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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  The Tiffany Cartwright fiasco was due to the activism of one editor, namely yourself, over the opposition of virtually everyone who has ever edited a law-related article. It shouldn't be used as precedent for anything. Iowalaw2 (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  @Star Mississippi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Thanks again & have a great day

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

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

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

  @Ravenswing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Thank you & have a nice day all

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you all

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, articles exist on all (or nearly all) nominees. If Wikipedia goes ahead with this change, it will almost certainly be picked up by the legal industry press. Judicial nominations are probably the most single important topic in judicial politics. New nomination articles are usually instantly the #1 headlines on legal news websites like Law360. That's why these threads have a ton of lawyers baffled at Wikipedia bureaucrats questioning whether nominations are notable. Iowalaw2 (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Iowalaw2, Wikipedia doesn't actually care very much about being picked up by the legal industry press. We hope people will be interested in figuring out why we do what we do, but we're much more interested in getting things right in the long run. Valereee (talk) 20:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, as we all know, providing useful articles on subjects of broad public interest pales in comparison with insider trench warfare. Iowalaw2 (talk) 04:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion about the broader issue here, but if we're going to assign one of "what appears on Wikipedia" and "what appears on Law360" to the category "broad public interest" and the other to the category "insider [anything]", I think it's pretty clear you've got it backwards. --JBL (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, @Iowalaw2, I'm not sure what you're getting at? Could you please clarify? Valereee (talk) 19:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: As a primary contributor to WP:USCJN, I see no actionable issue with these nominations. AfD nominations of pending judges will always, of course, be restricted to the president currently in office, since any judicial nominations by past presidents would have expired upon that president leaving office. This is really not a tremendous number of nominations, and can be disposed of through regular AfD processes. I would tend to agree that a deep dive will find evidence of notability for anyone who ends up getting nominated for a federal judgeship, but that does not translate to automatically keeping articles in mainspace where that deep dive has not been made. BD2412 T 02:44, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (potentially involved?): I see that I voted to draftify on the Tiffany Cartwright AfD last year, and it's an unpleasant surprise to see that popping up on this board. I will say essentially what I said then, though; the guideline for articles here has almost always been WP:GNG. WP:USCJN provides an exception to that when judicial nominees are confirmed, but not before. If, though, a nominee is notable or has garnered significant coverage in reliable secondary sources (e.g. Dale Ho before confirmation and really before his nomination too), that plainly qualifies the subject for an article. I see a lot of WP:BLUDGEONing here, for which I see that MIAJudges has been advised to avoid. The main thrust of the arguments against draftification then in the AfD and DRV and now are inconsistencies with other extant nominees' pages; here, these inconsistencies seem to be remedied through discussion. Even that runs counter to site deletion policy wherein extant consensus and guidelines, not inconsistencies in application thereof, hold sway. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 06:39, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I've got a considerably more disturbing bit to report. We've already seen that @MIAJudges is deeply resistant to answering questions about what actual notability criteria are represented in their keep advocacy, and deeply resistant to providing evidence of their assertion that no article on a judicial nominee has ever been deleted, and is now digging in heels over their revelation that they are operating under an alternate account. With that. See, a SPA has arrived to toss in Keeps on some of the AfDs in question, and while looking those over, the SPA had tagged one of the nominee AfDs I hadn't looked at before. So before chiming in on the discussion, I looked over the sources to see if they met the GNG (without exception, they hadn't.)

  The final source was added by MIAJudges, a New York Times article with the headline "Garnett was instrumental in exonerating five people". Okay, thought I, that sounds like it's going to be significant coverage. Not only was it nothing of the sort ("But the findings by Mr. O’Malley, who worked closely with a senior prosecutor, Margaret M. Garnett, would seem to raise serious questions about the convictions in Ms. Raymond’s killing because the Bronx prosecutor’s office relied on the same key witnesses and said the two murders were related." is the sum total of what pertained to the subject), but the headline MIAJudges attributed to the article was spurious. Here's the diff in question: [2]. Now MIAJudges has been very steadfast in not answering direct questions, but I think we can neither any longer tolerate that, nor assume MIAJudges' good faith. MIAJudges has some serious explaining to do, and to do at once. Ravenswing 06:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Thank you

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

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

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

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

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

  Thank you

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Were you going to let any of us at this discussion know you had posted this [[3]]? Let'srun (talk) 13:42, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Why? Do you object to an editor in good standing making a proposal at the Village Pump for something they think would improve Wikipedia? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Beyond My Ken, I have no objection to MIAJudges making the proposal, but it would be nice if they had pinged more than just the people he or she thought would support it. Let'srun (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Eh, there's nothing wrong with such a proposal; I've suggested a couple times myself that the avenue towards getting their POV across was to make one. Discounting anon IPs who just happened to discover it (hrm), it's going down to near-unanimous opposition in any event. Ravenswing 23:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for judge nominee articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Failed judicial nominations are so rare that they are in and of themselves notable. Respectfully, the idea that a significant number of judicial nominees are not confirmed demonstrates a lack of familiarity with the subject under discussion. Whatever the probability is for confirmations in the executive branch, the overwhelming majority of judicial nominees are confirmed. Iowalaw2 (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Iowalaw2, if you look at WP:USCJN, you'll see that WP knows that many failed nominations are likely to result in notability even if the person wasn't notable before. The problems is that it hasn't happened. There's a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Presidential_judicial_nominees_automatically_notable on whether that fact means we should just go ahead and create the articles. Valereee (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it makes complete sense to upend Wikipedia's universal practice of covering judicial nominees even when (1) there is a strong case to be made that the nomination itself is notable, (2) many or most nominees are notable regardless of the nomination, and (3) everyone agrees that virtually all will be notable in a few months. What is the actual policy benefit of this, in English? Beyond a couple of editors getting angry at MIAJudges and trying to antagonize him by deleting his articles, in the process spiting the rest of legal Wikipedia? Iowalaw2 (talk) 04:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actually even have a strong opinion on the policy itself. The concern for me is more that we've got one, and without a good reason not to, we follow it or we get consensus to change it. But we don't just say, "I disagree with that policy so I'm going to work outside it." Valereee (talk) 12:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

How do you figure that? The legislators who MAKE the law ARE notable, don't know where you read that they weren't. In any case the two examples (candidate versus presidential nominee) are not in any way equivalent, it's a false analogy, and not helpful in any way. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:59, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A nominee for federal judicial office is no more inherently notable than than a nominated candidate for congress. The mere nomination does not by itself confer notability. Kablammo (talk) 01:40, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I get that you believe that, but, in fact, they are totally different things and cannot be compared with any justification. The person nominating the judges is the President of the United States of American, properly elected by the people of the United States. The persons nominating a candidate for the House are local politicians of one political party who represent only that party and nobody else. Their gravitas is negligible. No comparison. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I get you believe that, but -- in fact -- your POV is nowhere reflected in any notability criteria on Wikipedia. For the purposes of WP:JUDGE, the nominator is irrelevant. (It's also irrelevant to ANI, this being a dispute that belongs on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people).) Ravenswing 19:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A judicial nomination is not even plausibly analogous to a party nomination for elected office. And anyway the idea that Wikipedia should refuse to provide articles for major-party nominees is very questionable (see all of the coverage of the war over the Theresa Greenfield article). Iowalaw2 (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• There is already a solution for articles that might be notable, either draft or user space and making the articles that do become notable live once notability has been confirmed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: temporary TBAN

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

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

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

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

• Oppose - This appears to me to be motivated by politics, and not policy-based. Nominations by the President of the United State for high office are (or should be) automatically Wikinotable, regardless of whether they have been confirmed or not, especially when the president involved is dealing with a Senate controlled by the opposite party, which is apparently deliberately holding up confirmations for poltical reasons having nothing to do with the quality of the nominees, similar to what happened to Merrick Garland's Supreme Court nomination near the end of the Obama administration. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tool of any political party, and we should avoid becoming a de facto tool in this case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd also like consideration to be given to the rather abysmal behavior in this thread of the proposer and the support voter just above to the nominee. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I presume by the proposer you mean me? I welcome and appreciate your feedback and scrutiny. I do have a few questions, though; I went through my comments in this thread and, asides from this proposal and my initial note, which was a reiteration of my position on these articles, is unadulterated shock at a naked confession of sockpuppetry. The comments following are requests for clarification regarding that and also asks for policy-based keep rationales so that I might change my position if warranted, as any editor should do (w.r.t. the latter). When I pinged MIA one too many times (I confess here that I did not and do not see any requests from them not to ping), I immediately apologized without reservation or qualification. What should I have done instead? What makes this abysmal?

  As for politics, I resent any implication of political malfeasance. Asides from a general assumption of less-than-good faith, I think that my actions in the relevant AfDs vindicate me. I have taken each article on its own merits and have concurred or broken with (to !vote keep) Letsrun whenever appropriate based on my own judgement.

  Lastly, I'm sorry to hear of your family situation. I've seen you around the project for many years now and have garnered great respect for you and your work. I hope it is resolved well and soon. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 06:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah this looks like a vendetta to me. (Full disclosure that I'm also generally more sympathetic to @MIAJudges than @Ravenswing or @Iseult on the merits, and I do not think either @MIAJudges or @Ravenswing have conducted themselves very well.) Iowalaw2 (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Editors are expected to make policy-based arguments at AfD. Repeated making ones that are not based on policy and failing to justify them when questioned is disruptive, as it can result in issues with local consensuses. BilledMammal (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning oppose. I see nothing here rising to the level of a month-long punishment, where a warning would suffice. BD2412 T 02:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Support: I actually was feeling along the same lines as you here as well (although I might have supported a shorter punishment just for the Garnett title), but I recently found that @MIAJudges (or at least I presume this is them, if not I apologize) was canvassing on (Redacted). I'm willing to believe that MIAJudges was unaware that this is frowned upon, but regardless I think a suspension from the topic is in order for them to take the time and learn about the various policies. Let'srun (talk) 13:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I cannot believe a full TWO WEEKS after I asked for @Let'srun & another user to stop communicating with me after their 8 days straight of doing so, I wake up & see an email from Wikipedia with him still doing so.

  First you accused me of currently having multiple Wikipedia accounts. This is after I repeatedly told you I only have one, & had one many years ago that I no longer use & couldn’t even remember how to log into even if I wanted to. A simple IP address check could confirm that.

  Last week you started some bogus Sock Poppet investigation on me after I stopped replying to you, knowing I would have to respond to you because of it. After that went no where, I didn’t reply to you, mention your name or bash you. I just want to be done with you. I just want my name to stop coming out of your mouth.

  Then, you put in deletion request for non judicial nominees articles I started. That’s well within your right but that also went nowhere & the articles were KEEP. Once again in each case I stayed my opinion (Which were agreed to) & didn’t communicate with you further.

  Somebody put in a T-ban for YOU. I didn’t bother giving my opinion on supporting it or not, not because I didn’t have one, but because it would require me to communicate with you which I don’t want to.

  Now, two weeks after my initial comments on the manner & after asking you no longer communicate with me, you are looking outside of Wikipedia trying to link me to this & that. What’s next, linking me to the Kennedy assassination???

  At first I thought you were just passionate about a certain subject. Then I thought to myself (Never wrote it on here) perhaps it was politically motivated. Then I thought perhaps you were just principled. Now I think you’re simply obsessed & unhinged. The fact that your still talking about me two weeks later is concerning.

  For the last time, the “Garnett title” that you keep bringing up is a ridiculous accusation. I did not put the initial comment about Garnett exonerating the 5 individuals. Somebody else put that on her page & put a reference with it. I added a reference. The NY Times article I referenced came from the initial reference that was put in the first place. I simply added the reference that was already in the initial reference. I didn’t go looking for the reference on line, it was already in the article that was initially referenced. I just added it.

  Look, I want to make this perfectly clear. I haven’t seen you mention my name, attack me or make outlandish accusations about me for about a week now. It felt great opening my email & not seeing you & the other user not mentioning my name so I can go on with my life. I have NEVER put in a request to ban anybody on Wikipedia or even write in support of one. I am really really trying hard not to break that streak but you are pushing it. I do not want to communicate with you & I would appreciate if you kept my name out of my mouth. I have asked you this for two weeks & I hope this is the last time I ever have to communicate with you.

  MIAJudges (talk) 14:12, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  To be fair, it is off wiki canvassing from someone who claims to be you. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Huh. Well, first off, on the Garnett issue, your excuse is hollow. The diff you entered is plain: {{Cite web |date=August 3, 2012 |title=Garnett was instrumental in exonerating five people |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/03/nyregion/5-convicted-in-bronx-cabbys-1995-murder-are-innocent-us-says.html |language=en-US}}. Those were your words; no one else's. They are not found in the article. They are not found anywhere else. That is your edit, and any editor on Wikipedia can see that. You ask us to take it on faith -- against the direct proof -- that you weren't responsible for that, the same way you ask us to take it on faith that you're not doing any chicanery with this alternate account of yours, the same way you asked us to take it on faith that no judicial nominee's article was ever deleted or draftified, the same way you're asking us to take it on faith that the person offwiki canvassing for your Village Pump proposal isn't really you.

  Let's make one thing quite clear: your conduct is under review here. You do not get to order us not to do so. Nor is your lashing out with anger because editors dare question you a good look. At this point, I'm less inclined to think a temporary tban is the answer and more inclined to think an indef block is, and if you don't like that, then you only have your repeated stonewalling and deflections to blame for it. Ravenswing 06:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think there may be some misunderstanding of that source being added. MIA added a source that they may have believe supported a statement already in the article, and when they did so, they replaced the source title with that statement, possibly because they may have mistakenly thought that was a helpful way to indicate which statement the source supported.

  @MIAJudges, if that's what happened, there are two things wrong there: First, we don't change the title of sources without a very good reason. You could instead have put that info (that you were adding a ref to support a poorly-sourced statement) into your edit summary. Second, the source you added doesn't support that statement; Garnett is barely mentioned in that source, and the source says nothing about her being instrumental. Which combined with the first problem is what makes it look like you're intentionally misrepresenting the source. I'm bending over backwards here to interpret this generously, really.

  That said, I'm willing to give you some slack if you'll tell me you understand and won't do it again. Sorry for the ping, but I actually do need an answer on this. Valereee (talk) 11:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll add that the canvassing, which does appear to be by someone claiming to be you, is not acceptable. And more than that, it doesn't work. So you end up looking bad for no good reason. Valereee (talk) 11:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Valereee

  I have no problem with you or any other users pinging me if you have a question with the exception of the two mentioned above. I’ve never ever asked somebody not to ping me on Wikipedia before. Unfortunately the two I mentioned have simply repeatedly pinged me, not acted in good faith towards me, have made accusations against me & attacked me.

  I, like everybody else on here am a volunteer. I do not log into Wikipedia for the treatment mentioned above.

  As for the Garnett article, yes I added a reference from The NY Times. But the reference was simply the same reference that was in the initial article in the first place. Anybody is more than welcome to open the article & see for themselves. I added the same reference from the article separately. What made me upset is one of the two users in question I mentioned above (I am really not trying to say their names because once again I don’t want to have a conversation with them) reverted it & wrote in the revert something to the affect that I added the reference trying to mislead users. This is all while not mentioning he took issue with the initial person who put the statement she exonerated 5 people nor mentioning the initial reference that was put their in the first place. When it comes to that particular user it’s always about attacking me regardless of where the facts led. As you can see from the tone of their message this morning, it doesn’t seem as though anything has changed.

  I am not going to link his talk page but a check of it will show himself & the user that instituted this proposed ban of myself plotting on how to ban me. It’s at the bottom of his talk page as we speak. He even said he doesn’t want to be the one to initiate it but will follow up if the other user does which they did. I didn’t bother commenting on the thread because he is certainly welcome to talk to whomever he wants to but just showing you an example of this user constantly attacking me.

  I volunteer my time in Wikipedia to improve articles. If I see a mistake I usually correct it & keep going. The two users I mentioned are not interested in that when it comes to me. For that reason, I simply want nothing to do with either of them to be honest.

  MIAJudges (talk) 12:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @MIAJudges, that wall of text is nonresponsive. Please tell me briefly whether:

  1. You understand that the |title= should be filled out only with the source's actual title.
  2. You understand that the source you cited did not support the statement you were apparently using it to support.
  3. You agree that these were mistakes and you will avoid making the same mistakes in future.
  4. You understand that canvassing is not allowed.
  5. You agree not to canvass in future.

  Valereee (talk) 13:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes I see after the fact the the article in question did not support what the initial user stated. I have always tried to make sure references back up statements. But I just want to make clear I did not intentionally mislead anybody like the user I mentioned above claimed in the revert. Had he just said what you said, the reference didn’t back up the statement, I would have happily removed it myself. When I put a title for a reference, I usually copy/paste the articles title. So I certainly try to avoid this & all mistakes in the past & will continue to do so in the future.

  As for canvassing, I talk about the judiciary outside of Wikipedia. I give my opinions & listen to others about the judiciary. But canvassing isn’t something I would be interested in because I only come to Wikipedia for the most part to review & update judiciary related items. I don’t believe in Wikipedia censoring what I say outside of Wikipedia. I am a firm believer in my first amendment rights. But as far as Wikipedia is concerned, these deletion request were the only time I cared to even involve myself in ADF’s (Going back to Tiffany Cartwright). Now that there seems to be consensus on how to handle this area in the future, I doubt I will ever engage in many if any ADF’s ever again so canvassing as far as Wikipedia is concerned isn’t something I have any interest in.

  MIAJudges (talk) 13:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Please see WP:CANVASSING, which is what telling people to go vote is. Quoting that policy: Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior.

  It's not a vote, btw; we don't count them up and decide the winner. Please see WP:NOTAVOTE. Valereee (talk) 13:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This echoes the language by Dequan quite closely, especially the idea that the first amendment allows them to say stuff off wiki without consequence. Combined with their admission to being a part of off wiki judicial discussions, it basically confirms they are the same person. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Just a reminder that while MIAJudges does not get to demand that editors to not look into their behaviour, they are fully entitled to ask someone stops pinging them. Such a request should be honoured. User:Let'srun really needs to stop pinging MIAJudges. As Iseult said below, they can use no ping template if a user page link is really needed. But frankly the best solution is simply to mention MIAJudges without linking. I don't see any reason why a link was needed above, MIAJudges has been linked so many times, if someone for some reason needs to find their user page, talk page of contributions page they can just visit one of the large number of earlier links. This is not the first time MIAJudges effectively asked Let'srun not ping them and it's been discussed before above. Frankly were it not for the fact that in the previous cases, it's not entirely clear to me that Let'srun read the warnings, I'd be support either a one way iban or a topic ban on Let'srun pinging MIAJudges. However if it happens again, I'd definitely support sanction against Let'srun. Please remember since MIAJudges is already aware of this thread, and no notification is required but in any case notification for ANI must be on an editor's talk page not via pings. For better or worse, editors are expected to pay attention to threads discussing their behaviour and while it's problematic when threads last as long and end up as sprawling as long as this, continually notifying an editor every time something new is discussed is unlikely to be the solution either and especially not when the editor has asked not to be notified. If there is a major new development and editors want MIAJudges feedback before they contemplate a response, it might be reasonable for some editor to approach MIAJudges likely on their talk page if they haven't said anything in a day or two but this really should come from an uninvolved editor or at least not one who's been repeatedly asked not to ping Let'srun. Ultimately though, if MIAJudges choose to ignore this thread, and asks not to be pinged then they do take responsibility if they can't offer feedback to anything said. Nil Einne (talk) 11:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As I wrote below, I apologize for that, I was actually trying to use the method Iseult made note of below. I do think though that MIAJudges may have accidentally confused me for Ravenswing however, since I never pinged them for so many days in a row like they claimed to have by myself. Let'srun (talk) 11:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The claim that Dequan is not you is damaged by the fact that at the same time as you posted the response here Dequan posted the following comment:

  Y’all not gonna believe this. The Let’s Run idiot that is trying to pull all of judicial nominees pages down on Wikipedia is now spying on us here on this blog. Look at the link at the bottom. He’s taking screenshots of our conversations & posting them on Wikipedia to try & get sympathy. Excuse my French but what a miserable low life piece of shit.

  Let’s Run, if you’re reading this why don’t you comment? Why don’t you talk here instead of spying. Of course we wouldn’t be bound by Wikipedia’s rules here so we could tell you to make the world a better place & jump out of the window of a very tall building, without having to worry about being banned here… Lol

  Look, our comments on this blog are constitutionally protected by the first amendment. Perhaps if you spent less time trying to get judges pages taken down & more time reading about the judiciary, you might know that. Try getting out of your mothers basement for once & going out of the real world. You can’t ban us on her, only Harsh can do that. So either comment on here so we can talk man to man (Of course you would have to find a man to talk for you) or stop spying on us. But certainly feel free to take my advice about the jump out of a tall buildings window any day you feel like it.

  The writing style also seems similar to me. Further, I note that you are not protected from action here by limiting your personal attacks against an editor, as well as your encouragements for that editor to kill themself, to a different forum. BilledMammal (talk) 11:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @BilledMammal could you link to the comment? And archive it if possible. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Here. And archived to Wayback Machine. BilledMammal (talk) 12:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment does seem to be a couple minutes after their comments here. It would take quite an effort to go through and find what the user "Dequan" from that forum has posted and to correlate it here, since the forum doesnt seem to have been built that well. I cant find a page for user information there, and manually doing so will be quite time consuming.
  Prima facie it does seem to correlate roughly with the editor's area of interest and on wiki timelines. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Found more responses regarding Dequan and wiki -

  [4]
  this one is a bit more detailed
  [5]
  [6]
  someone else admitting to voting in a discussion after being advised to do so by "Dequan"
  another one admitting
  [7]
  [8]
  [9]
  [10]
  Another person admitting
  Celebrating the TBAN proposal of Let's run by "Dequan"
  [11]

  (Archive incase deleted)
  These are from the last week, roughly in chronological order. Could an admin or someone experienced go through these and see if they match up with any editors here? Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This search seems to turn up quite a bit. I think this comment proves they are the same person; in that comment, made at the end of December 2022, they said Haaaaa… I actually clear my schedule for the SJC hearings so I can post the nominees pictures on Wikipedia. Monica Ramirez will definitely be amongst the firats when she has her hearing… Lol. Two months later, MIAJudges added a picture to Monica Ramirez's article.

  If I am right then I now see the canvassing as a minor issue. The greater issue is the personal attacks which I believe amount to harassment; I don't care where an editor is doing it, editors should never tell another editor to kill themself. BilledMammal (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There's enough to block, but I'm far too involved. I will start the proposal though. Star Mississippi 12:47, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Another one saying they added the pic for the tiffany cartwright page, taken from your search [12] and MIAJudges did also add the picture there [13].

  IMO enough to establish that its the same person, and in that case I would suggest an indef site ban for MIAjudges. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  For further evidence that they are the same person, Dequan left the following comment at 4:20 AM on the 15th of September, 2022.

  I will be very interested to see who the nominees are for next week’s SJC hearing. For circuit court, it will be interesting to see if they go in order. If so, Julie Rikelman should be one of the two nominees.

  If @Shawn is right & senator Manchin won’t vote for an outright pro-choice nominee, she is the creme de la creme. I was just updating some of her notable cases on her Wikipedia page & WOW, I had to stop after some because I didn’t want her page to be too long… Lol

  If she stands no chance of being confirmed with this congress, I hope Durbin switches her out with either DeAndrea G. Benjamin or Jabari Wamble & save her for the next hearing since whoever is in that hearing won’t stand any chance of being confirmed before the midterms anyway.

  At 4:09 AM on the same day, MIAJudges made this edit to Julie Rikelman. BilledMammal (talk) 12:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: I do not mean this as a punishment; I mean this as a preventative measure. I am happy to reduce the proposed TBAN length or to modify the remedy, but the net effect of this must be to allow MIAJudges to properly review our notability guidelines and so properly apply them without disrupting extant AfD processes. I was happy with the seeming natural diffusion of this conflict with this proposal heading to no consensus (even with inconsistencies with previous accounts statements; I have noted to Ravenswing that I find the given explanation fine on their talk), but the core of this is a previous lack of communication primarily regarding a misstatement of a source title of an article under contentious AfD. The explanation given above for that is an expansion on a one-liner I've seen on some other AfD. I'm struggling to make sense of that, especially given the diff I linked in my proposal. Then there's the troubling canvassing link.

As an aside, @Let'srun:, perhaps a noping template might be better if a link to a userpage is needed at all. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 17:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will do that next time. Let'srun (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-proposal: TBAN for Let'srun

Site ban for MIA Judges

Starting above from @BilledMammal: at 11:57, 17 July 2023, you can see extensive evidence of off site escalation of the behavior in this thread. I'm not taking action as I'm definitely Involved given the long history at Cartwright, and actually had decent interaction with them until it all escalated here. Their behavior here was borderline blockable-not about the merits of the judges, but their interaction with Ravenswing et al. and this just endorses it. No ping given their repeated anger at being pinged. I think it's safe to assume they're watching. Star Mississippi 12:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a notice to their user talk, as I actually am not sure they're actively watching and this thread is pretty difficult to navigate. Valereee (talk) 13:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nom. Star Mississippi 12:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. There are no circumstances where an editor should tell another editor to kill themself; where the editor does that is irrelevant. BilledMammal (talk) 12:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Too much evidence says they are the same person. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, could an admin go through these links and see if they can be tied to the votes on the proposal by MIAJudges at Village pump? If so, clear case for a ban for those IPs/ Accounts as well. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Wow. Just saw this and I am honestly a bit shaken to see some of the comments posted towards myself. Looks like the second link at #7 was from the IP at 15:47, 10 July 2023 as "Dequan" posts [[14]] shortly after, and that was the only support comment I replied to there. Let'srun (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, sorry about that, compadre. MIA's certainly spewed some bile in my direction, but he hasn't told me to kill myself. (Yet, anyway.) Don't blame you for being shaken. Ravenswing 13:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support cban: From falsifying sources, to off-wiki canvassing, to meritless claims, to their hostility over their conduct being in question, and now egging an editor on to kill himself? No. We do not need this person on the encyclopedia, and we'd indef a first-week newbie for a fraction of this much. Ravenswing 13:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Ravenswing. Watching this develop, there have been several moments where I've thought they've gone too far—but they're still here the next day! So, no, enough, end of. SN54129 13:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Ravenswing and Jack Sparrow. DoubleCross (‡) 13:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Even if we can't conclusively show MIA is also Dequan, their behavior in this matter has been extremely confrontational and unwilling to listen to others, while demanding to be left alone. They clearly cannot behave cooperatively with other Wikipedians, and if they are Dequan, their behavior is beyond the pale. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I have closed the related VPP discussion (permalink) with consensus against considering federal judiciary nominees as automatically notable. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm going to Oppose a community-imposed ban for policy reasons: the information got here from something that feels uncomfortably close to outing., which shouldn't have happened. Unfortunately it did happen, and by the time it happened, so many people had moved on from this long thread that it wasn't noticed before this final discussion had already started. The stuff that was said was bad, but this person shouldn't have been outed. If they hadn't been outed, if instead someone had reported it to oversight, the oversighter might have gone ahead and blocked for what was said, but it wouldn't have been a community-imposed block and could be appealed through a normal block appeal. I'm sorry I didn't just block them earlier, frankly. Valereee (talk) 10:26, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think this does violate WP:OUTING; my reading of the policy suggests it does not include revealing pseudonyms that editors use on different sites. I'll add that it is relatively common for such revelations to occur; for example, we often see reports about editors canvassing on Reddit. BilledMammal (talk) 10:40, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I've edited. It's a grey area, for sure, but it just makes me uncomfortable to impose a cban for this series of events. Valereee (talk) 10:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  For us to bring forth any type of sanctions, their actions need to be tied to the account here.
  And I doubt MIAJudges can be protected under that grey area when they were using that platform to taunt and attack other wikipedians. The initial report was that of someone canvassing; MIAJudges brought the rest of the investigation upon themselves through the unacceptable messages relating to Wikipedia they posted on that platform knowing it was being watched. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's a fair point that they outed themselves by responding directly there to edits here. Valereee (talk) 14:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think their recent comments on their Talk confirm that they a) don't see a problem with their behavior b) don't appear to have an issue being connected with the external site. They've used prior accounts (per their own admission) that didn't appear to be a sock issue per the letter of LEGITSOCK, so I imagine we'll see them again even if this account is blocked. If they continue to contribute as they initially did, that could be fine. I'm not sure what went off the rails here. Star Mississippi 14:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  What went off the rails, I think, was that MIA's antics were brought to wide scrutiny. MIA falsified that source in the Garnett article two days before this whole ANI complaint started. I get the impression that the Cartwright article was something of a battle as well, and I wonder how many other of MIA's edits would prove questionable if examined. We also know that MIA was well aware of the provisions of NJUDGE before all those questionable rationales at AfD, because they were trying to get the guidelines changed back in September. [15][16] Ultimately, I think that MIA was never as clean as all of that. Ravenswing 18:15, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Correct on all counts, and the disengenous "Well why didn't you tell me that" about changing the guidelines.
  I initially took MIA's edits to be slightly pushy, but in good faith. They believed our guidelines were wrong but were editing collaboratively. When it came to endless badgering and edit warring (where they were not alone), it got exhausting. I believe the canvassing existed for months otherwise new accounts wouldn't know of the Cartwight article to come kick up a fuss. I don't know whether MIA was canvassed to it, or was the canvasser but I will say that at that article they refrained from the worst of the mudslinging as to motive. Star Mississippi 18:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Beyond that, there's another concept at play: if we're not allowed to ban someone because we're "outing" a pseudonym (which frankly shares not one fraction of similarity with genuine outing; even if the policy included them, which it does not, what harm could it possibly do me for you people to know that the handle I use on Reddit is 'Ravenswing77'?), then off-wiki canvassing should be permissible as well, because enforcing rules against that involves "outing" to the same degree. Ravenswing 17:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It could harm you if you'd provided any identifying info on Reddit. Not saying you would, I don't think you're naive. But people can put things together. In various fora you've made remarks that, if combined, could probably identify you, someone could cobble them together and possibly figure out where you live, work, etc. Valereee (talk) 17:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  But a lot of people can be identified in the same way, with enough digging and work. I used to edit Wikipedia under my real name (and still blog under it), and only flipped when I realized just how much my name was all over the Web. As may be. The fact remains that if we can't touch off-wiki activity because of the worry people might find out another pseudonym, then off-wiki canvassing is likewise untouchable, and off-wiki harassment is untouchable, and off-wiki evidence of socking is untouchable. I doubt that's a mindshift that would serve much of anyone except bad actors like MIA. Ravenswing 18:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, and unfortunately there are plenty of people willing to do the digging and work. I'm not arguing with you, just agreeing that it's an issue for those of us who came into the web before we all realized this. My kids came in late enough that they've been able to adjust for it. At least so far, who knows what's coming next. Valereee (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ravenswing you're dropping too many hints, better redact and get it revdel'ed incase someone comes sniffing long after :D Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 21:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you clarify, @CapnJackSp? Valereee (talk) 23:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Things like their reddit username and previous editing on wiki being personal details. A couple absent minded posts later on could tie them to IRL stuff quite easily. Just advising out of an abundance of caution. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 03:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - their actions and unbridled advocacy are not compatible with Wikipedia. starship.paint (exalt) 14:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I suspect it's mainly thanks to their false belief (this is not even close to the mainstream consensus in scholarship, not sure where they're getting it from) that the Hazaras are basically "Turks" [17] which have led to much of this disruption.

• Yesterday they added that this Hazara tribe was descended from the Karluk Turks under the guise of a citation, except the citation mentioned no such thing. I.e. they inserted their own personal opinion/interpretation.[18]. They previously attempted to the same here without a source even [19]. Simultaneously, a random IP tried to do the same here [20]. That same IP tried more or less to add the same WP:OR POV edit of HazaraHistorian [21] here [22], trying to connect the Hazara to the Khazar Turks. Moreover, a mere day after I reverted HazaraHistorian for inserting a primary source [23], the IP conveniently knew of the rule, removing info about the Mongol connection of the Hazara [24]. In other words, that IP is probably theirs.
• [25] Once again their own words under the guise of a citation.
• [26] Removed info that was heavily sourced in the body of the article.

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

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

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

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

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

When I told them (again) to stop attacking me [27], they acted like any other mature and collaborative Wiki user and responded with a head exploding emoji [28] --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Today was yet another WP:OR POV addition made by HazaraHistorian, continuing their attempt to connect the Hazaras to certain Turkic groups and vice-versa [29] --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

And yet you were reverted again by another user for WP:OR and non-WP:RS [30]. I would advise you to stop commenting on me. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• Uzbek.Patriot101, a blocked user and sock just posted this in response to my ANI thread [31] about their random WP:ASPERSIONS/WP:NPA, where they said the following; "I know who HistoryofIran is because I also have another friend who is a editor and wiki editor HazaraHistorian he told me about HistoryofIran.". Uzbek.Patriot101 is also the sock [32] of Darkl1yy, who created the Karakhanid-Samanid war [33], whose deletion thread HazaraHistorian protested against here in the ANI thread: "Can you also ask him why he put the deletion request template on the Karakhanid-Sassanid War page, other than the reason of it being against what he likes." --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  sigh We're going to wind up with another WP:CTOP around Turkey eventually... — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  ...I don't even want to ask. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Snow Rise: Oh, this is so worth knowing about :). See the end of section 78 of the first harassment lawsuit (NSFW) against him. --17:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC) JBL (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mackensen: I'm fairly sure I've heard a number of people making arguments that the programming language should be the primary topic for Java based mostly on page view type arguments. At the very least people have said there is no primary topic. Edit: I initially posted this on my phone so didn't bother to check the history but now I'm not I checked and sure enough it was about 14 months ago that a move was proposed on that premise [34]. True the specific claim of the programming language being the primary topic got FWIW no support (the closer said "Pretty much a snowball close", I don't actually see anyone other than the proposer who supported it). There was however a bit more support there being no primary topic (albeit at least some was abandoned) and you can see the several previous proposals listed in the history which again were mostly of the no primary topic variety but with some the programming language is the primary topic variety. While you might argue the failure of these RMs proves that the community will get it right, I'd argue that the persistence of these good faith but clearly flawed proposals does demonstrate why people tend to get annoyed. Nil Einne (talk) 06:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC) 08:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Nil Einne Yes. An assumption of good faith means that a clearly flawed RM springs from ignorance, not malice. It's an opportunity to educate, not belittle, and the community generally gets move requests right, or at least not wrong. Mackensen (talk) 15:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mackensen: I don't disagree on the need to educate. OTOH, it's also true that editors, especially editors with some experience, really need to consider some variant of WP:BEFORE, so when making a proposal that common sense would suggest has surely been made before, really should look into the previous discussions and consider how likely it is is things will be different this time. And if they can't find them, perhaps rather than jumping straight into an RM, first asking hey am I missing something, why are our articles titled this way? More importantly though IMO your earlier comment makes it sounds like such things never happen, no one ever proposes them and they will never pass. In reality we have IMO clear evidence they are at least proposed. And actually I'm fairly sure some cases involving more minor examples have passed. Some of these may have eventually been fixed. Some of them are probably still like that and may one day be fixed but haven't been yet. There's no reason to think the contrary since flawed community decisions happen all the time especially when there is low participation and the significance may not be obvious. Or to put it a different way while HiLo48's comments were IMO way way over the line (as unfortunately they often are) and exceedingly unhelpful, your comments here were IMO far less extreme but at least partly in the same vein. I mean if you want to argue that the Bill O'Reilly case is dissimilar, that's fine you're entitled to make such an argument. But to be so dismissive of the good faith concerns of others as you did above is also unhelpful when experience with Wikipedia should tell you even before I provided an IMO reasonably equivalent example that it has happened before, and will happen again. Nil Einne (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

(Personal attack removed)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HiLo48: courtesy break

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(edit conflict) I also found these:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I was introduced to the move discussion through this ANI and I have to agree that HiLo48's general attitude towards those with whom they disagree is problematic.[40] It's weird to me that a simple move discussion is contentious, but HiLo48's comments certainly haven't helped the tone despite multiple editors asking for people to tone it down. This behavior shouldn't be ignored. Nemov (talk) 13:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

  ...What limitations? --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 03:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That most of them don't know about a global sport. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  A global sport that’s only played in the commonwealth because Britain introduced it. Let’s drop the “imperialism” natter. Dronebogus (talk) 14:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure what you mean by your second sentence, and the commonwealth is still all over the world and quite significant; I don't get your point here. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The second part was kind of a response to Hawkeye7, it was admittedly kind of unclear. But I think we’re digressing too much over whether it’s socially acceptable to be ignorant of cricket and not focusing on the fact that this user is frequently uncivil and combative. Dronebogus (talk) 15:05, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo: How to fix

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

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

I was prepared to say that I too was of two minds on this when reading the initial portion of the thread. On the one hand, context is king, as the old saying goes, and I can see some circumstances in which the comments that are quoted by the OP could be taken in a affable light. But then I actually went and looked at the context. First HiLo apparently said "standard American lack of respect for history" followed up by "That too is a standard response from parochial Americans. It's NOT an insult. It's an invitation to you to learn more about the world outside your borders" I'm sorry, but how is this not a textbook WP:PA of one of the worst sorts? This is literaly item number one on the list of "types of comments that are never acceptable" (emphasis in original), according to the section of the policy "What is considered to be a personal attack?":

"Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race ... ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors."

This is not sassy "glibness", or blunt straight talk: it's just plain small-minded, bigoted regurgitation of tired stereotypes that serve no function other than to incite outrage in others and signal the speaker's general small-mindedness and willingness to reach for the most offensive representation of another editor's motives: that is a presumption of sheer ignorance on the part of your rhetorical opponent. This kind of behaviour has no place on this project and editors (American or otherwise) are very right to be upset with this and concerned about what it says that we are not nipping this sort of thing in the bud the second the first pair of community eyes falls on it. Do we really not have a single admin here willing to block such a brightline violation of WP:CIV? That surprises me, because there are names attached to mops that I respect in this discussion already. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And let me add that such would be my opinion if I was basing it just upon those comments initially alluded to by the OP. To see it followed by those additional diffs that can only be described as histrionic meltdowns? This seems to be an editor with tonal and self control issues that should have been addressed a long time ago. Indeed, I'm also pretty certain this is not nearly HiLo's first time here when it comes to this kind of thing; I did not participate in previous occasions his conduct was brought here, that I can recall, but I do feel confident in saying I've seen something like "HiLo and civility" in a discussion header here at least a dozen times over the years. Stopping to look at the conduct this time, it's clear why.

I'm not familiar enough with the overall conduct to feel comfortable making a proposal for an appropriate preventative sanction, but if someone else does and it's reasonable, I am prepared to strongly consider support. HiLo could have shown up to defend this cluster of behaviour: their choice not to means I have to assume the pattern will persist if we don't do something. A block, TBANS...something seems called for. We can't let our editors/community members run around making these kinds of comments, stoking nationalistic rhetoric and division, in plain view of everyone. I try to avoid emotive appeals whenever possible, especially in a context like ANI, but honestly, it's an embarrassment that we even have to debate this. If these kinds of comments don't get an administrative or community response, I don't know what the point of having WP:CIV and WP:PA are. I really was starting to feel the community was turning a corner on "popularity armor" when it came to these kinds of issues, but the fact that this hasn't been acted on in the last couple of weeks makes me wonder.

So if an admin is not willing to step in on this on their own onus, let's have an !vote, and we'll see what the community thinks about the idea of casually dismissing another editor by talking about "ignorant/myopic Americans" (or "loud Italians" or "drunken Irish" or "defeatist French" or "violent Africans" or "calculating Asians" or any other easy, stupid, hateful stereotype that we might slot in there). SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a random community opinion for you. I don't think much of the idea of casually dismissing an entire race of people in words like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stolen_Generations&diff=prev&oldid=853625286. This is from an editor who later tried to shoehorn a poor quality source into the Stolen Generations article: [[41]].

Yes, anyone who's been around for a while knows that HiLo and Skyring don't get on. It looks to me like this is dragging on because of Skyring's agitation to get HiLo censured by any means possible. Good on HiLo for not taking the bait.

The notion that Americans have little interest in the world outside their borders is a cheap stereotype but isn't racist. It's well known that Americans are one of the tiniest minnows in international cricket. It's no more racist to point that out than it is to point out the absence of an even vaguely competitive gridiron team in Australia.

But basically we have two editors to contend with here. HiLo is blunt, abrasive and a net positive to Wikipedia. Skyring is polite, calm and a net negative to Wikipedia. Are we here to build an encylopaedia, or are we here to have a dinner party? Daveosaurus (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA is a policy, you don't just dismiss with with "are we here to have a dinner party?" and excuse poor behavior. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard about Skyring (btw why is his sig "Pete"?)—'s poor behavior, but I have not seen why they are a net negative while HiLo is a net positive. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some people have too much “fun” creating screwy signatures. Hence why mine has always been the default. Dronebogus (talk) 17:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more asking why it doesn't violate WP:CUSTOMSIG/P. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It pretty clearly does but that’s the least of our concerns here Dronebogus (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can’t we just censure both for casual racism/xenophobia? Dronebogus (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, or if there is no appetite for that for this particular user at this moment in time (which is unfortunate but not entirely unheard of a when a long term editor acts in a thoroughly unacceptable way but makes the conservative tactical choice not to comment here), then the least that should be done is to give a final warning, so the next time it happens, the community's lack of tolerance for any further such is a matter of record. That shouldn't be necessary, mind you, when we are talking about a bigoted screed, but it's better to get half the job done in this thread than nothing at all. (Bearing in mind that I for one would still consider supporting a limited and tailored sanction to get HiLo's attention, but don't get the feeling that's where this is headed). SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a consensus above to treat this as a final warning. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the closer reaches the same conclusion. I'm still pretty concerned about the milktoast response from the community here, given the specifics of the conduct. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the final warning it must be logged in at the talk page of the user as such. (Not sure why this is final since they have been blocked before, but fine). If it is not logged we will be back here in a couple of months. Ymblanter (talk) 07:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daveosaurus, that reasoning is flawed in numerous ways. First off, it's a false choice to suggest we can't address the conduct of both editors in a situation like this. Second, I don't see the value in the suggestion that we should downgrade one editor's clear pattern of abusive language for another--least of all in this kind of area--because it happened to coexist with similar policy violations. Further, as a purely rhetorical/policy matter, it doesn't matter that most Americans take little interest in cricket: the argumentation techniques employed by HiLo here are clearly just stirring the shit: you are meant to comment on the content, the sources, and the policy factors when discussing work on the encyclopedia, not opining on what you perceive to be your rhetorical opponent's failings or gaps in knowledge: even if he had just kept his comments to "Americans know nothing about cricket", that would still be a weak, unconvincing, and problematic discussion style under our policies that should be immediately discouraged. These kinds of comments can do nothing to resolve the content issue and only serve to drag out and personalize things.

But further, and crucially, HiLo went well beyond such unwanted dead-end comments straight into the territory of nationalistic invective. What he said was unambiguously unacceptable: again, it is literally the first, paradigmatic example given at WP:PA for comments that are never acceptable. I don't see the point in arguing whether this is Racist with a capital R; for what it's worth, that's not the first descriptor I would use either (though it's certainly in the same family of observation, make no mistake). It's bigotry, no matter how you slice the rest of the semantic label: the ascribing of supposed personal flaws to a monolithic group. Regardless, it suffices that it is unambiguously against policy, unquestionably a bad faith behaviour, and clearly WP:disruptive. We regularly block on sight new users exhibiting this exact conduct, and I never see any hand-wringing about whether their behaviour was "that bad" when we do.

This combined with the other demonstrations here of a longtime pattern of incivility and losing his cool in a frankly childish manner when confronted with opposition paint the picture of someone who does not respect our community behavioural guidelines, in that the shortfalls between their conduct and what is expected of them has clearly been pointed out to them numerous times. Inaction is clearly enabling this to persist, and the community has recently had declining patience for the "net positive" argument for doing nothing in cases of brightline behavioural issues, for very understandable reasons. If Skyring has done anything nearly as bad as we've seen presented here for HiLo, by all means, let us look at that and consider action there. As to HiLo, I am convinced: this user needs to hear from the community that under no uncertain terms will this trading in comments about the supposed shortcomings of the people of X country be tolerated. It has no place in an open project like this, where inclusion is a mandate and your comments are meant to be avoiding personalizing discussion anyway. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daveosaurus, Ben Roberts-Smith was awarded the Victoria Cross for gallantry but it has subsequently emerged he committed a number of atrocious war crimes. By your argument we should overlook the latter because of the former. 1.136.105.123 (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC).[reply]

I love a good analogy, but it is very easy to slip into reductio ad absurdum with them, as you’ve just proven, IP. — Trey Maturin™ 21:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inclined to agree: an example from such another universe of misdeed that it can only really inflame and muddy the waters. Nevertheless, the underlying point that existed before the IP's hyperbolic example remains: we don't give community members free passes on violations of pillar policies just because they've been here long enough to accrue a body of positive mainspace edits. ...Well, actually, as a community we routinely have in the past, but we shouldn't. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly Confused Comments

I made the mistake of reading this series of posts, and I either have missed the request for administrative action, or have concluded that there isn't a request for administrative action. This isn't as much of a tentacled monster as the discussion about BHG and her enemies and categories, but it is at least as confusing, because I can't see the call for administrative action. I see that the discussion is mostly about:

• Insults to Americans. (Many Americans ignore national insults.)
• Two people with the same name, a great Australian sportsman, and an American who should be forgotten.
• National differences in sports and in interests in sports.

As soon as User:HiLo48 is mentioned, it seems that the subject gets changed back either to someone else or some other thing about nations.

There are several mostly valid reasons to insult Americans. Ignorance of cricket is not one of them. That sport is international, but is not worldwide. Americans play a different game that has an almost lost common ancestor with cricket, and is also international but not worldwide. It is reasonable to insult an American who is ignorant of another sport of British origin that is worldwide. This month and next, an American who expresses a lack of interest in the worldwide game is probably not so much ignorant as misogynistic.

Is there a request for administrative action, or should this discussion be moved to a subpage or archived or closed? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How in the world does misogyny come into it??? EEng 21:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most American sports fans do not usually follow association football as much as other sports, but will be watching the defending champion United States women's national soccer team in the 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup, unless they don't care for women's sports. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... about that. As much as I'm a big fan of UConn Huskies women's basketball (about as much as the men's team, this year was a mirror image of the more common outcome for each team), if you want a decent summary of my attitude (which is very representative of Americans) towards women's soccer this should do the trick. I only know anything about it because I heard Sue Bird was on the cover of SI, and... did not know it was the Body Issue (I've never understood the appeal) or that she was married to Megan Rapinoe. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is going nowhere except on a grand tour of prejudices and their intersection with sports. Can we just get into the inevitable transphobia and get it over with, or better yet actually discuss the topic at hand? Dronebogus (talk) 02:14, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discussion below I think Aaron Liu (talk) 21:48, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure there's a request to give HiLo a final warning for their insults. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since the community has mostly been discussing the side issues, maybe an administrator should give HiLo a final warning as a normal administrative action, and then close this before it becomes another giant squid. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be honest Robert, I'm having a hard time understanding what you are saying here. There's no need for some kind of formal "request for administrative action" in order for the community to discuss behavioural issues, and if there was, I would say that it was satisfied by the OPs bringing the matter here in the first place. And while there have been short divergences here and there, the bulk of the above discussion is clearly focused on HiLo's poor record for civility in general and the recent unacceptable PAs in particular: the discussion does not look very "confused" to me at all. further, I think your summary of the conduct a) leaves out a lot of the more problematic language, thereby minimizing the community's concerns, and b) just generally does not align with the rough (if non-unanimous) consensus above that this behaviour is in fact not "reasonable" but rather quite serious violations of policy. It's possible I am misunderstanding you, though, because your comments seem to me to go back and forth on whether this is a serious issue or not.

All that said, while heavily disagreeing with your analysis of the situation, I do find that I am agreement with your suggested course of action. Speaking as one community member (un-involved in the underlying disputes but kinda aghast at the behaviour here and the inaction of multiple admins who watched this unfold) I'd be happier if the community sent a more unified message in the form of a sanction for HiLo (even a slap on the wrist half day block or a narrow TBAN would be something), but it doesn't look like that it is going to happen. An admin issuing a formal warning would certainly be better than nothing--ideally it would be logged/relayed to HiLo via his TP and put in the formal close here. But I think I have to agree that the writing is on the wall here: there's not sufficient community will for a sanction here. That mystifies me, personally, but there's insufficient justification in keeping the discussion open indefinitely if it is not leading to a useful conclusion. So let's hope an admin is willing to make the warning and close the thread. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:SnowRise - I wasn't really commenting on the seriousness of the nationalistic attacks by HiLo. I was reading the discussion here in the possibly futile hope that it would enlighten me as to what the offense was. It didn't enlighten me, so I was and still am confused as to what the details of the main issue are, if the main issue is the conduct of HiLo. I will admit that I don't normally get upset by non-Americans who say stupid things about Americans. Either the stupid things are true, or they are not true, and citizens of a big country can ignore stupid comments. I didn't see any specific evidence of a civility problem by HiLo here, although I am aware that there is such a problem. I thought that the discussion here was mostly tangential, which is why I said it was about other things. Maybe I was expected to read several months of archives, but I am not doing that. I didn't see evidence presented here that amounted to a real case against HiLo. Do you want to show me where it is? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Robert. Like you, I believe it is a dubious use of time to go digging through historical reports for past misdeeds. I do believe that a large and consistent enough pattern of behaviour is worth noting after a time, and I think one exists here, but more to the point, I don't think you need look at anything more than what has already been reported here to be able to appreciate the depth of the problems. That includes some comments that you are clearly aware of but (if I am reading you correctly) are largely dismissing, suggesting the gap between our perspectives is one of philosophy about what is appropriate conduct and speech on this project, rather than a difference in the facts we are working from.

For example, I still feel you are underrating the severity and the damage done by the nationalistic people-bashing comments in question. First off, even if HiLo's comments had been restricted to the message of "you clearly don't know anything about cricket because you are American--therefore get out of my way", that in itself would be a major issue. That's not how we discuss or form consensus on this project, and as someone positioned as an ADR guru on this project, that's something I'm surprised you don't readily agree with me about, and take more seriously. It's a brightline WP:CIR issue when an editor decides to take potshots trying to tear down their rhetorical opposition personally, rather than arguing a priori from the sources, content, and policy.

But HiLo then went far beyond this, beginning to opine more broadly about ignorant Americans with no vision or interest beyond their borders. There is no question that in doing so they leapt straight across any dubious plausible deniability they had for their prejudice and straight into nationalistic WP:PA territory. I respect that you (and probably many of our American editors) have thick enough skin that you can shrug this kind of comment off. That's a character strength. It does not, however, change how unacceptable this kind of comment is, and we don't need you or any one particular American editor to take offense at it before it is a massive problem. Even if the OP had taken no issue with, it would still be a serious violation of core (even pillar) policies, and needing addressing.

Then also in this thread we have a number of diffs of this user losing their ever-loving mind on people in ways that I can only really classify as "TEMPER TANTRUMS, OMG why can't people see what a problem this guy is!!!!!!!!!", to ape the form of these posts. This is somebody who is not exercising the minimum we expect (or at least I thought we expected) for communication in a productive and civil fashion on en.Wikipedia. Worse yet, if you look at this editor's user page, you will see that they themselves have documented that these kinds of observations have been incoming for them for years and years, and yet they have dismissed all such efforts at community intervention (regarding what are clear basic competency issues with regard to discussion) as they themselves being harassed by the "niceness police" or "civility police". This is clear WP:IDHT that, from all indicators, has been going on for well over a decade. Their block log further reflects this.

So, this seems to be a community member who has had more than fair warning that they are falling short of community standards, and yet interprets it consistently as whinging from editors who just don't get how important their contributions are and why they can't be expected to adhere to the normal rules, which they consider an unfair burden. Well, respectfully, at least with regard to this recent wave of behaviour, I think they have been let off lightly up until now. This inaction is not helping the situation with this user, and it's not a good look for us to continue to enable the status quo, simply because of the resistance in this space to sanctioning and established user, relative to a new one. From jut the details established in this thread, HiLo's arguments are often not valid policy arguments, and even cross the line into bigoted invective. What is the argument for tolerating any of this, when it could not be more clearly a violation of WP:PA, WP:CIV, and WP:DISRUPTIVE? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All that said, this is the end of my contributions to this thread: after four sizeable posts, I don't have anything more novel to add, or better ways to say it. And even as an uninvolved party to the underlying dispute, there comes a time where one more comment begins to look out of proportion. Indeed, I'm only adding these last two posts to respond to your inquiry, clearly made in good faith. I recognize there is not an appetite for a sanction here. I'll repeat that this confuses and worries me. But there should be no doubt that the problems here are real and substantial, whatever our collective response to it. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Snow Rise - You refer to me as an ADR guru. What is ADR? Is it Alternative Dispute Resolution? I don't think it has to do with footnotes. When I mediate disputes, I try to encourage the parties to ignore any personal attacks and will collapse them. Sometimes ignoring any unpleasant comments may make it possible to solve a content dispute. But the reason that I am ignoring the "impersonal attacks", that is, attacks on my nation, is mainly that I haven't seen them, and I don't want to see them. So if I am ignoring the attacks, it is because I am ignoring the attacks, not because I don't think that they are serious. I haven't seen them to assess whether they are serious. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even just a warning would be sufficient. A thread like this closing with no action sends a message to contributors (and not incidentally, also to admins) that the community has decided violations like these are tolerable because they are not against an unacceptable target and because nothing was done about it in the past. I for one won't stand by idly if disruption like this continues at WP:ITNC, however. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense close here all. The issue is at Arbcom. Thank you, Lourdes 03:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

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

• Examples of Recent Incivility by BrownHairedGirl

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

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

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

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

• Talk Page Discussion

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why did your post above make no mention of my reply[42] to you in that CFD , in which I explained why it was impossible to believe that the nominator has done WP:BEFORE?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You a few others want to amke it about me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  What's going on here?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So the merry-go-round is back.

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

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

BHG is and has been a very prolific editor.

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

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

However...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@RevelationDirect: Aaaargh!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Nederlandse Leeuw: this is significant.

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

Really? Do you disagree that it is currently, in the guideline, as it has been for at least a dec?de BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't disagree that it currently is in the guideline. I disagree that it should be in the guideline just because it currently is in the guideline. It shouldn't, because it is way too vague, and therefore impossible to adequately apply in practice.

Moreover, this rule allows editors to set up an elaborated completely unnecessary subsubsubsubsubsubcategorised scheme with 1 or 2 items each (e.g. some sort of intersection between country and century), claim that "by country" and "by century" are "large overall accepted sub-categorization schemes", and thus, the completely unnecessary subsubsubsubsubsubcategorised scheme as a fait accompli. And there's nothing anyone can do about it once it has been created. That's just unworkable. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At last! So you agree that I have accuately presnted what the guideline says.

You are of course fully entitled to your own belief. But you are not entitled to your own guideline.

It's utterly outrageous that you and a few others others choose to act as if the guideline says something radically different to what it actually says, and to berate me for challenging your denialism.

If you want to change a guideline, the proper consenus-based approach is to go seek a consensus at an RFC, and to accept the outcome, whatever that is.

But instead you have chosen in this discussion to repatedly suggest that I recuse myself (or be banned) from CFDs involving WP:SMALLCAT, because I have had the allegedly appalling rudeenss to uphold what the guidleine actually says. In what sort of a weirdly dysfunctioanl uiverse would that sort of approach be tolerated? This is a very nasty form of bullying, with a strong tint of gaslighting: you gnore the rules, but you smear BHG as the baddie for upolding them. I do not want to work in an environment like that.

I regard your dismissal of the "established series" clause as hopelessly simplistic, but this is not the place for that substantive debate. What is at issue here is your choice to repeatedly attack me for upholding what the guidline actually says. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To BHG,

Well well, you can quote verbatim what a publicly available online text says. Congratulations.

Before you, in your typo-riddled misspelling flurry, accuse even more people or uiverses [sic] of being dysfunctioanl [sic], I suggest you keep it WP:COOL, then decide what you want your future on Wikipedia to be, which approach is most likely to lead to that outcome, and follow it. E.g.

• If you're looking to be banned or blocked, then you shouldn't care if you're being uncivil in an ANI about your alleged incivility, because anything you say in a potentially uncivil manner here can and may be used against you. (I presume that is not your goal, but that may be the consequence of your conduct here; you're undermining your case by recklessly criticising the very people who are saying you should be more WP:CIVIL. If you entered this conversation being all nice to everyone and apologising for any offence you might have caused, your case might have been credible, but we're seeing the opposite).
• If you're "gathering evidence" and "diff-sifting", ask yourself why. If you're not doing it in order to sanction those you want to stop allegedly "hounding" you or "team-tagging" your work, why are you gathering evidence?
• If you don't want to have to deal with all this shit anymore, but just write great articles about topics you care about, then WP:LETITGO, do damage control, and secure the editing privileges you may still be allowed to keep after this is over.
• Alternately, you always have the option of WP:RETIRE.

I've done my best to offer an olive branch to you. What did you do with it? You threw it out of my hand, broke it in little pieces, set it on fire and poured petrol on it, declaring you are right and everyone else is wrong. Allow me to introduce myself as a new member of your opposition. Good night.

To the rest:

Per S Marshall, I do not think inaction is an option anymore. Nor do I think telling people to stop doing bad things without imposing sanctions (BHG's stance) is realistic anymore, but wishful thinking. These clashes will probably occur again at SMALLCAT CfDs in the near future. Therefore, I think sanctions are called for.

So far, we have seen a compelling case being made from multiple editors why a topicban, an IBAN, or potentially other sanctions such as temporary blocks imposed upon BrownHairedGirl would be justified, and have in fact already been imposed upon her in the past for much the same reasons, including desysoping and temporary blocks (as summarised by Nobody). My recommendation would be to start with a topicban on SMALLCAT CfDs (as proposed by me) and an IBAN vis-à-vis Oculi, RevelationDirect, and Laurel Lodged (as proposed by Nobody). Further sanctions do not seem necessary at the moment, but should incivility take place in other contexts and involve other editors, these may be considered.

On the other hand, we have seen BHG make unsubstantiated claims of hounding and team-tagging by the three editors mentioned; perhaps she is indeed gathering more evidence, but has also indicated not to desire any sanctions to be imposed upon anyone. So even if BHG will present this evidence eventually (instead of wildly responding to other editors in typo-fuelled CIVIL-skirting replies), there seems to be no case for sanctions against anyone but herself. I'm calling it a night, good night everyone. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow!

Nederlandse Leeuw is not only continuing to demand my exclusion from CFD because I uphold the actual, stable guideline which Nederlandse Leeuw rejects ... but NL is overtly trying to drive me off Wikipedia etirely, suggesting that I retire.

This is utterly appalling conduct.

And they also have a go at mocking the typos caused by the dying keyboard on my laptop, which is a mess of sticky keys, dead keys and consequnetial remaps. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:53, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl I'm not proposing to exclude you from CfD entirely, only a topicban on SMALLCAT CfDs.

How the guideline should be interpreted has been unstable for years, e.g. no agreement on the minimum number of items required.

I've suggested 4 options for your future on Wikipedia:

Option #4 "voluntary retirement" is one way to achieve what you want, namely, for the alleged hounding to stop. This is preferable to retirement by admin, which is what you currently seem to be on track to, in several stages (option #1: "various types of bans and blocks").

Option #2 "gathering evidence" is probably going to be inconsequential (see my replies to Dronebogus and DIYeditor).

Option #3 "to let it go, do damage control, and secure your future on Wikipedia" is what I'm actually recommending, and in my view that involves accepting a topicban on SMALLCAT CfDs. But this requires you to take an olive branch (you've already rejected mine), or to disengage from this ANI and let it run its course (which you're not doing; you're actively responding to everyone everywhere, making option #1 more likely as you are skirting WP:CIVIL again and again in the process). The longer you fight against this option #3 in this belligerent manner, the closer you will get to option #1, and the more uncertain your future on Wikipedia is looking.

Incidentally, if you've got a dying keyboard on my laptop, which is a mess of sticky keys, dead keys and consequnetial remaps, that is not our problem, but yours. You can still correct any typos before you hit the "Save" or the "Reply" button, or even after. (Alternately, you might want to have your keyboard repaired, or buy a new one).

You might have noticed I have corrected some of my own typos after I posted some comments, because I want to make sure everyone here understands me correctly. FYI I used keyboards on 3 different devices so far to participate in this ANI; all of them work fine, and still I correct my own typos. Your failure or unwillingness to do so is entirely your own responsibility.

I didn't even know you had a dying keyboard on my laptop, which is a mess of sticky keys, dead keys and consequnetial remaps until you just told all of us this. You could have kept that information private, to prevent people from mocking you for it. Now it's out in the open, and that is on you.

Have a good day. Greetings from the opposition benches. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: I struggle daily with typos even though my equipment is working just fine. I went back and forth with the list of Diffs on whether to quote verbatim or clean up a few typos. I ended up going with the former to ensure an exact match, but no disrespect was intended. - RevelationDirect (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @RevelationDirect. Either approach is fine with me: quote verbatim or tidy up, as you prefer. Both ways show consideration and respect.

What is not in any way considerate or respectful is NL's mockery of me for typos, and their comment that disclosig my keyboard prolems makes me a legitmate target for mockery. That's no way to behave anywhere. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I don't understand why the *peep* we should have a very special exemption just for works by creator: Also, subcategories of Category:Works by creator may be created even if they include only one page. This is completely random. Just special pleading. No reference is made to any precedent or discussion or agreement. Moreover, there are many Category:Works of uncertain authorship, so that one page in that one subcategory may not actually have been created by the alleged creator but by someone else. I really don't get it. This is one of the worst categorisation rules ever made. We should scrap it. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Question BrownHairedGirl, if you believe(d) there was a disruptive, vindictive tag-team effort, why didn't you bring your evidence of bad faith here rather than sprinkling accusations around places where there is no way to address it? —DIYeditor (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I've been trying to get BHG to answer that question. So far she has said: I don't want anyoe [sic] sanctioned. I just want the hounding and the tag-teaming to stop. (...) I am not vindictive. I just want it to stop.

  As I told Dronebogus above, what I don't understand is that BHG wants to use evidence, not to sanction those who are allegedly hounding her or team-tagging her work, but for everyone to stop doing bad things and get back to business as usual. I don't think that's realistic. These clashes are almost bound to happen again. I think sanctions will have to be taken, one way or another, perhaps both. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Because ANI is a masively dysfunctional shitshow which I prefer to avoid until other paths have been exhausted. I find ANI to e deeply unpleasant and distressing timesink, even if it produces a broadly favourable outcome. (See e.g. my comments at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#5-JUL-2023 (permalink), about my othe recent trip to ANI, which I initiated.)

  In this instance, the worst of the tag-teaming stopped about ten days ago, and there seems to have been none this week. So there was no need to spend a day diff-farming. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think this is pretty much the only venue on Wikipedia (other than e.g. arbcom, sock puppet investigations, and dealing directly with obvious vandalism) where it is appropriate to outright allege bad faith, with evidence of such. Doing so repeatedly elsewhere is an AGF/CIVIL problem. Either get the problem addressed properly or ignore it. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I strongly agree with DIYeditor. Whatever gathering evidence, diff-farming, diff-sifting etc. BrownHairedGirl is doing or planning is likely to be inconsequential if she does not want to impose sanctions on the three editors who she accuses of hounding and team-tagging. And as long as these accusations are presented, repeatedly, without the evidence for it, this is an WP:AFG/WP:CIVIL//WP:ASPERSIONS problem which strengthens the case of this ANI, and for sanctions to be imposed on BHG. Simultaneously, BHG is hereby undermining her own "defence", for lack of a better word, because I'm really struggling to understand what she's trying to do, and how she believes this will be successful in this situation. She appears to have chosen this as her wikt:hill to die on, rather than picking her battles. If this continues, it may be one of her last. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:54, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with the general sentiment of those who can see how BHG would feel put upon by these nominations. BD2412 T 18:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as of now. A lot of this seems passive aggressive and snarky, but very little crosses what I would consider the threshold for TBANs given the circumstances. IMO, Chide and issue a warning to BHG, and issue a two way IBAN if necessary.
  As someone who has been in my fair share of arguments, @BrownHairedGirl - Accusations like "tag-teaming" are quite serious violations, and if you are unwilling to take it to ANI it is best not to insinuate as such. If you feel you are being targeted, either bring it to ANI, or else just live with it. Unpleasant interactions do not help the project, and these accusations do not help your case in discussions. I would especially point to the usage by you of the term "vindictive, disruptive bad-faith nomination" - No closer will see this and see it as an argument that will change their mind. You are simply creating an unpleasant environment by using them, and I would expect you to not use such terminology in future. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @CapnJackSp: it is terminology which I have never used before this episode. I used it here because that is exactly what happened.

  My diff-farming is more time-consuing than I had hoped, and it may now not be until tomorrow that I post the evidence. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, I expect you to not use it future either. Try to resolve issues on user talk pages, and if it doesnt work, bring it to ANI. Accusations in discussions help no one. As for the diffs, you can take your time. I doubt there will be a sudden closure to this. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• If even this does not cross the threshold, then what would? Is WP:CIVILITY perhaps entirely redundant? I'd be curious to know. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Given the circumstances, (which include the other editors being uncivil as well, including in this thread itself with violations I would categorise as far more egregious) I dont think the contribution by BHG in these discussions is a net negative. It is certainly unnecessary, and it should be avoided, but I do not think a TBAN results in a better space. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @CapnJackSp That's just tu quoque.

  • Saying "Well everyone's doing it, so what BHG is doing is only fair, let's get back to business as usual" doesn't solve anything. It won't exonerate BHG from any policy violations she may have committed, and won't prevent the same clashes from happening again at SMALLCAT CfDs, the probability of which is extremely high. BHG's own estimation that it will not happen again just because it has been quiet for a week seems wishful thinking to me. Particularly after this ANI, business as usual can safely be ruled out.
  • If other editors have allegedly been uncivil, she or you or someone else should make a case for that, and present evidence for it. As long as BHG or anyone else presents accusations of hounding, team-tagging or other violations on the part of other editors without the evidence for it, this is an WP:AFG/WP:CIVIL/WP:ASPERSIONS problem that undermines BHG's own "defence", and strengthens the case of this ANI and for sanctions to be imposed on BHG (see my reply to DIYeditor above). As it stands, only a case with evidence against BHG has been made by nom, and supported by several participants (myself included).
  • I note that nom herself has admitted to having been uncivil on at least one occasion, but having apologised for it to BHG. She recognises the importance of WP:CIVIL.
  • I also note that when LL made several provocations/teasings towards BHG in this ANI, and was called out by Black Kite and me not to do that and disengage from this ANI, LL removed the comments in question and disengaged. He recognises the importance of WP:CIVIL.
  • I finally note that BHG has not admitted to any wrongdoing whatsoever so far, let alone apologised for it. She does not recognise the importance of WP:CIVIL (except in an attempt to counter-accuse others; a tactic criticised by LilianaUwU above: That's not uncivil of people to call out uncivil behavior.). As I highlighted, when I first presented my findings with care and nuance to BHG that I found some of her comments to be uncivil, she responded by saying "That's just wikilawyering and offence-taking", confirming for me several weeks ago already that BHG does not recognise the importance of WP:CIVIL. In this ANI, too, almost every comment is filled with more WP:CIVIL-skirting belligerence and accusations addressed to her detractors, not just the three of the alleged "tagging team", but anyone else here who disagrees with her. This includes myself, despite my best efforts to be diplomatic, offer an olive branch, and work out some sort of compromise that could secure BHG's future with proper damage control. I have now joined the opposition, and concluded that limited sanctions against BHG must now be taken, for the good of the community, and for her own good.

  Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You have argued passionately in favour of the TBAN, but it doesnt affect my analysis.
  The only aspect of WP:CIVIL I see being a clear violation would be WP:AGF, which does allow you to drop the assumption of good faith if it is a repeated pattern. I dont think it was right to accuse as such in a discussion, but that isnt by any way ban worthy.
  As for LL, they not only kept the mocking attitude, but also continued to insinuate regarding the extremely distasteful comments regarding her mental status after the warning that they would be banned. Such an attitude, to me, shows that there may have been grounds to disregard the good faith assumptions we usually expect.
  If BHG's version of events is true, she may not have much to apologise for. As such I reserve that judgement till later. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If Foo's version of events is true, Foo may not have much to apologise for. That is to be expected, and why self-policing is generally not a great idea. What's more important is the testimonies of the rest of the community with regards to individual editors. I'm seeing a pretty strong majority of people here who have confirmed and added to the evidence provided by nom. On the other hand, I also see that the suggested sanctions are generally limited, and will allow BHG to continue editing Wikipedia in other areas, just not SMALLCAT CfDs anymore, both for the good of the community and her own good.

  Given that BHG has been blocked 4 times already from 2019 to 2022 already, in almost every case because of or related to WP:CIVIL, and been desysopped, prohibited from all portals, and given an IBAN in 2020 because of similar violations, this is not unfamiliar terrain, and sanctioning BHG is not unprecedented. If anything, it suggests past sanctions have not been sufficient to prevent further violations.

  I still want BrownHairedGirl on Wikipedia. But if she is not able to improve her own conduct, the community should take actions so that she can no longer engage in misconduct in areas or in interactions with certain editors where that is likely to happen again and again without sanctions. I am of the opinion that inaction is no longer an option, and mere warnings will not suffice. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:28, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This is essentially restating what has been stated in comments above in much more detail. As such the assumption that I must have come to my conclusions by overlooking those comments seems inappropriate.
  I dont see a case prima facie for sanctions; And I will wait to hear BHG's side of the story with diffs. If you want me to pass judgement prior to that, I dont agree. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:07, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose topic ban for BHG, and seriously consider a topic band on CFD and removing categories for RevelationDirect, Oculi, and Laurel Lodged. who do not seem to understand what they have been doing is detrimental to Wikipedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The core issue of WP:SMALLCAT

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

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

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

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

Does User:EEng's feline both represent small categories and a dialogue of the deaf, which seems to be the case here? Many white blue-eyed cats are deaf. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, er, um... Why, yes! How perceptive of you to see the joke within the joke. EEng 20:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All kidding aside, that is one cute kitty. Thanks for your illustrations. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: Love seeing this come up from time to time. That's my cat! She's named Zen and is still doing great, even though that photo was taken 11 years ago. Here's a photo from a few months ago of her, all grown up on the same chair! Leijurv (talk) 07:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They start off so tiny! –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Yes" or "no", please. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Laurel Lodged Please don't tease/provoke her by copying her behaviour. You're not helping the inquiry, and undermining your own input. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl no, the core issue is your lack of WP:CIVIL. Don't go WP:OFFTOPIC, please.

I suggest we close this irrelevant subsection. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, @Nederlandse Leeuw, this whole thread is entirely about a sprawling dispute which arises from the sytematic misuse of WP:SMALLCAT by a small set of editors.

I do undestand that it suits some editors to ignore the sustance and to try make an ANI drama focused solely on the tone of my challenges to that sytematic misuse. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fell into the trap that JC37 mention: "a.) if you get baited into being uncivil". Stupid of me. I've deleted the material. --Laurel Lodged 12:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a great summary of this whole dispaute that my attempt to engage editors on the core substance of the whole dispute is labelled by Laurel Lodged as being baited into being uncivil.

LL's unwillingness to reply with civility to a simple question is a key part of the reason why this became heated. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, LL, you aren't being baited at this ANI. You're just being uncivil for the sake of being uncivil, and this is twice now today. Anyone unfamiliar with the dispute would assume that it is your modus operandi. I notice that most of the OPs "uncivil" diffs are from BHG to you; if this is level of how your discourse runs I am unsurprised that other editors may sometimes talk to you like that. I suggest you disengage from this ANI completely and let your fellow editors involved in the situation handle it. Black Kite (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, this is indeed LL's modus operandi, and has been for many years. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:55, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Laurel Lodged Good on you for deleting the material. I recommend you take Black Kite's suggestion and disengage from this ANI, at least for now. We'll take it from here. Have a good day, see you elsewhere. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see the comments before they were deleted, but I'm against repeated incivility by any editor. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RevelationDirect: Here they are: [43][44]. Please note that LL removed them completely instead of striking them out. This is in violation of WP:TALK#REPLIED. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why has the edit history of those two comments been suppressed? How does WP:SUPPRESS apply in this context? It feels a stretch to class it under criteria #4. Cashew.wheel (talk) 09:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The suppression was to hide something else that was unrelated. These two edits just got caught in the middle. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

I would support a possible amendment of WP:SMALLCAT. @Smallchief has a good point. Established practice in recent months has, as far as I have experienced, shown that most editors consider a category to be a SMALLCAT if it has only 1 or 2 items (not counting subcategories), and that new categories should only be created if it has at least 5 items. I personally find that a good rule of thumb; if 1 or 2 items were miscategorised by the category creator, then we don't have to immediately delete the newly created category, because 3 is enough for a Keep.

Smallchief is suggesting that a category should have 10 items at all times, from the moment of creation until eternity. I'm not sure if that is necessary, but I would not be opposed to having more stringent criteria than 5 at creation, 3 until eternity.

At any rate, this is not the place to discuss this in detail, but I thought I'd give my 2 eurocents. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For years, "small" was generally accepted as meaning fewer than five, but if there are subcategories that would be different (obviously, I hope). But that is not the only issue or problem; there is also the "part of a wider scheme" exemption, also long accepted, which some editors are also now attacking. Johnbod (talk) 14:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with making 5 the lowest limit, but at least we should have a limit. I don't wish it on anyone to have to continue to debate the limit for another decade.

I have no objection against the "part of a wider scheme" exemption in theory. However, in practice, it is unclear what "wider scheme" even means, and even if it is clear, whether that is a good excuse. If you've got a series of five categories with only 1 item, I don't think "wider scheme" is a good excuse; I think those are five shit categories that should be (up)merged. I see this all the time with Fooians by century, especially when created with Template:Navseasoncats. It doesn't help navigation, it just makes items harder to find (for both readers and editors) and categorise (for editors). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A hard limit would be major change to WP:SMALLCAT.

Nederlandse Leeuw is quite entitled to their view that the "wider scheme" clause is a bad idea, but they ar not entitled to continue to act as if it that clause had not been a stable part of WP:SMALLCAT for over a decade.

I strongly disagree with NL's view, but I am happy to discuss it at an RFC. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallchief, actually the lack of a definition of "small" is not contentious. A threshold of five as a safe number has long been broadly accepted at CFD. Lower numbers may be acceptable if there a reasonable possiility of growth, or if the category is part of a wider series. (The poblem with Elizabeth Taylor's husbands is not that the number is currently small; the probem is that is "Small with no potential for growth", on account of Taylor being sadly unable to marry again).

The dispute is about the fact that a small group of editors have been persistently and stubbornly refusing to take any consideration whatsoever of WP:SMALLCAT's caveats about "potential for growth" and "established series". This whole ANI discuson is about their efforts to frame me as "ucivil" for objecting to their abuse.

There may be a case for changes to WP:SMALLCAT. But as I have repeatedly pointed out at CFD discussions, any changes should be proposed and discussed at an RFC, to establish a broad WP:consensus. It is quite wrong for a small group of editors to try to use a WP:LOCALCON to simply ignore the actual contet of a short, stable guideline which they wholly misreporesent... let alone do as they have done here, to try to bully the objector into silence.

To Nederlandse Leeuw and any other would like WP:SMALLCAT to be amended: RFC is thataway. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah perhaps we should make it an RfC, that's a good idea. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I support setting up an RfC, but I've never done that before, so I would suggest a more experienced editor set it up. @Smallchief are you willing to do that? You seem like the experienced editor we need. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have started several RFCs, and participated in many more.

So I strongly urge that before opening an RFC, there should be a discusison about what issues should be adressed, and how to frame them in a neutral way. I suggest WT:CAT as a venue for that preliminary discussion. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's best if neither I, nor BHR, nor RD, nor Oculi, nor LL, starts this RfC; we are all too closely involved in this ANI already, and I think we need a neutral party to pose this question. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever opens the RFC, we need to start with a scoping discussion. That's the only way to ensure that the RFC does address all issues and that is actually neutral.

I think it is highly unlikely that even the best-intetioned and most skilled editor can cover all the bases without a scoping discussion to find out what needs to be resolved. Note for example that I would want to propose several changes which have not been discussed so far, some of which are to keep up with technical develpments. There will probaly need to be several questions.

One path which has often been successful is for the final draft of the RFC to be hammered out between two or more editors with opposing views. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having a team preparing a draft RfC seems like a good idea. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS: But I think it will not be possible to have a proper RfC before this ANI is closed. We're in the heat of the moment, IBANs are being suggested to be imposed between several editors, as well as other suggested sanctions. There will not be a way to keep things WP:COOL until the issues here have been addressed. I support an RfC after this is all over, because we do need a long-term solution. But first things first. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• In 2018 May 18#Category:Mayors of Daly City, California, User:Bearcat said of BHG "... your interpretation of what SMALLCAT means inherently causes SMALLCAT to defeat itself, because every SMALLCAT could always claim to be theoretically expandable someday, and thus no SMALLCAT would ever fail to qualify for that exemption from SMALLCAT." Exactly.
  Since 20 June 23, as well as excoriating any editors with the temerity to disagree with her, BHG has created 959 new categories in 18 days, a prodigious output. All of these will be properly named, parented and described, but not necessarily populated: BHG seems to think 1 member is enough (how navigation is improved by hiding a single article deep in an elegant web of tiny categories is never explained). Population is left to other editors, who may have no interest in populating say Category:17th-century bagpipe players or Category:Swiss emigrants to Ireland. It has certainly been a toxic atmosphere at cfd since BHG returned after a welcome break of many months.
  I am not particularly likely to tag team with Laurel Lodged, after their recent disobliging remarks on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 May 11#More emigrants "What makes this procedural lapse all the more egregious was the supercilious replies by the nominator [Oculi] to a GoodFaith query on his talk page", and after long-running disagreements at speedy and cfd based on LL's irrational objection to the demonym ("Down with the tyranny of demonyms!"). In any case it would have been an ineffective tag team as LL contributed nothing (until recent enigmatic remarks) to 2023 June 24#Irish field hockey players by county or 2023 June 24#Irish trade unionists by county (same page as LL's own nomination 2023 June 24#Irish police officers by county).
  BHG seems to be trying to create an atmosphere at cfd where (a) all her category creations are sacrosanct; (b) nominations are subjected to all manner of novel restrictions, rendering nominations almost impossible; (c) WP:SMALLCAT is disallowed. "a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme": 'accepted' by whom? Where is the 'accepted' part to be tested if not at cfd, preferably in a civilised conversation not bludgeoned to death by one remorselessly argumentative editor, capable of adding more bytes than the rest of the contributors combined?
  Accusing RevelationDirect of any impropriety is ridiculous: RevelationDirect typically supports SMALLCAT nominations with a remark such as "With no objection to recreating if any ever reach 5+ articles"; see eg this cfd search - 103 hits going back to 2016. Oculi (talk) 11:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Oculi writes a pile of blatant falsehoods BHG seems to be trying to create an atmosphere at cfd where (a) all her category creations are sacrosanct; (b) nominations are subjected to all manner of novel restrictions, rendering nominations almost impossible; (c) WP:SMALLCAT is disallowed. "a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme": 'accepted' by whom? Where is the 'accepted' part to be tested if not at cfd

  I note that Oculi offers absolutely no diffs to support these wholly false allegations.

  1. I have never argued or implied that my category creations are sacrosanct. I have asked that they not be targeted vindictively, that they not be immediately nominated for deletion, and that when discussed, they should be assessed against the actual guideline that I followed when creating them.
  2. It is a total inverson of the truth for Oculi to claim that I try to make nominations are subjected to all manner of novel restrictions.
     All I have asked is that the existing, long-term stable guideline be followed. It is absurd to claim that upholding a stable guideline is any form of "novel restriction"; more than absurd, it is a monstrous inversion of reality.
  3. WP:SMALLCAT is disallowed. "a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme": 'accepted' by whom? Where is the 'accepted' part to be tested".
     Again, utterly false. I have never argued that WP:SMALLCAT be disallowed; but what I have repeatedly argued (and got angry about) is that WP:SMALLCAT is not just a single word "small", but a set of simple principles in which current size is never the sole criterion: WP:SMALLCAT eplicity says "this criterion does not preclude all small categories", which could not be more clear.
     Oculi wants to ignore all of that guideline except the one word "small", even when he seeks to delete over 300 categories (WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 13#Expatriates_A-G) in one nomination, with precisely zero asesment of either their potential for growth of whether they were part of an accepted sub-categorization scheme.

  What on earth is going on here?

  I cannot know why Oculi and others repeatedly deny what WP:SMALLCAT actally says, and I make no claim to know why. I can ask questions: Is Oculi somehow unable to read the 100 words of WP:SMALLCAT? Does Oculi not want to read it? Is Oculi bluffing? -- but I cannot know the answers.

  All I do know is that this sustained denial of what WP:SMALLCAT actally says is happening, both at CFD and right here at ANI.

  What on earth is going on?

  Why is this sustained denialism of stable consensus not treated as gross misconduct?

  Why are attcks on me for upholding a stable consensus not treated as gross misconduct?

  It saddens me deeply that I come here to buld an encyclopedia, but find my categorisation work and that of others being subject to a large scale demolition effort by a small group of editors who systematically misuse the guideline which they namecheck. But what absolutely breaks my heart is the sheer sustained viciousness of their inversion of reality -- not primarily because it is directed agaist me, but because if en.wp cannot uphold the principle of honest use of a simple guidline, then what possible chance do we have of either creating an actual encyclopedia? If challenging outright falsehood is punished, then we are creating a savagely toxic environment.

  In over 40 years of adult life, much of it spent working on the edges of the dark and dirty world of politics, I thought I had witnessed far too much horrible behaviour. But have never before had such a close encounter with a concerted effort to invert reality and monster the person who points out that the rules are written down. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:46, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Accusing RevelationDirect of any impropriety is ridiculous: RevelationDirect typically supports SMALLCAT nominations with a remark such as "With no objection to recreating if any ever reach 5+ articles

  That quote is entirely the opposite of the gotcha that Oculi thinks it is.

  WP:SMALLCAT's 6-word headline says "Small with no potential for growth", but Oculi's search demonstrates that RevelationDirect is systematically failing to assess potential for growth, and wrongly asessessing only current article count, even tho WP:SMALLCAT says "this criterion does not preclude all small categories".

  Thank you, Oculi, for illustrating so persuasively how RevelationDirect's abuse of WP:SMALLCAT is much more widespread than I had realised. No wonder Oculi It has certainly been a toxic atmosphere at cfd since BHG returned after a welcome break of many months. -- it must be deeply uncomfortable to have someone repeatedly challenge sytematic abuse of a guideline after so many months of it being unchallenged.

  Oculi, RevelationDirect: which part of "this criterion does not preclude all small categories" is unclear to you both? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Smallcat

• Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Small with no potential for growth

Just for those who have not been around CfD:

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

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

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

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

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

@Jc37: your good faith observation is, as you note, historical. Am I right in thinking that your former frequent participation at CFD is now more than 5 years behind us?

In recent years, a threshold of five as a safe number has long been broadly accepted at CFD. Lower numbers may be acceptable if there a reasonable possibility of growth, or if the category is part of a wider series.

But as noted above, this dispute is not about the definition of "small". It is about the sustained disregard shown by a few CFD regulars for WP:SMALLCAT's very clear caveats about "potential for growth" and "part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I read your comments above, and the first phrase that came to mind was: Suppose They Gave a War and Nobody Came.

I hope you have a good day. - jc37 16:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not the most helpful response ever to polite request for clarification. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Laurel Lodged at CfD

• Laurel Lodged (talk · contribs)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1065#Emptying categories out of process

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

I agree here, wrt the sort of language used and especially the mocking of her supposed mental health status. I'd wait to see more before announcing any judgement on LL, but from their conduct in this thread it does seem to suggest a vendetta. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 20:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LL's vendetta against me has been going on for years, but I doubt that I will have the energy or stomach to diff-farm through about a decade of bile.

The new develoment has been LL's vindictive tag-teaming with Oculi, on which I am collecting diffs. That tag-teaming is a massive escalation. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problems can be distinct, alleged tag-teaming behaviour is not any justification for being incivil. --qedk (t 愛 c) 22:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL I didn't even know BHG was desysopped for incivility when this ANI was submitted; it has not been part of my case until S Marshall mentioned it, and it has not been a central part of my case after.

As I have said elsewhere, it's always possible to file a complaint against other editors who may have engaged in similar or other violations, but only if evidence is presented for it (see my comments to Dronebogus, DIYeditor and Captain Jack Sparrow above).

• The 1065 ANI report on "Emptying categories out of process" might count as evidence for a case on LL, but what I'm reading is that no agreement was reached on a sanction, and as a result no sanction has been imposed on LL.
• The 1092 ANI report on "Laurel Lodged at WP:AN" might count as more serious evidence, but again no agreement was reached and no sanction imposed on LL.
• I also note that when LL made several provocations/teasings towards BHG in this ANI, and was called out by Black Kite and me not to do that and disengage from this ANI, LL removed the comments in question and disengaged. He recognises the importance of WP:CIVIL. The same goes for RD (see my comment to Captain Jack Sparrow above).
• As Nobody suggested above, mutual IBANs between BHG and LL could provide a partial solution to the "vendetta" Captain Jack Sparrow has also identified here. That seems to me to be a reasonable sanction to be imposed on both LL and BHG. (For the moment, I don't think it's necessary to consider IBANs between BHG and Oculi/RD; especially RD would really like to be able to continue cooperating "collegially" with BHG as she has stated in the OP, and that still seems possible.)
• I support qedk's comment The problems can be distinct, alleged tag-teaming behaviour is not any justification for being incivil. As LilianaUwU also noted above, BHG has attempted to accuse those who accused her of being uncivil of incivility, but that very act is itself not uncivil: That's not uncivil of people to call out uncivil behavior. This is tu quoque behaviour, and without evidence also a WP:AFG/WP:CIVIL/WP:ASPERSIONS problem (see my comments to DIYeditor and Captain Jack Sparrow above).

Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nederlandse Leeuw: Laurel Lodged had to be told twice by Black Kite to knock off the behavior in this AN/I thread before backing down. That is far, far, from supportive of the statement He recognises the importance of WP:CIVIL. You don't get to call someone a actual menace to the Wiki Project and get to turnaround saying you'll disengage. The damage has been done, and I never saw an apology to BHG (only a thing further accusing her of "baiting" him which isn't an excuse). He's just going to keep doing this kind of thing.

@qedk: The way I see it; regardless of BHG's conduct here, LL should be considered for sanctions. No reasonable person acts the way he has acted here, and it's only made the situation worse. What kind of message are we sending out by saying Laurel Lodge's actions are in any way acceptable on Wikipedia? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My point is not to say that LL's conduct should not be examined, my point is to say that BHG's conduct should be examined with due diligence to past behaviour, and not treated as an isolated incident. --qedk (t 愛 c) 22:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IMO they cannot be treated in isolation. AGF does allow the assumption of bad faith if the opposing editor acts in a way as to lose that privilege. Both are connected. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The side issue of WP:SMALLCAT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry, but @RevelationDirect absolutely does not have a plausible interpretation of the current editing guideline

See the section above, #The core issue of WP:SMALLCAT. It's a series of quotes from WP:SMALLCAT.

RevelationDirect has repeatedly rejected all of those parts of the guideline. I had a lengthy discusion with RD at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Apologies_for_CFD_comment (permaink), where they simply refused to engage on those simple points.

This sustained denialism is not in any way a "plausible interpretation". And it is deeply to uncivil to disrespect other editors by pretending that the words of a guideline do not exist or have nothing remotely like their plain English meaning. WP:Civil reuires that oe editosr be treated with "consideration and respect" ... but this sustained denialism is thoroughly inconsiderate and deepy disrespectful.

I am not obliged to sustain an assmption of good faith when someone repeatedly asserts that black is white. RD won't even agree that the 6-word headline "Small with no potential for growth" actually means what that ootential for growth is a factor!

I do undestand that RD likes to come to Wikiedia to relax. But repeatedly winding up other editors by denying reality does not seem to me to be a good way to ensure a relaxing experience.

. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because you wanted us to have a substantive discussion on WP:SMALLCAT, I tried really hard above to even-handedly contrast our interpretations of the guideline without any negative characterization of your perspective.RevelationDirect (talk) 04:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it will not be possible to have a proper RfC before this ANI is closed. We're in the heat of the moment, IBANs are being suggested to be imposed between several editors, as well as other suggested sanctions. There will not be a way to keep things WP:COOL until the issues here have been addressed. I support an RfC after this is all over, because we do need a long-term solution. But first things first. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RevelationDirect: again, I remind you that the headline of WP:SMALLCAT says "Small with no potential for growth"'. It had exactly the same headline ten years ago.[45]

Ten years ago[46] the body text of the guideine said "Note also that this criterion does not preclude all small categories". The current version[47] of WP:SMALLCAT uses exactly the same words "Note also that this criterion does not preclude all small categories".

This guidance is clear and simple. It has been stable for at least a decade.

That is not a matter of "interpretation", as you insist. It is a matter of fact.

Yet you repeatedly deny that "potential for growth" is a factor when applying WP:SMALLCAT. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t mention the header of WP:SMALLCAT because we both treat it the same. If you look at our two current nominations (yours, mine), our views are so similar you could switch the signatures and no one would notice: we both nominated categories that were part of a series, both categories had at least some growth potential, but we didn’t see that growth potential as plausible. I do think growth potential should be considered (see here and here) but we have an honest disagreement about who should do that assessment work when an editor creates small categories en masse. Even if the positions you ascribe to me were true though, it wouldn’t show I’m part of an attack dog for a secret tag team.

Your thesis here and on your talk page seemed to be that, if only we engage in a substantive discussion of the editing guideline, then the frank comments I've mischaracterized as uncivil would evaporate. (If that’s not a fair summary of your view, let me know.) But when I provided just the engagement you asked for, I received yet more aspersions about my motives and competency. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true, @RevelationDirect.

In the discusion User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Apologies_for_CFD_comment you repeatedly refsued to uphold the "Small with no potential for growth" principle. Instead you retained the position you had taken at WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_June_25#People_by_occupation_in_Northern_Ireland, when you expilicitly !voted to upmerge because, as you wrote in your reply to me Your clarification that you're not planning to populate these categories moves my !vote to Merge.[48]. A I noted in my reply, that both grossly misrepresented my position (I did not say that I was not planning to populate these categories), and also breached both WP:SMALLCAT's empahasis on "no potential for growth" and the "accepted series" clause. Your hostile repsose accused me of refusal to compromise.[49]

It may be that you have since changed your view. Any editor is entitled to change their view on anything, and if you now upold the guideline as actually written then of course I welcome that.

But if you have changed your mind, you should say that you have changed your mind. Instead, you picked a fight with me because you woudn't uphold the gudeline as written: you ignored both the "potential for growth" and the "accepted series" parts of WP:SMALLCAT. Then you refused to correct your view in your discusion on my talk. Then you cherrypicked diffs from our discussison to try to paint a black picture of me for ANI.

And yet after all that you make a balatantly false asertion here that our positions are similar.

That sort of warping of history to paint me in a bad light is the complete opposite of WP:civility's requirement to "consideration and respect". It is a very deeply uncivil way to treat any other person, in any context.

Secondly, I did not accuse you of being part of a secret tag team. That is a straw man fallacy which you invented, and which I replied to on my talk 8 days ago: I also do no know whether you are a part of the tag team. All I do know is that you both repeatedly endorse the tag team, and that you repeatedly act as their attack dog by piling on me for criticising them.[50] BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:55, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see if I can craft a draft summary of our disagreement that we can both agree on:

"We disagree on whether WP:UNCIVIL or WP:SMALLCAT is the most important issue. We disagree on how to apply the first sentence of SMALLCAT discussing an "overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". (We disagree on the nature of that disagreement though, whether it's an honest difference of opinion or a deliberate misrepresentation.) SMALLCAT has two more sentences and a headline and we disagree about whether we disagree on all three of those. The layered nature of these disagreements has caused us to sometimes talk past each other."

Any suggested edits @BrownHairedGirl: or am I on the wrong track? (I'm hoping that by naming our disagreements, we can lay the foundation for more constructive conversations on both sides!) - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @RevelationDirect, but I do not agree that this in any way a fair summary.

What do you mean by We disagree on the first sentence of SMALLCAT discussing an "overall accepted sub-categorization scheme"????

Do you disagree that WP:SMALLCAT says that???

Or do you disagree that those words have their plain English meaning????

I would like to move on to more productive discusion, but this draft gets us no closer.

It also omits the fact that you pay no heed at all to WP:SMALLCAT's headline "Small with no potential for growth", or to its clear statement "Note also that this criterion does not preclude all small categories; a category which does have realistic potential for growth, such as a category for holders of a notable political office, may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time."

I find it very surprising that after all ths drama, when you want to build bridges, you still have not ackowledged what WP:SMALLCAT actually says. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC:

You're right, that sentence was pretty unclear so I added a little to it, but it sounds like I'm way off from your perspective. Would you rather do this the other way around and take a stab at a neutral summary of our disagreement that I might sign off on? - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will try, @RevelationDirect. The gap between us is such that I doubt there is some sort of middle ground, but I will sleep on it, I will try my best to post something tomorrow.

For now, I will simply note that in all our discussions, I can recall not a single instance you trying to apply either "no potential for growth" or an "overall accepted sub-categorization scheme".

As Oculi's search found, you have a long history of simply assessing current size. Oculi found 103 hits for you writing "With no objection to recreating if any ever reach 5+ articles".

Do uou disagree with Oculi's findigs? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, his report was accurate. If you don't think this is a fruitful avenue, you're under no obligation to spend time on it. I (mistakenly) thought my summary just needed a few words changed but this is harder than I thought. - RevelationDirect (talk) 04:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I really will try. I do believe that you want to resolve the dispute, so I wanna try to see if I can help build the very long bridge needed. Peacemaking is never easy {{smiley]} BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the proposed injunction against BHG, per my reading of the discussions above. Lourdes 10:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  My apologies, Lourdes - but which proposed injunction? - jc37 10:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:SMALLCAT says Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme. Most of the categories which started this discussion, such as Category:Geneticists from Northern Ireland, are part of an existing hierarchy, along with Category:Scottish geneticists - parallel categories for the consituent countries of the UK. I don't see how WP:SMALLCAT can be used to oppose these categories, as I have already said in the discussion at CfD. I was not aware of this gigantic discussion here at ANI, having had a few days largely off-Wiki, but I must add that I have interacted with BHG on many occasions and admire her as a very energetic editor dedicated to improving the encyclopedia, willing to help other editors, super-knowledgeable about all matters of categories, and usually perfectly collegial with other constructive editors though sometimes pretty brusque with time-wasters. I am disappointed to see her being maligned and threatened with sanctions. PamD 15:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts about possible restrictions

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

• Two-way WP:IBANs between BrownHairedGirl and Laurel Lodged; between BrownHairedGirl and RevelationDirect; and between BrownHairedGirl and Oculi.
• Limited WP:TBAN on SMALLCAT CfDs, and limited nomination ban, for BrownHairedGirl. That means, if any nominator explicitly mentions WP:SMALLCAT in their rationale in order to propose deleting, merging, renaming or splitting a category, BrownHairedGirl is not allowed to participate in the discussion. BrownHairedGirl is allowed to nominate any category for discussion and invoke WP:SMALLCAT in her rationale, but she may not nominate any category created by Laurel Lodged, Oculi, or RevelationDirect.
• Limited nomination ban for Laurel Lodged, Oculi and RevelationDirect: they may not nominate any category created by BrownHairedGirl, nor may they ask other editors to do so (WP:CANVASS).

Might something like this restrictions package be a realistic solution? I'm especially asking everyone else who is not one of these 4 people to comment. Although I am so far not convinced that there is "team-tagging" going on, I think the limited nomination ban for Laurel Lodged, Oculi and RevelationDirect is necessary in order to make things fair, and not allow them to abuse the restrictions imposed upon BrownHairedGirl, and because I think we should take the experience of BrownHairedGirl seriously. I'm open to be corrected or supplemented on these suggestions, and obviously I'm not an admin making the decisions. Good day to everyone. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1 seems okay. 2,3 seem like something that will be gamed, and Im not convinced that the TBAN is necessary regardless. Though this discussion is moot till @BrownHairedGirl actually shows diffs that she said she would bring. I dont believe it would be appropriate pronouncing judgement prior to it. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, for sure we are not ready to pronounce judgement yet. On the other hand, BHG has already indicated that, regardless of what evidence she might bring to the table, she does not want anyone to be sanctioned. So I don't think she will want us to use her evidence in order to consider sanctions. Nevertheless, I believe the limited nomination ban on the three would be fair and appropriate to balance things out for BHG as well. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this whole section is proposed by one of the troublemakers, Nederlandse Leeuw (NL), who repeatedly refuses to uphold WP:SMALLCAT as it is actually wrtten. NL wants the guideline to be changed, which of course a legitiate aspiration; any editor may legitimately believe that any guideline or policy needs changes, or that it should be abolished. But unless and until there is a WP:consensus for changes, en.wp policy is that editors should uphold the existing consenus. This is absolutely fundamnetal to the WP:consensus principle of how en.wp works.

However, instead of taking the collabaorative approach of seeking a consensus for change, NL has beeen posting repeatedly to this ANI, demanding that I be restricted from WP:SMALLCAT-related discussions. Why? Becuase I uphold the stable guideline as actually written.

NL has also made a number of blatant personal attacks on me here at ANI, which include an allegation of lack of empathy, a typo flame[51] (after I challenged it, NL doubed down on it[52]: you could have kept that information private, to prevent people from mocking you for it. Now it's out in the open, and that is on you.). NL also wants to drive me off Wikipedia, suggesting you always have the option of WP:RETIRE.[53]

This is overt hounding of me, being carried out right here at ANI. And it is overtly driven by a desire to silence me for upholding the long-term stable guideline.

Tihs is completely Kafkaesque, and it's clearly a wild abuse of ANI. No organisation, company or project can function with any form of sanity if its procedures are weaponised to punish somone who upholds the existing rules unless and until they are changed. The worst possible consequences here are not life-threatening, but NL's logic reminds me of the Stalinist show trials. OMG! BHG uholds consensus!!! Mock her! Insult her! BAN HER' BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: I understand you may be upset by this proposal (I am too; it's simply unreasonable), but this comment isn't going to help your case at all. Try to relax with the comparisons to Stalinism and the bolded sarcasm, okay? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:37, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

this comment isn't going to help your case at all. Try to relax with the comparisons to Stalinism and the bolded sarcasm, okay? Hear, hear. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:00, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nederlandse Leeuw: I don't think you are being particularly helpful at this point either. As has been said to you already, you should really consider disengaging with this thread. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL Oh, this is the first time I'm reading this (have I missed this? I do see DIYeditor saying something similar below), but I guess you're right. I'll see if there are some final things I should contribute before disengaging. Thanks for the advice, I will take it to heart. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, just disengage, period. Let the community handle it at this point. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 11:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The two-way IBAN between BHG and LL is reasonable; the SMALLCAT TBAN for BHG is just asking to be gamed, and the third restriction could possibly be as well. Black Kite (talk) 20:38, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I'm wary of ways in which suggestion #2 and #3 could be gamed. Initially I was thinking about not allowing LL, Oculi and RD to nominate any category created by BHG per SMALLCAT, but that is probably too easy to circumvent, so I decided to propose a complete ban on nominating any category created by BHG fullstop. In return, I decided to add a nomination ban for BHG on any categories created by the three in return (even though I think that's unlikely to happen), in order to balance things out. This should prevent "team-tagging" or "revenge-nominating" either way.

  What I haven't yet figured out is whether these things can be circumvented in other ways. Maybe I should add that BHG should also not be allowed ask anyone else to nominate cats created by LL, Oculi and RD (per CANVASS)? What if any of the 4 deliberately created categories that the other party is not allowed to nominate? This would mostly be an annoyance and burden for other users who need to clear them up. Other issues may also arise. That's why I'm saying I don't have all the answers, and I stand to be corrected or supplemented if needed. But I think something like this restriction package will be necessary to resolve the core issues at hand. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Defer I'm here because I don't know how to fix this so I am open to whatever resolution the community thinks is appropriate. (I would need a little coaching on how IBANs would work in practice at CFD though.) It took me 3 evenings to put together the original list of Diffs; Captain Jack Sparrow's request to give BrownHairedGirl additional time to fully respond seems quite reasonable. - RevelationDirect (talk) 21:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:28, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Btw I suggested a two-way IBAN between you and BHG. In your OP, you still said If anyone has a magic wand, what I really want is for me and BrownHairedGirl to go back to collegial discussions in CFD; I understand and appreciate that sentiment. But there have been some sharp interactions between you two afterwards, and I'm getting the impression she would prefer to no longer interact with you in the long term (even though she does not want to impose any sanctions on anyone). How are you feeling about a two-way IBAN, or is that too soon for you to say? At the moment, I'm thinking it may be best for both of you, but I'm just an observer. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just an observer. No, you're not "just an observer." You've made approximately 70 edits to this AN/I thread, and persisted in editing here after you were warned about WP:BLUDGEON. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Each person's conduct should be evaluated in isolation and with respect to past behaviour, it is highly unlikely that a simple three-way IBAN would be a long-term solution for the good of the wiki. --qedk (t 愛 c) 22:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. That's why I'm suggesting a mutual limited nomination ban for each other's created categories, and a SMALLCAT TBAN for BHG. Whether this is (A) fair and balanced, and (B) will work in practice, is something I hope to get people's feedback on. Hopefully we can work towards building a consensus on what should be done. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That isnt possible; While two wrongs dont make a right, WP:AGF does allow the assumption of good faith to be dropped if the actions warrant as such. Therefore, actions must be evaluated in context and that involves evaluating the actions of others as well. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose BHG topic ban - The IBAN seems like it would be useful, but, as I read the evidence here, the problem is not emanating from BHG, it's from the editors who oppose her position and are bound and determined to get her sanctioned when it's not appropriate to do so.
  An important part of this issue is that some Wikipedians seems to believe that civility is the most important thing here, but it most decidedly not of paramount importance - improving the encyclopedia is the most important thing, close to being the only important thing about editing Wikipedia. A certain degree of mild incivility is quite appropriate when interacting with editors whose actions serve to degrade the quality of this encyclopedia. This is not a "Get Out of Jail Free" card for BHG, but her contributions to the project over the years have earned her a little leeway when dealing with unreasonable editors. (And on a side note, the desysoping of BHG is irrelevant here, because the standards of behavior for an admin are stricter than for an ordinary editor, which is as it should be.)
  I am also opposed to any other sanction being levied against BHG without an opposite and equal restriction against her opponents in this argument. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:44, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  An important part of this issue is that some Wikipedians seems to believe that civility is the most important thing here, but it most decidedly not of paramount importance. Well, given that Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility is one of the Wikipedia:Five pillars, the paramount importance of civility is beyond doubt vis-à-vis "improving the encyclopedia", which isn't.

  This is not a "Get Out of Jail Free" card for BHG, her contributions to the project over the years have earned her a little leeway when dealing with unreasonable editors. Well, that looks a lot like proposing a "Get Out of Jail Free" card for BHG. Given that BHG has already been blocked 4 times in the past 4 years, as well as desysoped, prohibited from all portals, and given an IBAN before, there is no reason to suddenly bring up her past achievement as an excuse for later, current and future misconduct. In fact, it suggests previous sanctions have not been effective enough yet, and require expansion. I think inaction is no longer an option, and the community should not engage in wishful thinking that these clashes won't happen again at SMALLCAT CfDs, especially between her and the three.

  I do read you support #1 and the limited nomination bans of categories created by the other party in #2 and #3? Then you mostly agree with me already, just not with the TBAN. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:19, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There is one pillar about rules and policies ("Wikipedia had no firm rules"), THREE about Wikipedia's content "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia", "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view", and "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute") and ONE about behavior ("Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility"). "Respect and civility. It's worth considering that "respect" means not only "due regard for the feelings, wishes, rights, or traditions of others", but also "a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements". BHG has been here a long time (almost as long as me), and her "abilities, qualities and achievements" in helping to edit and improve Wikipedia have earned her the right to be respected. Again, this is not to say that she can misbehave at will, but it does put things into context, in my view. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Beyond My Ken So what you're saying is that: Because BHG has been here long and has made good contributions, we should forgive these repeated conduct problems with a Slap on the Wrist, basically saying BHGs part of the Unblockables? Nobody (talk) 06:12, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Nope. Did you miss the parts about "Not a Get Out of Jail Free card" and "this is not to say she can misbehave at will"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Just a caution at this point about WP:BLUDGEONing the process, Nederlandse Leeuw. Everyone is aware of your desire for sanctions. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess you're right. Thanks for the advice, I will take it to heart. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Beyond My Ken: I had preferred not to discuss the desysoping stuff in too much depth but since you brought it up in that way. The reality is if BHG weren't an admin at the time, they likely would have been long indeffed. The continued behaviour include horrific personal attacks that lead to BHG's desysoping was beyond the pale, not something we ever accept from nearly every other editor. These included continued personal attack of a nasty personal nature that share fair similarities in nastiness even if in a different personal characteristic of the editor, that people are trying to sanction LL over for a single instance which LL to their credit seems to have at least partially recognised went way too far. So not, it wasn't simply a case that the behaviour expect from admins is stricter, in reality they were far less strict in that instance. Nil Einne (talk) 03:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I do not agree that the Findings of Fact in the Portals case support your opinions, which is all I intend to say on that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:35, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• We've been incredibly patient with BHG in the past, and I see that we're still bending over backwards to keep her at CFD. I can't see these insipid measures will have much effect.—S Marshall T/C 09:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  To be fair (my own past experiences of interactions with the editor, aside), in general, I think it's been mostly around the two topics that I noted above ("...anything involving feminism or women's issues; and anything involving Northern ireland, Ireland, the UK, the British Commonwealth - you get the idea..."). So, (to try to say this as neutral as possible), if, one feels that BHG is being disruptive, and thus if they are looking for sanctions to reduce/prevent such disruptions, then, probably an indefinite topic ban from those two general topics broadly construed, would likely be a step in that direction. But, call me jaded if you like, I am very doubtful that that will find consensus on AN/I. Plus, again to be fair, she has shown to be a positive contributor at times at CfD. In my opinion, the above has not shown her at her best, even if it may somewhat rather exemplify and illustrate some of the rhetorical WP:BATTLEGROUND, that I mentioned above.

  Also: While some of it maybe could be accounted for as baiting, there are some edits by others that probably should be looked at as well. For example, I don't know how extensive of a history Laurel Lodged and BHG have, but even if only from what we've seen in these threads, an interaction ban between those 2 at least, might not be a bad idea either. And if the seeming CFD battleground WP:DE by LL doesn't stop after being disengaged from interacting with BHG, then perhaps the community might need to look at a topic ban on the latter topic for them as well. - jc37 10:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While some of the categories were in one of those topic areas, I think that was only incidental. Other editors can of course express themselves how they wish, but my intent here was to raise specific concerns about incivility, not to make a broadside against BrownHairedGirl's contributions in general. - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:43, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, while I have not read everything, you really seem to have tried to keep collegiate discussion open with BHG. Yes, you both seem to clearly disagree on certain policy/guidelines, and you did lose your cool a few times, but you apologized and came back to the table to discuss. I don't think those discussions would win awards for positivity, but to me, it looks like you have tried. - jc37 10:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Miscellaneous Comments

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

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

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

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

I may be misunderstanding things, but isn't BHG arguing for the existence of certain categories here? The main non-behavioural similarity with the portals case that I can see (so I am ignoring assumptions of bad faith, walls of text and bludgeoning) is that BHG is arguing for her preferred outcome using the wording of a policy that may or may not still represent consensus on an issue, and is unwilling to accept that policy can change even without a formal RfC that says so. Basically she says SMALLCAT should override vote-counting "consensus" at CfD; the opposite point of view might be that consensus in multiple discussions at CFD can show that the wording of SMALLCAT needs to be updated. Another similarity with the portals case is that portals and categories are fairly niche areas of Wikipedia, and the majority of editors ignore them most of the time. —Kusma (talk) 12:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IMO guidelines should be enforced uniformly, and unless the guideline is changed, the opinion of some editors in a discussion cannot overrule the accepted meaning of the guideline. If the guideline needs updating, they should update it using a well publicised RFC. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOLD changes to guidelines do happen, and that is a Good Thing. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and it is fine to update the written rules without a formal RfC. (There is an old wiki-philosophical debate between the descriptivist and prescriptivist schools of thought). Wikipedia is not Nomic. —Kusma (talk) 13:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kusma - Yes. After reading the diffs again, I see that BHG was defending the existence of small categories that were part of a subcategorization scheme or had the likelihood of growth. BHG had read the guidelines enough times to understand them, and the other editors only thought that they understood them. With both portals and small categories, BHG was thinking analytically based on what the guideline said, and had no patience with sloppy thinking. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon — I agree with your comments. Wikipedia needs editors with the patientience, analytic ability, and knowledge to build and maintain categories. This long bonfire does not help build Wikipedia. I am afraid BrownHairedGirl is not as good tactically in arguing her case here as she is in building the smallcat case. Using 'incivility' as a a few have done bludgeon to change guidelines is not building Wikipedia, which, after all, is not paper. Since I have rarely worked with categories since all 'American women novelists' disappeared from the 'American novelists' category, I hesitated to post. But I have read this whole slugfest. I hope everyone else commenting has done the same. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 04:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC) —[reply]

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

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

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral - I have been persuaded that the conduct of Laurel Lodged is much worse than that of BHG, and have agreed that it should be a one-way ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I break my promise to disengage from this because I have been tagged. This proposal is wrong-headed. The issue is clear: BHG has been accused of uncivil behaviour; it is up to ANI to judge if that is true; if true, what sanctions are appropriate and likely to be effective both as a punishment and a remedy; if not true, close the case. Later, if other parties mentioned in this thread also feel that they have a case for uncivil behavior, let them take that to ANI. It really is that simple. I now withdraw permanently. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I strike my original vote and now vote "support". I would like to formally request the protection of an IBAN from BHG. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The proposer may not have seen your comments before they were expunged, but I did. Trust me, IBAN is a very lenient measure. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - key words: disruption and uncivil. And, I'll agree - this is very lenient from some of the other options on the table. - jc37 10:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• SupportOppose - I was minded to oppose until I saw that Laurel Lodged doesn't see their own uncivil behaviour as part of the problem. Whilst not a big fan of interaction bans, where two editors rub each other the wrong way, a break from that friction is often helpful. WCM_email 12:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment given the bear poking at WT:IE and below I'm minded to suggest a one way interaction ban instead forbidding LL from interacting with BHG. @Robert McClenon: its your proposal and I don't wish to disrupt it whilst the discussion is ongoing. I'd also strongly suggest to BrownHairedGirl that they ignore such provocation. WCM_email 14:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to oppose, very much in favour of a one sided ban. This would be my 2nd option. WCM_email 13:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I dont expect civil cooperation after the aspersions and resulting discussions.

Changing my vote to oppose per the discussion below - It does raise the valid issue of trying to prevent communication between two longtime editors while allowing edits in the same space, which is likely to create more issues than it solves.

Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. See e.g. #Disruption_by_Laurel_Lodged as an instance of how LL is the disruptor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs) 14:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I dont think that this IBAN is intended to punish you, per se, and more so to prevent unhealthy conversation. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  An IBAN would prevent me from challenging LL's repeated errors, such as

  1. WT:WikiProject_Ireland#Local_councillors_by_city_categories, from June 2023, where I was the only editor to spot that Laurel Lodged has seriously misuderstood the issue.
  2. WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 16#Emigrants from Ireland (1801-1923), where Laurel Lodged failed to understand that neither start date nor end date was relevant, and lashed out at me for proposing an ALT action for which the closer found a consensus.
     An ALT propal is routine in en.wp discusios, but LL accused me of trying to hijack this nom[54] and anounced that It's my [i.e. LL's] anointed role in Wiki to make BHG sigh[55]
  3. WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 March 3#Template:S-par/ie/oi, which LL weirdly and disruptively brought up today in an attempt to disrupt work at WT:WikiProject Ireland#TD_navboxes:_getting_there. I have brought that to ANI at #Disruption_by_Laurel_Lodged. In that 2016 TFD, LL proposed an action which coud not resolve the stated problem, and lashed out at me repatedly and cruelly for having demonstrated how the issues could be resolved.

  That's just three examples amongst literally thousands of instances in the last decade here LL has radically misuderstood the facts, and either lashed out at me when I corrected them or simply ignored their error, as in #1 above.

  LL repatedly smears the motives of editors who disagree with LL. See e.g. WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_March_12#Category:Local_councillors_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland wher the nomiation opened with an attack on zealous irredentist guardians ("irredentist " is a regular smear term used by LL; see e.g. this[56] from 2010 when LL smeared other editors as uber-nationalist and irridentist).

  Note that in that 2011 discusison I raised the failure of LL to undestad the previous existence of a second tier of Irish local government, rural district councils and urban district councils; my first item above is LL repeating that same error, 12 years later. LL promptl proceeded to recategorise many hundreds of article on Irish local counillors, despite their reckless disregard for the history. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, that's what it would do, and it's a real loss. If you would start describing things objectively and stop using terms like lashed out, weirdly and disruptively, in an attempt to disrupt work, cruelly, smears the motives, regular smear term, reckless disregard, we could maybe figure our way out of this without sanctioning you. Valereee (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  For goodness sake!

  You entirely overlook the serial misconduct by LL, but seek to sanction me for descriing it as it is. That's an inverted sense of priority which gives a free rein to a long-term disruptor like LL. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, both editors seem to be good at provoking each other and bad at de-escalation. Wikipedia is probably better off if they do not interact with each other at all. —Kusma (talk) 15:10, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I had originally intended to abstain, but since LL is now requesting it (NB: to only BHG's opposition so far) I now believe it would be a net positive for both. This won't solve every issue that's been brought up about either of them in this ANI but it might make more of those problems tractable and improve CFD for everyone else. - car chasm (talk) 15:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

• @Valereee, are you seriously saying that it is wrong to comment on a propsoal to delete categories based on a fundamneatl misuse of the relevant guideline? And wrong to note that the same editor repeats the same misuse despite being corrected? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @BrownHairedGirl, I am saying that personalizing such discussions is counterproductive. We don't have to call someone a liar. We can simply say their statement isn't true. Valereee (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  In these CFD discussions I have tried to not call anyone a liar.

  What I have done is to note bot the utrith and the fact that someone has repeatedly made similar misrepresentations of a very simple guideline.

  I reain deeply troubled that some editors focus solely on how the challenges are phrased, rather than on the substantive issue of consensus-forming being misled by the repeated misuse of a simple guideline. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  "You are a liar" vs. "That is not true" was just an example to make the problem easy to understand. You've called them malicious, vindictive, and operating in bad faith. Phrasing is important, BHG. Discuss the edits, not the editor. It's extremely frustrating to me that someone with 17 years and 3 million edits hasn't grokked that. Valereee (talk) 21:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Two of them have indeed been malicious, vindictive, and operating in bad faith: Laurel Lodged and Oculi.

  I will not refrain on Wikipedia or any other conte§t from noting such conduct when it happens, and I remain deeply sad that some editors are far more worried about those who challenge malicious, vindictive, bad faith actions than about the people engaging in malicious, vindictive, bad faith conduct. That's an inverted set of priorities. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I get it. You believe that's what's going on, and you believe in telling your truth. But it's counterproductive to come out and say it because saying it baldly weakens your argument. You may think that's deeply sad, but it's the wiser approach: describe what is happening objectively and let others connect the dots. Many of us are actually pretty good at that. Valereee (talk) 22:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I admittedly was reluctant to engage in the details of SMALLCAT until after the civility issues were resolved, but I finally did so above in the "The side issue of WP:SMALLCAT" section. Up to this point, that conversation hasn't lowered the temperature but I just added what I think is a neutral summary of our disagreement (diff). Shall we try again? - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - would this mean that LL could not nominate categories created by BHG at cfd, and vice versa? Would it mean that BHG could not opine at cfd on nominations brought by LL and vice versa? (WP:IBAN says nothing on this.) Oculi (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Interaction between the two parties does indeed need to be contained. But by about 50%. SN54129 09:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - per my comments elsewhere and the obvious detriment to the project. Wee Curry Monster, you may wish to update your contribution above given Robert McClenon's newer proposal? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I have supported the one-way IBAN below. SportingFlyer T·C 15:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I think we need to do something and I think this is more likely to improve the situation even if only slightly and I see little chance of anything better coming out of this thread so I support even if it seems unlikely even this will pass to so I sort feel this is going to be another case where we fail to do anything until it eventually makes it to arbcom and then everyone complains when they don't like the outcome. Nil Einne (talk) 02:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not going anywhere. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A two-way interaction ban between BHG and NL should be imposed. Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply] Oppose as targeted party. I can't speak for BrownHairedGirl, but she has indicated she does not want any sanctions, and I don't think she and I need a two-way IBAN. As far as I'm concerned, she and I will still be able to work together constructively in other areas. Evidently, there have been some tensions, but not nearly as strong as between BHG and the three. I can handle a few overblown Stalinist comparisons or some such in the heat of the moment, and I hope from my part some of my jokes weren't too harsh (otherwise I'm willing to apologise). But strange as it may sound, I think BrownHairedGirl and I will still be able to get along eventually. Just not during this ANI. BHG and I haven't got a long history of disagreeing, this is all recent and not that irreparable as far as I'm concerned. With that said, I shall disengage again as recommended; I only respond here because I was tagged. Good day to everyone. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:17, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply] PS: Reading your comments again I can't see a reason why you would propose this. Are you sure you wanted to tag me, not someone else? (I'm not in a position to speculate). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply] Oppose per above. Even more head scratching that an editor who is not the subject of the complaint would be sanctioned instead of the accused. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply] Oppose - I don't think we're seeing here anywhere near the vitriol that we're seeing with BHG and LL. If NL stays cognizant of bludgeon, and of the possibility of being baited, I don't think there's an immediate need for this. - jc37 10:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply] Oppose both in principle primarily because it is highly unlikely that will resolve long-term conflicts at CfD and/or result in improvement of conduct amongst the parties, I should also add that NL's conduct is nowhere near as vitriolic to BHG/LL and they should not have sanctions levied against them, at worst, they were badgering and even then, as soon as they were made cognizant of it, they stopped which is more than I can say about either of the other two parties involved. --qedk (t 愛 c) 11:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply] Oppose - as far as I am aware the only interactions between Nederlandse Leeuw and BHG are in this thread. (And Nederlandse Leeuw is part of the consensus against most tiny categories at cfd which prevailed peacefully until BHG returned with her view that the smallcat exceptions apply in almost all cases, rendering the argument toothless.) Oculi (talk) 12:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply] Support - per nom. As noted above, I'm not a big fan of interaction bans but its clear there is friction here and a break from that is often helpful. WCMemail 12:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply] Oppose wrt NL-BHG IBAN. Isnt disruptive to the extent it needs sanctions as of now; Both editors have shown the ability to talk in a civil manner. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply] Oppose per above. I can see the rationale both for and against an LL-BHG interaction ban, but from my experience with NL they have been much more consistently civil at CFD, and I see no evidence of any pattern of non-constructive interactions between them and any other users. - car chasm (talk) 14:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply] Oppose This doesn't yet rise to the level of an IBAN. I'd be willing to support if the sanction were NL not proposing BHG-created categories at CfD for a certain time period. SportingFlyer T·C 15:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Sorry, can people just remove proposals now? I'm just wondering what's happening to the process here. NL seems to be a) involved in the issue; and b) has contributed, by my count, in excess of 60 times to this discussion, to the extent they were warned about WP:BLUDGEON and only reluctantly stepped away. If ibans are being discussed, then to me, this is a valid proposal. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Discussion re-closed, above comment moved outside it.] @Bastun: I didn't say it was an invalid proposal. It's obviously not going to gain consensus, so I closed it. That is what admins are expected to do at the adminstrators' noticeboard for incidents. If you object to this close, you may file a close challenge at WP:AN. Please do not revert this close again. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, this was going nowhere. I considered closing it myself last night. @Bastun, that doesn't mean some other proposal is inappropriate if you think you can propose something that would gain support. Valereee (talk) 18:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Wasn't it? I understand WP:SNOW. This proposal was allowed remain open for only 14 hours, it was 8:2 against, and two of those opposes were people who were/are directly involved. I mean, the section below, proposal C, has been open for over 14 hours now, and has a ratio of 8:1 in favour. By the same token, should that proposal be snow closed now as carried? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    There was only a single support other than the proposer. It's a fair argument to let go for at least 24 hours, but this was extremely lopsided and this section is unwieldy. Valereee (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Re: the one below. So, there's actually a lot of discussion going on. I wouldn't close now. Valereee (talk) 20:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    That highlights one reason why we need to be careful about closing discussions too early and why policy (or is it a guideline can't remember) says they should nearly always be left open for 72 hours. Even if it initially looks clear, things can change quickly. However I'm not complaining about Tamzin's closures here especially since it's generally far less harmful to close something as snow oppose than snow support. Beyond the differing consequences something closed as oppose vs support, a key point is that it's very rare something will completely turn. The more likely thing to happen is something which initially seems to be snowing will turn out no consensus. For oppose, that remains a very similar outcome. For support it does not. Nil Einne (talk) 02:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The policy you're thinking of is WP:CBAN, and it matches your (and my) sense of the distinction between successful and unsuccessful proposals, in that it sets a 24-hour minimum for enacting a TBAN, but no minimum for closing one as unsuccessful. (So WP:SNOW, an essay about not waiting for deadlines, doesn't even apply to closes as unsuccessful, although its spirit might.) The 72-hour rule you're thinking of is for sitebans (although it has a sort of baked-in SNOW rule from 24 hours onward). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. As noted above, I was minded to oppose an interaction ban as I'm not keen on them. Then I saw the bear poking at WT:IE and here, concluding that LL was the main issue. WCM_email 06:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, this gives BHG (and only BHG) the unilateral power to ban LL from any discussion, including discussions started by LL. If LL is the problem, this is too weak. It is also weird to give enforcement power only to BHG. If there are any problems with BHG's civility towards LL (and it looks like there are), banning LL from even flagging those up is not an even handed solution. —Kusma (talk) 07:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Given also that BHG is under at least three editing restrictions, I am uncomfortable giving her so much power over another editor. —Kusma (talk) 12:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Wouldn't LL just be prohibited from naming and directly replying to BHG, not merely participating in a discussion where BHG is also present? —DIYeditor (talk) 12:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it would completely prevent participation once BHG has opined. —Kusma (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support effectively per McClenon. This should calm the topic area down without inhibiting otherwise useful work from being continued. SN54129 09:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Question I can't effectively form an opinion without some understanding of what happened here[57][58]. If the edit history needed to be suppressed that seems pretty severe? Is a one-way IBAN even adequate to address it? —DIYeditor (talk) 10:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @DIYeditor: The suppression there has nothing to do with BHG and LL, but was in response to a comment in a different section (@Primefac may wish to confirm this once again). For technical reasons, that makes these diffs inaccessible, so you can't see anything that was edited or removed, but anything added by editors and subsequently not changed can be found just by searching for the timestamps. —Kusma (talk) 10:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. Unfortunately those timestamps only show was LL replaced the offending material with, not the original material. Maybe the original comments are still somewhere in the edit history? —DIYeditor (talk) 10:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I will quote those diffs below. (please ping on reply) Primefac (talk) 10:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Primefac I think those diffs werent the ones that got him the warning, those were [59] (I think). Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I did wonder, but those were the two diffs in question so I posted them. Primefac (talk) 10:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Primefac thanks. I also see that there were personal attacks redacted in LL's 07:42, 7 July 2023 and 07:56, 7 July 2023 comments that are now coincidentally suppressed as well? —DIYeditor (talk) 10:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The first is summarised by CapnJackSp below, the second is pretty much the same as the two I quoted below that were later removed. I've also converted your timestamps into diff links just for ease of finding such things. Primefac (talk) 11:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I dont recall it verbatim, but heres the gist - (Redacted) ← content attached in-line (edit to view). Pinging Black Kite & MJL to make sure I'm not misremembering anything. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Captain Jack Sparrow: It was pretty much speculation into BHG's mental health, yeah.
  @Primefac: Could you also pull up this diff as you did the other two? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. Primefac (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Diff/1163981973

− Really? Is that what you think this case is about? Really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really? [[User:Laurel Lodged|Laurel Lodged]] ([[User talk:Laurel Lodged|talk]]) 11:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC) + I fell into the trap that JC37 mention: "a.) if you get baited into being uncivil". Stupid of me. I've deleted the material. 12:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1163982760

− I empathise with your problem. It's so annoying when people cannot accept that WP:SMALLCAT really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really does say that is about "potential for growth" rather than current pagecount. [[User:Laurel Lodged|Laurel Lodged]] ([[User talk:Laurel Lodged|talk]]) 11:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC) + I've deleted the offending material per the JC37 trap. [[User:Laurel Lodged|Laurel Lodged]] ([[User talk:Laurel Lodged|talk]]) 12:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1163946868

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

• Support this should reduce the heat. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant support I see this as a two sided issue where BHG ought not levy accusations of bad faith outside proper administrative venues and seems overly combative. I was a bit annoyed at BHG in the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1132#User:Timfoley50 and the explorer Tom Crean for combativeness as well, and for those reasons I would lean toward a two-sided IBAN. However, I see an IBAN as a pretty severe measure that could disrupt BHG's normal and productive business on Wikipedia. On the other hand, to come here and be uncivil in the open on ANI is problematic and LL ought to know better than to do that. If BHG is a problem in the future LL can let someone else handle it. —DIYeditor (talk) 12:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom, especially given the completely out-of-order personal attacks mentioned above. There's an order of magnitude between incivility (which BHG needs to address!) and the personal attacks levelled by LL and NL. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I think this makes a lot of sense in the short term, but I'd also put a time limit on it. It's better than a block. SportingFlyer T·C 15:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Tepid Support. I genuinely think that a more severe sanction is in order given everything I outlined above. A total projectspace block is in order in my opinion, but I'll take the one-way IBAN since that seems to be what's most likely to pass here. Whatever gets him to even partially stop with his seriously weird behavoir. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I would much prefer a pblock from project space for this user to a one way IBAN. Much simpler and cleaner. —Kusma (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Seems like a fairly obvious way of reducing the issues, but a projectspace ban per Kusma works for me as well - anyway, perhaps best not to confuse the issue. Black Kite (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per @Kusma WaggersTALK 09:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, a one-way Iban should be reserved for cases in which only one person is behaving badly. I'm not sure that's what's happening here; the level of incivility from BHG muddies those waters for me. Valereee (talk) 11:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose too gameable, per Kusma. DanCherek (talk) 13:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Kusma. BHG has a long history of incivility and harassment, and should not be given this power. I would support a two way version of the interaction ban as that would reduce drama. Orderinchaos 00:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Orderinchaos: That would be Proposal A. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:11, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose a one way iban is only appropriate when one editor's behaviour towards the other is so bad in comparison that it's the only fair option. While there's no question that Laurel Lodge went way too far in this thread, and for clarity I think I did see all their comments as I investigated about an hour or two after Black Kite's warning, there's also no question that BHG is guilty of high levels of persistent incivility against LL. LL also seems to at least partially recognise they went way too far. BHG's incivility in general is well recognised as a long term problem and yes this includes behaviour just as bad as LL over a very long time that took ages for any reasonable sanction. Possibly that extreme level of incivility and personal attacks has finally ended, but nevertheless high levels of incivility from BHG persist and it something we've continually failed to resolve. BHG also rarely seems to recognise their behaviour is a problem, which I suspect is one reason we're still here now so many years later with the same problem. Therefore there is no way a one way iban is a fair or reasonable outcome. Nil Einne (talk) 02:45, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I was originally undecided on whether this was necessary, but seeing Laurel Lodged start another round of bear-poking against BrownHairedGirl below made it clear it was. Prefer a one-way Iban, because in every case of alleged misconduct presented here Laurel Lodged was the initiator, but would accept a two-way Iban as a second choice. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not in the least bit surprised LL has continued to try and mess with BHG. He did this exact type of thing 2 years ago with The Banner like when he acted like The Banner couldn't speak proper Hiberno-English since he wasn't born in Ireland.The Banner isn't even German by the way; he's Dutch. Also, in case you think I am assuming bad faith, LL admitted he did it as a bit of mischievous humour. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal D: User:BrownHairedGirl is TBANned from all CfDs

Also not going anywhere. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 17:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I've seen some people suggest it in the main trunk of this behemoth, but here I am formally proposing a TBAN on all CfDs for User:BrownHairedGirl. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 05:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply] Support as proposer. BHG's conduct is unacceptable, even if she may be right, as I mentioned before, and I'm gonna call a spade a spade and call out incivility issues when they happen. If it were just me, she'd be blocked, but we all know how some users are basically unblockable, so why bother. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 05:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply] LilianaUwU's view seems to be that even if errors are repeatedly misusing and misreprseting a simple guideline to delete hundreds of category, the only sanction needed is on an editor who they believe has been too harsh in her challenges to the disruption. Boggle. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply] I offer this in the hope that it gives you the same Damascus moment it gave me. When there is a pile on, there is a tendency to defend yourself against all accusations. Your detractors will point that out as an example of a WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality. Which you defend yourself against vociferously. How is that working out for you? WCMemail 06:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply] Oppose for the same reasons as my vote above. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply] Oppose I hope BHG gets the message I tried to convey, don't think this is an appropriate remedy. WCMemail 06:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply] Oppose and Rees-Mogg applies. For once. SN54129 09:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply] Oppose I haven't seen adequate evidence to support this but as in BHG's recent prior ANI I am feeling a bit of annoyance at this whole thing, not limited to one party or another. There's a lot of bickering but little meat on the bones that I can tell. BHG would do well to "chill out" a bit but for all I've been able to extract from this she might well be in the right. —DIYeditor (talk) 10:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply] Oppose. As I have already said. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply] Oppose. Seriously? BHG does a tremendous amount of good work in this area, and keeps to policy and guidelines when doing so, from what I've seen. A tban is not the solution to incivility, which in part was the result of badgering an provocation, from what I can see. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply] Support, in fact I'd support a tban from all XFD activities. BHG is generally an excellent and prolific editor and I believe she is correct on the issue of small categories that led to this discussion - but wholly incorrect in the way she conducts herself in deletion discussions. We saw exactly the same issue at MfD for portals and we're seeing it again here. Since bans and blocks are intended to be preventative not punitive, it makes sense to try and avoid a similar repetition of exactly the same behaviour again at some other XFD forum in the future, since clearly BHG has failed to learn the lessons on civility from the last time around. BHG being a good and prolific editor is no excuse for inaction on our part; civility is central to making Wikipedia work and we cannot allow this level of disruption and incivility to continue unabated if we want to avoid driving other contributors away. WaggersTALK 12:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply] As I see it, the issue here is that BHG is vociferously defending herself, which is giving the impression of a WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality. She is probably in the right here but is going the wrong way about it, a ban removes a knowledgable editor, which is rather throwing the baby out with the bath water. Best option really is for some wiki friend to give BHG a good clout with a clue stick. WCMemail 13:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply] Oppose Per various above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply] Oppose This makes no sense as it's a multi-party civility issue, not a single-party CfD issue. SportingFlyer T·C 15:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply] Oppose - It is my opinion that BHG is a net positive in dealing with Categories, and may know more about them than any other editor. She should be more patient and more civil with other editors who lack her technical detailed knowledge, but they should recognize that usually she does know more than they do. It would be better if she were polite. It would be better if some of the editors understood the complexity. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal E: User:Laurel Lodged is partially blocked from projectspace

Withdrawing this in favor of just sending it to arbcom. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Since others have commented that they would support this sanction, I'll add this a formal option. For the reasons I outlined here, Laurel Lodged is partially blocked from projectspace. He may appeal this sanction anytime by making an edit request at WT:AN. Laurel Lodged is strongly discouraged from using Project talkspace for any reason besides making an appeal (or reverting obvious vandalism). This proposal is not exclusive with Proposal C (though folks are free to give conditional supports, I guess). Support. As proposer. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply] Oppose This bans Laurel Lodged from talking about categories (at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion), but not making category changes, which seems likely to aggravate problems like User talk:Laurel Lodged#Emptying categories out of process to a greater extent than it solves them. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply] @Pppery: The only way to solve that then would be an indef block or a topic ban of all categories. Are you suggesting one of those? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply] I'm not personally convinced there's a need for any sanctions beyond the interaction ban above. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply] I am not convinced that this is necessary and do not know what extent and length (does it need to be indefinite?) would be appropriate (the whole thread is getting so complicated that I think it might be better handled by Arbcom). I would indeed prefer this to a one-way IBAN, but a two-way IBAN would be better. Other sanctions might be more suitable (short sitewide blocks? who knows). —Kusma (talk) 06:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption by Laurel Lodged

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

At WT:WikiProject Ireland#TD_and_MEP_articles_and_the_'s-par'_template, @User:Bastun initiated[60] on 10 July a discussion on misleading uses of succession boxes for Teachtaí Dála (TDs), i.e. members of Dáil Éireann, the lower house of Ireland's parliament, the Oireachtas. The discussion has so far involved 4 editors: @Bastun, Iveagh Gardens, and Spleodrach: and me (BHG). It sooned reached agreement that while properly-built succession boxes for multi-seat constituencies can be made, not enough editors have been willing to do the very time-consuming work required.

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

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

Then today, Laurel Lodged posted two comments[61][62] to the sub-thread WT:WikiProject Ireland#TD_navboxes:_getting_there. Those comments have nothing whatsoever to do with the refinement of the navboxes, or with any alterative solution. They are pure snark, whose purpose is solely to score points, and to try to stoke a dispute in an otherwise highly productive discussion. So I inserted[63] a new level 2 header above LL's comments, to allow discussion of the navboxes to proceed uninterrupted.

Laurel Lodged's substantive point is that since their 2016 nomination of WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 March 3#Template:S-par/ie/oi those of us now working on the navboxes of us have revised our views, based on our experience of doing the work, and esp from the lack of other editors doing this work. LL seems to think that this learning from experience is a bad idea, and still seems to be unaware that their 2016 TFD nomination was wholly misconstrued: LL's proposed deletion of {{S-par/ie/oi}} would have left the succession boxes in place, just without their header. (I pointed this out[64] in the 2016 discussion).

LL's conduct in that 2016 discussion was terrible. After I demonstrated a solution by adding properly-formatted succession boxes to some articles, LL falsely acused me of attempting to subvert, or at the very least to render moot this discussion by doing a solo run of a load of the boxes for TDs[65] with the edit summary "deplorable&nsp;behaviour". Nobody else supported LL's complaint, and @Wikimucker denounced[66] LL harshly: a User edits articles to give an example of what they are talking about they get swarmed by nutters indiscriminately quoting WP:*.* at them on talk pages all the time. Anyway I highly commend User:BrownHairedGirl for the given examples

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

Please clarify the supposed disruptive behaviour. Is it: (1) the 2016 material; (2) today's material; (3) both. If (1), isn't there a wiki statute of limitations? If (2), I linked to an old related discussion. That's a sin now? Lastly, I'm not the only one to get in a final dig before the imminent IBAN. I'm minded to request an IBAN in case the ANI doesn't recommend same. I need protection from BHG. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. The 2016 discussion at WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 March 3#Template:S-par/ie/oi showed disruption by LL:
   • a nomination which coud not resolve the problem asserted. As I noted above, LL's proposed deletion of {{S-par/ie/oi}} would have left the contested succession boxes in place, just without their header.
   • a bogus allegation by LL that I engaged in deplorable behaviour[67] by creating examples of succession boxes which resolved the problem described by LL. That's why Wikimucker referred to LL as an example of nutters.[68]
   • LL's continued hostility[69] to my demonstration of a fix, even after 3 editors (NSH002, Wikimucker & Bastun) supported BHG's efforts.
     • LL's comment in the same edit An Admin has spoken, causa finita est, which falsely suggests that I used admin powers or status, and tries to smear me as some sort of Roman commander.
2. The disruption in today's material is in two parts, as I explained in my initial post:
   • LL disrupted the sub-thread WT:WikiProject Ireland#TD_navboxes:_getting_there by posting comments which had nothing whatsoever to do with the refinement of the navboxes, or with any alternative solution. They were wholly off-topic to that discusion.
   • LL's posts today included unhelpful and misleading snark: The positions taken then versus now are amusing and instructive.[70] Remarks like that do not in any way help anyone to agree and build better solutions.

In both 2016 and 2023, LL has poisoned discusions by failing to undestand the issues, and weaponising their misunderstading by attacks agaist me. This is long pattern, as LL has illustrated today by their own choice to draw attention to their 2016 antics. LL's question above isn't there a wiki statute of limitation is hypocrtical, because it was LL who chose to raise that 2016 discussion.

LL does not need protection from BHG; LL needs to be proteced from their own persistent failure to behave collaboratively. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Laurel Lodged, forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, but re: isn't there a wiki statute of limitations?, wasn't it you who brought up 2016 here? Valereee (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• This complaint is lengthy and difficult to parse. Much like the now virtually impenetrable but still ongoing WP:ANI#BrownHairedGirl's lack of civility in CFD, which already contains the WP:ANI#Laurel Lodged at CfD subsection. Why is this thread separate from it? El_C 15:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @El C: I was unsure whether to post it as a sub-thread of the other or as a new thread.

  I the end, I decided that since this issue is about neither CFD nor allegations against me, it was on balance better as a new thread. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm gonna merge it, sorry. It's still about CfD, so it's best that everything be kept in one place. El_C 15:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Merged. El_C 15:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @El C, no it is not in any way about CFD. It's about WT:IRELAND and about TFD. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, whatever X the -FD is, it needs to be contained. Otherwise, outlining those grievances separately is hindering the normal operation of this noticeboard (such as it is). El_C 22:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @El C, I am sorry to say that your decision to take action on grounds that are simply wrong (even the error was pointed out to you before your action) shows a lack of care. And I am sad to see the lack of apology when you belatedly decided to assert a different rationale. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You should not have filed a separate complaint. It's borderline disruptive that you did that, regardless of what those fine details are. El_C 22:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As I explained above, I kept it separat because it involves separate issues, which are outside the scope of the headline "civility in CFD".

  You may disagree with that decision, but calling it borderline disruptive is very ureasonsable response. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No, BHG, you don't get to do that while WP:ANI#Proposal A: IBAN Between User:BrownHairedGirl and User:Laurel Lodged is still live above. I won't allow you to disrupt this noticeboard, so take that as warning from an uninvolved admin. El_C 23:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @El C, I had hoped that any admin would accept that my decision was made in good faith, on reasoned grounds which I explained when challenged.

  I would also hope that per WP:ADMINACCT any admin would apologise for their repeated error about the nature of my complaint, rather than issuing a warning.

  I am also very saddened that instead of considering the substance of my complaint, you focus solely on your view that it would have bene better posted in a different place.

  . BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Your view of that be as it may, if you create a new ANI complaint about other persons prominently featured above rather than adding it as a subsection here, you will be sanctioned (no additional warning). I just want to make it perfectly clear you understand this. El_C 23:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You have indeed made it abundantly clear that you are wholly unrepantant about your failure to read and comprehend the the ten words this issue is about neither CFD nor allegations against me.

  And yes, you have made your threat absolutely clear.

  In return, I hope that I have it absolutely clear to you I view it as a serious breach of WP:ADMIN that you have made and sustained a choice to ignore both the disruption of which I complained and the barrage of personal attacks for which I posted diffs, and that you instead chose to threaten me for what was at worst a good faith filing error. I just want to make it perfectly clear you understand this. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Don't label my warning as a "threat," BHG. You need to dial it down. El_C 00:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It is a clear threat which follows you taking an action of the basis of a reason which was clearly false, and which you been explicitly warned was false.

  Please dial down your aggression. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I am of the opinion that it was not a good faith filing error, in light of your experience, but not everything needs to be argued to exhaustion or doubled down on. And I'm sorry to say that I have low confidence that this will resonate with you. But I guess we'll see. El_C 01:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @El C: If it helps reduce tension, I give you--and only you--permission to rename this incident whatever you feel makes sense at this point. (Not sure if that would cause issues with any programs that track ANI though.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  El_C, this exchange would have ended long ago if you had had the courtesy to simply apologise for your error.

  Instead you escalated and prolonged our exchange by threatening me and by assuming bad faith in my straightforward explanation of how I made my decision on where to post.

  I undestand your view that my complaint shoukd have been posted as part of an existing thread, and I have not objected to your moving it

  But kindly don't attempt to depict your failure of WP:ADMINACCT as some sort of flaw in me. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  RevelationDirect, you lost me. Negative, BHG, that is not an error of note here and you are owed no apology. It's obviously the same person, regardless if it's TFD or CFD. For someone with your experience, you are displaying surprising WP:CIR inability, or unwillingness, to understand this. But that is on you. El_C 03:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You took an admin action on a stated basis which was clearly false. That is an error of note.

  You are displaying surprising WP:CIR inability, or unwillingness, to understand this. But that is on you.

  My complaint about LL relates to one of the same people involved in the other thread, but the issues are different. I realised that there was a case in favour of both options, and also a case against both options. I reckoned that I could be praised or criticised for either choice.

  Butt for the reasons already stated, I thought a separate thread was on balance the least worst option, and the least likely to cause drama. You disagree, and you moved the thread. That's done. Now will you please back off? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Anyway, now I better understand why there are so, so many complaints against you, and why you are under behavioural restrictions. I was quite nice, actually, in merging a thread that, posted separately as it was, could easily be read as retaliatory. Instead, I'm faced with all of the above. That is to your discredit, I challenge. El_C 03:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  So you not only fail to apologose for your error, but you also appear wholly unwilling to cosider the substance of my post here. You repeateadly assume bad faith in me even when you are demonstrably wrong on points of fact.

  It is amazing that you claimed not to understand what my complaint was about, wrongly asserted that it was about CFD, ignored my detailed evidence of personal atacks by LL ... yet despite this string of incomprehension, you somehow seem confident in your ability to judge my intentions as malevolent.

  o BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Could be. Maybe stop assuming bad faith? As I recall, ABF is a major component of your behavioural restrictions. El_C 04:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  On the contrary, the ABF is entirely yours, as is the failure to read and the rapid resort threats. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, I AGF'd, originally, but, no, not anymore. Obviously. El_C 04:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You took action based on a false statement. You have had ample opportnity to demstrate your good faith by apologising for your error. But you didn't; you chose to act like someone of bad faith. You also to chose to threaten me, and to ignore he sustance of my complaint, and to accuse me of lacking competence, when you failed to read and comprehend the ten words you replied to.

  So don't accuse me of "projecting", as you did in a edit summary. This is on you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I am unmoved by your bluster. I stand by the merger and my reasoning for it. You've been warned not to misuse this noticeboard again, there's not much else to say. El_C 06:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This is just another example of the fundamental problem with BHG's attitude to discussions: when she assumes she is right (and especially when she is), she will not cease to insist on her point, even if it is minor, and will actively prevent any de-escalation, but start assuming that those who disagree with her lack competence or act in bad faith. I think it might be time to clarify the third of her editing restrictions in a way that prevents threads like the one here. —Kusma (talk) 10:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You know Kusma, I had forgotten that that discussion actually had a resolution. Thank you for the reminder. - jc37 00:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, BHG, forgive my ignorance, but why did this feel like a jab? Valereee (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the LL's two edits[71] together.

And please also read my explanation above. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So to you the "amusing and instructive" felt like a jab? I'd tend to agree that it looks like an attempt to bait you. @Laurel Lodged, can you comment on why you would be baiting BHG? Valereee (talk) 22:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee, the baiting was partly in the comments themselves, but mostly in the invitation to other editors to come and re-open a debate from 7 years ago in the midst of a highly-focused discussion on developing what we hope may be a series of over 100 navboxes (if all the issues can be resolved).

In my view, the core of the jab was the disruption that would have been caused if LL had succeded in that attempt to divert the productive discusison. That would have really screwed with my work.

As @Spleodrach replied to LL this evening, If Laurel Lodged has nothing construtive to add then perhaps they should bow out of the discussion[72] BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Laurel Lodged's comments on Wikiproject Ireland, linked above, were the first inkling I had of... well, all of the above. It certainly struck me when I read it as a needless and pointy jab. Looking at all of the above, it was clearly baiting. Especially when you add in LL's subsequent comments about needing "protection from BHG."Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank You/Neutral I'm really glad to see this dispute over Irish navboxes going back to 2016 is now here at ANI instead of being worked in as subtext at CFD. Thank you for following up on MJL's earlier nomination within a nomination! (I defer to other editors on the merits of the points raised above.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that Laurel Lodged has stopped responding to pings to direct questions and hasn't edited in two days. Valereee (talk) 11:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Could be a case of the WP:ANI flu, or he's just taking a break due to the stress. Either way, I don't think we can read much into his lack of recent activity. He hasn't edited every day even since this thread was started (see here for example). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• He has resumed posting, at WT:WikiProject Ireland#Comment_on_previous_debate_about_succession_boxes, and is being pointy/snarky (and incorrect) with it. I think the proposed one-way iban (Proposal C) is definitely needed. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resumed disruption by Laurel Lodged

Laurel Lodged (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has returned to WT:WikiProject Ireland#Comment_on_previous_debate_about_succession_boxes, to post more snark.[73]

Yet again the snark is accompanied by no understanding of the issues, as I noted in reply.[74]

This is getting absurd. Please can someone put a lid on LL's attempts to derail the successful collaboration between other editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:22, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Laurel Lodged is still sniping away at WT:WikiProject Ireland#Comment_on_previous_debate_about_succession_boxes: see [75].

No attempt whatsoever to assist collaboration or to find solutions to anything. Just attempts at point-scoring, based on wild assertions.

Please can someone make it stop? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now what

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

If anyone is interested in a drive-by close (bolding for truth-in-advertising's sake), I'd close it as

(a) anyone involved will be blocked if, starting now, they continue to question the motives of other editors,

(b) anyone involved will be blocked if, starting now, they try to bait one of the other editors,

(c) everyone involved will stand down from nominating/commenting on category deletion discussions related to SMALLCAT until there's been an RFC on SMALLCAT, and

(d) anyone involved who is rude to anyone else during that RFC will be blocked from the remainder of the RFC (and thus lose the opportunity to affect the outcome).

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

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

I can't link to the diff of my comments above due to the mass oversaight of everyone's edits, but they're at timestamp: 09:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

The above threads are just another example of what we've seen before - which is why I called it a "merry-go-round".

I think your proposed solutions might not be bad, except that - based upon what we've seen here - I am doubting they could be effectively applied, much less achieve the hoped-for ends of reducing disruption.

So I guess I am going to have to agree with you that AN/I does not seem to be effective for resolving these things.

But I guess we'll see what we'll see.

Thank you for taking the time to look this over Floquenbeam. I'm sorry you were drawn into this seeming time sink too. - jc37 17:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be very clear: I wasn't drawn into this time sink, because I recognized it as a time sink. This is a drive-by suggestion in the sense that I only skimmed this once. My interest is more in pointing out how ANI doesn't handle this kind of thing well, rather than in trying to achieve some kind of actual "justice". I am most certainly not an example of the "wise, patient, uninvolved admin [who] is going to come by, carefully and diligently read and digest this sprawling mess, and block/warn/advise one or more editors". I'm just suggesting we try to salvage something here, but that we should give up on adding much more to this wall of text. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I've been that "nice person" myself at times, though (obviously) won't be this time. - jc37 18:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (a), (b), (c), (d) above. I will withdraw all open contentious cfd nominations of mine relevant to (c), which will probably be 'no consensus' anyway. I look forward to a harmonious RFC. (Sub-heading fully warranted.) Oculi (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless I have missed some the contentious open ones nominated by myself, BHG or LL are 2023 July 5#Category:Rugby union players from Monaghan, nominated by BHG on WP:SMALLCAT grounds, 2023 July 11#Irish trade unionists (withdrawn by nom, Oculi); and LL's nominations 2023 July 13#Irish police officers by county and 2023 June 25#People by occupation in Northern Ireland (which could be closed as keep or no consensus). Oculi (talk) 00:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support abcd, assuming a/b refer to the involved parties, and not never be rude ever again. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I didn't think about specifics much, because I didn't think this would gain traction, and because - as I said - it's too sprawling to get into too many specifics. But... sure, it makes sense that a/b refer (as far as this close would be concerned) to the involved parties, and aren't blanket requirements. Not because such a blanket requirement may or may not make sense, but because the justification for a blanket requirement would require more work than a drive-by close could justify. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Personally I think your skim got the gist, at least as far as I can figure it all out. Valereee (talk) 18:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if we can link to the diff, but I think you very much understand with your post of time stamp: 16:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I know I sound as if I despair of anything fruitful happening, but we could fill this page and many more with diffs of this stuff going back years and years. This isn't about being "unblockable" due to friends, so much as knowing the policies and knowing just what to do to try to discredit one's "adversary" in a discussion. Look no further than the interaction with El C, above. And that was literally just over section threading. It's a long-term editor who knows the policies and knows what to do to weaponize them against their opponents.

It's just not worth engaging. Which I rarely do anymore. It's funny that she thought I haven't been active at CfD (above), because I have actually, quite a bit. But just been avoiding her nominations and nonsense, because, really, who needs that? - jc37 19:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jc37, so is that a support for a drive-by closing by Floq on the terms he described? Valereee (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, hmm. It looks like someone reframed this as more of an RfC. Ok, so, I think a, b, and d, are going to be subjective assessments and would prefer them re-worded for a bit more clarity if we're talking about blocking people. And c is a straight Oppose, because there are several open discussions at CfD right now in which smallcat is cited. And even if not, a person could just instead say "small category, with little to no prospect for growth", which is what was done before smallcat was adopted after many of such discussions. So like I said above, not a bad idea, but in practice, probably not easily (or fairly) applied, as written. I know it's a catch-22. But that's also part of why it's been a merry-go-round. As an aside, I think your solution above (16:08, 12 July 2023) is potentially workable, and would support that being applied indefinitely for all involved editors. - jc37 23:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You know, thinking about smallcat, and what I just said. Technically it, and most of WP:OC, for that matter, are just sections done so that we wouldn't have to have the same arguements again and again at CfD, so most of them are as a result of repeated results at CfD. ("defining" and a few other things were RfCs) - so really, if you get right down to it, they are all arguing about something that was set in place to try to prevent exactly this arguing. In the case of smallcat, the no consensus that I mentioned above about the exact quantity is precisely because no one really agrees on it - it's always a discordant discussion about applicability except in the most obvious cases - As we're seeing here. So in truth, everyone is really just spinning their wheels here about pretty much nothing as far as "smallcat" is concerned. Which, to me anyway, is disappointing. - jc37 23:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you mean requiring a diff in real time for any comment about behavior or motivation? I'd actually prefer no one do that anywhere except at ANI. But yeah. Valereee (talk) 23:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SMALLCAT has always been challenging because it's an exception to WP:CRYSTALBALL, requiring a prediction about growth potential on the article side. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly, no. It depends on which way you are looking at it. CRYSTAL is about guessing about future events outside Wikipedia, and whether they should be added. But when looking at SMALLCAT, there are several ways to look at it. One is that there is stuff already out there, but a Wikipedian merely hasn't added it yet (written an article, added an existing article to a category, whatever). And then there is the negative side of SMALLCAT: Applied - in reverse - to what is presumably no longer possible. Like the presumption that a dead woman is unlikely to be married again. And of course there are also regularly recurring events, like the election of a politician to office. But, in none of these cases are we guessing without concrete evidence that something may exist out in the world in the future, when it does not now. Either it does, and we're waiting for the stuff to be added; or, we know factually that it cannot. So there is no WP:CRYSTAL exception here. Not that we don't see people trying to assert information existence without evidence : )

Anyway, I'm just talking generalities. Maybe you're talking about some event more specific to the current nominations? - jc37 01:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An example of crystalballing is projecting past trends into the future, a common technique for guessing the future. For example, a young talented movie star has been in 2 films, we might assume they will be in many more. However the longer it's been since their last film, the less likely it becomes they will be in another. So it's messy with multiple factors and opinionated weights: past trends, time factors, degree of notability. Given this, the rules should try to reduce complexity with guardrails, like the suggestion of 5 or 10 articles, to keep things easy. -- GreenC 15:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Send it to ArbCom. The community has proven themselves to not be a just arbitrator in long-standing conflicts. --qedk (t 愛 c) 20:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• That may be good advice. The discussion should have been about uncivility of BHG towards RD, but in the end maybe just 1% of the discussion adressed that issue. It went all over the place. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree, this needs to be handled in a structured and considered way; Arbcom can do that, AN/I can't. AN/I is for quick-fire, rapid response issues that need urgent attention, not meandering drawn-out discussions like this. WaggersTALK 10:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, this would have been an ANI against me for WP:MEAT with the Diffs provided up front. That would have been more manageable. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose sending to ArbCom if it's framed as a problem solely about BHG. If it sent as a problem involving all the involved editors, that might be acceptable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Floq's "drive-by" solution above, which I somehow missed earlier. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support sending to ArbCom because I think everyone involved has lost track here. This has escalated quickly beyond what ANI is built to deal with, namely large elaborate cases with accusations a-flyin’ left and right between several entrenched parties. Dronebogus (talk) 02:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I just opened an ArbComm request. It's my first time there too, so no idea how likely they are to accept it. - RevelationDirect (talk) 22:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• For anyone looking for the request, it's Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:28, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per my comments in the ArbCom case request. DFlhb (talk) 22:24, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with a depressing expectation that none of it will be implemented and we'll be back here in a few months with more incivility and another multi-thousand-word shouting match. A smallcat RfC seems like a good idea. An Arbcom case on conduct issues also seems like a good idea, with the proviso per BMK that it looks at all involved parties. But Arbcom doesn't seem very keen, so if it's Floq's way or nothing we may as well go Floq. Apologies for the somewhat negative tone. And thanks Floq for making a suggestion that might bring this to a close.-- Euryalus (talk) 04:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the proposed closure, like others I fear this isn't going to succeed, but it's IMO better to at least try. If arbcom chooses to take the current case, I don't care either but ultimately I think we need to do something while trying to be as far as possible to everyone which includes recognising there have been significant problems on all sides. Nil Einne (talk) 06:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Floquenbeam: probably my greatest concern with your suggested closed is the RfC aspect. It's a great idea, and I know at least some parties on both sides started talking about an RfC above and agreeing it would be good to have one. But being realistic here, we didn't need ANI for an RfC. Perhaps this ANI and/or the ban on commenting/start nominations will indeed be enough for all parties to come together to agree on the appropriate question/s for an RfC and put one to the community, but I'm not convinced. So for clarity is part of your proposal you'd help prod the parties as much as necessary, hopefully not much but I fear it'll need to be a lot so they come to some sort of agreement on an RfC and put it to the community? Otherwise my main fear with this proposal is several months later there will still be no RfC and perhaps some blocks will have been handed out but frankly any peace will be bursting at its seams. Nil Einne (talk) 12:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Also one final comment, IMO it might make sense to be more tolerant in the pre-RFC stage where editors are drafting the RfC. So unless behaviour is really bad, instead of banning the editor from the pre-RfC and RfC, instead warn them if they do that in the RfC (or perhapd if they do it again point blank), they'll lose the privilege to take further part. Once the RfC has started it's reasonable to be far stricter IMO. Nil Einne (talk) 12:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As I've said above, this is not a fully formed "proposal"; I don't plan to help prod anything or do anything else. There is no part of the proposal that hasn't already been written. It's an observation that ANI sucks at this, and a suggestion that might make it easy on everyone. It is entirely possible it is a bad idea. I am not closing this; I might have been willing to close before, if it was unanimous, but it is too complicated now, and - I can't say this enough - I haven't even read the whole thing thru. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I wish we had some sort of in between ANI and ArbCom mediation service, but we don't, and ANI is not adequate for this. SportingFlyer T·C 20:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Floqs closure - As I stated at the Arbcom case nothing good will come of the case or this ANI thread - An RFC really is the best course of action here, If BHGs incivility was a frequent thing then sure I can understand the need for sanctions but it's not so I don't. RFC is the best way of dealing with this. –Davey2010^Talk 22:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

"Unsubstantiated accusations of tag teaming are uncivil."

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

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

@RevelationDirect, seriously no snark intended, but I'm having a hard time following this. Can you just state as objectively as you can the series of events that you are concerned about. Valereee (talk) 18:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: I don't think I intended snark, but I was frustrated and it sure reads that way when I take a fresh look. Put a strikethru to extraneous sections. - RevelationDirect (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For those following along: we had an edit conflict because I removed a section of my own initial post that I decided was, well, snarky. Valereee (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I get it. I have to fight against snarkiness myself often, because, well, it's delicious. So basically what you're asking for is the promised diffs? I do know BHG had mentioned, maybe on her user talk, that she'd said she'd dig the diffs, IRL was currently busy, and then this particular ANI developed tentacles, and it might take some time. Given how long and involved it is, I'm willing to give her a lot of slack on that. Valereee (talk) 19:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry -- totally off topic here -- but whoever posted the smallcat cat picture, that is off-the-scale adorable. Thank you for making my day.  Spintendo  01:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry again, totally off topic here, me too -- but is this the longest ANI thread ever? Lourdes 09:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it. I've seen a lot of very long threads at ANI. We used to much more readily spin off threads into subpages although I'm not sure if that made them longer (because editors cared less they were filling up ANI) or shorter (because they were more easily missed). Nil Einne (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BrownHairedGirl blocked

BHG has been blocked for 48 hours by User:Paul August as a "community sanction" for apparently breaching the civility ban imposed in 2021 [76], despite the fact that there does not appear to be any community asking for a block here (which whilst not strictly necessary, you would expect there to have been rather than a block out of the blue). Since he did not bother to leave a block notice on BHGs talkpage, however, it is uncertain which edits he has actually blocked for. Quite apart from those two issues, this seems to me to be a spectacularly tone-deaf block given that BHG is taking part in this thread and on the case page at ArbCom. I would merely note that this is only Paul August's second block in three years. Black Kite (talk) 13:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (as a very involved editor) BrownHairedGirl should be allowed to respond to questions at ArbComm for the next 48 hours and participate at ANI. That just seems like a simple matter of fairness to me. (I defer to admins on the overall block.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• They've only made a small number of blocks in over 18 years as an admin, so frankly, I'm not surprised at such blatant misreading of the room. I would support overturning the block now that the case is at arbcom, and as for not even posting a block notice... that's just rude. (BTW, before anyone mentions WP:WHEEL: it wouldn't be.) SN54129 13:34, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I have now left a block notice on BrownHairedGirl's talk page. BrownHairedGirl is under an editing restriction, as documented at WP:EDRC, which says:

Should BrownHairedGirl behave uncivilly or make personal attacks, she may be blocked first for twelve hours and then for a duration at the discretion of the blocking administrator. Blocks made under this restriction must not be reversed except by consensus of a community discussion.

It's my opinion, as an uninvolved administrator, that BrownHairedGirl has violated this editing restriction, per remarks documented above. Paul August ☎ 13:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• So regardless of the fact that it is particularly unhelpful to a number of discussions at this juncture, what made you use the block button, which you almost never use, on this particular occasion? Black Kite (talk) 13:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• And furthermore, why now, considering the comments made by BHG that are the subject of this ANI were made a significant time ago, and no other admin had thought to block her even while this ANI was open? Black Kite (talk) 14:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• My block was in response to two user statements at the ArbCom case request: by Tamzin (Tamzin) and by Lourdes (Lourdes). Paul August ☎ 15:15, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Paul August: Did it really not occur to you that possible actions arising from statements at an ArbCom case request should be assessed by the arbitrators who are hearing the request rather than by a driveby admin? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  In my view an editing restriction can be enforced independently from other events. I agree with the statement made here by Alanscottwalker. If we are not going to enforce such things we should not have them. Paul August ☎ 15:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Paul August: the diffs had been posted here at ANI over a week ago. It is weird to take action only when the matter is before the Ars.

  Admin actions require some consideration of context, which was lacking here. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I hadn't yet seen this discussion. I only became aware of it a few hours ago, while reading the ArbCom case request. Paul August ☎ 17:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that "Blocks made under this restriction must not be reversed except by consensus of a community discussion." applies, community consensus must be gained to overturn the block. If BHG wishes to make comment at ArbCom, they can email submissions to the arbitrators. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 13:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreamy Jazz: which is precisely not what an arb has just advised. SN54129 14:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that was posted as I was posting this comment. My understanding is that blocked users could usually email arbcom to make statements. Regardless, I'm not sure how it would work if Paul August did not want to unblock (at least without getting community consensus). Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So there's no community consensus to block, but you need community consensus to unblock. Got to love Wikipedia sometimes. Black Kite (talk) 14:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion on the block (have kept myself away), but regarding appeals it is what consensus found previously. I presume there is a reason for this appeal structure. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I presume it assumes that administrators will not make poor blocks using it, or if they do, will undo them when this is pointed out to them - neither of which seems to apply here. Black Kite (talk) 14:12, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More likely, the administrators besides Paul August have failed to protect the project, which we may not realize until the next BHG ANI. It is a broken record at this point. (And in case it needs to be said again, this does not and has never meant that other actions may not also be taken against other users). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find you're in the minority there. More likely other admins, quite correctly, realised that blocking a party in the middle of a complex case was suboptimal. Black Kite (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's called a false dilemma, and if some admins were working on that premise, it shows they have further failed. Blocking does not stop a complex case and never has. Blocked parties even pursue appeals of conduct matters while being blocked, blocked parties may also continue discussion while blocked, and when, as here, time limited blocks expire. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not how it works, as you should know. We have 800 admins and none thought it useful to block BHG during that time. Meanwhile, an admin who has blocked precisely one editor in the last three years decided it was a good idea (or was asked to do it by someone else). What was the usefulness of the block for alleged incivility that happened weeks ago? There was none. Simply, it was punitive, not preventative, and we don't do that. Black Kite (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially this is why I unblocked when I did. A 2 day block for conduct first reported to ANI 9 days ago was purely punitive, and the commentary showed it. Courcelles (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plainly you are wrong, and you should know better. You should also already know why it was preventative, as I clearly already said why below, and alluded to it above. BHG's interactions are an ongoing repeated issue which transcend this matter (just reread the interaction with ElC and Kusma above for further proof). Also, 800 admins have not looked at this and yes the few (uninvolved) who took the time failed, that is the point (to clarify, the involved did not fail because they could not do anything). Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I rolled my eyes at Black Kite's invocation of the total number of admins as if they had all reviewed this case, there is much merit in the argument that if the several dozen admins who regularly patrol this noticeboard have declined to take administrative action, it is probably not a good idea for an admin who almost never issues blocks to try to handle a situation that clearly has the community deeply confounded. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The few uninvolved who may have looked at this and the history in depth in order to decide are almost certainly not dozens, doubtful they could be counted on more than one hand. (again putting aside the involved). 18:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Given the size and duration of this megathread, I am quite happy to stand by 'dozens' as a label for the quantity of admins who understood this situation as well as Paul McDonald did. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:15, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But that's even putting aside, that the appeal to numbers (dozen or not) is poor reasoning. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention of changing my mind and presumably neither do you, so let's just agree to disagree. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we are clear where we stand, and relevant to explain that appeal to numbers is unpersuasive. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the 800 figure is obviously not the number who have looked at this (it's the only fixed metric we have though), but a significant number clearly have. As regards your comment, much as I respect El_C, I do not think he was right in that particular interaction. Regardless, the point is - this was punitive, not preventative; BHG was not going to break the encyclopedia during this discussion. Black Kite (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the standard, and is clearly wrong. No one breaks the encyclopedia, ever. What they do break is restrictions. And BHG has done so in the past, and unless enforced is like to continue in the future (thus, the block is prevention). Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So we are blocking because something might happen in the future? That's not what prevention means. Black Kite (talk) 19:15, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Likely. because it has happened before. And it's the only thing prevention means, no one knows what will happen in the future (even admins are not given the 'know the future' tool). Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm chiming in here because there seems to be some needless badgering going on here. Let's not forget that one of our core principles is WP:AGF. Firstly, was the block an appropriate enforcement action? Yes, because an uninvolved administrator (i.e. Paul) determined there was an infraction. Now, should we apply context with respect to the already ongoing ARC? I would say reasonably yes, since the matter is already technically forward to the committee, this does not mean that Paul still cannot block or unblock, it just means that the decision to do so is much more subjective. In my view, this was a potentially bad block at worst and the unblock following the very limited discussion below this is much worse. --qedk (t 愛 c) 17:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think this was unambiguously a bad block, albeit one seemingly made in good faith. If the matter had been referred to ArbCom, then substantial oversight was already forthcoming, and blocking BHG at precisely that juncture could only serve to disrupt process. I'd also argue that, insofar as Paul has indicated they were unaware of this discussion at the time of the block, they didn't really engage with the level of investigation of context I would expect of an admin using the block function in these circumstances.

All that said, there's a larger issue/lesson to be learned here: whoever put the "Blocks made under this restriction must not be reversed except by consensus of a community discussion." language into the sanction (whether it was the proposer, the closer, or the person who logged the ER), majorly blundered. This is clearly an ill-considered effort at restricting the normal blocking policy/procedure, which has much broader community support than anyone one discussions to sanction an individual editor could ever have.

It's also outside the scope of what could have reasonably been decided by the local community discussion that lead to that sanction: they were empowered to decide what kind restriction for BHG was reasonable on the basis of the facts as they stood at the time, but not to restrict later admins in how they enforce (and regulate enforcement) of any resulting blocks made for violation of that restriction. The participants in that discussion could have no real way of knowing how any future violations of the editing restriction / responses to same would play out, and even if they did, they were not in a position to abrogate the normal procedures. It was incredibly dumb and policy-inconsistent language that should have been caught at the time and should most definitely be amended now. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The language is merely a restatement of the standard rule for community sanction enforcement. Blocks that enforce community sanctions cannot be reversed unilaterally. However, adding "by any other admin" after "reversed" seems reasonable to clear up the confusion that caused here. Would anyone object to that? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've never known that to be a standard condition on CBAN, except in cases where someone was removed from the community at large. In that case the block that is not meant to be reversed is the one implemented by community consensus: the block that goes into effect when a person is completely CBANned. What we are talking about here is very different situation, and one where that language does not make rational sense. Here it is being interpreted as "once another admin makes a block on the basis of a previous community-instituted TBAN/IBAN/ER/What-have-you, that block cannot be reversed by another admin, short a community affirmation. Well, that's just nonsensical. That's an entirely different context, and how could the previous group of community members possibly know that the future admin's block was going to be good or bad, or anything else about the situation as it stood? Further, they wouldn't have community standing to overrule the normal blocking policy in any event, as that is a much higher level of community consensus, even if they were psychics.

So the language you are talking about applies to an entirely different procedural context, and I've never known it to be logged or interpreted in the way that happened here. Again, I have no idea if this error cropped in at the proposal, closure, or logging stage, but it should have been caught. (I could easily be wrong about this having happened before, but if so, it only highlights the need to correct this issue ASAP). And, with respect, I don't think your language at all captures the distinctions / issues here. "No unblock without community consensus (in reference to an existing block made at the end of a complete community CBAN, enforced by an indef)" ≠ "No unblock without community consensus (in reference to a speculative future block that may be perfectly valid or deeply problematic for all we know, and which would involve us restricting the normal blocking policy in a way no local group of editors is entitled to do without a much bigger discussion)". The language logged here was developed for the former context and never meant for the latter.

Because (at the risk of sounding like a broken record, but wanting to be clear here) in the former case the "don't unblock without community consensus" refers back to a decision made with broad community consensus (the CBAN discussion itself, which the block was immediately instituted to enforce). But in the latter case, the "don't unblock without community consensus" is being invoked to (inappropriately) "power up" a single admin's later action, which action was not the subject of any kind of community consensus at all. Do you see the distinction and why that language has been historically used in the one context, and not the other? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. The reason is straight forward. The community has had a long history of having and disapproving of these block/quick-unblock kerfuffles (by friend?) in this type of matter, and for good reason does not want to do it that way. The purpose of such blocks is to work a change in behavior, which can't even begin to try to work without some stick-to-itiveness.-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Can you point me to anywhere where this supposed community consensus was adopted, or even expressly discussed? For this sanction, or another, or just more broadly? Because I've never seen any community consensus to that effect before and, again, this is contrary to manner and context in which the language in question has been historically deployed. If there's been a change in perspective on this in recent time, I'd like to stay informed about it, but, forgive my bluntness, it looks to me as if you are coming up with a post-hoc rationalization for this mistake. Which application I would reiterate is not rational here, and is contrary to the blocking policy and the level of consensus needed to amend its application. I'd like to see the suggested consensus that this is "to prevent friendly admins from unblocking later blocks made under this sanction", if that was really the reason for adding language in an atypical context, creating the circumstances that (almost inevitably) lead to issues here. Again, that language just doesn't make sense in this context--even if the original proposal included the problematic language (and no one has yet demonstrated that was even the case here).

"The purpose of such blocks is to work a change in behavior, which can't even begin to try to work without some stick-to-itiveness."

I think you might be missing the important distinction here. No one is questioning whether the consensus to impart the editorial restriction in the first instance was valid or well-considered. We'll take that for a granted here. The point is that the community consensus was to validate that such a restriction was appropriate--not that any one future block made under that ER would be automatically deemed by the community to be valid, appropriate, and helpful. Why would the community try to crystal ball something like that? I don't think your "because they presume some admin will wheel war over this" theory is supported by any established community consensus. Any such consensus would need to be well documented as established in the discussion (i.e. would have to come at the sanction proposal and be supported by the !votes, not just routinely added at the closure/logging stage).

And even if it did happen at the proposal stage, there's a big open question about whether or not the local group admins/community members in one ANI discussion can abrogate community consensus about how the block/unblock functions are meant to operate, especially if that local group is basing their decision on mere predictions about how things might play out regarding the future blocks. I'm sorry, but I think your argument is deeply flawed, and if you're going to convince me (or anyone here), I daresay you're gonna need to show a pretty clear indication that the community was implementing the "keep the friendly admin away" principle you claim is controlling here. At least some kind of express discussion of such a supposed motivation. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. You are not forgiven for your bad faith. If anyone has watched civility issues over the years they would know there is nothing post hoc about what I have said. Civility paroles are suppose to be enforcement ready and sticky because the consensus of the community has already established there is a problem, so much so, that the community had to spend time constructing the parole. Paroles are not, in the least, business as usual. They are extraordinary measures and always have been. And you are wrong about Wheel War, the unblock is not a Wheel War, but what it does is give second mover advantage, and this approved parole works to put a speed bump on the second mover advantage for the sake of sound administration with respect to an already established long standing known problem. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, can you prove any of this supposed "exceptional parole" concept with reference to a closure or any other demonstration of community consensus that this is what is going on here? You seem to be ((intentionally or not, I really don't know at this point) confusing two separate issues: As I said before, no one is questioning the validity of the original close, or even whether it should be aggressively applied: we can assume both of those as givens for our present needs. The question is whether any future block by an admin in accordance with an existing ER can inherit the presumption of community consensus. I'm telling you that strikes me nonsense, for the numerous reasons detailed above, and that it is distinct from the historical situation in which the "don't unblock" language was used (with regard to a block made commiserate/simultaneous with a CBAN, not a block made by a single admin, interpreting an ER).

Now, you have what seems to me to be a theory: that the community intentionally extrapolated this old language into a new context because they were concerned that without such a limitation on unblocks, friendly admins would unblock on cases of future blocks and thus enable the bad behavior of the sanctioned party. I've never seen such reasoning expressed here ever. It seems like a very novel concept to me. But I don't know everything that happens in this community, and you keep insisting this was an intentional affirmative action taken by the community. So I am asking, quite simply, if that is the case, can you please direct me to where I can find this community consensus? A broad discussion of the idea that this kind of restriction was necessary, or an example of it being expressly implemented for this BHG sanction, or a similar ANI sanction discussion? Even one link? If you respond again without providing that, I'm not going to engage with you on the matter further, as I will have to assume you have no such community consensus to refer back to, in which case this line of discussion threatens to do nothing but go around in circles. Again, I could have missed some big sea change on procedure: it's possible. But yours is an exceptional claim about supposed community consensus that turns established policy on its head, and leads to situations like that which occurred here, so I'm just not prepared to take this on faith without being able to see evidence of community support for these notions, where I have never seen it before. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not confused in the least, I knew what a wheel war is. The community consensus is in the parole. Why such sticky against second mover exists, was developed more than a decade ago and their no reason to believe its rationale changes. And looking at the comment below, perhaps you did not realize its also part of other specialized sanction regimes. And just like that, a parole is a specialized sanctions regime tailored and targeted at a problem demonstrated already (we even list it in a page for special sanctions regimes). Finally, your seeming insistence that blocking and effective blocking are completely different issues is neither true nor sensible. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Tamzin was referring to CBANs in her comment, but rather community-authorized general sanctions. For instance, if an administrator blocks an editor under the general sanctions for blockchains and cryptocurrencies, then that block cannot be undone by another administrator without approval of the sanctioning administrator or by an appeal to WP:AN (as laid out at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies § Remedies). DanCherek (talk) 03:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Community consensus

I’m unblocking. Clear consensus this was not needed. Courcelles (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

• Well, then, if community consensus is needed to unblock, then I move that the block be lifted. Any perceived incivility happened some time ago at this stage, it is being discussed here and at Arbcom, and blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as nom. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support unblock. Uninvolved admin here. I agree with the assessment of others that this is "out of the blue" and not a correct assessment of the current tatus of the situation. Might be by-the-letter of the existing editing restriction, but there is no instant problem cited (and also impolite lack of notice) and instead there is ongoing proper use of editing privlege (edits in other areas, following the spirit and letter of the proposed remedy here for the problem that led us here, and discussion in this thread and arbcom). The block seems more punitive than preventative. DMacks (talk) 14:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn poorly timed block, could've been more appropriate before this was all being hashed out here and at arbcom, now it just throws a wrench in the works. I agree BHG is combative and has not AGF properly (or chooses to not-AGF out in the wild rather than where it can be addressed), but this is not news at this point. We're trying to work out a solution. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:11, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support overturn of cluelessly timed block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support unblock per my points above. SN54129 14:28, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse block obviously called for, and the failure to carry-out the community parole is one reason why this has lasted. The parole exists because it is already established that BHG in one way has a tendency to harm (eg, making claims in project space instead of bringing them to behavior boards with evidence), this block thus does seek to prevent probable future disruption by reinforcing the message that this mode of BHG's handling is counter-productive now and in the future, as it was in the past. Now, the community can turn to what if anything else needs to be done (quite apart from blocking BHG), so it considerably advances the matter toward settlement. BHG is also able to continue to comment, as she has on her talk page, and that's even if there is anything really new to comment on during the short block, short in relative comparison to this ANI. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This was a potentially bad block and an even worse unblock. @Courcelles: can you explain how a discussion lasting 1 hour was determined to be a valid community consensus, thank you. --qedk (t 愛 c) 17:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, the overall length, including above, was closer to three hours. A 48 hour block, how much discussion does it really merit? If you let it go on too long, the block is substantially served no matter what the consensus develops, and at the time I unblocked, there was no one supporting the block. (The sole endorsement came after I unblocked, and the discussion closing script didn’t even give an edit conflict, nits the same minute timestamps). It could be argued that the block would have been a good idea… 9 days ago when the thread was opened. Now? It cut off an editor when at jeopardy for significant sanctions for non-current problems. The discussion showed a consensus against the block, so it was, in my opinion, time to unblock and get back to actually trying to solve this quagmire. Courcelles (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No, the discussion was open when I commented. And it's your unseemly haste which would be the cause of any editing conflict. It's done now, so there is no point in going back, but the editor was plainly not cut off by the block. They were blocked pursuant to the community restriction after saying 1000s of words, and still had the power to respond during the short block and after. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Particularly regarding A 48 hour block, how much discussion does it really merit?, please note that you have said that you have unblocked via consensus, my question to you is as an uninvolved administrator, how did you determine a consensus for an unblock when the actual discussion lasted for 1 hour (your 3 hour comment is a technicality that does not apply since the actual discussion was opened at 14:08), even assuming that you did not see Alansw's !vote, please explain how you construed 5 supports as community consensus, thank you. --qedk (t 愛 c) 18:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No, the actual discussion started at 13:19, that a separate sub header was added later is not really that relevant. And we regularly make more important decisions on less commentary. Short blocks have to be reviewed quickly, or the review mechanism is meaningless, and at the time I read the discussion, no one thought it was a useful block, with the blocking admin taking the position they could not undo their own block. Courcelles (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There was still no need for your haste, the editor has thousands of words of comment, could continue and did comment during the 48, and comment after. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That is an incorrect representation of what happened, Black Kite opened a "discussion" regarding the block, there was no actual proposal until Bastun's "proposal", which was done specifically because Dreamy mentioned it cannot be overturned without community consensus - hence the actual "proposal" being started to gain consensus. Regarding Short blocks have to be reviewed quickly, please explain why community consensus was needed to be determined so quickly (~1 hour, or even with your broadly construed ~3 hour discussion taken into account, which had conflicting opinions), and why a wider community purview that is reflective of the actual terminology of "community consensus" was not warranted. Although I am dissatisifed with your explanations, I do not intend to badger you and in that interest, this is the last explanation I will request. --qedk (t 愛 c) 18:46, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don’t know what you want me to say I haven’t said. I saw a consensus it was a bad block, one I agreed with, and it was interfering with a process where I expect the blocked editor is, should the process be continued, going to eventually face a vote which will decide their ability to have a continued presence on this project. (Don’t have any hard data to back that up, just years of watching what happens to editors who repeatedly come to Arbcom’s attention). So, yeah, this block turned out to have some supporters later, but at the time, I read the discussion as seeing it as punishment being so far after the infractions. Courcelles (talk) 20:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No. The block was not interfering with a process it was in furtherance of proper process. The parole exists because it is a long-term issue of years, not an issue of just a moment in 2023. Second, there is no likelihood that any process would not follow its normal generally slow course. But even so, your own personal rationale has, and had no basis, BHG has been given multiple words to say their case, had already said their case in excess of word limits, and would continue to say their case during the block and after. So yes, you are only left with the quick vote. (If the editor should face a site ban in a month or so, which seems unlikely at this point even if there is a case, it is likely that part of the reason it will have occured is because admins have been failing BHG and the community in this long term area.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The considerable volume of comments and the depth of disagreement that your hasty decision to unblock has engendered strongly suggest that your action was, in fact, a misstep. It's water under the bridge now, nothing can be done to reverse the course of events. However, this experience serves as an invaluable lesson for the future. Let it be a guide, steering you away from similar misjudgments and impetuous decisions. Contemplation and caution, rather than haste, will likely serve you better in the instances to come. PackMecEng (talk) 18:52, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like a rushed and bad unblock. The block did not hinder the on going case and a poorly considered unblock only served to cause drama and confusion. Please be more careful in the future. PackMecEng (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sure your suggestion will be given the weight it deserves. SN54129 17:52, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The only thing that caused drama and confusion was the block, as you can easily see from reading the above section and the case page, especically the comments from ArbCom members. Black Kite (talk) 18:16, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The block was well-intended but ill-advised, and the unblock – although probably inevitable – was premature. After all, community consensus seldom forms in a single hour. However, since it would be very, very foolish to cause even more disruption by reinstating the block, there really isn't anything left to discuss here, so maybe an admin can collapse this subthread before any more heat is generated. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed yes, I agree that any more enforcement actions, one way or the other would be unwarranted, but it is absolutely confounding to have a pending discussion about a potentially bad block, and then make an unblock that is considerably worse. --qedk (t 愛 c) 18:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Have you read the ArbCom case page which contains comments from at least two ArbCom members asking Paul August to undo the block as unhelpful? Black Kite (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry but that is treated as "community consensus" since when? My point is not that the block was 100% warranted, it is that the unblock was not per community consensus as it should have been. --qedk (t 愛 c) 18:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Don't get me wrong; I think you are 100% correct on the merits. I just don't think there's anything to do about it now. Also, I'm less inclined to get worked up over a poor unblock when it was preceded by (IMO) a bad block. I see it as too mistakes cancelling each other out. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  We just un-admined an admin because of a well-intended but ill-advised block - are we going to un-admin another? SportingFlyer T·C 20:28, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• As others have said the unblock was rushed and ill-advised. It would have been a bad idea if this was a normal unblock where it was felt community feedback was needed, but as an unblock for which specific conditions had been laid down by the community, it's deeply disappointing that this is how they were "followed". No comment on the block itself since I can't be bothered looking into that especially since I agree with others that I don't really see what we can do here since a re-block is unlikely to be helpful. This combined with various discussions adds to my doubts that anything short of arbcom will resolve this. (Whether we want to also implement Floquenbeam's proposed closure I dunno but this episode does emphasise we probably need to specify how any blocks under it would interact with any arbcom case.) Nil Einne (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  One thing I would add is we should consider why an apparent initial community consensus may develop in one way over a short time. This is a very very long thread, and also an old one. So there's a good chance even editors checking out ANI did not notice this latest development in that short time, unless they already knew of the block. (I only noticed it because I was checking replies to my earlier comments.) There is an active arbcom request which is one area editors may have became aware of it, editors here are likely to have diverse views so that's fine. However the other arena is likely those following BHG's talk page. I would hope most of these editors who are somewhat friendly to BHG since it's generally inappropriate to follow the talk page of someone you dislike or find problematic. So any rushed decision could easily be biased by the self-selection of participants. (The last one is actually very common so a reason we need to take great care about rushed decisions.) Of course as we've seen several times before, some initial apparent consensus can easily change at ANI for whatever reason anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 19:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• FWIW I think this was a good unblock; there was consensus forming that the block was potentially an issue for the ArbCom case request. Comments were spread between here and the case request, which makes untangling things trickier, but doesn't change that there was apparent consensus. Blocks are not punitive and this is a case where a block was causing more disruption than it was preventing. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 20:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Now this is at Arbcom is involved, perhaps someone should close the entire discussion. Unless someone wants to propose sanctions against an editor very POINTedly blocking someone WHILE they are involved in an Arbcom discussion, with no new evidence since the Arbcom discussion started! Nfitz (talk) 22:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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