Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ScottishFinnishRadish (talk | contribs) at 16:39, 10 February 2023 (→Long term ownership at WikiProject Years: Closing discussion (DiscussionCloser v.1.7.3)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion

    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: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]
    • Comment If one may not notifiy a related-WikiProject concerning an AFD, we should ban WikiProjects altogether. — Jacona (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I personally thought we resolved the whole "WikiProjects inherently exist as advocacy groups" thing after WikiProject Conservatism was nominated for deletion in 2011 over similar (unfounded) claims, and such claims were pretty roundly rejected and have generally proven untrue. No single WikiProject has proven to be acting in bad faith, and this one is no exception - notifying WikiProjects of deletion discussions (or other related nominations, including GA, FA, FL, etc.) is pretty standard fare. Toa Nidhiki05 18:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      No single WikiProject has proven to be acting in bad faith
      Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Cyclones involves things not at issue here and I'm not saying it's comparable. But I do feel your blanket statement about wikiprojects deserves clarification. --(loopback) ping/whereis 18:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The last time a WikiProject on the whole was deemed to be bad was WP:ESPERANZA if I remember correctly (as the entire thing was nuked at MfD, but even then "bad faith" is a stretch). WikiProject Tropical Cyclones had a few bad editors (it was an extremely active WikiProject) and was guilty of tolerating editors acting in bad faith; the project itself did not collectively act in bad faith.
      WikiProjects are composed of people who want to coordinate editing within the bounds of this encyclopedia and legitimately believe they're following the rules. Otherwise, they'd organize and act offsite. WikiProjects on the whole are almost never on the level of bad faith that is embodied in cases such as WP:EEML. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      We aren't strictly bound by decisions made in 2011. The culture of the project has changed tremendously over the last decade, and there's less tolerance for POV-pushing. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't necessarily think that any sanctions need to be applied here, but I have a few of observations that I'd like the participants to consider. (1) IAR is an incredibly weak argument to make at AfD: the person making the argument is essentially saying that we should ignore consensus on notability because doing so would,, in their opinion, improve the encyclopedia. That is functionally identical to WP:ILIKEIT. Such arguments should be given zero weight by the closer of a discussion. (2) It seems like the participants of the Wikiproject have been able to find sources to establish notability in a significant number of the discussions this thread touches upon. I haven't looked at the discussions myself, but Cullen328 has seen fit to !vote 'keep' in four of them and I trust his judgment. We should be celebrating that work, and encouraging the members of the project to do that- if one wants to save an article from deletion, the best approach is to find and add sources, not make specious arguments in the deletion discussion. (3) Levivich is correct, the proper place to notify the Wikiproject about a deletion discussion, to avoid giving the impression of improper canvassing, is Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League#Article Alerts. (4) I do not think that it is fair to label anyone in this discussion an SPA. Someone who comes along only to write about a specific football player, or maybe a specific team, would be an SPA; someone who writes exclusively about a wide subject area like American Football is not an SPA, but a pretty normal editor. I mean, if someone looked at my article creations, they might label me a 'Scottish historical buildings' SPA, which would be unreasonable. A lot of folk have a particular subject interest, and familiarity with the sources in that area - that's no bad thing. Girth Summit (blether) 16:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I remain concerned by "Keep, he played eight games in the pioneering years of the NFL.", and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League#Another AFD, both from yesterday. Levivich (talk) 19:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Not a strong argument to keep, but there are editors who appear to think an unreferenced mention in a list, with no context is more useful than a short article with references. Peter James (talk) 19:24, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think so. I think there are editors who think these two sentences should, instead of being on their own stand-alone page, be moved to this list. Levivich (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      You appear to be missing the point that if the topic is not notable then the article is not useful. This is an encyclopedia not a collection of all the knowledge (sports or otherwise) which has ever existed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Useful to some, not useful to others. The absence of an article or equivalent would be useful to very few people; perhaps once, rarely twice or more, per article if it is necessary to disambiguate the title. Structure is important, not just a haphazard collection of articles, and sports SNGs are about defining what is within the structure, similar to those for geography and species. Peter James (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Its useful to all of us that such articles don't exist, it allows us to focus our efforts. Thats the whole point of having a standard. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The existence of these articles has never hindered me from focusing my efforts. Rlendog (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Those billions of articles don't exist, that's the entire point. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Peter James: you are free to suggest alternatives. There is no need, for example, for any mention of anyone on any list to be unreferenced, or to be devoid of context. If a short article with references has enough references to establish notability, then there should be no objection to an article being retained. We do not need to invoke IAR to deal with situations like these - it's very much 'normal rules apply'. Girth Summit (blether) 00:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The excessive use of IAR and the alleged non-neutral notification are probably not sanctionable at the moment, but there is unquestionably a disruptive gap between how several sports editors vote and what the guidelines say. There was an outrageous case in which keep voters held that winning a minor google docs poll for 'best player' counts towards ANYBIO, and that a facebook post copied in a local newspaper constitutes valid independent and significant coverage under GNG. They were certainly not unaware of any of this, since most actually doubled down after someone pointed it out to them. At least one of them has made his way to several of the listed AfDs above, making arguments of similar validity, so it's clearly not an isolated incident. Avilich (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      probably not sanctionable at the moment Agreed, although I do think a warning is needed - the problematic actions continue, and hopefully a warning now will prevent sanctions from being required later. BilledMammal (talk) 08:39, 6 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[16] but I haven't noticed a difference in your editing activity. TLDR if they leave its an improvement and they're probably just lying about leaving anyway. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, either we treat this as a system problem or we look to punish people. The first option helps alleviate the problems across all of Wikipedia by addressing inadequacies in our systems for dealing with this problem. The second is may placate your sense of vengeance, but does nothing to help Wikipedia grow and become better. I'd rather go with the first option. This appears to be a symptom of the fact that maybe the NSPORTS2022 result did not adequately solve the problem. Saying "Drive people out of Wikipedia until they get in line" is not a productive way to run an organization of this size and magnitude. --Jayron32 16:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you propose addressing the systemic problem? Getting rid of wikiprojects all together? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The flip side is that fan-Wikiprojects will group up against other editors, driving those editors away from Wikipedia. That's not helping the project grow either. Forcing us to go through another NSPORTS argument just to make the fans happy is likely just going to result in the rest of us walking off. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    HEB, I will point out that you have made this about roads, when really it is not about roads or sports or any subject. All I am doing is sharing my experiences working across this project and at many others across the Wikimedia ecosystem - and also my experiences working with people in real life in "real" organizations. If we don't care about people, then we should just have ChatGPT write the encyclopedia and call it a day. --Rschen7754 19:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a discussion about wikiprojects which have brigading and gatekeeping problems, I'm not making this about roads they just happen to fit the bill as you well know. We care about people, that's why we're addressing toxic and destructive behaviors like brigading and gatekeeping. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But on the flip side, we could say that this is a bunch of generalists (to put it mildly) that have gotten way too strict on enforcing guidelines (and sometimes going further than the guidelines) resulting in deleting too much content and chasing away editors. --Rschen7754 19:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Brigading and gatekeeping don't address that, in fact chasing away editors is a key aspect of gatekeeping. Is chasing editors away ok if they're generalists? Is brigading ok if it saves material that doesn't meet the consensus policies and guidelines? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:51, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's hilarious that you're arguing that requiring articles to meet the GNG is "too strict". SilverserenC 01:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What generally happens is that people reject sources for not meeting SIGCOV, regardless of whether it is true or not. Or declare them as primary when they are not. Also, ignoring WP:NEXIST. --Rschen7754 01:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    BeanieFan, Paul McDonald, and other NFL editors participated at WP:NSPORTS2022. What would be the purpose of holding WP:NSPORTS2023 aside from gambling on the hope that the community will simply undo the changes done before? Granted, holding a new RfC is a better strategy than "The rules don't apply to me because WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IAR". For the record, I would fully support another RfC if a good portion of the other 70+ participants in the last one are cool with that (or if there's some magic bloc of untapped editors who suddenly have an opinion on this) and if people actually agree to abide by the outcome, which they should already be doing now. But I doubt that will happen, since I see now evidence that the community's mind has suddenly changed, and repeatedly challenging the rules due to one's personal objections to them would become disruptive. "It's not consensus unless I agree with it" is not how this is supposed to work. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think anyone is saying that NSPORTS2022 should be thrown in the trash entirely. But in over 15 years of editing I have found that when one side wants A, and the other side wants B, there is usually a C option that more people can get on board with. Are there changes that can be proposed/made to improve relations and that will have a greater consensus? --Rschen7754 01:09, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think we should make changes to notability guidelines in order to improve relations between editors. Levivich (talk) 01:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The outcome of the RfC was a compromise! Editors in the sports projects objected to the proposal to scrap NSPORT altogether, so one of them (in fact, someone heavily involved in the American football projects) proposed a reasonable alternative that received a strong global consensus for support. That a major fraction of the sports project members most active in deletion discussions opposed it and continues to vocally object to and interfere with its implementation does not mean the outcome wasn't supported by the sports projects as a whole, and even if it was universally condemned by them it wouldn't matter because global consensus trumps LOCALCON every time. JoelleJay (talk) 03:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to echo this above. I certainly didn't get everything I wanted from the NSPORTS RfC, but I'm not throwing around poor rationales at AfD and then demanding NFL editors "compromise" with me. Why can only the NFL editors demand compromise? Why must the people who follow the rules, even if they aren't totally happy with them, bend to accommodate those who are unwilling or uncapable of doing so? And as a matter of principle, demanding "compromise" as a form of appeasement for every small group of contrarians is just extremely easy to abuse...should we compromise with COI and PAID editors, maybe let them write POV content half the time for the sake of making them happy? -Indy beetle (talk) 08:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So what I'm reading is that the group doesn't vote as a herd, and in fact, vote as individuals. Hey man im josh (talk) 04:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not about to do an audit but let's be real: there are multiple editors who voted the same way in every discussion that Beanie posted to WT:NFL, including this one. If it wasn't for that 'voting as a herd', I'd not have supported warnings. Levivich (talk) 04:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I said the sports project members most active in deletion discussions. The members who do not participate in AfDs have no relevance when discussing the behavior of members who do participate in AfDs. JoelleJay (talk) 05:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

    Contacting WikiProjects

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

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

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

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

    Proposal: Beaniefan11 is warned

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

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

    • Support 1,2,3,4,5 as nom. –dlthewave ☎ 16:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose all: Disclaimer: I'm involved with the NFL WikiProject and have worked with Beanie a great deal in the past. (#4) I don't believe it's been established that WikiProjects should not be notified of relevant AfDs in their area of interest. I maintain that notifying any relevant WikiProject of deletions in their area of interest is beneficial and likely to lead to improvements of the articles that have been nominated. (#5) Considering this ANI has been discussing the NFL WikiProject as a whole, and unfairly labelling the group as voting with a herd mentality, I think it's relevant to include the group in the discussion at ANI. (#1) The comments that are being labelled as "uncivil", in my opinion, don't rise a level to be worthy of a warning. (#2) I think this ANI has been enough of a warning to them and others involved (I myself have changed my view of football player notability based on this discussion, striking several of my votes). While there is still a question of whether using IAR at AfD is disruptive, I do not believe they'll be using that rationale moving forward based on their comments on this discussion and them striking their IAR rationale from the currently open AfDs at the American football deletion sorting. I'm also noticing that they're asking for articles to be draftified so that they can work on improving those articles to the point that the community accepts them as meeting GNG. (#3) I think this was done in good faith, given that the user asked for a link to said AfDs. I think it's clear that moving forward it'd be best to link to the relevant deletion sorting page in the future instead of the individual AfD pages. I believe the lashing that's been taken here is enough and we don't need to pile on further. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose all - Nothing BeanieFan11 has done merits a warning. (1) The comments at the start of this ANI thread are hardly of the sort that warrant a civility warning. (2) BeanieFan11 has not disrupted anything by rejected broader consensus. In most cases he has found sources for the subjects in question. If in a couple of cases he claimed IAR that hardly disrupts anything - it takes an admin literally a second to read an !vote claiming essentially "IAR because I like it" before dismissing the !vote. And in every case I can recall BeanieFan11's IAR claim has gone beyond what was explicitly rejected in the NSPORT RfC, i.e., notability claims just for playing a number of games, by adding the fact that they played in a pioneering league. We can agree or disagree that that is enough to warrant IAR but it is not simply rejecting the consensus. (3) An individual asked BeanieFan11 to let him know about AfDs needing rescuing. It is hardly canvassing to respond to that request. In any case, BeanieFan11 now can see that the action was controversial, at least the way he worded it, and can address future behavior without any formal warning. (4) and (5) There is nothing inherently wrong with notifying WikiProjects of a relevant AfD or (especially) ANI, and broadly calling this particular WikiProject a "partisan group" is frankly inappropriate. [Adding - After all, the WikiProject is the place where editors are best positioned to find sources to support keeping the article, which presumably no one is opposed to.] Rlendog (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you talking about? Most discussions are not closed by admins. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What is your point? Rlendog (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That you don't seem to understand what you're talking about. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What don't I understand? And how does that impact whether BeanieFan11 should be warned? Rlendog (talk) 19:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't even understand basics like how AfD's are closed, why are you competent to offer suggestions for how to address AfD issues? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've closed many AfDs myself and none has ever been reversed at DRV. And I am well aware that many AfDs are closed by non-admins (although of course close or controversial AfDs should not be - see WP:BADNAC). So again, what is your point and how does it relate to whether BeanieFan11 should be warned? Rlendog (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not appear that such arguments are dismissed out of hand by the closer, they would include that in their written reasoning if they were doing that and none of the examples we have here mention it (unless I'm missing something, if so please point it out). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you talking about? A closer does not necessarily refer to each !vote in the close. But of the recent AfDs that were NACed as keep: Willie Flattery was clearly based on GNG !votes, I didn't notice any IARs. Joe Williams had some IARs but also many GNGs and no delete !votes, so no need to address the IARs in the close. Ja'Quan McMillian was also clearly closed on the basis of many GNGs and no delete !votes. The other keeps appear to have been closed by admins. Which NACs are you referring to? Rlendog (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, but I agree 1, 2 and 3 are big no-nos. I think a lot of people are doing that, and all should already know that that’s not allowed, so I think an explicit warning to one person is not indicated. We have a chronic Wikipedia culture issue with behavior in AfDs and that should be addressed by responding consistently to that behavior. No need for a special sanctions policy, just better policing of AfD behavior. If getting a Wikiproject involved causes problems, then there’s an issue with that project that should be addressed, rather than banning Wikiproject notification. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Above, BeanieFan11 rejected that there was anything wrong with their actions in relation to 1, 2, and 3. This is why I believe a warning is needed; they should already know that that isn't allowed, but they don't. In addition, warning one editor sends a warning to other editors that this is not tolerated, while failing to issue a warning sends the opposite message. BilledMammal (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, if we come back here with another case involving BeanieFan11 or anyone else whose behavior is discussed in this case, we can act further. I think the discussion here has been clear enough without having to wave a yellow card. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 2, 3, and 4. Undecided on 1 and 5.
    For #2, In the NSPORTS2022 discussion there was a consensus that participation alone was insufficient to establish notability, but despite this BeanieFan11 votes to keep articles solely on the basis of participation, as can be seen at discussions like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Babcock. This is disruptive WP:IDHT behavior, and as BeanieFan11 is unwilling to recognize this and commit to not continuing to do so a warning is required.
    For #3, BeanieFan11 notified a partisan editor of a group of contentious AfD nominations. This is clearly canvassing, and the fact that the canvassed individual request to be canvassed doesn't change that, and if we allow this action to stand without a warning and without the canvassing editor acknowledging their mistake and committing not to do it again we place a loophole in WP:CANVASS that will be abused.
    For #4, WikiProject's aren't immune to being partisan any more than any other group of editor is. Above, I have demonstrated that WikiProject NFL is partisan on this topic and as such a warning for canvassing them is appropriate.
    BilledMammal (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of curiosity, because I haven't seen this addressed by people (or may have missed it), would you be opposed to users linking to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/American football if a user requested a list of related topics at AfD? Or do you think that a request like that should just be ignored altogether? I'm curious how users would view the situation had that been linked instead of directly linking the related discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not ignored, the person who asked to be canvassed should be rebuked by those they asked to canvass them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there would be an issue with linking to the deletion sorting list as informing an editor of a tool existing isn't a problem, but I also agree with Horse Eye's Back that they should be rebuked - softly, if they are a new editor and don't know better - for asking to be canvassed. BilledMammal (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak oppose 1; I don't think BeanieFan chose the right places to vent, but I also don't think the language they chose is sanctionable, especially when complaints like this about more directly insulting language close with no action. Neutral on 2; they may not have chosen the best approach, but I agree with others above that they've already shown they're willing to adjust their votes and that they shouldn't be singled out for voting this way. Strong oppose 3, 4, & 5; no one should be sanctioned for doing anything that is explicitly permitted by a WP guideline (in this case WP:APPNOTE) unless and until the exceptions are noted within. Hatman31 (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The exception being discussed here is already included in APPNOTE: "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions..." If they're consistently only notifying one of the half dozen relevant wikiprojects that's a problem. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They weren't. Throughout this entire thread, you seem to be assuming that WikiProject NFL members have a uniform opinion on these discussions, which is untrue. Hatman31 (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They weren't what? I don't see any AfD notifications at WikiProject Biographies which is the primary WikiProject for all the pages under discussion here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Above, I proved that they did, and that this opinion was out of line with the opinion of the broader community making them a partisan group. BilledMammal (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's as straight forward and easy to claim we're a partisan group. Many members of the project abstained from voting and some of those that did vote were not included in your list, such as Hatman31 and Cbl62, both of whom voted to redirect or delete on some of the AfDs. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You've "proven" nothing of the sort. At best you've expressed an opinion that a majority of editors that commented on it agreed with to some extent. Rlendog (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the comparison to the EEng discussion is a bit misleading, since a major factor for that discussion was that EEng's incivility was in response to a frivolous MfD that implicitly attacked their character. The same outburst in the context of an actual article content dispute or procedurally-compliant AfD likely would have received a sanction. signed, Rosguill talk 17:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It was worth being dragged to MfD and ANI if it means I can act as a benchmark or lesson to my fellow editors. EEng 06:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:APPNOTE does not permit any form of canvassing; it provides examples of what can be appropriate notifications, but it explicitly states Do not send notices that violate WP:INAPPNOTE. In addition, by opposing #3 you are supporting creating a loophole to CANVASS; above JoelleJay made the satirical comment As an editor who is highly experienced in turning 5kb keep discussions into 25kb no consensus shitshows, I hereby publicly declare my interest in contentious sportsperson AfDs and invite editors to link all such ongoing discussions on my talk page. Thank you. that demonstrates the issues creating such a loophole would cause. BilledMammal (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Every editor of any experience, and Beanie has plenty of experience, in spite of one editor's uncivil SPA assertion, knows that incivility is improper, so I oppose proposal 1. We all know about number 2 as well, but Beanie has chosen to express their disagreement. They've done so strenuously, and has probably overstepped to the point of disruption, because we've come to this point, so yes, I support that warning. That doesn't mean that Beanie must totally be silent about their disagreement with the outcome of the RFC, but they need to express it in a way that admits that it is consensus and therefore holds sway, even if they believe the consensus should change. As to 3, 4, and 5, I believe that if we have wikiprojects, they should be used to pass on information about articles that relate to those wikiprojects, and therefore notification about deletion to the wikiprojects should happen, so I oppose 4, and oppose 5. As to 3, it boggles my mind that we have fallen to the elementary-school level where if Suzy talks to Joey Billy won't be her friend. I oppose 3 as being a childish and uncivil proposal. Jacona (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 2, as that's a no-brainer. Simple disruption. Black Kite (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question are we really having a lengthy discussion about whether or not a reasonably experienced editor should be warned?? I'm pretty sure the editor has already gotten the message... and I'm just as sure that any position of support or oppose that I take would not have (and should not have) any bearing on warning another editor. Do it, don't do it--your choice.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Oppose. Although maybe admins should give out WP:CIVIL warnings more liberally at AfD discussions.
    2. Oppose. The WikiProject National Football League should however accept that the RFC happened and if they wish to overturn it then AfD discussions are not the correct location, and continuing is disruptive.
    3. Support. Based on this edit. Giving a "always inform me" is just a way to try and create a loophole.
    4. Oppose. If this was unacceptable there would be another group to look at first.
    5. Comment. I must have missed this, if there is a diff for it then it seems unacceptable. Informing a project about AfDs is one thing, but asking them to join a discussion about a users behaviour seems problematic. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @ActivelyDisinterested: See here for the notification #5 is based on. BilledMammal (talk) 22:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @ActivelyDisinterested @BilledMammal not taking a position but for the sake of full picture, that was their second notification to the project about the ANI. The first is within: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League#NFL_deletion_discussions Star Mississippi 23:06, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, I missed those; for ease of reviewing, the two relevant diffs in that discussion are this and this. BilledMammal (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    thank you. As you well know from prior discussions we've had, I'm far better at content than I am at syntax, hence also the ugly underscores in my URL. One day! Thanks for making it more user friendly. Star Mississippi 23:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Eeh. It was within the ongoing discussion they were having, rather than anything explicit. If they had opened a new section to point towards the fact it would be different. This looks like "I'm exasperated" rather than "please pile on". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @ActivelyDisinterested: They did both; the post I linked is them opening a new section to point to the fact. The diff for that is here. BilledMammal (talk) 00:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The project had been mentioned in the thread by that point, this post was made ten minutes before the post to the WikiProject. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 01:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the bigger problem here is not one editor, but a project spamming AfDs due to an RFC they disagree with. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 01:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, but I'm not sure how to resolve that other than to issue warnings to the worst offenders and hope that other editors engaging in similar activity take notice that the project does not tolerate such activity. BilledMammal (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support 2 and 3 (and support warning Randy Kryn as well for soliciting the canvassing and repeated IDHT behavior); I think 4 needs to be explored on a general basis re: propriety of AfD notifications beyond transcluding deletion sorting and identifying what makes a wikiproject "partisan".
    On a grammar note, I would change "incivil" to "uncivil" and "AfD's" to "AfDs". JoelleJay (talk) 03:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose all The current wording of IAR does imply that editors can apply the principle any time they sincerely believe that doing so will improve Wikipedia. The IAR page should probably be modified to state that it can't override a community consensus, if that's the case.
    Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment on canvassing Given the concerns about WikiProject NFL being canvassed to this discussion, it is relevant to note how the WikiProject members and contributors have !voted here, compared to the broader community. 22 editors have !voted on these proposals; of them, 12 have supported at least one of the proposals, and 10 have not.
    Of the 12, one is an occasional contributor to WikiProject NFL's talk page. Of the 10, six are members of WikiProject NFL, and three others are frequent contributors to WikiProject NFL's talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 03:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am a member of WikiProject NFL but I came to this discussion because I saw it on my watchlist because I have ANI on my watchlist. I had no idea about the note on the project talk page until after I joined the discussion. No one "canvassed" me. Rlendog (talk) 14:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose all Beanie is the nexus of the problem, but is not the cause of it, and warning or sanctioning them is not going to fix the broader issue here. If it were not Beanie and NFL articles, it would be some other person or persons and some other topic. This is best fixed by being systems minded, not vengeance minded. Clearly, NSPORTS2022 did not adequately resolve the problem, so it is probably better to revisit the issue and establish a clearer consensus. --Jayron32 16:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Forgot that I had said above I would not comment further on BeanieFan11's behavior. Striking. --Jayron32 16:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • In what way was the issue not resolved and how should it be revisited? The fact that some people don't like our rules imposed by a large RfC doesn't magically mean the rules are the problem. "But your honor, I don't agree with our country's anti-theft laws. The laws are therefore the problem, not the fact that I like to break into people's houses and steal things." -Indy beetle (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Our fundamental principle on Wikipedia is consensus. And sometimes that involves compromise. --Rschen7754 19:50, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • "I disagree with the rule so I will not follow it" is not a compromise. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
              • Plainly refusing to use valid rationales in AfD is disruptive, and there's precedent for people getting topic banned as a result. These !votes at AfD are intended to sway the outcome in such a manner explicitly inconsistent with our guidelines—that is not following the rules. Notability standards don't only apply to XfD closers. Consider that if BeanieFan or others had lodged their discontent with the outcome of the 2022 NSPORTS RfC on project talk pages or their own pages we probably wouldn't be at ANI. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that the RFC left too much room for misinterpretation given its size and complexity means perhaps it's a problem at that end. If we, oh, I don't know, held another RFC with a simple 1-2 sentence proposal that left little room for misunderstanding, and THEN got that through the system, perhaps we wouldn't have a situation where people misinterpret it, or even better, we would have firmer footing to sanction people who deliberately breach it. Bad laws make hard cases. We have a bad law. We need to fix it, apparently.--Jayron32 12:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The close summaries of the RfC are quite clear: There is a rough consensus to eliminate participation-based criteria (except those based on olympic or similar participation). Participants refered to this is one of the main issues of the guideline, and this was also a point repeated in the main discussion. The argument is that a single professional match does not seem to guarantee that sufficient sources will exist to write a well-sourced article. and There is a rough consensus that sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject. Sports editors who were not initially sure about this were certainly made aware of it over the course of the year. The invocation of IAR is not an indication of confusion over what these mean. If anything, it's an indication of understanding exactly what these new guidelines mean for the articles at hand. IAR in these instances mean "I know that our the article is not notable under our current guidelines, but I want to keep the article so let's ignore the guidelines." -Indy beetle (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the objectives of discussions is to determine which rationale is more valid. That's not the problem, that's the point. Discussions can take some time and not everyone will agree.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Non-policy based rationales are not valid from the start. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:IAR is a policy.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose all I'm not going to endorse everything Beanie did but this is too much of a witch hunt. --Rschen7754 19:55, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose 345 on the grounds of "you've got to be kidding me." --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 2 only, strong oppose all others. Informing Wikiproject s of deletion discussions is a non-issue in my opinion because watching deletion sorting categories provides the same result. As far as the local consensus vs global consensus, IAR and COMMONSENSE are policies for a reason but can not be overused. In my opinion, Joe Williams (guard) (and only this one player) was an appropriate use of IAR due to unique circumstances surrounding that subject, but IAR is not an excuse for “this man must be notable because he played x games.” This goes beyond BeanieFan11 and a warning could probably be issued to many American football contributors including myself. Lastly, BeanieFan11 is very civil so proposal 1 is not necessary at all. Frank Anchor 04:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 1 and 2 - Incivility is a red-line behaviour so I support 1. I get what people are saying about Beanie already being experienced enough to know that, but then they were still uncivil and everyone can do with a pointer as to their behaviour now and again. There's a general right to be wrong, but behaving as though the broader consensus didn't exist is simply WP:POINTy, and hence disruptive, so I support 2. FOARP (talk) 08:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am surprised you view the statements that started this thread as worthy of a civility warning. If statements like "ridiculous" or "are you kidding?" are worthy of a civility warning then many regular participants on the drama boards would be receiving warnings multiple times. The statements that allude to a four letter word are a little stronger, but even there it is not as if he called an editor by a four letter word (which would be worthy of a warning); saying "I don't f---ing care" rather than perhaps simply "I don't care" is more a reflection of frustration than incivility. Rlendog (talk) 15:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Rlendog - As I said above, it's the swearing at people I find uncivil, even if veiled. Being frustrated is no excuse. Yes, I know that (in the distant past) there were admins who said that they should be allowed to tell people to "£$%&-off", but that was wrong the day they said it and has not gotten more true since. Ditto people on this board who apparently don't know how to behave. The need for this warning is highlighted particularly by the lack of any indication that Beanie won't simply carry on doing it without a warning - or indeed see it as a vindication of their behaviour. FOARP (talk) 16:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No argument there, but a proposal with a giant oppose/support/neutral discussion to send a warning is excessive. If anyone feels that an editor should be warned--just warn the editor.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 1, 2, 3, and 5. Oppose 4. There is no valid excuse for incivility of any kind, and tolerating regular incivility from editors is a serious problem on Wikipedia. Trying to use WP:IAR to ignore sitewide consensus is textbook WP:DISRUPTIVE editing and in my opinion is the most serious of the issues here. Recruiting specific editors to AfD discussions is problematic, and to ANI discussions is doubly so. Some or all of these warnings should also be extended to the other involved users that engaged in similar behavior. AfD notifications should be posted in neutral locations, which includes WikiProjects (so long as the notifications are consistant and don't favor one WikiProject over others). Unfortunately, I suspect we'll be hearing about this again in the near future, as it seems the involved users don't hear why these are problems. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 2 using WP:IAR without the slightest modicum of good faith cannot be tolerated. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:28, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Status/results of AFDs in question

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

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

    The system worked because Silverseren notified ANI of the canvassing issue. Prior to that notification and the involvement of large numbers of editors from outside WikiProject NFL the results for the three redirects would likely have been an incorrect "Keep".
    Opening an ANI thread every time someone canvasses a partisan WikiProject is not a sustainable long-term solution. BilledMammal (talk) 14:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with that assessment. NFL AFD's are routinely well attended by editors who are not members of the wikiproject. The redirects were closed as redirects because they did not pass GNG and for that reason only. Many common NFL contributors voted delete/redirect independent of the accusations of canvassing. Frank Anchor 15:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    NFL AFD's are routinely well attended by editors who are not members of the wikiproject. Prior to the notifications there was a significant majority in favor of keeping the redirected articles with almost all of the editors contributing to that majority being from WikiProject NFL.
    The redirects were closed as redirects because they did not pass GNG and for that reason only. Ideally, but closers rarely go against significant majorities and face significant criticism when they do.
    Many common NFL contributors voted delete/redirect independent of the accusations of canvassing. The only delete/redirect vote from a member of WikiProject NFL at that time was at the Sam Babcock AfD, from Cbl62. BilledMammal (talk) 15:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there any deletion reviews on those AFDS that are in progress I'm not aware of?--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No active DRVs. There was one on Joe Williams (guard) after a very early NAC, but that AFD was quickly reopened by the closer. Frank Anchor 16:07, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Common NFL contributors and members of the wikiproject overlap somewhat, but the two groups are not one in the same. Frank Anchor 16:07, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which common NFL contributors !voted delete/redirect? BilledMammal (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There was two on Sam Babcock's AfD. Hatman31 is listed under Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League#Participants and voted redirect. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I only reviewed the !votes prior to the ANI notification , Hatman's !vote was after. Reviewing the broader discussion it is further evidence of WikiProject NFL being partisan; seven keep !votes, with five (one struck) out of those being from WikiProject NFL members or frequent contributors. This is compared to 18 delete/redirect !votes, with two being from members of WikiProject NFL or frequent contributors - 11% of the broader community supported keeping, compared to 71% of the WikiProject NFL community. BilledMammal (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amen. Too often Wikipedians have a tendency to eat their own. Picking on fellow editors over very minor things when a brief mention on a talk page usually fixes what needs to be looked at often becomes a timesink (such as this one). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • As none of the problematic keep voters seem to have learned anything from this, no, there's no reason to just sweep this under the rug. ValarianB (talk) 12:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jacona isn't saying sweep anything under a rug, but that okay, we've talked this out, time to shut it down and move on. Remember, this is much ado about nothing, as the only thing that happened is some idiot godforsaken editor (and yeah, let him take me to ANI, he's threatened to in the past) asked to be updated on which of a score of AfD's were close enough to have a look at. Many AfDs are lopsided and obviously decided, so some editors don't bother to comment on or even look at those. Another editor was kind enough to provide him a quick detailed listing, exactly what he asked for. Now both editors have been a'learned real good not to do that, which could have been explained with a talk page note. But neither should be sorry or apologize, because neither did anything drastically wrong enough to be kicked around at ANI for coming up to a novella's length of language, point, and counterpoint. To aim this at one of them alone, for no reason than doing a fellow Wikipedian a favor, and even bringing up sanctions, seems a bit like piling on, no? Randy Kryn (talk) 15:29, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Long term ownership at WikiProject Years

    There is a clear and overwhelming consensus that Jim Michael 2 has been disruptive and bludgeoning in discussions concerning articles about years and that a topic ban is appropriate. Therefore Jim Michael 2 is indefinitely topic banned from articles about years, broadly construed.
    Although there is a rough consensus that TheScrubby's contributions in discussions about the years articles have not been great, there is no consensus at this time to enact a topic ban. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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


    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]
    Thebiguglyalien if "several uninvolved, well-respected users asked them to stop and they did not." Could you please provide diffs of this? If that's the crux of the matter it shouldn't be left as an exercise for the reader to find themselves. JeffUK 13:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The relevant discussion with appropriate context is at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Create Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Years. A few diffs from that discussion: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 13:56, 10 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]
    There are several aspects missing from this reply. The RfC was closed without a label in the section header. "Borderline inclusion" was added by TheScrubby, and reverted by myself (the RfC closer) as it did not reflect the consensus of the RfC. It was readded by TheScrubby, multiple times, despite the protests of other editors. The label in the archived version, “Rough consensus to include”, was a compromise effort by another editor. This label was later edited in the Talk page archives, by TheScrubby, to "Borderline inclusion"; a continuation of their edit war. TheScrubby asserts, in the edit summary quoted above, that this label affects content decisions which were not discussed during the RfC. In adding the label, they were unilaterally making content decisions, despite the protestations of other editors, and edit warring to do so. The questions as to the necessity or appropriateness of this behaviour remain substantively unaddressed. - Rotary Engine talk 13:52, 10 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]
    Noting that this reply fails to substantively address any of the questions asked. Why was involved closure & editing of archives necessary or appropriate? - Rotary Engine talk 13:52, 10 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]
    @Izno: Indeed, some type of "international notability" would indeed be useful, but the problem is that JM2 and co have made their own non-useful version up. For example, for a recent death of celebrity X, one can list reliable-source articles about the deceased from a dozen countries around the world, and JM2 will come back and say "well, they only print those because X has fans in those countries" (see this discussion, for instance, about Hank Aaron). Which frankly is international notability in my book, but apparently not in JM2's. Black Kite (talk) 10:01, 10 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]
      @Rotary Engine: 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 - especially considering I complied and was co-operative with your requests to answer your questions, and that I had every right to explain/defend my actions, only for you to seemingly endorse a ban on me as if this were a kangaroo court where you had already made up your mind that I acted in bad faith (and more important, that you’re insinuating that I’m still doing so) before going through the trouble of asking questions. You and @Cullen328: ought to be ashamed of yourselves. TheScrubby (talk) 06:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I asked very specific questions. The replies did not address those questions. If they had done so, it is likely that I would not have made the !vote above. Within the space of all possible responses, there are certainly statements that would have led me to oppose any sanctions; but those were not the statements which were made.
      An assertion that editors who have never edited any articles within scope of the WP:Years have some kind of agenda to rid the topic area of editors with whom they have a disagreement is a bit of a non-starter.
      Pings don't work if they're added to an existing comment. They need to be added in the same edit as the signature. - Rotary Engine talk 14:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      You're not wrong. There seems to be an agenda here: something like "let's get rid of the people who are stopping us doing what we want to do". There was a time when there were no rules on Wikipedia. The community, by consensus, decided some guidelines were necessary. (I seriously doubt that the discussion that led to that was all in one place or that it's now possible to pin down every separate contribution to that debate.) These rules/guidelines/conventions have grown like Topsy and are now almost impenetrable to a newcomer, which is why some of the contributors to the present discussion believe themselves hard done by when they are asked to conform. Meanwhile, those who feel they have a responsibility to keep Wikipedia free from bias, whether conscious or unconscious, are being pilloried for their actions. Almost every section of Thebiguglyalien's opening statement was a misrepresentation. Deb (talk) 08:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Deb: Exactly, and the worst part is the continual accusations of bad faith in our motives, and the fact that they’re not even interested in working out a compromise which addresses concerns (that we have listed TIME AND AGAIN) over systemic bias (take 2001 for example. There are eight death entries in March 2001. Six out of eight are American). At least we tried to address these issues, and for that we’re condemned for it? I understand and accept now the issues with how we did things the last couple of years, and I have made clear multiple times now here that I’m willing to collaborate on a new standard with other users (who are better versed in Wiki law) that addresses these concerns while also relying on reliable sources to back up international notability. But it feels like some users here would rather aggressively prosecute and spill blood, and in the most reactionary way possible dismiss “international notability” as imaginary and something that does not exist, just because it doesn’t 100% align with Wikipedia’s (rather than the dictionary, as another user pointed out earlier) definition of notability and as if something like that could never (even forcibly so; with attitude that such a concept ought to immediately be snuffed out) conceivably exist or be developed. All I have ever cared about with these Year pages is addressing systemic bias and the arbitrary, inconsistent inclusion standard that has always existed on the Years page, long before I came along (and with the reliable sources standard clearly never having been properly applied, otherwise figures like Johnny Paycheck would never have been included), and for there to be actual results in addressing these regardless of how we get there (and as I’ve said before I accept general community consensus and am decidedly not doubling down on insisting on the international notability standard as was applied from mid-2021 until January 2023). Instead of resorting to scapegoating, we ought to focus on that instead. TheScrubby (talk) 23:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think you have any ill intentions or that you're acting in bad faith. But your responses in this discussion, including this response, give the impression that you still don't appreciate the actual issue. It doesn't matter what requirements you tried to maintain, what you decided to call these requirements, or what your motivation was in enforcing these requirements. These are not applicable to the issue at hand.
      • The issue is that a small group of editors attempted to tell the entire Wikipedia community what they were and weren't allowed to do in a given set of articles.
      • The issue is that these editors consistently engaged with content in a way that suggested WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NPOV, and WP:OWNERSHIP— critical policies that are essential to Wikipedia's function— do not apply to them in certain circumstances.
      • The issue is that because of these decisions, past and present, the year articles still do not comply with content policies and guidelines, long after other article types have moved past the outline format of early Wikipedia and been fully established
      • The issue is that after these things were brought to the community's attention and condemned by over a dozen previously uninvolved users, some of these editors continue to believe that they were within their right to do these things, using language to imply that they are being persecuted or censored for being held to the same standard as everyone else.
      Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Please stop trying to act as if this situation has nothing to do with you. You've several times incorrectly accused me of lying, and I've had no apology for those serious breaches of Wikiquette. This "issue" was raised only after you had failed to get your own way on matter of the the page format or the inclusion of unreferenced content. Whatever happens, I'm not going to go away and I will still be working to improve the Year pages and address systemic bias. Deb (talk) 08:41, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Editors in this discussion have overwhelmingly agreed that the method that's been used by you, Jim, and Scrubby to "improve the Year pages and address systemic bias" is a violation of policy, as I've been trying to explain for the last few months. Are you disagreeing with this position? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:04, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Absolutely. I haven't used any "method" other than consensus and conformity to the existing standards, whilst you have in the past declined to seek consensus before acting. Deb (talk) 14:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      You mean besides for trotting out guidelines which turned out not to exist[17][18]? Thats is exactly the method the community objects to, no? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:57, 10 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]
      But the questions that were asked were about involved closure, edit warring, and editing Archives. - Rotary Engine talk 14:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly Oppose - I had a death in the family last week so I apologize for coming into this discussion late, but I don't understand the escalation. I have disagreed with Jim and TheScrubby in the past and their passion regarding their opinion is simply due to the amount of time they've invested on the articles. My only comment on their behavior is specifically about Jim's tendency to WP:BLUDGEON during discussion, but it's hardly to the point that a topic ban is necessary. There hasn't been anything mean spirited about the debate.
    The year articles are complicated because they're edited almost every day. The editors there over time have created a loose consensus on how to handle deaths. This system has worked well for the most part, but it's been contentious as of late due to a few RfC and ideas about how to improve that process. Those discussion are still ongoing. These two editors are working in good faith and it would be overkill to sanction either one them. The only thing I'd warn them is on WP:Bludgeoning. - Nemov (talk) 05:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, it's not simply because of intensity in discussions that I brought the issue to ANI and sanctions are being considered. It's because the entire system of enforcing a "loose consensus" from a WikiProject is a violation of the WP:CONSENSUS and WP:OWN policies, and Jim Michael in particular chose to double down after explanations and warnings from several different editors regarding these policies. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is all very silly and should have never been brought here with so many separate discussions going on currently. It's not in good faith and muddies the water even more. Nemov (talk) 13:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN for Jim Michael 2 and TheScrubby. Its regrettable but neither seems intent on stopping the disruption. TheScrubby just doubled down [19]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Horse Eye's Back: How is that doubling down or being disruptive? Am I not allowed to defend myself? I don’t appreciate being scapegoated, accused of bad faith or having my actions or motives misinterpreted - especially when I made it clear that I accept general community consensus and have “dropped the stick” on enforcing now-rejected standards, and have made clear that I am willing to co-operate on a standard that is appropriate and acceptable to the general community. I don’t appreciate being recommended for a ban by users whose questions I answered and complied with, without doubling down and being absolutely frank about what we did and our motives, and conceding where we went wrong - and yes it does feel like they had no intention of recommending anything other than a ban even before they asked me questions, as if not a single word I said in response mattered. TheScrubby (talk) 23:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Horse Eye's Back: in case you missed the ping above. It was added to an existing comment. - Rotary Engine talk 14:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you, I did miss it. No notification because it was added to an existing comment. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:44, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @TheScrubby: if you're just a scapegoat then you need to name the editors we should be giving topic bans to. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:44, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Forget it. I’m not dealing with this lynch mob anymore. I’m fed up with being treated as a scapegoat and being recommended for a ban based on lies about doubling down and for being aggressively interrogated by some users here (specifically Cullen and Rotary Engine) and then being unceremoniously recommended for a ban on the basis of bad faith accusations about doubling down even after I made clear I’m willing to change and help work on a new standard. I’m fed up with my every motive and action being scrutinised and interpreted in the most negative way possible, by users who have already made up their minds and are looking for any further justification for endorsing a ban. I’m fed up with being treated like a criminal for wanting a fairer, less biased inclusion standard on the Years pages. If that’s the way I’m going to be treated, you guys don’t even have to Tban me. I’m quitting my involvement on all main Years pages, because it’s no longer worth trying to contribute when my genuine offers of collaboration and coming together are completely ignored/dismissed, and having my word not be trusted. Thanks Cullen, Rotary Engine, Horse Eyes Back, etc. You got what you wanted. TheScrubby (talk) 01:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Some of us appreciate your work on those articles, but I don't blame you. JeffUK 12:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose the proposed T-bans - I've had no unpleasant experiences with either Jim Michael 2 or TheScrubby, concerning Year pages & related discussions. GoodDay (talk) 01:39, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN for Jim Michael 2, Oppose for TheScrubby due to their varying levels of willingness to engage and accept compromise. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose any action - I've worked on the 'Year' articles and engaged with Jim and TheScrubby on multiple topics; Jim in particular can be very forthright in expressing his opinion, but is always professional and civil and never takes any sort of action to 'enforce' his opinion over consensus. This a storm in a teacup, all that the originator of this discussion is reporting is Jim saying 'I think a certain editor should be involved in this discussion.' He may be wrong about that, but being wrong is not actionable. If it weren't for both Jim and TheScrubby, the year pages would be entirely indiscriminate lists and no use to anybody. JeffUK 12:40, 10 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]
    There hasn't been a consensus to include Nichols, who is known almost exclusively for her role in Star Trek. I can't imagine an equivalent of any other nationality being included, or seriously considered for inclusion. Importance-tagging a wildfire & saying that attacks in Afghanistan shouldn't be added don't go against anything. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    *sigh* There hasn't been a consensus to include Nichols, who is known almost exclusively for her role in Star Trek. Rather than re-stating what I've already said, you can just continue to read what you just replied to until you get it. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:35, 9 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]
    I didn't say anyone ran anything or that discussions couldn't take place without Deb. I said she's the best & most prolific years editor & it'd be better to wait until her return before making major changes to year articles' format & inclusion criteria. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:21, 9 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]
    Yeah we might want to just let this one go unless 4me is active again. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:09, 9 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]
      Other than giving you a link to the page at which the "guideline" is listed (Wikipedia:WikiProject Years) and a link to the discussion through which it was most recently updated (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years/Archive 5#1345 question), I don't see that there is much more I can do to answer your original question. Perhaps the fact that the first template was set up by this edit in 2003 and discussion of the page layout seems to have begun in earnest with this edit in 2004 would help you to appreciate why it's not possible for me to point to one single discussion where the format in its present state was agreed; you would need to look through the history to judge whether there was a departure from consensus at any stage. BTW, I didn't accuse you of telling me off; I anticipated that you would correct my error in referring to the Wikiproject Years page as a guideline, and you would have been well within your rights. Deb (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The formatting is kind of orthogonal to the discussion here. The information I am looking for is where the discussion happened where we decide, for example, which births or deaths to include and which to exclude. If you could provide that information, it would help alleviate a lot of the tension this discussion is a symptom of. --Jayron32 14:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The answer, of course, is that no such discussion exists; the editors in question are enforcing their own rules, particularly Jim Michael's, um, "quirky" definition of international notability - which doesn't include international media coverage. [20]. Black Kite (talk) 11:32, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I think that was kinda my point. --Jayron32 13:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • It appears that Deb has taken a stronger stance against this proceeding than Jim Michael or Scrubby, insisting that she has no intention of changing her enforcement of this local consensus across year articles: Diff 1, Diff 2, Diff 3. She seems to believe that users must seek permission from the WikiProject Years before making changes to any article under its scope, a position that she has held since at least 2008, and a significant portion of her edit history in mainspace going back since then constitutes moving content that did not comply with her criteria. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      It appears that this proceeding is going nowhere other than creating more contention between you and the other editors in question. Since they've been able to remain passionate, but civil, perhaps the best thing to do is for you to leave the years articles if you find yourself unable to work with these editors. I have been able to disagree and work with them. To me, this seems like bigger issue with you than it does with them. Nemov (talk) 14:32, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: The comment that follows was meant to be a reply to User:Jayron32. Not sure what happened with the formatting. Deb (talk) 14:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, now I see what you are getting at. User:Black Kite is one of many contributors who have regularly engaged in discussion on the relevant Talk pages about whether individuals should or should not be included in Births or Deaths sections of Year articles. It's become common to use the phrase "international notability" to describe the most widely accepted criterion for inclusion of an entry. Whereas this criterion is spelled out at Wikipedia:Days of the year#Births and deaths (where in practice there tends to be less scrutiny of new entries), viz. "Being the subject of a Wikipedia article is only a minimum requirement for inclusion in a days of the year article. Not all people meet the more stringent notability requirements for Wiki-calendar articles.", and the project page gives examples that broadly match those currently adopted in practice for the corresponding sections of Year articles, it has not been made clear whether such requirements have been discussed and accepted for Year articles. It would seem strange to me if the criteria for Date articles were stricter than the criteria for Year articles. Deb (talk) 14:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for that Deb. I see where the text of the standard says " Not all people meet the more stringent notability requirements for Wiki-calendar articles. For example, sports figures should only be included if they are noteworthy by having accomplished something exceptional in their sport such as breaking a world record, winning multiple Olympic gold medals or taking part in multiple international events; media/drama figures should have won major awards or have achieved demonstrably prominent status within the industry." So we have standards for sport people and media/drama figures. That seems... extra limiting. I mean, there are many more people who have articles at Wikipedia who are not sportspeople OR media/drama figures. It seems like the guidelines are inadequate to provide proper guidance, given the HUGE debates we have had lately. I think it would be time soon to start some discussions on the matter. Maybe workshop some ideas at the Idea Lab (WP:VPIL) and when we have a workable proposal, start an RFC at WP:VPP afterwards to get widespread community buy-in. Does that sound reasonable? --Jayron32 15:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't follow your logic. Over a dozen editors have found that there are severe policy violations in how these users have engaged at WikiProject Years and surrounding discussions, to the point where TBANs are on the table. You're suggesting we should just let them continue violating policy because they're "passionate, but civil"? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      We don't hand out sanctions based on what a few editors think. I don't see any policy violations here. Disagreeing with people on Wikipedia in a civil manner isn't sanctionable. In fact, I find your escalation here appalling and not in good faith with those of us who were working on finding a solution. Nemov (talk) 15:16, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      This has never had anything to do with "disagreeing with people on Wikipedia". It's an issue of WP:OWNERSHIP through the enforcement of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, which became WP:DISRUPTIVE when the users involved had the policy issues explained to them and they continued to insist that there was no issue in their behavior. WP:PROJPAGE might also be of interest for further detail. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      You can WP:LAWYER all you want. There was a way to resolve this and ongoing discussions to do so and you decided to escalate this further. All you've accomplished here is to waste the community's time. Congrats. Nemov (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      What "way" was there to resolve this? I opened this discussion after Jim Michael was asked to stop enforcing a local consensus by several users at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Create Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Years and he continued to do so. That's exactly the sort of thing that ANI is for. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      You should've made that discussion-in-question at WP:VP (policy), into an RFC. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      There was no agreed upon solution to propose in an RfC (which is why I created the discussion at the VP, to see if there was support for one), and even so, it wouldn't have changed the fact that at least one user was ignoring sitewide consensus regardless of whether there was an RfC or not. That's what ANI is for. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:16, 10 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]

    That sounds like either a proposal for an RfC or policy change, either of which is outside the scope of ANI. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:56, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The policy is WP:V which should not change. Policy is unambiguous that a date of birth for a living person requires very solid sourcing and that it already be widely documented outside of Wikipedia. It's the project members' practice that needs to change. Somehow folks got the idea that a blue link to the subject's Wikipedia biography was a reliable source for those DOBs with the naive hope that a WP:RS for the DOB might exist in the linked bio. A link to a Wikipedia page is explicitly WP:UGC and never suitable as a source for anything on Wikipedia, especially a WP:DOB which is one of the more critical areas of WP:BLP. Not much to discuss.
    If you feel this may be pedantic, try following a few non-athletes' blue links on those pages and see what you find. Probably 50% of the linked BLPs you follow will be lacking any type of decent source. Athlete's biographies on Wikipedia tend to be a bit better cited than the others. Toddst1 (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually agree with this, it isn't true with respect to significant coverage but when it comes to passing mentions of stats sports bios do have a lead over other topic areas. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Which board, guideline or whatever, controls how International Year pages should be formatted?

    I've lost track as to how many discussions are currently taking place, at WP:YEARS & at WP:Village Pump, or wherever else. Anybody know what the pecking order is? GoodDay (talk) 06:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Good question. I kind of backed up from the entire thing because it was becoming too chaotic. Nemov (talk) 13:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So, are we talking formatting which is to say things like sectioning, location of infobox and images, etc., or are we talking content, which is to say what kinds of material to add to the page? Formatting governs things like "What to call the standard sections and what order to put them in". I don't think that's the locus of the current dispute. We're not really concerned with that kind of mundane stuff. The current dispute is "How do we know which events, births, deaths, etc. should be placed in the articles, and which shouldn't". As far as I know, the answer to the first, mundane question is Wikipedia:WikiProject Years has a pretty standard formatting, in the "Example year" section. I have asked several times for information on the second, more germane question as to "How do we decide what to fill those sections with" and, as yet, no one has provided anything, which leads me to believe there is not any current standards for making that decision (at least, not written down in an obvious place where one could find it) and there has not ever been any broad-based discussion which made such a decision (other than a small number of editors who kinda decided on their own to have a standard and enforce it on everyone else). In terms of where such a discussion should take place, there's any number of locales, the most relevant may be at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years, there's a discussion going there from last month, but it seems to involve only those same editors who have always made these decisions, and perhaps advertising it better and opening it up to more editors may be useful. --Jayron32 14:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say that, given the limitations WP:Advice page (and the ArbCom Cases and community discussions it is based on) impose on any decision developed at a WikiProject--combined with the clearly contentious nature of the appropriate inclusion criteria and the great volume of variety of disruption cased by a tenuous grasp on basic content policies among a number of the members of this cohort as we have seen repeatedly reported (or seen directly) in this thread--I would say the very, very last place this discussion should be taking place is WikiProject Years. Any discussion taking place on a WikiProject has the value of a single local consensus decision and cannot be ported to every article the WikiProject perceives to be in its purview. That's long-standing community consensus. Letting WikiProjects create their own idiosyncratic rules outside of the normal WP:PROPOSAL process invites too many problems.
    Sure, in this case, you could make the argument that, because the WikiProject's interests so closely map to a discrete selection of articles, that you could host an RfC on the WikiProject (which would likely bring in a few outside perspectives from the FRS), plus place notices in WP:VPP, WP:CD, and the talk page for some relevant policies (bringing in yet more outside perspectives) and then you could point to any result of that discussion as at least having some weak form of community consensus. But again, per the particular complexities in this case, and the history of gatekeeping and disruption, I don't think this is a case where we should be going out of our way to bend the best practice rules. We should be pushing this particular group of editors away from the walled garden approach that has dominated their approach up until now, not back towards it.
    So really the discussions should just be taking place of WP:VPP directly or (better yet), these users should put forth a WP:PROPOSAL to amend and existing guideline or create a new one, if they really want a particularly firm and authoritative standard. This is particularly important because at least some of these users are pushing for standards which blatantly conflict with WP:WEIGHT, the core guideline that should be governing their inclusion decisions in the Years articles. If they want to abrogate such a central and essential tenet of this project, the should do it in full view of (and with full participation from) the community at large.
    In truth, I don't think there's a WP:SNOWBALL's chance of the community allowing that. Indeed, as an a priori matter, I don't think such an approach is even feasible on this project or compatible with our basic processes and content guidelines. A number of these users are railing at length against the emphasis they are being told to put on "the media" (vs. their own idiosyncratic opinions of importance) in content inclusion discussion, apparently unaware we have another term for such influences: WP:reliable sources. If we let them simply move their echo chamber from the individual talk pages to the WikiProject, but otherwise continue on as they have, we will simply be back here in another couple of months when they continue to clash with editors applying normal content guidelines. If they failed to accept (until TBANs entered the picture) repeated expressions of community concerns for their ad-hoc "consensus" on the article talk pages, and some of them continue to be resistant to feedback even now, how much more difficult will it be to disabuse of them of enforcing their pet standards once they have had discussions at the WikiProject?
    No, I think it's clear this has to talk place through either additional WP:VPP discussions and RfCs, through a WP:PROPOSAL to change, augment, or create a guideline, or both. Community eyes should stay on these prospective guidelines as they are debated and these users should get used to taking the big decisions impacting multiple articles to the broader community. SnowRise let's rap 18:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of your comments above make sense to me but I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that "some of these users are pushing for standards which blatantly conflict with WP:WEIGHT". Could you please expand on that? Deb (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Year articles are controlled by the same standards as all other articles. Namely, content policies and content guidelines (including the manual of style). Sitewide consensus can also be established for more specific standards that apply to the year articles. These will typically occur through an RfC at a noticeboard or at the Village Pump, of which one is currently ongoing. A local consensus can also be formed on an individual article talk page about changes to that specific article. WP:YEARS on its own has zero authority over the content and formatting. It's essentially an ideas/collaboration board for editors interested in the topic. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not delete WP:YEARS, if any consensus (including RFCs) reached there, is going to be ignored? Also, we should treat International Years pages as a series of articles & avoid (as much as possible) making one page different from the rest. GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it's not a consensus-defining forum, nor was it ever supposed to be. Using it as such is controlling and arguably disruptive. It's a place where users can collaborate on a given topic and receive notifications about a given topic. Users are welcome to develop criteria and discuss issues that affect a given set of articles, but to implement and enforce these criteria requires a sitewide discussion. Trying to enforce WikiProject criteria on articles amounts to a small group of users telling the rest of the community what they're allowed to do. There have been several times over the years when WikiProjects have tried to overstep these boundaries, and it's always caused drama like this when discovered. Snow Rise has put it better than I can, both in response here and in the above discussions. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    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: [21]
    • baseless accusations against of racism: [22]
    • baseless accusations of rudeness against Greyzxq, bizarrely claiming Greyzxq's links to Wikipedia policy and guideline pages were crashing their phone: [23]
    • implying Greyzxq was stupid: [24]
    • (from half an hour ago) harassment: [[25]]

    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[26][27][28][29]. 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: [30][31][32].

    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]

    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]
    @Nil Einne: Apologies, I thought ANI was for more than just bans and blocks.
    if you just wanted a cut and paste move reverted
    No, I had more problems than that, such as the user borderline accusing me of refactoring, and wanted to come here before making it worse.
    If you aren't aware of that then please do not try to make moves without opening RMs ever again.
    That is patently false, I want to emphasize in my defense, especially for the small stuff. Otherwise, non-admins wouldn't even have the ability to move. I've made hundreds of moves for technical reasons ranging from WP:SINGULAR to WP:UBM to organizations that have undergone a name change. Per WP:MOVE, "...you may request a page move at Wikipedia:Requested moves if you are not yet autoconfirmed, if there is a technical barrier to the move, or if the retitling is expected to be controversial and you need to seek consensus for the name change." It goes on to list reasons for moving a page.
    ...it also isn't enough for anything but stern warning...
    Aside from reverting, that's about all that I was seeking.That was one of the things I was hoping an admin could help me convey.
    Just get the the cut and paste move fixed...
    Can't do on my own, but Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests is a good suggestion, thanks. I'll give that a try in 48 hours if Buaidh doesn't do the right thing and self revert, given your comments.
    ...and tell the editor never to do that crap again...
    Did that. Several times. Asked for an admin to help me convey.
    ...and don't waste time here.
    Sorry. I don't have a lot of experience at ANI and am slowly learning about other processes such as the Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests subpage. — voidxor 19:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have history merged what can be merged. No comment on the rest. Izno (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    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.

    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.

    Breitbart Spam Blacklist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    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]

    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 [33] 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 [34] not using printed secondary courses [35], using unreliable sources [36] and not leaving a signature [37] 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 [38] 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 [39] Professor Guru on talk page about the previous account. Professor Guru ignored this and continued editing. [40] I also asked Professor Guru on talk page about the previous account. [41] Same result, ignored and actively editing the talk page [42] and elsewhere [43]

    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]
    @Valereee: Yes, I did, though I do consider it justified. I took a decent sample of their edits, and it became obvious that virtually all edits were inconsequential at best, and then all the way to expanding fish. If one or two out of 200+ were an improvement, then someone would have made the change eventually, most pages they edited see a relatively constant stream of newcomer edits.
    If they haven't been able to discover their talkpage despite that many messages, it isn't really a good idea to leave them to expand fish all over Wikipedia, however good their intentions may be, as Communication is required. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 10:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, regarding the example you have provided, if one bashes on a typewriter uses google translate long enough one will at some point produce the whole works of Shakespeare a sentence which is actually an improvement. Or, in other words, that result was pure chance. I am yet to find any other edits which actually improved the prior text, despite checking quite a few manually. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    the fish do be expanding. I would simply inform them of the unproductiveness of their behavior and assume good faith LegalSmeagolian (talk) 15:43, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect they might be using Google Translate from Japanese to make edits given their Japanese username (No I don't know what it translates to) and the strange English of their edits. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (It's a katakana rendition of "airborne". It's usually rendered in kanji not as an imported English in katakana, but it sees occasional use. Though it's a username it doesn't have to represent common usage.) Canterbury Tail talk 16:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm uninvolved, but my personal opinion is that it might be someone trying to practice english.
    109 especially looks like japanese translated into english. I don't think this is an instance of vandalism and just someone with not the best english trying to practice and contribute at the same time. DarmaniLink (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately I don't think Wikipedia is the best thing to use for learning English if you are actively trying to contribute while doing so. I've left them a message stating they may be better off contributing to jaWiki until their English is a bit better and doesn't seem machine translated. I can tell it's most likely Japanese translated into English is because of the phrasing used which seems to basically be taking the meaning of the words from Japanese and roughly translating them into English (sometimes a bit too literally) which results in things such as "It expands to a length" which is correct when you take the meaning of both words, however isn't technically correct due to the different definition used. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:14, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I agree, i realize reading back at what i wrote that it could be interpreted as a justification.
    His english to put it bluntly does suck and he really shouldn't be changing around grammar DarmaniLink (talk) 02:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's just some good old-fashioned Engrish. Poor, sure, but nothing about it seems to be in bad faith, so I think I'd personally lean towards WP:DONTBITE, at least for the time being. DecafPotato (talk) 03:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Setting aside the language issues, all of which appear to be good faith attempts to clarify/simplify elements of these articles, Eicher Motors had an impenetrable History section both before and after their attempts. I've flagged it for cleanup because I can't make easy sense of it. So their work has done some good. I've also simplified the expanding fish, removing the original tautology.
    The challenge is that, despite polite messages on their talk page, and despite their being invited here, they appear to refuse to engage, and to continue to use their individual style of English in small segments of many articles. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Special:CentralAuth/エアボーン shows their home to be the Japanese Wikipedia, but no edits there at all. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I perhaps should've made it clearer from the start that I do think that they are trying to contribute in good faith, but "a mess made in a sincere effort to help is still a mess".
    Their edits since the ANI thread was opened include this semi-random sample:
    The first edit I checked was an inconsequential rearrangement of words and changing words and phrases for synonyms.
    The second was this edit which uses the somewhat unusual phraseology of "created" in place of "leading to".
    The third included a complete mangling of normal English syntax.
    The fourth edit was a strange rearrangement of words into something which was definitely less comprehensible than it was before.
    They've stopped for now, at around the sort of time that one would expect them to be going to bed in Japan. They haven't resumed, so fingers crossed that the messages on their talkpage have got the message across that their efforts, though well intended, have not been very helpful. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have also left a message on their jaWiki talk page asking them to consider their actions, and started the formal warning process on their talk page for "subtle vandalism" 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Timtrent and @Mako001, if the editor continues to edit but doesn't come into their talk page in a few days, ping me. I'd be willing to block from article space with instructions to go to their talk and address concerns. Valereee (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Valereee Good call. It may not be required since that have not (yet) edited today, neither here nor jaWiki. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw User:ゾバ ゾ make an edit to a new article I created [49] which was wrong but appears to have been good-faith. They seem to have been targeting newly-created articles. Their behavior matches the other account here, and both started editing on the 8th. This needs further investigation. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:45, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Trainsandotherthings: How exactly was that edit wrong? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 02:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The term "the New Haven" is overwhelmingly used to describe the company. Consider [50] as just one of many examples. The edit made was incorrect. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:54, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh ok. Thanks! That context was helpful cause "the New Haven" just sounds wrong to me. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 02:56, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    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 [51] or just says I am complaining when I am trying to have a conversation to get the issue resolved. [52]. I have asked her a few times to join this discussion here [53] and here [54]. I wasn't worried about her joining until these edits began on the Raven's home page [55]. 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 similar to what happened on the Henry Danger and Danger Force character page [56]. 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]

    I would like to add that after I sent him a message that I brought up the case, it is reverted and told me to go to Raven's home talk page when clearly my edit on Raven's Home was acceptable and there was no reason for a discussion. The user then comes into this conversation [57], stating all I did was complain when I went to another user to figure out how to fix an chart. Clearly they have the right to remove message from thier wall, but it seems like this user doesn't want to talk about the issue or explain what is wrong. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 02:44, 9 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: [58] and [59]. They later followed it up with similarly offensive edits at the Poland talk page: [60].

    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]

    I must be reading that first diff incorrectly, as it appears to say that it was the Polish who perpetrated the holocaust. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Poles and Ukrainians happen to be the only nations outside of Germany that manage to kill hundreds of thousands of Jewish people during (and often after) WW2. I don't see how is that not perpetrating the Holocaust, but would love to have that explained to me. SoHoBro (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to point out that SoHoBro has continued in showing an interest in pushing a very biased and inflammatory narrative, also WP:NPOV . [61] [62]. Rhayailaina (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Uninvolved outsider perspective: Poles and Ukrainians are not nations. They are heterogeneous groups of people of two nations. Poland and Ukraine are nations. When you say Poles did something, you implicate all Poles. If something happened in a certain geographic region, some of the locals might have participated, but that doesn't mean that all people of that nationality are guilty or that the nation somehow sanctioned the action. The Polish government was taken over by German leaders and sympathizers. It no longer represented the Polish people. It seems absurd to hold the Poles responsible when they weren't in control of their own country. I know less about the Ukrainian history during WWII, but the principle of blaming a whole people who were the victims of an invasion and great atrocities, and therefore not in control of their nation's governance, is nothing but bigotry by nationality. Blaming an entire oppressed nationality for the crimes perpetrated by their invaders, even if some members of that nationality collaborated, is guilt by virtue of being Polish. Maybe that wasn't your meaning, but that's where your words lead. Dcs002 (talk) 00:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not involved here either, but regarding the statement "[Poland and Ukraine] happen to be the only nations outside of Germany that manage to kill hundreds of thousands of Jewish people during (and often after) WW2.", see Hungary, Romania,... — LumonRedacts 05:06, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That Polish and Ukrainian people took part in the holocaust, and anti-Jewish pogroms before and after WW2 is historical fact. But that's not your accusation, you accusation is that the Polish and Ukrainian nations actively took part in the planning and execution of the holocaust, which is ahistorical nonsense. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:59, 10 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 [63]. 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 [64]. Blanked talk page sections include multiple warnings ([65] (5 warnings by different users), [66] (warning by me), [67], [68], [69], [70]) and >= 9 suggestions to start using edit summaries [71] . Two ANIs have previously been filed against Sgweirdo: [72] , [73]. 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 [74]. Nonetheless, from July to December, Sgweirdo reverted these changes, often without leaving an edit summary, and refusing to discuss on talk ([75], [76],[77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87]). I left a warning on their talk page regarding disruptive editing and refusing to follow consensus, but it was blanked [88], 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 [89]. On 8th February, Sgweirdo undid the edit with no edit summary [90]. After I undid their edit, they reverted it again [91]. I did a second revert, and 15 minutes later, an IP reverts my revert with the edit summary "shut the fuck up" [92].

    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 [93]. The same IP who reverted my edit on President of Singapore later undid my revert, with the same edit summary, "shut the fuck up" [94]. 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. This an account on a mission, besides their own talk they don't do it[95]. 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.

    • Well, that doesn't actually clear your name of anything; reflexive denial is par for the course here. But since we do have you here, what about everything else in the OP? Why do you refuse to use edit summaries when asked? Why are you refusing to engage with other editors? Why are you reverting other editors' edits without any explanations? These are all objectionable behaviors all on their own, and they cannot be dealt with simply by blanking your talk page any time someone wants answers from you. Ravenswing 18:41, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sgweirdo, you give people no reason to believe you, because you do not communicate with anyone. If, after this discussion, you can edit articles then please start communicating, or you will soon be back here. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The requirement to communicate made them announce an retirement on their userpage. Which is also okay, as Wikipedia is not compulsory. Neither is unblocking. This seems to be the end for now, unless they change their mind. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:51, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Canvassing at an AfD

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Years of vandalism only editing: 207.5.93.150

    IP BLOCKED 2 YEARS
    Torpid troll terminated. (non-admin closure) — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    From account creation 3 years ago until today editor has been exclusively editing articles only by adding and changing people's names to "Hyatt", primarily on BLPs. (Special:Contributions/207.5.93.150) The editor has made literally no other edits and was already blocked for one year in 2021, but has returned with the same behavior for the past 2 years through several new warnings. Editor is clearly WP:NOTHERE and has not been deterred by a year-long block. I suggest stronger action.--Lenny Marks (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    While their editing has not been frequent, it's the same activity since the block was over in 2022. Reblocked for 2 years. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! -- Lenny Marks (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there some sort of record for the most weirdly specific SPA? IMO this might be up there. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is seriously bizarre. Especially considering the edits are usually months apart. As if the user randomly remberes every few months to go on Wikipedia and change somebody to "Hyatt." -- Lenny Marks (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Mobile editor who doesn't respond to talk page messages

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

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

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

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

    Port of Zeebrugge rename issue

    Hi

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

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

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

    Notified [96] Fob.schools (talk) 12:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I moved it back, as this needs a discussion at the least. I don't think it would be good to merge the articles on the ports of Antwerp and Zeebrugge though, as they have cmpletely separate histories, location, ... A new short article about the combined brand may be useful perhaps, but not as a replacement of the two other ones. Fram (talk) 12:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Fob.schools (talk) 12:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Have the discussion and see where that takes you. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Removing some edit summaries from history

    Some of the 5 edit summaries by user:128.116.205.213 contain hate speech. Can someone please eradicate them? Thanks.  —Michael Z. 22:34, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Not seeing it as revdevable myself. YMMV. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:18, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just like not everything someone can say about your mother is blockable personal attack, not every criticism of your favourite country or nation is revdelable hate speech. a!rado🦈 (C✙T) 12:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive edit by 2A0C:5A81:D300:7400:8EE1:9D26:75D0:EB14

    On the Viva Las Vengeance article, user @2A0C:5A81:D300:7400:8EE1:9D26:75D0:EB14 added 2 songs to an extra tracklist titled "Unreleased songs", which was never released to the world. I deleted the tracklist with a comment explaining that unreleased songs don't get a tracklist. They ignored that, and ended up undoing my edit, adding "(Not Official Tracks From Album)" too. Baxyofh4rd (talk) 03:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Baxyofh4rd: I just reverted to your version of the article because their changes aren't sourced or explained. I left guidance on that user's talk page and you should do the same thing if they don't seem to be getting the picture. This noticeboard is usually used for disputes and issues a lot more serious than this. CityOfSilver 04:54, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Block evasion

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

     Done Blocked for evasion per WP:DUCK. --Jayron32 13:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1138613935"