the ip resumed editing. I thought you should know. Dcs002 (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      How much do we need to slam them with another block? Now its not just ignorance, he's vandalizing the wiki. ✶Mitch199811✶ 02:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I first noticed the IP at Greyzxq's Talk page. What I've seen from the IP there:

    • rude and trollish behaviour: [83]
    • baseless accusations against of racism: [84]
    • baseless accusations of rudeness against Greyzxq, bizarrely claiming Greyzxq's links to Wikipedia policy and guideline pages were crashing their phone: [85]
    • implying Greyzxq was stupid: [86]
    • (from half an hour ago) harassment: [[87]]

    Robby.is.on (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This IP might only be blocked for 72 hours, but they're going to be reblocked very quickly if they can't learn to collaborate with other users, and take a less combative outlook on the whole situation. Making a "list", seriously?
    I actually restored some of their comments on the streptococcus outbreak talkpage, since it didn't meet the criteria for removal from the talkpage. Nevertheless, I expect that I am one of the 46+ editors on their list, though it sounds like it is probably good company. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 04:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering I've only reverted their edit once, yeah, it seems anybody who interacts with them joins that list. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 01:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Firstly, that “vandalism” edit was just a test, I simply wanted to see if WP had an automatic removal bot, so yeah, it was only a test, no need to get apoplectic about it. Secondly, my list grew to 64, and yes, I dislike people talking to me through WP, I find it abstruse. In real life also not. If I’m going to get reprimanded for everything, I’m just going to stop editing at all. That way “I can’t do anything wrong”. I just want to point out how sinister you all are, I feel like you all are cultish or something. If you all think I’m too stupid to edit, just say it. After all, I know how racist you all are, just so racist!

    I don’t know even know what to say… I’m at a total loss for words…

    2A02:A44C:6682:1:920:5C55:AC09:5991 (talk) 00:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I’m going to say this again, but-how are we racist when we’re saying your edits are vandalism, that would violate WP:NPA. Tails Wx 00:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Once you get unblocked, I hope you see how rude and absurd you've been. I didn't even know you were Danish until this ANI report and the only editor I knew before hand is Tails Wx. We are all against you because of how rude and stubborn you are. For example, you appeared on someone's talk page complaining that they are "extremely immature."
    Overall, the thing that annoys me the most is the hypocrisy you do. Complaining whenever someone disagrees with you but calling them immature and snowflakes. Being offended at our "racist actions" but then saying that Americans and Britons are under Danes. ✶Mitch199811✶ 00:54, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    And if you all knew me, you all would regret saying anything about me… 2A02:A44C:6682:1:920:5C55:AC09:5991 (talk) 00:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I just came here. I'm not entirely sure if that's a threat, but please do not threat other editors, thank you. Bar Harel (talk) 00:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    2.206.214.160 at MV Astoria

    This IP has been adding original research to MV Astoria, in which the user claims that a cryptocurrency executive is looking for a solution to save the ship. The user is using LLC registration records to support their edit, though none of them expressly say anything about the article subject.

    After an initial reversion by Thewolfchild, the IP user reinstated the edit four times[88][89][90][91]. The user has responded to all attempts to discuss issues with them on their talk page by blanking their talk page, including three times in this instance: [92][93][94].

    After I opened a discussion on the subject on the article talk page and alerted the IP user on their user talk about the subject, the IP user finally responded by saying, in part, "Aoi knows nothing about ship" and "TradeNews mentioned this company, so do not know why youguy in USA have so difficult with english, when is too clear".

    The user also left a nice message for me on my talk page, in which they again repeated that I know nothing, and kindly asked that I "Stop your Vandalismus".

    Note that whoever is behind this IP has been editing the Astoria page disruptively for a while. Aside from this IP address, they previously edited under the following IPs:

    I believe a block for disruptive editing is more than merited here. Thank you. Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    As I was typing all that, the user reverted a fifth time even after being left (and reverting) a 3RR notice. They also left this kind message to another user, asking them, "before you do your stupidity" to "go study first ...before writing me bullshit like this". Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I just realized why I felt deja vu while filing this. This is the same IP user who left this kind edit summary directed at me a couple of years ago. Their behavior has obviously not changed since then. Is it possible to block the range Special:Contributions/2.206.214.128/25? There doesn't seem to be any collateral going back to at least January 2021. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)p[reply]
    Agree with Aoi 100%. There is a serious WP:CIR issue with the person behind these IPs. They edit disruptively to the point of recklessness and one wonders if there is perhaps a WP:COI issue driving some of these edits, though what is behind the hostility and refusal to communicate is anyone's guess. - wolf 20:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As an aside, "vandalismus" is German for vandalism, and IP is in Germany. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Misuse of RfC process on West Herzegovina Canton

    Governor Sheng (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is returned to include a disputed edit, for which consensus could not be reached, as closed RfC here clearly shows. Moderator Robert McClenon was more than clear in their closing statement, but this RfC is nevertheless misinterpreted and used as a justification to try and include again disputed edit solely on RfC's closing. Editor did nothing further as advised in a closing statement and just simply disregarded very long and exhausting procedure which took time and effort, as if nothing has happened.--౪ Santa ౪99° 23:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    (Inserted diff's accidently deleted on first posting) Post-Rfc disputed edit:
    I didn't close an RFC on the subject of the West Herzegovina heraldry. I moderated a dispute at DRN, and closed it as being at the wrong forum, because it was a dispute over sources, and I said that they should take their dispute to RSN. See:
    It is a mistake to say that I resolved anything, or that I thought that my close of the DRN resolved anything. I told them to go to RSN. They then went to RSN, and filed an RFC there:
    However, that RFC never had a formal closure, and was archived without resolution. So there is no consensus or resolution. I don't see misuse of the RFC process. I see editors being in good faith confused by a complicated dispute that isn't being dealt with effectively either by the Bosnian courts or by the English Wikipedia community. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You should check the editing history of the said article. Even though it wasn't I who returned the flag in the infobox, it was done correctly after the opinion was received from other eitors at WP:RSN. Governor Sheng (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be good faith confusion but edit which sits at the heart of heavy dispute and is described as "first opinion on rfc delivered, nothing about constitutionality included in this edit just officiality, citations a WIP"' in edit-summary looked like taking advantage of the confusion. I am flash and blood editor. In situations like this, editors should restrain from disputed editing while dispute is ongoing and/or still unresolved, it will look suspicions to someone. ౪ Santa ౪99° 05:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And we really never had RfC to begin with, right ? We had DRN with you, and some RSN on Heiner. ౪ Santa ౪99° 05:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And, one additional important thing regarding this "first opinion on rfc delivered" justification for a disputed edit - editor who delivered it back in RSN-RfC said: "What I think that Wikipedia can report based on these sources is that there is a dispute over the constitutionality of the current official flag." No mention of squeezing them into infobox at all costs.--౪ Santa ౪99° 05:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Opinion was delivered in an RfC at RSN. You were informed about the RfC. The RfC had two editors expressing the same opinion that supported adding it. There was no wrongdoing on Sheng's part, they simply reverted an edit that seemed to restore the pre-RfC status with a nonsensical reason going against consensus. You seemed to have confused the eariler DRN with the later RfC, the latter of which supported adding the symbols. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:42, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Rob's opinion that the RfC didn't have a consensus also makes sense, but either way there is no wrongdoing on me or Sheng's part here. Also, why is the "target" of this ANI report on Sheng when the main accusations appear to be on me? Aaron Liu (talk) 03:45, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Santasa99 A heads up: if you do not respond here or at RSN before 00:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC), I’ll restore the symbols to the infobox for now. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, I followed the link in my alert window and it send me to a page with a alert that comment does not exists! I suspect, you have done something not caring much about the possible confusion. So, be more careful next time you make these kind of zero-sum arguments (ultimatums). Nevertheless, you can always make a disputed contribution, but you can't drag me with this issue into infinity. ౪ Santa ౪99° 15:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That was probably an issue with Echo. Technical stuff can usually be WP:AGF’d Aaron Liu (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Because Shang was the last one to disruptively rv edit. ౪ Santa ౪99° 15:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The Cabin Chiang Mai

    SEMIPROTECTED
    For three days. (non-admin closure) — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Article is prone to long term back-and-forth disruption between promotional, WP:COI accounts and those adding poorly sourced negative content. This needs more eyes, clean up and perhaps page protection; the most recent edits are characteristic, removing unencyclopedic negative content while simultaneously adding unsourced. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:4C4B (talk) 19:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I have semi-protected the article for three days. Cullen328 (talk) 20:33, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I'd expect further disruption from both sides after the lock ends, but think increased attention will help a lot. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:4C4B (talk) 22:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Vandalism at Template:2022 African Nations Championship group tables

    Some users attempt to change the results of Group C table in Template:2022 African Nations Championship group tables. The official results are here. Please protect the page. --Panam2014 (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Panam2014, would not WP:RFPP be a more appropriate place to make this request? — Archer1234 (t·c) 09:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:HARRAS (WP:outing, WP:hounding) support of murder by IP and commenting person not the content by IP & User:Sameboat

    Hi. I feel WP:HARRAS by speculations on my alleged (nonsense) WP:COI, witch-hunting, WP:OUTING, WP:HOUNDING, WP:PA commenting editor - not the content.

    • here WP:OUTING, WP:HOUNDING, IP user digs 10 years in my edit history to find an edit which does not exist in the article and the article does not exist either as it was joined to the other one. Why? To find a primary source used descriptively. Then speculated on my UC membership and COI instead of asking me. Commenting on me and not the content.

    This IP user constantly harras the article with an anticult POV. Looks like all the time, the same user, for example:

    • here, here, here, here, here, here (evidence for understanding motives) and
    • HERE - this is interesting: glorifies a murderer assassin as a hero - is this support of terrorism? Should I worry? How to solve this threat?

    This user (User:Sameboat), in reply to hounding/outing, instead of staying away, comments on the person (me), not the content.

    • here where I should be "critical of other editors" - by the way, incorrectly, as I commented on the article issues, not the editors. Probably he cannot distinguish between the cases and take issues personally.

    Nothing serious until now, but I'm curious where it ends. Can you admins help, please? --Dee (talk) 01:44, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • @IP 91: Assuming this was also you, which seems likely based on geolocation and behavior, that's a comment I would have blocked for if I'd seen it at the time. Do not use Wikipedia to celebrate acts of political violence. If you do it again I will block you.
      With that out of the way, I'm not immediately seeing a cause for administrative action here. Editors are allowed to make COI allegations, including incorrect COI allegations. That said, I haven't looked too closely at the rest of this; maybe I'm missing something. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 02:00, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Funny how Dee is accusing other user of glorifying murder when what the IP user states is backed by reliable source (sans labeling the church as an "evil cult")[95] (Bit more context about the IP's comment on the talk page: The comment was made on 9 August 2022, almost one whole month after Shinzo Abe's assassination on 8 July 2022. By that point, it was already widely reported by Japan's mainstream media that the suspect has received lot of sympathy, admiration and donations from his supporters domestically. The Change.org online petition which pleads leniency towards the suspect began on 29 July 2022.[96] So what the IP said was merely stating an objective fact. Perhaps the language sounds quite personal, but I don't think it even justifies any kind of block besides a friendly advice to stick to the reliable sources even on talk page.)
      I don't even understand how my comments constitute WP:OUTING or WP:HOUND by pointing out one of Dee's edits has clearly violated WP:primary source. If anything, Dee should be advised to stop accusing others who don't share the same religious value. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 04:05, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Tamzin: "speculating on the real-life identity of another editor MAY constitute WP:outing.", as WP:PA rules stated.
      • What about IP user's WP:HOUNDING? The @IP91 tracked my edit history 10 years back to find any possible proof of a mistake.. and Sameboat is repeating it here, so he is clearly part of this behavior. And yes, I did use a primary source 10 years ago ;c) and it has no effect.
      • What about both, IP and User:Sameboat WP:PA commenting person, not the content?
      If there would be no action to this, worry about we will come back if/when the conflict grows bigger. This could happen as I can see Samebout skirmishing by sources on WP:ANI, regardless admins would not intervene in content discussions..., and he repeatedly shows no will to reflect what other says.
      • But I do accept your decision not to do anything this time. Thank you for the statement that IP91 behavior was worth blocking, see it as a strong warning. Hope he will not repeat it. Weird is, that Sameboat is defending it.
      Additionally, I have to react to @Sameboat's statements about me "accusing others who don't share the same religious value": I always comment just on the article issues, not accusing people. My religious values are not performed on Wikipedia, but I do what any sociologist of religion would do - share respect to any religion including NRM, instead of sharing open disrespect or anticult POV mood to some of them. I do recommend following the same pattern when writing about any kind of religion. Any other comment please notify me or write me on my talk page. --Dee (talk) 17:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Dee's gross and incorrect accusations of other editors' use of primary sources is the problem. Just check talk:Assassination of Shinzo Abe for yourselves. Dee repeatedly complains that the assassination article fails NPOV and due weight, yet Dee fails to provide any reliable sources to counter the anticult statements which are fully backed by non-primary reliable sources. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 22:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Dee: If someone has speculated as to your real-life identity (your name, or identifying information like address, place of work, etc.), please report that to the Oversight team. They can remove that information and take any necessary administrative action. If you are referring to the speculation that you might be affiliated with a religious movement with 3 million members, no, that is not outing—particularly if based on things you did publicly on-wiki. This is not to endorse the speculation, nor to foreclose the possibility that it violates some other policy or guideline. (Speaking generally, outside of paid editing cases or clear-cut COI, I find it is rarely constructive to speculate as to what outside forces might motivate an editor.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 23:09, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I should repeat here that editor who supports anti-cult movement should not be considered a liability of Wikipedia's credibility, but your language clearly demonstrates your opposition to anticultism even when the statement of the said religion (demanding exorbitant donations, severing social connection with non-believers, condemning non-believers as servants of Satan, etc.) which fits the definition of an antisocial cult is backed by reliable sources. Please don't blame a fact which don't align with your ideology. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 23:53, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Off-wiki evidence (which I will dm on request) pretty conclusively shows that the operator of the "Dee" account is or at least was formerly an offical spokesman of the Unification Church. This is not somebody who is genuinely being harassed, but someone, who like Tenebrae, seeks to abuse Wikipedia's outing policy in order to disguise their massive COI. They really should not be editing any articles regarding the Unification Church at all. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see User:Dee complains of "speculations on my alleged (nonsense) WP:COI". There is nothing "nonsense" about his alleged COI. Editing with a COI is a problem, and doing so while denying having one makes it worse. (As an aside, Dee used to edit using what looks like a real full name - and there's no outing in saying that, as it's there on his talk page). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      And it's also not outing to point out Dee's most edited articles, freely viewable at https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.Wikipedia/Dee . Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh, and as Dee has pointed out that nobody actually asked him, I have asked - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dee#Unification_Church .Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:37, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      He's denied it, with a simple "no". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

    Life would be so much easier if we all concentrated on articles rather than userboxes. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:50, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My favorite userbox template is Template:User eschews userboxes.
    This user eschews userboxes.
    Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 21:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Voidxor: From what I saw, there was maybe only one other editor besides you and the named editor in that discussion. We have an established procedure for moving pages and since the discussion seems at an impasse wouldn't it be better to just use that procedure rather than trying to establish another editor is showing ownership or chronically blocking improvements? I.E. Start a WP:RM. If your proposal is really clearly better as per our policies and guidelines, then hopefully others will offer feedback supporting this PoV and the RM closes with consensus in favour of the proposed move. If you're wrong about which name is more line with our policies and guidelines and so the RM closes with consensus against the move then whoops hopefully you learn something. If the RM fails as no consensus because editors participate but opinion is split on the best title well then again, this probably means you were wrong about Buaidh as apparently both your views on which title is best have favour among the community. If the RM fails as no consensus because few others or even no one else cares to comment then maybe that's also an important lesson as per Phil Bridger etc i.e. it doesn't matter. Nil Einne (talk) 12:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nil Einne: Yes, and I would normally follow the RM process to promote a controversial page move. In this case though, the template was moved and Buaidh cut and paste it back to where they wanted it—at {{Yyend}}. "Moving" a page via cut-and-paste is very much out of process, and should be reverted immediately. Buaidh used the Template Editor permission here so I cannot revert myself. I asked Buaidh to self-revert (citing the policy, as usual) and got the run around again.
    To be clear, I came to ANI because I need help with an editor who seems to be missing my explanations, and any policies or guidelines that I link. Whatever point I try to make, I'm met with red herrings. In fact, I see several owner behaviors here. Conversely, to be clear, I did not come to ANI simply to get more input on the content issue at hand (though input is always welcome, of course).
    So in summary, the cut-and-paste moves that I linked above need to be reverted please, regardless of the outcome of the move discussion. Also, to your point about Buaidh's views on title, I don't quite follow as Buaidh has not stated a reason that "end" is better than "bottom", other than that's the way Buaidh set it up in the first place, and there are existing transclusions (which, again, isn't a valid argument for not moving a template). — voidxor 00:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Voidxor: if you just wanted a cut and paste move reverted, that is all you should have mentioned rather than all the other crap. Also AFAIK, Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests is generally used when you need help fixing a cut and paste move anyway, if you're asking to revert to the original title i.e. Buaidh's preferred title, this should come as an uncontroversial request since the only one who is likely to object is you. And as it stands, you suggest you just want to revert a cut and paste move then talk a bunch of crap about alleged misbehaviour. If an editor doesn't understand you that're precisely why you should get others involved. And if two titles are equally valid, then preserving the original creator's choice is actually perfectly aligned with our policies and guidelines. If you aren't aware of that then please do not try to make moves without opening RMs ever again. Nil Einne (talk) 07:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. I have not looked into the details but if your claim of a cut and paste move is correct then you're right it's not something that should have ever happened. However unless you can demonstrate it's a consistent pattern it also isn't enough for anything but stern warning even the editor had an advanced permission. Therefore there's no point to bring it to ANI. Just get the the cut and paste move fixed and tell the editor never to do that crap again and don't waste time here. Nil Einne (talk) 07:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Treaty of tordesilla

    OP PBLOCKED
    Edit warring and personal attacks. Asked to take concerns to article talk page. (non-admin closure) — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Content dispute, no need for admin intervention. Please take relevant discussion to Talk:Treaty of Tordesillas signed, Rosguill talk 00:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I dont know how to add the user responable for this edit, i dont use wiki often. But he edited treaty of tordesillas febuary 5 2023, to say the voyage never occured from, the number of degrees can be determined. Im just curious as to why today they decided the coordinates were wrong and the voyage was a lie. Seems like fraud? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.247.209.198 (talk) 00:17, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The best place to get answers to your questions would be to post at Talk:Treaty of Tordesillas so the other editor can discuss the changes. It isn't a matter that needs administrator attention. Schazjmd (talk) 00:24, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    @Schazjmd: Based on their continued lack of discussion or sense, it might be best if you did go explain how talk pages work (do we have a form letter somewhere to post on people's talk pages? I assume they're well meaning but confused...) before I need to request they be banned from editing the page if they can't better handle correct sourced edits to it. They're currently starting an edit war, apparently out of poor understanding of the topic or how sourcing works. — LlywelynII 17:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Schazjmd: & @Rosguill: Could someone talk to them? I assume they're well meaning but they're just edit warring instead of taking anything to the talk page. They're obviously wrong about my edits, which is a separate thing, but there may be some actual improvements in other areas. They're doing a rolling mass revert. — LlywelynII 17:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I've partial-blocked them from editing the article itself on account of the edit warring combined with personal attacks. signed, Rosguill talk 17:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Block evasion by Virginia IPs

    I've been seeing block evasion by the childish Virginia-based Special:Contributions/216.146.50.3, using the range Special:Contributions/108.57.80.0/21. All of the IPs have the same geolocation. The general music topic interests intersect critically at Talk:Operatic pop, where both have edited extensively. Binksternet (talk) 03:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Last year, Girth Summit gave 216 a very lengthy block ending in 2030, which is good considering how childish the response was. A lengthy block of the range may be necessary. Binksternet (talk) 03:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • 216 appears to be a school IP, which is presumably why Materialscientist hit it with a one-decade block in 2020. (GS' action was a reblock sans TPA.) Do we have a reason to believe that the person making the Opera pop edits from 216 was the same person engaged in the childish vandalism? If not, then the block does not apply to them. (I'm not sure it would apply even if they were the person. Yes, the block is for 10 years, but that's because of a long history of disruption by others, not because the individual childish vandal edits necessitate separating the person from Wikipedia till their mid-to-late 20s.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 04:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the analysis of the 216 block. Regarding our current problem, Daniel Case put a very long block on Special:Contributions/108.57.81.24, so I'm sure our block-evading friend will soon discover another IP in the range Special:Contributions/108.57.80.0/21 to keep editing. Binksternet (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think these are the same people: somewhat pedantic tone, and the same interest in classical-crossover.co.uk. Daniel Case (talk) 01:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Daniel Case: I concur that the "Operatic pop" editor on 216 is the same person as the "Operatic pop" editor on the 108 range. But my question is, given that the block on 216 is a schooblock, do we have any reason to think that this person is the intended subject of the block? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 09:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      It is true that they haven't reacted the way the original 216 vandal did to the block ... Daniel Case (talk) 18:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Daniel Case: My point here is that there isn't an "original 216 vandal". It's just a bunch of schoolkids. probably not acting in concert. In fact, the original response claims that the vandalism started before they were born, and despite the trollishness of the rest of the response, in this case that's quite plausible. That said uh... Well 108's response on talk seems less than plausible. But I'm really not seeing a policy-based reason for a block here, even if their conduct has been moderately disruptive. I would suggest unblocking with a warning to not genre-war (CC NinjaRobotPirate). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 22:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Geez, I didn't even notice the block was for 86 months. That's way too extreme for some random dynamic IP. They don't seem to stay allocated for more than a day or two. Even if it is block evasion, the block shouldn't be for more than a few days. A warning also sounds fine. For the record, I don't like 10 year blocks on school IPs, but I've mostly given up on trying to explain why this is a bad idea. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Suspected ban evasion by LaserLegs

    closing per OP request--Jayron32 16:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    2600:8802:2718:6700:9F35:65C0:D934:6DC9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 2600:8802:2718:6700:8da6:c79a:c935:90ea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    First did so here back on October 22, and now has done so here just this month. Both IP editors geolocate to the same region, both seem to be focusing on WP:ITN/C which LaserLegs had previously been topic-banned from due to disruptive editing, and which also resulted in his current CBAN. Based on the argumentation style, I think this is a WP:QUACKing duck, but IP editors can't be taken to WP:SPI so I am not sure where else to go. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @WaltCip Hi, welcomed. IP editors can be taken to WP:SPI but you cannot request a Check against them. You could resubmit it on WP:SPI Lemonaka (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If I can't request a CU against IPs, then I'm not sure why I would take them to WP:SPI since the point of going to SPI is generally to request a CU. Is it just to request the behavioral investigation and nothing more? ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:12, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, I appreciate you editing your post so that you weren't welcoming me to the Teahouse. I've been here since 2006, sooo.... --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Kannweame7961 isn't reading their talkpage

    This editor apparently is mobile-only and isn't reading their talkpage, which is a scrolling list of deleted contributions, warnings and even an ANI discussion which they never participated in. Near as I can tell they have never posted to Talk: or Wikipedia talk. Another editor there said it should have been their final warning but I feel they probably don't know they even have been warned. Can we do something to get their attention? ☆ Bri (talk) 15:24, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Another case of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU it looks like. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually that person looks like they don't edit exclusively via mobile. They just haven't discovered talk pages yet, maybe? The talk edits they've made look like they're all from moves. I've p-blocked from article space to see if we can get their attention. Valereee (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Valereee. You were correct, they aren't mobile-only – I misread their edits. Anyway, let's hope for the best. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Breitbart Spam Blacklist

     – – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 20:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    In that case, the sample headline doesn't actually add anything to the article. "It has said wikipedia has a bias and has said 'wikipedia has a bias'", effectively. It should just be removed, and then no citation to Breitbart is necessary. If there are other quotes that actually add to the article, I don't think it's a problem to include a secondary cite to the original text, though. For those rare purposes, just use the whitelist. Not need to remove from the blacklist. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    When Breitbart says Wikipedia has a bias, it is not worthy of note. All of the conservative media bubble says we have a bias, we are a leading source of reality-based information on climate change, evolutionary biology, COVID-19, and a host of other things that billionaire libertarians have paid for the GOP to reject, as articles of faith. It would be notable if a right-wing website said we don't have a bias. And for any claim by Breitbart to be considered objectively significant, we'd need a reliable independent third party source that evaluates its accuracy, because Breitbart does not care if what it publishes is true or not.
    I'd also note that the article you highlight above is by a banned troll, The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has used the platform to continue his harassment of, and personal attacks on, Wikipedians - he proudly admits it at the foot. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be removed from the blacklist because you can't be bothered to request whitelisting the use of it? Which strongly implies there's not a good case for inclusion. Oppose strongly as the blacklist keeps well-meaning editors out of trouble and there is no good of the encyclopedia benefit to allowing bretbart to be linked in articles or talk discussions. Slywriter (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no good reason to allow links to Breitbart, and I am not aware of any good-faith attempt to use it as a source other than in a tiny handful of WP:ABOUTSELF instances. Any link added to an article as a source would obviously have to be removed, allowing people to use it on talk pages just encourages rabbit-holes of conspiracist nonsense, at least one banned troll editorialises there against individual Wikipedians, including use of real world identities that are not, as far as I know, all publicly declared. Nothing about that cesspit would add value to Wikipedia, all it would add (and all it ever added) is drama and additional work for people who care about sourcing standards. If it's removed from the blacklist it would need to go into an edit filter - and the blacklist is more efficient. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:24, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you dispute any of the history description? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't work. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, because that's not the correct way to handle individual uses of blacklisted sites. Instead, use the spam whitelist. That works. --Jayron32 19:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't work. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The request to allow breitbart.com links is apparently for the reason given in the OP at Talk:Breitbart News#Quotes and cites. The stated reason relies on generic procedures that would generally be appropriate but which do not apply in every case, and in particular, do not apply in this case. The reference is for an independent source (haaretz.com) and that is perfect in an article about an abusively unreliable subject. I do not see a reason to remove the quote which was picked by the independent source but it could be removed if there were an editorial reason to do so. Johnuniq (talk) 04:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    JzG removed the quote, but that thread isn't what this is about. The thread that matters is the WP:ANI one. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no good reason to use Breitbart's own reporting on their (entirely justified) blacklisting by the Wikipedia. Other reliable sources independent of the subject are preferable. ValarianB (talk) 14:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, who are we blocking and for what reason? The entire discussion above seems to be about the spam blacklist, and whether or not something should be on it. This is not the purview of this noticeboard; it should more properly be discussed at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. Unless someone can tell me what they want an admin to do for them concisely, and not include a bunch of irrelevant information about managing the Spam blacklist, that'd be great. --Jayron32 16:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The history shows that it was here on WP:ANI that the matter was brought up, here on WP:ANI that the observation about JarlaxleArtemis was discussed, here on WP:ANI that a single administrator announced the blacklisting. And the concise request is: "(1) Remove Breitbart from the spam blacklist since the stated threat no longer exists." Since it's shown that an administrator can do it, it's appropriate here and now. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. If you want to discuss it here, my opinion is that Breitbart News doesn't need to be removed from the black list. While the problems with JA were the proximate cause for it being added to the blacklist, several people above have cited good reasons why it should stay on the black list, and I am inclined to agree with them. If it does need to be linked to from within Wikipedia, several workarounds have been proposed, but otherwise, I can come up with no reasonable reason why to take it off the blacklist. It seems to not be causing any problems being there, and it is likely solving many by remaining there. --Jayron32 19:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it is not. Read the top of the page:
    This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.
    This section is off-topic for ANI. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you're trying to cite something (that isn't about Breitbart itself), and you find that the only source you can find to support that edit is Breitbart, you might want to go back and consider carefully whether what you're adding is a good idea. Black Kite (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You asked in the "Offensive edit summary" WP:ANI thread "Could we switch it to being on XLinkBot's disallowed list?" which wasn't answered directly but I think there were technical obstacles. Nobody said there were technical obstacles for an edit filter, maybe I should have proposed that as an alternative to my remove-from-blacklist request, but too late now. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Possibly new developing edit-warring LTA

    I have a feeling after looking at the edits from the IPs 112.206.248.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 122.2.100.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and 122.2.105.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), all of which using almost the same edit summary, same behavior, and all redirect overwrite attempts resulting in a string of AfDs by myself and other editors, we might be seeing a highly disruptive LTA forming. Is there an admin that can possibly look at this series and take action where necessary? Thanks in advance! Jalen Folf (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    And maybe check for possible block evasion by Ajsillo302010? I just happened to look at a warning on one of these IPs' Talk pages. Jalen Folf (talk) 19:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see in this Philippines vandal a behavioral match to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Hanoi vandal, blocked recently as Special:Contributions/2402:800:610D:0:0:0:0:0/48 and Special:Contributions/113.190.134.61. This LTA case was observed to use both Vietnam and Philippines IPs. Binksternet (talk) 19:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Achaudhary0205 making ungrammatical and inconsequential copy edits at high rate

    Achaudhary0205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This user appears to be making grammatical "improvements" to articles at a very high rate of speed while lacking adequate competency in English to do so. Virtually every single edit of theirs I have reviewed has either been outright mistaken or imposed a less fluent sounding grammar. No response to talk page request to discuss this, they continue editing as fast as humanly possible on a wide range of topics. If more documentation is required I will give examples but I think a cursory review of their edit history would show this to be true. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll provide some examples:

    • from Grill'd Grill'd claim to have an Australian first sourcing promise and works with local farmers and suppliers to keep food miles low and ensure the freshest ingredients -> Grill'd claims to have an Australian-first sourcing promise and works with the local farmers and suppliers to keep food miles low and ensure the freshest ingredients. (incorrect grammar for regional dialect of article, and Achaudhary likes inserting extraneous definite articles)
    • from Abductive reasoning The strike of the cue ball would account for the movement of the eight ball. -> The strike of the cue ball would account for the movement of the eight balls. (how many 8 balls are on a pool table?) and For instance: it is a known rule that, if it rains, grass gets wet; -> For instance: it is a known rule that, if it rains, the grass gets wet; (which grass is that again?)
    • from Social enterprise Social enterprises have business, environmental and social goals. -> Social enterprises have a business, environmental and social goals. and deciding on which organizational structure and legal form (e.g. Non-Profit, for Profit) -> deciding on which organizational structure and legal form (e.g. Non-Profit, or Profit)
    • from Dick Ayers when Sullivan "describe[d] what he wanted in the Ghost Rider" -> when Sullivan "described" what he wanted in Ghost Rider" (user likes editing quotes)

    And on and on and on. The habitual insertion of extraneous definite and indefinite articles might easily be overlooked if one didn't notice that this editor just doesn't have a good sense of when to include and when to omit them. If you are still undecided, please take a random sample of their edits and see for yourself. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm pretty sure this is a sock of User:UniqqMool and User:Joussymean. Note that Joussymean says on his/her talk page that "my intention is to contribute to wikipedia and edit as many articles as I can, respecting all the rules". That plan doesn't seem to be working too well, quality-wise. —Wasell(T) 🌻🇺🇦 12:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    A Request for Comment on a Global ban for PlanespotterA320/RespectCE is open on Meta-Wiki

    Per the Global bans policy, I'm informing the project of this request for comment: m:Requests for comment/Global ban for PlanespotterA320 (2) .
    Due to twinkle issues (TB feature issues), which user can only be noticed under WP:ANI section. I have no choice but put it here again.--Lemonaka (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Tendentious history by user Random League Fan

    User:Гриша Андреасяан

    Гриша Андреасяан repeatedly creates unsourced/minimally sourced un-notable articles (e.g. Top 10 (Armenian TV program), Made in USSR (Armenian TV program), Our Retro, to name a few), contests all draftifications without explanation/improvements, then blanks the draft. This has happened multiple times (see user contribs), and no communication is made despite numerous notifications on the talk page. Silikonz💬 16:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I noticed this too. When his article is moved to draft without leaving a redirect he blanks the draft and recreates the article at the same title. —Alalch E. 21:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They are acting like many new editors do. I wouldn't expect them to know all of the ways of the project. The articles they created are at AFD. Writing poorly sourced articles isn't against any rules that I know of unless it is being done on a mass scale. I don't think this is a situation that requires any sanctions. Unfortunately, we have editors who've been active for years without ever communicating on a talk page. I think the situation would have to escalate before action is warranted. I'd adopt a watch and see approach. Liz Read! Talk! 02:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Editor hasn't discovered talk pages yet. It's possible this person just thinks they're somehow doing it wrong and starts over. I wonder if maybe create protect with a message directly to them, directing them to go to their talk page? Valereee (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User claiming to be former admin but not identifying past account

    No administrator action is required. --JBL (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

    I refer to the community editor User:Professor Guru, who within hours of starting editing in January 2022 claimed [97] on their user page I was very active on Wikipedia back in the day, and was an Administrator and Mediator until a few years ago. Within a month, Professor Guru drew admin/editor attention regarding copyright violations [98] not using printed secondary courses [99], using unreliable sources [100] and not leaving a signature [101] I judge this to be unlikely behaviour for an ex-admin/mediator.

    In January 2023, around a year after the 2022 claim, admin Bbb23 removed the above quote from Professor Guru’s user page and warned not to make false statements on Wikipedia. Professor Guru’s response [102] was: I lost my old login when my laptop was stolen in 2007. 2007 would not seem to match the past claim of “… Administrator and Mediator until a few years ago.”

    Bbb23 asked [103] Professor Guru on talk page about the previous account. Professor Guru ignored this and continued editing. [104] I also asked Professor Guru on talk page about the previous account. [105] Same result, ignored and actively editing the talk page [106] and elsewhere [107]

    With no response, I hope that bringing this to the community will result in accountability and determination of the truth. Is this a former admin/mediator or not? starship.paint (exalt) 03:26, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    If they won't disclose, who can tell? They've no reason not to, unless they were desysoppped for cause, or they're talking a load of bollocks. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I vote for round objects. Canterbury Tail talk 13:28, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You cannot possibly know the full list of their possible reasons. Not all possibilities are foul. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They haven't added the claim back, so I don't really see a problem. If the claim is true, there's no compulsion to link their new account to their former one or to provide their previous identity. See WP:RTD. It seems more likely that the claim is false, but is has now been removed, they're not edit warring over it or trying to use it to get any kind of special treatment, so I suggest we drop it and move on. WaggersTALK 13:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    New user WP:PROXYING

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

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

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

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

    Hi,
    I have amended my page to be more clear. I apologise for any potential breaches, but I was not aware that contacting editors to make factual edits or contributions was in breach of Wikipedia rules. I'd appreciate any further insight on how best to approach this.
    Thanks. Maddyruthg19 (talk) 09:09, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Maddyruthg19 This is disingenuous. You joined Wikipedia solely to tout for edits for organisations. Your employer receives payment for actions in behalf of those clients (0.9 probability). You know enough about the rules here to declare paid editing and that you will not edit any articles here. Your purpose is obvious PR because you work for a PR agency.
    Thus there is sufficient here to ask for administrative scrutiny. While there is a route, via WP:AFC, for paid editors to contribute, something you are likely but not certain to have discovered in your researches, you have not used that route. With an established article you may request edits, , something else you are likely but not certain to have discovered in your researches. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies, I have clearly misunderstood the policies around contacting editors. I have made my page clear to show my paid affiliations. Thank you for letting me know the correct route. Maddyruthg19 (talk) 09:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm inclined to assume this has been a misunderstanding. Nothing seems to have been underhanded. The behavior is something we here typically see as obnoxious (going to user talk pages rather than posting to the article talk), but with 16 edits I don't find anything clearly disingenuous that couldn't be explained by simple ignorance.
    @Maddyruthg19, for future reference, the way to request an edit is via the article's talk page. Contacting an editor on their own user talk is, as you've seen, viewed with hostility. For one thing you're asking someone to do for free something that puts money directly into your/your employer's pocket. For another it can be seen as an offer of payment, which nearly all editors here would be offended by. Making similar request on multiple people's talks mean you've now done that to multiple people, possibly wasting multiple people's time. When you instead post a general request on the article talk, you're leaving that open to anyone casually passing by who is willing to help without putting anyone on the spot or wasting anyone's time.
    Important: Please also understand that in order to request a change to an article you will need to provide a citation to a reliable independent source for that change. See the instructions at WP:Requested edits. Make the request as easy as possible for us (again:we're doing it for free) by opening a new section and posting "Please change 'Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet' to 'Lorem ipsum dolor sit elit' per this New York Times article: (URL), which says "quote from article which supports your requested edit". Valereee (talk) 14:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. It was a genuine misunderstanding - really appreciate you pointing me in the right direction for future edits. Maddyruthg19 (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:エアボーン

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

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

    Mako, I dunno...you've reverted everything they've ever done? This edit to me looks like an improvement? Am I missing something? (Agreed on the expanding fish, though, that's pretty hilarious.)
    This editor has only had an account for like 17 hours. They probably haven't even discovered their talk page yet. Valereee (talk) 14:14, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    the fish do be expanding. I would simply inform them of the unproductiveness of their behavior and assume good faith LegalSmeagolian (talk) 15:43, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect they might be using Google Translate from Japanese to make edits given their Japanese username (No I don't know what it translates to) and the strange English of their edits. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (It's a katakana rendition of "airborne". It's usually rendered in kanji not as an imported English in katakana, but it sees occasional use. Though it's a username it doesn't have to represent common usage.) Canterbury Tail talk 16:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    trying to engage in civil discussion

    Since my time on here I have had some issues with User:Amaury as I can never get clear responses to questions. Instead she reverts [113] or just says I am complaining when I am trying to have a conversation to get the issue resolved. [114]. I have asked her a few times to join this discussion here [115] and here [116]. I wasn't worried about her joining until these edits began on the Raven's home page [117]. I reverted and made some changes to not include an actors, but was reverted and expects me to know what " As befoe, We've been over this" means as I explained the award I added was directly to the show as her reverted stated "Only awards for the series itself go here." To me that is an award for the show, so I asked her to join the discussion again, but rejected that as it would have helped as several shows due include actors in this area. This situation is simuilar to what happened on the Henry Danger and Danger Force character page [118]. I then had to go to another user for help to explain the policies and they did.

    Any tips how to handle this and deal with this issue. I have tried to several times to no such response. Guidance would be great. Thanks Magical Golden Whip (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Courtesy linking Amaury (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    GabberFlasted (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SoHoBro

    This user has engaged in disruptive editing and perpetuates racist stereotypes on Wikipedia. They have also flamed other users. This can be seen in the following contributions at the Rosa Luxemburg talk page: [119] and [120]. They later followed it up with similarly offensive edits at the Poland talk page: [121].

    It's one thing to discuss a historical figure's nationality or instances of collaborationist activity in wartime, it's another thing entirely to accuse an entire nation of being responsible for the genocide they were also victims of. --Pitsarotta (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing, sockpuppetry, and uncivility by User:Sgweirdo

    Sgweirdo is a user who edits Singapore-related Wikipedia articles, mostly making stylistic changes. Of their 12,940 edits, 12,690 do not have edit summaries [122]. Suggestions have been made, by multiple users, on Sgweirdo's talk page to use start using edit summaries, to no avail. Whenever a comment is left on Sgweirdo's talk page, they do not often engage with the comment and blank the entire page instead [123]. Blanked talk page sections include multiple warnings ([124] (5 warnings by different users), [125] (warning by me), [126], [127], [128], [129]) and >= 9 suggestions to start using edit summaries [130] . Two ANIs have previously been filed against Sgweirdo: [131] , [132]. This is all just to say that it is somewhat difficult dealing with Sgweirdo as an editor, in terms of knowing the rationale behind edits, which often seem like unexplained and disruptive editing. I don't typically leave messages on their talk page for this reason.

    My first encounter with the editor was on the Lee Kuan Yew page. In July 2022, I added to the educational infobox that Lee had attended Raffles College and the London School of Economics, in addition to Raffles Institution. A day later, Sgweirdo reverted my edit and removed any mention of Raffles Institution. I attempted to seek consensus on the talk page in August and in September started an RfC, obtaining consensus from multiple people to include his time at Raffles Institution and Raffles College [133]. Nonetheless, from July to December, Sgweirdo reverted these changes, often without leaving an edit summary, and refusing to discuss on talk ([134], [135],[136], [137], [138], [139], [140], [141], [142], [143], [144], [145], [146]). I left a warning on their talk page regarding disruptive editing and refusing to follow consensus, but it was blanked [147], and they nonetheless continued to change the infobox on the latest revert.

    Recently, I WP:BOLD-ly edited the lead of the President of Singapore page [148]. On 8th February, Sgweirdo undid the edit with no edit summary [149]. After I undid their edit, they reverted it again [150]. I did a second revert, and 15 minutes later, an IP reverts my revert with the edit summary "shut the fuck up" [151].

    Now, it could be that the IP was unrelated to Sgweirdo. However, on the same day, I reverted one of Sgweirdo's edits on the Chief Justice of Singapore page, one that added an unsourced "fact" regarding the judge's salary [152]. The same IP who reverted my edit on President of Singapore later undid my revert, with the same edit summary, "shut the fuck up" [153]. The fact that the IP reverted both of the undos to Sgweirdos edits I made on the same day with the same message bearing a level of hostility indicates that the IP is Sgweirdo's sock that they used to make the rude undos.

    Notwithstanding the sockpuppetry and edit-warring, Sgweirdo's disruptive behaviour as an editor is extremely uncooperative and a hassle for other editors. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Courtesy Linking Sgweirdo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    GabberFlasted (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I had already blocked the IP address from editing after an independent notification on my talk page. If that was really Sgweirdo logged out, their IP address is now also blocked.
    I'd expect Sgweirdo to respond to these concerns here before continuing to edit, and will inform them on their talk page about this expectation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As Sgweirdo has continued to edit without responding to these concerns, I have blocked them from editing articles until they do (cf. WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, WP:UNRESPONSIVE). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that this account appears to operate on a near absolute rule of not getting involved in talk or wikipedia discussions. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have sworn that Sgweirdo had been discussed in the context of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Ineedtostopforgetting before and cleared but looking at the archives it appears I am mistaken... Those "attack IP" fit the Ineedtostopforgetting pattern. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm personally also not too convinced about that IP address having been any of the edit warring participants. I'd say that's just someone fueling the fire. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh no I'm pretty convinced of that... There is a very very good chance Sgweirdo is a low key INTSF sock (for context I've been interacting with that sock network for years and have identified dozens of connected accounts/IPs). Looking through the archives I'm getting them confused with Seloloving, this is on me. If that confusion hadn't happened I would brought this up myself. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Courtesy Linking

    Dawkin Verbier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sgweirdo (talk) Hi, Sgweirdo here. I would like to clear my name by saying that I did not use my IP address to edit any Wikipedia pages nor used any vulgurities at any fellow Wikipedia users.

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1138246632"