• Elinruby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Azov Battalion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Azov Special Purpose Regiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• WP:Articles for deletion/Azov Special Purpose Regiment

(I've done my best to have diffs where I can. As far as I know no post has been deleted here, so people can look at any mentioned page and see conversations in full if they feel I may have misrepresented anything or that they need further context than what I have provided. In addition, I have notified all users mentioned by name below, and all who received a D/s notification from Elinruby, which seemed the fastest way to get the interested parties.)

Recently, User:Elinruby and I have been involved in a content dispute regarding multiple issues surrounding the article Azov Battalion. During this time they have demonstrated multiple policy violate and generally belligerent behaviors, most egregiously I would say is their most recent misuse of D/s notifications to tell editors not to vote wrong on an RfD I created.

Our initial interaction came after the creation of this RfC (made unilaterally without prior discussion I might add), in which they expressed unfamiliarity with the source material, but nonetheless had skepticism regarding the article's sourcing for certain claims, specifically regarding the far-right, neo-Nazi character of the unit in question. Later, they would post this source "rebuttal", too which I offered mine own here. The editor would continue to call into question the validity of sources used in the article for ideological claims, alternatively insisting they didn't exist, or that they were unusable per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and that editors needed to "READ THE RS POLICY" (this one gets repeated a lot).

Not long after, I received this notification for an RSN discussion, technically involving one of the sources above, all though seemingly presenting it as the only source, instead of one of two for a particular claim, and five in that particular sentence. This is also the first time of two that I encountered WP:INAPPNOTE behavior. After I received my notification, I decided to check Elinruby's contribs to see who else they notified, and saw this (it continues on the next older page). Apparently, Elinruby took it upon themself to notify everyone who had posted on the Azov Battalion talk page since the last RfC, including several editors (and multiple IPs, SPAs, and blocked accounts) who had not posted on a single unarchived thing on the page and who had absolutely no involvement with the current dispute. This post ultimately went nowhere, as myself and several other editors were unconvinced by his arguments (and several others dropped in rather confused as to why they had been pinged).

The following day, I saw this post by User:Ymblanter regarding the article Azov Special Purpose Regiment. After reviewing the article, I concluded it was a woefully inadequate article, and an obvious WP:POVFORK and so took it to AfD (here). Now, I will admit the article has improved somewhat in the intervening days, however that does not change the fact that it is fundamentally a WP:POVFORK that never should have seen mainspace. It seems fairly obvious to me that Elinruby, dissatisfied with the reception at Talk:Azov Battalion, decided to go off and make his own version of what the article "should" be like by copying Ukrainian coverage (at the time of creation of the AfD quotes had not been properly attributed, and seemed to be Elinruby's own voice in the article, I'll likely go back and strike that part of my AfD once I'm done here). Normally, I would expect an editor of their tenure to be more than aware that this is not OK, however they have expressed multiple times to thinking it's just fine to go and make your own article on the same topic if you don't like the coverage at any particular article (including encouraging the proposer of the split to just do it unilaterally during the split discussion, in the case of User:Mhawk10). They seem very fond of unilateral action, having unilaterally moved Russian-Ukrainian information war to Russian information war against Ukraine, causing the conflagration on that talk page (I'm uninvolved in that dispute, and am only commenting on it as a further example of the user's bizarre ideas of acceptable behavior). Finally, during this AfD, Elinruby admitted to WP:CANVASSING Ukrainian Wikipedia for editors to fight my AfD (and seemingly wanting Azov members to escape Mariupol and... set the record straight on Wikipedia?), also calling me a "sneak" in the process.

Now, all of this would have been... fine. Frustrating and annoying yes, but not something to get upset over. There are some serious policy misconceptions and some bizarre personal attacks, but IMO that's not something I really feel the need to come here with. Then however, I received this D/s notification. Now I have already received one of these, in this topic area, but User:Elinruby later apologized for the doubel warning and offered to self-RV, so it's no big deal, if annoying. Of course, after I had recieved this warning I decided to check his contribs once again, seeing if I was a part of another wave of talk page edits, and surprise surprise I was. As can be seen right now, Elinruby apparently took it upon themselves to warn recent participants in the disputes they are involved in of EE D/s, including some rather experienced editors in the area such as User:Mhawk10 and User:Mhorg. Even this, though a fairly obvious attempt at intimidation IMO, wasn't enough to push me here. No, the final straw was this edit, repeated at each talk page (excepting my own) that a D/s notification was placed on. Placing D/s notifications on editors pages and then telling them it was because they voted in an AfD you disagree with (apparently RfC and RfD were meant to be AfD, per this, though they also take umbrage with the existence and voting in of every process in which they are involved in a dispute, and seem to think they are dealing with the same "group" of editors in each case) should absolutely not be acceptable under any circumstances.

Frankly I have no idea where to go from here. The pattern of behavior is consistent and has only been getting worse. I have no idea how an editor with a tenure like this could act like this. Hopefully an administrator can provide some assistance here. BSMRD (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest condensing this? You're going to be hardpressed to find anyone to read such a lengthy complaint. Maybe bullet point the issues...CUPIDICAE💕 17:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to break it up chronologically by paragraphs, but if you want a TLDR the issues are as follows:

Multiple kinds of WP:INAPPNOTE

Repeated and inappropriate spamming of user talk pages

General belligerence and personal attacks, as well as a habit of projecting behavior and accusations between users, or inventing it altogether (he seems to think I've called him a brainwashed Nazi, when as far as I am aware I've never done such a thing, nor could I find anyone who has in the past few days)

I figured it would be best to be thorough due to how this has crossed multiple pages and covers multiple issues, hence the paragraphs and diffs, but that's the quickest summary I can give. BSMRD (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This [[1]] contains some PA's "All you have done that I think is wrong is to vote somewhat over hastily on a dishonest RFC", telling another user how they should have voted in an AFD (not to be a fair major issue, but I see they may have done to same to everyone who did not vote they way they wanted). I think all these need is a mild warning, but they are trying to bludgeon an AFD on multiple talk pages. Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I support sanctions against Elinruby. They posted this discretionary sanctions notice on my UP: [2] and then, an hour and a half after I deleted that, posted this canvassing: [3] Mztourist (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) I also would support sanctions. There behavior on Talk:Russian information war against Ukraine has been sub-par, to say the least, move-warring over the article ([4]) with multiple allegations of personal attacks against another editor ([5], [6], [7]), combined with a general BATTLEGROUND approach ([8], [9]: It was extremely disrespectful to show up here for the first time ever, you have been doing this less than a fifth as long as I have) to the topic and whose sole technique seems to be to BLUDGEON the discussion (they have 173 edits to that talk page compared to the next highest at 35; they are also responsible for two thirds of its text). SN54129 18:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for compiling some diffs regarding Russian information war against Ukraine. I knew there had been drama over there, but my post was already long enough and I wasn't a participant to begin with, so I decided to leave it at a passing mention. BSMRD (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that your diff 145 diplays quite an attitude, but I have never seen that text before and definitely didn’t write it. I assume it was something that was in your editor buffer from some other discussion. I don’t dispute that I changed the article title. The one that was there did not reflect the contents of the article. When it was unilaterally changed back, based on some erroneous notion of the topic, the article-title mismatch again required either a retitling or the move or deletion of a massive amount of cited material. See comment to Buidhe below. As for the amount of work I have put into the article—-in what way is this against policy? It was bad machine translation when I came to it, or at least broken English, with many diatribes about Russian oppressors and Goebbels and at least one BLP violations. But well sourced! So I fixed a lot of language and removed a lot of diatribes and documented what I was doing, shrug. Then I worked to improve it from there, in particular as to what I too initially saw as a point of view problem. This is what we do with WP:PNT articles ——— — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs) 21:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've read through the entire text above. There are a few things that I'd like to note:

• Azov Special Purpose Regiment is a (rather faithful) translation of the Ukrainian Wikipedia's article on the group. It isn't a novel POVFORK; Elinruby decided to go off and make his own version of what the article "should" be like by copying Ukrainian coverage is true only inasmuch as the coverage comes directly from a sister project.
• I was surprised to discover this because I have participated in discussions on the Azov Battalion page before, but I can't actually find an EE topic area notification in my talk page archives. I'm certainly aware of the general EE restrictions (I've given the template out to people), but I didn't find it particularly intimidating.
• People should not boldly make moves that they know are going to be contested, especially after people have explicitly written that the move was not supported. I've recently learned that there is a way to request that these be undone at the RM noticeboard without having to open a full move discussion. The way that this actually appears to have played out was that there was a Bold move by Elinruby on March 6, followed by a reversion of the undiscussed move by Buidhe on March 22, followed by Elinruby moving the article to their preferred title for the second time on March 23. I can excuse a bold move, but the second page move is clearly disruptive and out-of-process; gaining consensus to move a page name when it is contested is not optional. Unlike the fork of Azov Battalion, this doesn't appear to be a case where the user is simply importing the title of the Ukrainian Wikipedia article to English Wikipedia.
• Technically you don't need consensus for an article split along the lines of the one I proposed (leaving the source page unchanged but making a second page to cover a subtopic in more depth), since it's more or less the same procedurally as just writing a new article. I also think it's unwise to spend a lot of time on doing so if consensus is against a split, since any such split-off article is going to wind up at AfD and likely be redirected back to the article covering the top. Giving unwise advice isn't exactly disruptive.
• The diff BSMRD links to as evidence of a canvassing confession contains the line If trying to prevent censorship gets me blocked then heh, fine, I don’t think that would be Wikipedia anymore anyway. Elinruby understands their actions as being opposed to censorship, but also says that Everything I am doing against sneaks is in the open, which suggests that the user is intentionally POVPUSHING against people they consider to be sneaks. This attitude is not consistent with the collaboration that is necessary to collaboratively build an encyclopedia.

I propose that Elinruby receive a three-month one-month WP:TBAN from making edits that pertain to the Russo-Ukrainian war, broadly construed. All of the disruption appears to be in this topic area, so I think a TBAN is going to be better here than a WP:CBAN. If disruption continues in other areas, then we could expand it, but I don't see evidence of that yet. If disruption resumes following the TBAN's expiration, a longer and more permanent one could be imposed at WP:AE. — Mhawk10 (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2022 (UTC) (updated: 04:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC))[reply]

I appreciate your taking the time to read everything above (I know it was a lot), and taking the time to formulate a well reasoned response. WRT the POV nature Azov Special Purpose Regiment, it's not that I think Elin came up with that article on their own (they obviously didn't), but rather that after being largely rejected at Azov Battalion they decided to simply import the Ukrainian version (which they clearly see as superior) to it's own space, rather than attempting to bring Azov Battalion more in line with its Ukrainian version. This is obviously a fork of Azov Battalion (they cover exactly the same subject, though in different ways), and is clearly done to promote Elinruby's POV, hence my calling it a WP:POVFORK. Perhaps that is not strictly accurate, but I feel it fits the spirit of a WP:POVFORK. BSMRD (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Much less here than meets the eye. Elinruby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a prolific contributor in numerous topic areas with no blocks in sixteen years. I don't always agree with him, but we have cooperated on major topics in the past and he is tireless in improving topics and cooperating with other editors. Elinruby always has NPOV in mind, and he can get impatient when he runs into a situation where concerted POV-pushing goes on at an article, and he tries to combat it, sometimes feeling alone at protecting the encyclopedia and causing frustration which can come out as crabbiness sometimes. We've probably all been there, and it's disconcerting to say the least; maintaining one's equanimity (not to mention AGF) is hard in situations like that. Unfortunately, that can spill over into other situations, when one sees what superficially looks like similar behavior to what just got one's hackles up in some other topic, but in this case is actually GF editors who disagree on points of policy or content.

I think that's where we are now. When Elinruby feels that others are acting contrary to NPOV or the best interest of the article, he is vociferous in protecting it. In fact, the whole reason that Eastern Europe/Balkans have an AC/DS alert in the first place, is because there is a long history of bad behavior going on in this area; Elinruby both knows this is the case, and has experienced it, and he may have come into it with his guard up and too ready to see a battleground where there was only (mostly) civil opposition. The initial unilateral page move deserves an eyebrow-raise, the second is clearly against policy and should not have been made. I've commented at his Talk page, trying to calm the waters, and I think we're basically done with the problem.

Calling for a three-month TBAN is ridiculous; what's needed here is a TROUT for some uncivil behavior under pressure, and a reminder about WP:RM#CM requiring controversial moves to be put to other editors for comment first. Perhaps an admin clarification may be needed on his UTP about when and to whom one may give AC/DS alerts; WP:AC/DS is actually unclear about frequency, and I see nothing on that page that says an editor may not place several or a hundred {{Ds/alert}} templates if several or a hundred editors starting editing at an affected topic (as long as they meet aware.aware and aware.alert, which in one case, they did not; Elinruby has since apologized in that case). Bottom line, other than a reminder and a TROUT, and perhaps a friendly tip to cool off or disengage temporarily when he feels the temperature rising at an article under AC/DS, I see nothing actionable here. Mathglot (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be in your position if it weren't for the comment that broadly referred to their actions as being against sneaks. I'm not really bound to 3 months as being the perfect length (I'd prefer the minimum amount of time that allows for the user to cool down), but I think the editor needs some time to cool off before returning to this area. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I am involved in the discussion around Russian–Ukrainian information war and unfortunately, I don't think that their editing in this area is entirely constructive. It's understandable that strong emotions are going to come out over an ongoing war, but we cannot tolerate advocacy favoring one side or disruptive editing. I think Elinruby would benefit from taking a break from the Russia–Ukraine conflict, either voluntarily or by a topic ban as suggested by Mhawk. (t · c) buidhe 19:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe, you’ve repeatedly been invited to add anything into the article that you think is missing, or to join the ongoing discussion about is reorganization. The problem is that the original title caused a huge false balance problem, which would be even worse if restored now as none of the sources *I* have found say anything about Ukrainians hacking Russians, as you seem to think is happening. The ones you put at the top of the request for merge don’t say that either, and one of them is already cited in the article. I have no objection to the other sources or any other reliable sources being added to the article. Alternatively if you want an article about what the Ukrainians are doing, or about what the Ukrainians are doing vs what the Russian doing, please do write it. I’ll even point you to some recent material for it that only came out this week afaik and so far is only on the talk page of the Russian disinformation page. But look. A title is supposed to reflect the contents of the article and if we name this one “Russian-Ukrainian information war” then a lot of information will need to be removed about the Russians because with the exception of the material mentioned above, the Ukrainian information war so far has consisted of Zelenskyy making speeches Elinruby (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that Ukraine hacked Russians. Misrepresenting other editors and constant bludgeoning is not cool. (t · c) buidhe 21:10, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree! Not cool at all! So great! Now, buidhe, can you please explain why you think there should be a Russian-Ukrainian information article? I might possibly even agree with you about that also. But more to the point, what I don't understand why it has to be this one, which is currently on a different topic. Alternately, if sources support whatever it is you think is happening let's add them in, by all means let's use them, and maybe it even *could* be this article. But if not Ukrainians hacking, then what is it you think I am not including that should be in the article? I ask in all humility. Again. Btw the new materials I was talking about involved speculation that Ukrainians had disabled the Russians' secure communications system, but industry experts say it's more likely that the Russians did it to themselves by blowing up cell towers not realizing that their Era cryptophones required 3/4G 02:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs) [reply]

• Support TBAN for Russia-Ukraine topics. After reading this comment I think an indefinite ban for all Eastern European topics is correct. The user is too involved in a political defence of Ukraine, his\her work risks being manipulative. The user also left me a DS on my talkpage (which honestly I still don't understand what it is for), perhaps to intimidate me?--Mhorg (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  An indef ban on all Eastern European topics is way too broad. I don't see how that comment (or any others) reasonably shows that the editor cannot edit on topics involving the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Moldova, Romania, or even for that matter relatively mundane topics (such as rapid transit systems) involving Russia or Ukraine. The limits of the disruption are very clearly related solely to the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian war, so I don't think that a ban on all of Eastern Europe would be anywhere closes to narrowly tailored towards prevention. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mhorg: Re: the DS alert, no, I don't think they were trying to intimdate you; it was probably because the vast majority of your editing is in Eastern European topics... SN54129 19:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Mhawk10, you are right, perhaps limiting the ban to the Russian-Ukrainian question is right, my proposal was excessive.

  Ok SN54129, thanks for the explanation. Anyway maybe I have problem with the translation from English, I can't understand well the functionality of the DS. I have to read it better. Mhorg (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mhorg: DS allows administrators to block users for less severe conduct violations than they would normally be able to if the violations pertain to specific topics. The notice Elinruby posted on your talk page is simply informing you need to be more careful how you edit within that topic than you normally would. Although people sometimes take it as a personal attack, it is merely intended as a courtesy. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The user continues to argue as if he were cheering for one of the factions being talked about.[10] I'm even more convinced that a TBAN is needed.--Mhorg (talk) 12:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I forgot to add one thing: the accusations of INAPPNOTE by the OP is belied by the OP's own statement at WP:RSN: "As to why you were pinged, it would seem Elinruby has pinged anyone who has posted on the Azov talk page since the last RfC (including it's participants)." (diff). That is the very definition of WP:APPNOTE. Mathglot (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, but pinging everyone who has posted on a talk page in the past six months (most of whom had nothing to do with the dispute in question) is textbook 'spamming' per WP:INAPPNOTE BSMRD (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  APPNOTE bullet 5.2: "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)". Mathglot (talk) 20:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough. I'd still consider what Elin did spamming, but I suppose it could technically be considered an appropriate, if particularly excessive, notification. BSMRD (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  that's a real technicality you're going off there. 晚安 (トークページ) 10:06, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi there. I have been seeking help with BSMRD’s uncivil and retaliatory behavior from Drmies on his talk page for a couple of days now. The editor’s utter refusal to actually read the Reliable Sources policy figured prominently, although I did not mention a name.

For example, when pointed to WP:CONTEXTMATTERS this editor said that this Wikipedia policy did not prevent the source from being reliable, because they had voted on it.

In fact there had been an RFC on whether neo-Nazi should appear in the lede. The prior RFC the editor refers to: I went through it rather carefully when I was sending out notices, and I did not see a conclusion that neo-Nazi should be in the lede. I am not prepared to say it isn’t there, and I can’t research this right now as I am overdue in dealing with urgent RL matters, but if it seems important I will look again later. What I did see was somebody trying to close it with a conclusion that it should not. I thank the editor for finally realizing that the article is not an editorial in my personal voice and but meanwhile a dozen people have voted to delete the article based on the editor’s false statement. I am not particularly injured that the editor did not read the article closely enough to notice the translation tag and the discussion of a translation issue on the talk page, but I would think that this might have seemed an important thing to do when trying to delete an article, you know? Read the talk page?

So this definitely should be a boomerang. The BSMRD likewise has mischaracterized Russian information war against Ukraine above.

Mhawk10 probably sincerely believes that I have done something wrong at that article, since a couple of editors who were also in the Reliable Sources “discussion” at Azov Battalion are saying so over and over again. The requested move would require the deletion of almost all of the article’s material and 299 references, so I have objected to it fairly strenuously. The editors from Azov Battalion who are trying to do this have not discussed any of the matters raised elsewhere on the talk page, including a proposed reorganization, which is on hold lest the editor doing it also be dragged over here. AGF, I question whether either editor has read the full article, although on March 21 one of them did fix two typos in one section.

I really need to go do some paid work where they won’t call me names, but before I do I’d like to mention that the comments about the light of day were not about the creation of the regiment article but were instead a reply to the suggestion that I should not for some reason have notified editors at the Ukrainian Wikipedia of an effort to delete a translation of their work.

I hope I have answered enough to demonstrate that there is a lot more to this than has been presented to you, and will be happy to answer questions or discuss anything when I come back. Elinruby (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Repinging Drmies for you; your attempted fix of a typo in a previous ping will not work, per WP:NOTIF. Mathglot (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For example, when pointed to WP:CONTEXTMATTERs this editor said that this Wikipedia policy did not prevent the source from being reliable, because they had voted on it.

What I actually said. You still have yet to present a convincing reason why WP:CONTEXTMATTERS disqualifies the sources in question. You can't just say "WP:CONTEXTMATTERS go read the RS policy" and expect that to be enough.

So this definitely should be a boomerang. The BSMRD likewise has mischaracterized Russian information war against Ukraine above.

All I said was that you unilaterally moved the article title (twice apparently, which I neither realized nor incuded in my original post), thereby inciting the current drama, which is by all accounts factually accurate. BSMRD (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on my communication with user Elinruby, I would oppose to sanctions beyond a warning. She/he is agitated and probably behaves like a new and very inexperienced user, but I do not see them sufficiently disruptive to warrant sanctions, at least based on my interactions with them. Other users might have a different opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  User:Elinruby has 65,446 edits, and has been editing since 2006. They know better. BSMRD (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit conflict) @My very best wishes: Elinruby has >65,000 edits. I also think you may be missing a "not" in the second sentence of your rationale. — Mhawk10 (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) was coming in to say that. I don’t usually get involved in wikilawyering though, so apparently I had some misconceptions about procedures. I erred on the side of notifying people I disagreed with as well as those I didn’t, when apparently I should not have notified at all.Elinruby (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Since I was notified of this discussion and I've been one of the most active editors regarding the invasion, I feel like I have to throw my 2 cents in. That said, from my limited interaction by being on the periphery, my view is simply that Elinruby didn't get the consensus they wanted at Talk:Azov Battalion and got upset by it, created a new mirror page, and then that mirror page got shit on at AfD (rightfully in my opinion, as it was pretty clear that it was made to circumvent the consensus from the main Azov page in order to push Elinruby's preferred objectives; additionally, it was a bad translation and still a work-in-progress that would have benefitted more from being in draftspace). Now, that's not necessarily inherently disruptive, and it's been handled easily. Considering that Elinruby is an editor-in-good-standing and has been a longtime contributor without incident, they should be sternly warned not to pull that shit again (i.e. trying to circumvent consensus without further discussion), but a TBAN is just an overreaction at this point, in my opinion, especially if it is a full EE TBAN. Curbon7 (talk) 21:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is just a mild problem of a POV-pushing OWNership with IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Turning to Russian-Ukrainian information war, recently renamed "Russian information war against Ukraine" by Elinruby after his editing had turned it into a one-sided indictment of Russia:

• Elinruby chose WP:Move war, and then attacked both Buidhe and me (as first commenter I guess) saying e.g. "If you had even read the lede you would appreciate how inappropriate your move was. It was extremely disrespectful to show up here for the first time ever and assume that your random Google search based on unknown search terms entitled you to think you knew enough about the content of an extremely lengthy article with 299 references than the people who put them there."[11]
• Elinruby comments on Buidhe's RfM (to the article's original name): "sigh. Another canvass of people who haven’t read the article they are commenting on." [12]
• Elinruby edit wars to strikeout parts of Buidhe's RfM statement that he considers personally attacked him [13][14][15]
• Elinruby removes from Buidhe's RfM her statement " In the event of no consensus, it should revert to the original title." [16]
• Somewhere in there, Elinruby added 2 new sections to my talk page, "Edit warring and vandalism" and "You believe some strange things"
• Somewhere in there, Elinruby changed article talk page section header from "Discussion" to "Editor tantrum"[17]

WP:CIVIL is a pillar of Wikipedia. The project suffers when bullies are left to thrive. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support sanctions against Elinruby: I disagree with Mhawk10's argument that Azov Special Purpose Regiment is a (rather faithful) translation of the Ukrainian Wikipedia's article on the group. Editors are expected to follow WP:TRANSLATETOHERE for an already existing article. They are expected to gain consensus and expand existing article and not start a povfork. A neutral reader of wikipedia would get a different picture of, say, Narendra Modi's article on english wikipedia or the 2002 Gujarat riots vis-à-vis the Gujarati-languange wikipedia articles on the same subject. What if I or someone else decides to misuse the policy to start a fork article to suit my narrative. Elinruby's comments like this and this show that this user is more than happy to muddy the waters with emotional appeals and ramblings and use the talk page as a forum for chitter chatter. Combined with their forumshopping on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Azov_Battalion and canvassing and on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azov Special Purpose Regiment, I strongly believe that this user cannot be neutral on this subject and deserves long/indef sanctions on this area. - hako9 (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request Is there any way we can break this up to address one page at a time? Because all these accusations are moving targets. First I wrote an editorial opinion, then I translated an article with bad sources, then I unilaterally renamed an article that nobody seems to realize began life as bad machine translation, and now I am being lectured on the proper procedure for contacting a translator.

I am a translator. Almost all of my edits involve translation and/or remediation of machine translation. Russian information war against Ukraine had been languishing for a very long time at WP:PNT, which is where I wikignome. I contacted everyone listed as a Ukrainian or Russian translator before beginning, and have contacted editors with Russian skills about the reliability of specific sources and specific translation problems.

This and more can be found in the “chit-chat” on the talk page that Hako9 so dismissively refers to. I documented questions that arose, discussed things undone that should be done, and occasionally got an answer. I would like to start there, since this request for merge is preventing work on that article from proceeding. I am still on deadline for paid work, but was able to take a moment to make this procedural request. If this sounds ok to everyone will come back with some diffs and links about this article when I get done with the paid work. Elinruby (talk) 03:58, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is reflective of the problem a lot of users are talking about, it's not one page or one issue. Rather it is multiple issues, over multiple articles. What you need to do is take on board the idea that you can't just create POV forks because you cannot get your way. That you should not tell people how to vote in an AFD, or RFC. That you should not actively canvas users to vote (or change their vote) the way you want. That you should not attack other users, either by calling them names or questioning their neutrality if they disagree with you. Nor should you wp:bludgeon a discussion either directly on a talk page or indirectly by WP:FORUMSHOP or over multiple talk user talk pages. That (in essence) you will agree to not do any of the things users have complained about here. Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that I do those things and urge editors not to rely on the erroneous statements made in these complaints. In particular, while I am here, let me mention that I haven’t told anyone how to vote. I did as a parenthesis to another statement tell a handful of people that I thought their vote was mistaken and offer to explain why. Nobody said please do, so I have not. Elinruby (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Question BSMRD, having refused to hear this all the way to ANI, has finally registered that the regiment article is a translation and not in my voice, and has struck that out of the AfD request, which is progress, but editors have still voted on the basis of the statement. Also, the editor has now substituted another inaccurate statement, that its sources are not reliable. The most often-cited source is Ukrainian Pravda, which has a stellar reputation per the Reliable Sources noticeboard and in particular my recent query there about it. I have recently been educated to realize that an AfD statement does not have to be neutral, since the requestor doesn’t get a vote, but shouldn’t it at least reflect some version of reality? Elinruby (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I would like to make clear that I did not say that the article as a whole was in you voice, but that it was peppered with comments in your voice. What lead me too that conclusion was lines like Yes, most of the guys present in the Azov Battalion have their own perception of the world. But who told you that you can judge them? Don't forget what the Azov Battalion has done for the country. I spent many hours talking to Azov fighters. There is no Nazism or swastika there. which in your initial copy had no attribution or indication at all that it was a quote. Such indication has since been added, and I have retracted my statement in the AfD. I did not say the sources are not reliable, I said that they do not support the idea that "Azov Battalion" and "Azov Special Purpose Regiment" are separate topics. While Ukrainian Pravda may be reliable, that does not mean all the sources are. Indeed, a fair few of the cites are directly too Azov themselves. Additionally, I did not "replace" my struck comment with anything about sourcing. I added this: I have struck the preceding line. What I thought were personal comments were infact unattributed quotes that had been poorly copied. For someone who complains so much about editors misrepresenting the truth and not reading, the least you could do is bother to do it yourself. BSMRD (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

pretty sure it was always attributed in the text above it, BSMRD. I am still confused about why you would ever think I would blockquote anything in my own voice or for that matter use my own voice? Also, yes, it is copied and edited machine translation, which does not bring over the markup. No “poorly” about it. References have to be translated by hand. I said this already when I was explaining why the AfD was premature. Would have been fixec long ago if you hadn’t decided to bring wiki procedures rather than actually read WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. But I see that some other people are looking into reliable sources at the Battalion article, and have deleted some Russian propaganda (according to them - not verified by me) so I would like to deal with the inappropriate merge request at the more important article first (Russian information war against Ukraine) and let that effort proceed before commenting further. Elinruby (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not really have an opinion regarding sactions, but I have to admit when I read on here that Elinruby had been editing from 2006 I couldn't believe it. I thought it was a new user who mistakenly thought it is okay to just translate an article from another wiki, even though it is very likely that it might not have been written with a WP:NPOV, considering the current events and the wiki it was written on. So, perhaps Elinruby should have taken this into account, as they could/should know better. My stance on any sanctions is neutral however. This is just my two cents. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your neutrality, thanks. It is refreshing. I did want to let you know however that it is definitely ok to translate articles from other wikis Elinruby (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Request block until Elinruby acknowledges that other editors on Wikipedia are entitled to disagree with him without being bludgeoned or attacked. His utter carelessness about facts in his talk page arguments does not suggest good things about his work in article space, for example:
• Accusation that I have never edited the page, posted in 3 different places.[18][19][20]
• Random insults including a false accusation that I wrote the March 2 article lede, an accusation also made without checking the article history[21]
• If you did not write the lede then I will apologize, pending verification of that statement....By the way I see that you did in fact correct two typos in one section of the article on March 21...I have not had a chance to verify whether it was before or after I asked you why you were trying to rename an article you had never edited.[22]
• You appear to be suggesting that I should not have improved the article, Are you really unclear about the editing process?[23]
• Focus on PAs rather than improving the article: welp the problem with that is that it isn’t true ...I am in a car in a wilderness area and not in a position to verify your statements...So who is owning the article?[24]
• You are berating me ...I am begging you to please please please please please read the article you want to rename. One of the other referenced your buddy wants me to use in the article is also in fact used in the article, or at least profoundly informed my thinking on the topic[25]
• A claim that "she" (Buidhe) and "her friend" (me) are telling Elinruby to re-write the article and telling me to use sources as if the article doesn’t have 299 independent references[26]
• More bludgeoning, more PA unsupported by fact it would be great if you would read it so we can talk about how to summarize the article in a title, because the move you support is not it[27]

Rather than using this ANI to continue content disputes, Elinruby needs to review WP:CIVIL and start to be more collegial. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to do so and in fact have just made a superhuman effort to be polite while asking this editor the purpose of another plaintive post saying that I am shortchanging Wikipedia readers by omitting subtopics at Russian information war against Ukraine, which as a matter of fact are included in the article. They also appear to still believe that the article is about disinformation, which is only part of its scope. They nonetheless claim to have read the article. I am now saying for the sixth time that if they feel the article is missing something then gee, why don’t they add it, as opposed to parachuting into the article and telling me it doesn’t include factoids that the sources don’t support. All I ask is a freaking source and a specific proposal. Their sources are pretty good, but their point remains mysterious. Since they have now wasted a couple of hours of my typing time and goaded me into replying here again, I suggest that if this most recent effort does not reach HouseOfChange then perhaps a topic ban is in order for that editor, as they appear to be seriously WP:NOTTHERE on this topic. They haven’t and they show no signs of doing so. Although I am not here to do HouseOfChange’s bidding, I am feeling sufficiently harassed that I probably would, if only I could figure out what it was. And while we are here, I’d like to mention that yes I did tell this editor that they believe some strange things, and I stand by that statement. In particular they believed it was uncivil when I told them I was in a wilderness area and unable to look up whatever homework assignment they were trying to give me. AGF they do not travel through wilderness often enough to realize that this meant I was losing cell service, and in retrospect I didn’t owe them an explanation and should have merely ignored them, but it’s a bit...sensitive...to run to ANI with an incivility complaint rather than just ask me what the heck I was talking about. I don’t have time for the rest of that list and neither does anyone else most likely, but perhaps if the editor tried starting from AGF they would not get their feelings hurt so much when other people don’t acknowledge their inability to ever be wrong. Yes I am annoyed. I have stuff to do and the editor seems bent on preventing me from doing it Elinruby (talk) 02:35, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

also yes, It is true that HouseOfChange corrected two typos on March 21. I missed this the first time that I looked and apologized, because hey, this is constructive as far as it goes. But it isn’t exactly a substantive contribution and still doesn’t entitle them to tell me what the article is about, especially since they demonstrably do not know. I am unavailable to read silly accusations for the rest of the day now. Elinruby (talk) 02:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Elinruby's latest utterly false PA: In particular they believed it was uncivil when I told them I was in a wilderness area and unable to look up whatever homework assignment they were trying to give me. Your statement that you were "in the wilderness" and unable to fact-check my statements[28] did not reflect any homework assignment from me, because I have never given you even one "homework assignment." The uncivil part of that diff is not being "in the wilderness," is it the accusation without proof welp the problem with that is that it isn’t true.

Now see if what I actually said meant that being "in the wilderness" was itself uncivil: Elinruby, being harried or busy or in the wilderness, etc. does not exempt you from WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF [29] If you are so careless about facts in attacking other users, I shudder to think what POV-pushing you've done in article space. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support TBAN After the above refusal to get it, and in fact the claim they have been " made a superhuman effort to be polite" (or the same amount of effort everyone else has made here) I think it is clear they need cooling of period. Slatersteven (talk) 10:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve spent entire days trying to get the user to read the article he wants to rename. Yesterday was one of them. He appears to believe that discussing Russian military doctrine (as cited to NATO and the United States Marine University and its own information warfare manual) is somehow being mean to the Kremlin. And has now deleted a huge chunk of carefully cited material about it without any attempt to discuss. Then edited my talk page post about it. Slatersteven I have already advised you not to rely on the way he portrays events. I don’t think it should need to be my full-time job to explain NPOV to this user, and he definitely isn’t listening anyway.Elinruby (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And he does not want to rename it, he wants to delete it, and I have seen your (and his reasons), and I have made up my mind based on both sets of arguments. I would ask you to start and wp:agf. And I reiterate what I said above, this tells me the user can't edit in this topic area in a way that is conducive to collaborative editing. Please do not try to badger me into changing my mind again, it is having the eclty opposite effect (as you would have relasied had you bothered to listen to what people are telling you). Slatersteven (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, he wants to rename it. You are confusing him with another editor who pinged him to this page, and what she wants to do about a different, although related, page. Based on his talk page I am also not the only one who has recently had these problems [30] with him. I do realize that there is a dizzying array of accusations here Elinruby (talk) 19:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are three different editors that Elinruby is abusing on this talk page, all three of whom he calls "she" and treats with utter contempt, although he has been marginally more polite to me since I notified him that I am a "he."[31][32] The other two are User:Buidhe, a prolific and distinguised editor in the military history space, and BSMRD, a newish editor for whom WP:BITE would be relevant. Editors who identify as "she" are rare on Wikipedia, so it is understandable that Slatersteven didn't realize Elinruby uses this ANI to bludgeon three different editors. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did notice that Elinruby felt a little more... hostile (perhaps hostile is the wrong word, maybe 'took things more personally') when referring to Buidhe or myself as I was digging through diffs and talk pages for my initial post. I didn't want to add it and still am not comfortable making any sort of direct accusation (I do actually believe in WP:AGF), but since you brought it up I will say it is something that crossed my mind. Also, and this I am comfortable saying directly, Elin seems to mix us up and cycle between us with annoying regularity, though they usually catch themselves before long. BSMRD (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose any sanctions beyond a warning or guidance. An established editor with a clean block log should be warned or guided first (if needed). - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GizzyCatBella: I for one would be happy if being warned or guided can persuade Elinruby to treat Wikipedia as a group project where collegial editing is a pillar of policy. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So have they been warned yet? Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider this whole thread a warning, as there have been multiple comments from others explaining problems with their behavior. Which Elinruby has ignored. A formal warning is just process for process' sake. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HandThatFeeds: I guess the "warning" here is for people who got attacked and accused without evidence: WP:CIVIL is NBD for an established editor with a clean block log. I'm taking the page I tried to improve off my watchlist. Congrats, Elinruby, you win! Life is short and Wikipedia is large. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I commented in the more recent RSN discussion[33] about the Azov Battalion lede but am basically uninvolved. I was invited to the RFC RSN discussion because I had posted a link on the AB talk page. I haven't looked into other parts of the story but I can see that Elinruby has been up against some rather obnoxious editing behaviour. Particularly, Elinruby was right about the rather thin sourcing being used to support an editorialization in the article lede that the AB is currently neo-Nazi. Maybe it is, I'd even say it probably is, but you need something close to WP:RS/AC to editorialize like that, and it still often ends up making us look like idiots. (Example: the article Hunter Biden's laptop currently redirects to Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory even though even the NYT finally acknowledges[34] that the stuff on the laptop was real.)

  The thing about sneaks doesn't refer to any specific editor so it isn't a PA. As a take on the topic area in general, it does reflect known history such as the EEML arb case, which was about off-wiki coordination, i.e. sneaking. It wasn't the most decorous AFD post in history, but I can't get upset about it. Eggishorn's RSN comment I honestly have neither the time nor the interest to read through the entirety of a complaint that starts with "I am getting shouted down"-type allegations. Please read WP:CONSENSUS is either naive or disingenuous, since anyone who has been around contentious articles or Wikipedia DR knows that 1) getting shouted down really is a thing, and 2) consensus is not supposed to be synonymous with "mob rule".

  I can't comment on the wider pattern of Elinruby's editing, but in the small corner of it that I've had contact with, I see a justifiably frustrated editor who doesn't need a sanction. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I move we close this now, as it is clear no warning will be left on their talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've made an RFCL posting. Hopefully we can get a proper closure soon. BSMRD (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Support topic ban for Elinruby. For me, this is enough. The comments by the user in this entire thread does not show that they understand any problem with their contributions. Dhawangupta (talk) 13:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support sanctions of some material kind. Not "warnings", those have been issued, and high-handedly blanked. Not "guidance", which they evidently don't believe they're in any need of. If their "frustration" is "understandable", and justifies their subsequent behaviour, then we're declaring all user-conducts bets off, as clearly other users will be no little frustrated by them. We see rampant incivility; we need blatant derailing of discussions, and incessant creation of duplicate discussions, some of them decidedly "wall of text", of the ones they've elsewhere whatabouted to a halt with their tangency. Whether this should be a page ban, a topic ban, or a block of some duration, or some other actually actionable measure I leave up to the judgement of our infinitely sagacious admin corps. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The whole Azov Battalion page needs administrator attention[35] [36][37] and this editor is especially a case in point.[38] [39][40][41] I have explained the reliable sources policy to them ad nauseum [42][43], and they persist in calling me a Nazi apologist* rather than actually reading the actual Wikipedia policy.[44][45][46]

• (later) the IP is the most recent offender but this takes place in a wider context also:
  • explain RS:[47]
  • Nazi/activist/too lazy to read etc: [48][49]

A white paper on hate groups in the US* is not a reliable source for proving that the defenders of Mariupol are Nazis, I am so sorry, even if Azov does receive a two-sentence mention deep in the guts of the thing as supposedly people Rise Above members met one day years ago. I’ve met my anti-vaxx neighbor too, but that doesn’t prove that I endorse his views. If editors refuse to hear,

[50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57] then what remedy is there but to show and tell using current sources? Yes this does result in walls of text like this one.

• (Cite web |url=https://www.csis.org/analysis/rise-far-right-extremism-united-states |title=The Rise of Far-Right Extremism in the United States |date=7 November 2018 |website=csis.org |quote=Azov Battalion, a paramilitary unit of the Ukrainian National Guard, which the FBI says is associated with neo-Nazi ideology. |access-date=26 May 2021 |archive-date=12 February 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220212041104/https://www.csis.org/analysis/rise-far-right-extremism-united-states |url-status=live)

And where pray tell is mention of the Siege of Mariupol on the page? Not allowed to be mentioned. [58] [59] I ask you.

I have tried to give this user sources that do comply with the policy that *support their position*[60]][61] [62][63][ and these sources been treated with complete contempt.[64] I thank the editor for posting here and demonstrating fluency in ANI sanctions, as it saves me the trouble of looking up whether this editor have received a discretionary sanctions notice. Discretionary sanctions apply to that page, 109.255.211.6. That is all.

This case complains that I think some editors at Azov Battalion confuse Google search returns with reliable sources. Commenting every few days to keep this case from closing proves that no lessons have been learned by the editors there,[65] [66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76] although this case has attracted some fresh editors*[77][78][79] [80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91] to the Azov Battalion page, who have been similarly dismissed [92][[93][94][95][96] [97] [98][99][100] as have the comments at the three reliable sources noticeboard queries.[101][102][103] Me, I have learned that trying to apply Wikipedia policy is unsafe.[104] I refrain from speculating further on this point. I do not know exactly what the problem is on that talk page,[105][106] but a group of editors is certainly determined[[107][108][109][110][111] that nothing will be said [112][113][114][115][116][117][118][119] about the military activities of the Azov Regiment or anything other than the Azov Battalion’s alleged plans for world domination or whatever.[[120]] I exaggerate, but only slightly.[121]

As for this particular editor, if refusing to be agreed with [[122][123] isn’t uncivil editing I don’t know what is. Oh and check out their edit summaries.[124] Diffs at 11. Elinruby (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• not singlehandedly, of course

PS (much later) shout out to editors who have quietly improved the portrayal of sources, notably Bobfrombrockley but also Mzajac, Black Future, Mhawk10, Xx236, Ergzay

• RFC2 Elinruby (talk) 13:09, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{| have explained the reliable sources policy to them ad nauseum, and they persist in call me a Nazi apologist rather than actually reading the actual Wikipedia policy.}}

NO ONE HAS CALLED YOU THIS Zero people in any of these incessant discussions have called you a Nazi apologist, and yet you keep saying they do. If you have some diffs of editors calling you a Nazi apologist, go find them, otherwise its a WP:PA.

And where pray tell is mention of the Siege of Mariupol on the page? Not allowed to be mentioned. I ask you.

This is again objectively false. It is mentioned in the first paragraph of the lead, and again in the body. This is a repeated assertion of yours without basis. No one is stopping you from adding further content about Mariupol to the body if you think coverage is insufficient.

I refrain from speculating further on this point. I do not know exactly what the problem is on that talk page, but a group of editors is certainly determined that nothing will be said about the military activities of the Azov Regiment or anything other than the Azov Battalion’s alleged plans for world domination or whatever. I exaggerate, but only slightly.

Again, an entirely baseless assertion. You have never even attempted to add content about the groups military activities to the article, in fact you have only made 7 edits to the page, every one of which is adding some tag. What you have done is complain repeatedly in every forum you can find about how some WP:CABAL of editors is controlling the page with their wild disregard for WP:RS, followed by running off to make your own POVFORK at Azov Special Operations Detachment when no one bit. BSMRD (talk) 23:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I bow to your obviously superior knowledge of personal attacks. I am already unfit for Wikipedia, and I haven’t even touched the article yet ;) Your “POVFORk” contained many cited and objective facts about the military unit you claim to discuss and was tag-bombed immediately on its creation. I don’t know that you are a member of a cabal; your word not mine.

Perhaps you truly do believe that the only important thing about these people is that some of them have tattoos and in 2010 one of their founders said a thing. All I know is, you definitely initiated an AfD that kept a lot of information about this group out of main space Wikipedia while I was busy answering an attack on a page about the Russian information war. As I said, I decline to speculate. But I have worked on the biography of Vladimir Putin, Operation Car Wash and the Panama Papers, and all of them were less venomous than the talk page of Azov Battalion. Elinruby (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I bow to your obviously superior knowledge of personal attacks.

From WP:PA "What is considered to be a personal attack?":

Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links.

Your “POVFORk” contained many cited and objective facts about the military unit you claim to discuss and was tag-bombed immediately on its creation.

Take it up with Liz and everyone else who voted in that AfD. Clearly I'm not the only one who saw your fork for what it was.

you told them it was a POV essay in my voice. I would vote to delete also. Then when I called you on it, up above, you changed the request to say it was “poorly copied”. I would have voted to delete on that basis also, thinking you meant copyvio. Liz just counted the votes. I have no intention of giving her a hard time. I do wonder why it is so important to you to keep that material out of mainspace, but I am going to let somebody else figure that out.

By the way, you keep calling me a liar. That’s really annoying. Please stop that.

Now. The reason I have been saying that Azov Battalion doesn’t have anything in the body about Siege of Mariupol is that I asked you where it was, and you didn’t answer me. I couldn’t find it because I assumed it would have a section at least; it’s pretty notable. All that stuff about keeping the Russians out of Europe, etc, yanno?

I did want to let you that I found it! It’s (checks notes) the very last bullet point under “Further dates and activities”. It shares that bullet point with a mention that its commander’s been declared (checks notes) a Hero of Ukraine. Somebody else added that. I haven’t found the edit for Mariupol yet. There are also some other battles that I haven’t found a mention of in the body yet, but I am working on it. They lost 25% of their men in one of the 2014 battles, and heads rolled for sending them in there without support. This is also pretty notable and something that NPOV would normally require a mention of.

NPOV is wildly violated in Azov Battalion, at least where the current regiment is concerned. I am not yet really sure about the battalion. But yet you don’t want any other article to be created about the regiment either. Creating an article about the fighting unit wasn’t a POVFORK against consensus. You guys were preoccupied with making sure the battalion and the regiment were called neoNazis. There never was consensus to call them that btw. It isn’t me saying that. Also, I don’t actually care about removing neo-Nazi from the lede as long as it is sourced; that’s just something else you guys keep saying. I am done with this conversation and going back to the diffs. Elinruby (talk) 12:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All I know is, you definitely initiated an AfD that kept a lot of information about this group out of main space Wikipedia while I was busy answering an attack on a page about the Russian information war.

Being involved in one dispute does not prevent you from becoming involved in another. I have and have had nothing to do with any disputes at Russian information war against Ukraine, and have not made a single edit to that page or its talk page.

There a big scare warning at the top of the page saying please seek consensus before making any changes. And you guys went nuclear when I tried to discuss! Of course I haven’t touched the article ;) Elinruby (talk) 12:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I genuinely wonder, do you think you have done anything wrong? Do you think that, at any point, your behavior has been out of line or otherwise at odds with Wikipedias policies and guidelines? Or is this all just some conspiracy to keep you from writing the truth? BSMRD (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just one more quote from Elinruby above, emphasis mine: All I know is, you [BSMRD] definitely initiated an AfD that kept a lot of information about this group out of main space Wikipedia while I was busy answering an attack on a page about the Russian information war. Looking at time stamps, BSMRD "initiated the AfD" at 21:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC). Elinruby was not "answering an attack" then because Buidhe did not even re-name the disputed page until 22:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC), and Elinruby first answered that "attack" almost two days later, on March 23, both edit-warring to undo Buidhe's page move and [on March 22 talk page, blaming the Azov AfD for the page move. It's wearing when editors know..definitely things that aren't true. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• a whole hour later huh. Definitely no connection then. Elinruby (talk) 04:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elinruby: No, a whole hour BEFORE, which means definitely not while. The connection is not Russian trolls colluding against you, it is editors who object to your high-handed disrespect of other editors. First, Buidhe reverts your renaming an article without seeking input from others. Second, BSMRD AfDs your POV fork of a different article. Meanwhile, both disputes show up on my watchlist: Buidhe's because I had made grammar fixes to the re-named article and later the ANI because I had reminded you about WP:CIVIL on your talk page. HouseOfChange (talk) 11:34, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t tell if you are actually serious. I am not currently available for this conversation. Two editors on the same talk page are affronted that I think they don’t understand the reliable source policy and within the same hour start separate unfounded wiki proceedings. Obviously not connected. Clearly. I am sure that you would think it uncivil of me to point out that I said nothing about Russian trolls; that’s BSMRD’s straw man, like claiming I attacked them when I said I wasn’t a sneak. So I won’t tell you that. I’ll just point out that I am capable of being busy reading or thinking or doing a number of other things that don’t involve typing on Wikipedia. If that is your point. I am really not sure. Have a good day. Elinruby (talk) 11:56, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

you have ANI on your watchlist? Really??? Elinruby (talk) 11:56, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elinruby: After my March 23 edit to your talk page, I had your talk page on my watchlist; therefore a March 25 ANI notice on your talk page b up on my watchlist. I do, now, have ANI on my watchlist but look forward to removing it once this thread is finally closed. HouseOfChange (talk) 12:29, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not questioning your word; I am just surprised. I also thought I had finally conveyed to you that articles get into the WP:PNT queue because people can't read them but it seems worthwhile to try to rescue them rather than delete them. But carry on, don't let me stop you.Elinruby (talk)

I'm astounded. Genuinely. I have no clue how an editor with Over 60,000 edits and over a decade of editing experience can act like this. Somehow, in the 68 diffs you added to your reply up above you've barely managed to substantiate your case. The majority of your diffs don't even relate to what they are next to. I think my favorite is this diff, which is purportedly you "explaining RS ad nauseam" but in fact is just you going "no, you are wrong". Do you think people just wouldn't click the diffs you added if you put enough in? I can think of three explanations here. Firstly, you've somehow misplaced the diffs compared to where they should be (this one feels unlikely considering how many there are and how many edits you have made). Secondly, you genuinely believe these make the case you say they do, in which you have a persecution complex the size of which I have never seen before. Thirdly, you've deliberately spammed misleading diffs in the hopes that editors wouldn't bother to click them and would just agree with you. Oh, and in the 68 diffs you added, you still couldn't find one to substantiate they persist in calling me a Nazi apologist. If you think that @Buidhe and I are somehow working together or the same person, prove it or shut the fuck up. That you still can't see any problem with your behavior at any point in this process is just mindblowing. BSMRD (talk) 12:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you must post above another user, please indent. The diff you cite as an example is the ad nauseum part ;) Yes, the post needs work and that is why I am not going to talk to you anymore; I am going to go do that. Yes ther are a lot of diffs. There is a lot of material. For the record, though, I don’t think you are Buidhe. She is polite, if cryptic. Now I am not going to respond further, or I will probably be a misogynist all over again. Peace out. Elinruby (talk) 13:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the issue with the diff that Dhawangupta posted. It's possible I'm missing something, so I can't even say whether I sympathize with Dhawangupta's reaction or not (slightly rewritten). The diff seemed ok to me from multiple perspectives. I want the AB to be non-Nazi because obviously, Nazis are bad. OTOH, I've seen the US blamed for the violence in the sense that (according to the critics) inept diplomacy and unreasonable demands from the Biden admin and its allies made the war inevitable. I hadn't heard the Nazi angle as part of that specific criticism, but looking for ways to blame the US government for anything bad in world politics is a time honored tradition, so I can't get upset with Elinruby observing that. There is basis to be cynical (remember the US arming the Taliban with Stingers as I mentioned at RSN: is it really misplaced to worry about the same mistake being repeated?). I did notice an article by Robert Parry (journalist) from around 2016 saying the AB was Nazi, and I'd consider him reliable (he died in 2018 though). So that supports the viewpoint further. Generally though, it usually seems to me that the people wanting Wikipedia to embrace a viewpoint in its own voice are the ones who are agenda pushing, as opposed to the ones willing to let the sources speak for themselves. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 22:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The text Dhawangupta is objecting to was about a reference used to support neo-Nazi in the lead, in which some an American right-wingers soldier wanted to meet met with somebody from the Azov Battalion one day in... 2016(?). I can’t remember if this was before or after Charlottesville, but the point I was trying to make is that that it’s two sentences in about a court case, that weren’t vetted for accuracy about Azov, or even required to be neutral, and even if accurate don’t prove Azov told them to go run over a demonstrator in Charlottesville.** My post was in response to an essay about not letting our feelings guide us,shrug. Dhawangupta is obviously a contentious editor but I can’t help the way the editor interprets things,* so I ignored the post. Since I wrote that post, I have found several sources that might maybe support the Nazi statement, at least as to some members, but they are being ignored, just like the one you left on the talk page. Which was a good source, btw. So are these and these and these. Elinruby (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Likely thinks I am defending Nazis. It's getting said on that said on that page.
  • sorry if the markup is confusing but I realized once people had already answered me that I had actually been ranting about an earlier reference in the lede sentence, the one that went to the RS noticeboard, which was replaced by the one I originally described here. Italics are words I added. I think it is telling that they were similar enough that I could slightly edit this sentence, which makes me think that the editor that did that still thinks that passim allusions make good references.Elinruby (talk) 10:49, 6 April 2022 (UT

I think Elinruby needs to step away from this topic for a while or needs someone to make him. There seems to be a bit of forum shopping on the RS notice board [125] [126] trying to get individual sources discounted rather than directly addressing the result of the RfCs. For me adding the recent POV tag [127] is the final proof that this editor is WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Maybe some of their points are valid but if so other cool headed editors will see to it. Vladimir.copic (talk) 11:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would love for other cool headed editors to see to it. Please bring one here. Every post I have made at RSN says please bring help. But if you think questions on individual sources are forum shopping, you would appear to not be familiar with RSN procedure. As for the tag ... Considering the sources are basically getting laughed at on the RSN board, and at least two of the editors have written out loud on the talk page that the important thing is that we continue calling this unit neo-Nazi (diffs above), and also, another one who has recused himself from admin duties related to this war still opened an AfD RfM on a unit the Kremlin is blaming for its war crimes, it didn’t seem undue. I have definitely used that tag for much less. Also, I fail to see how it is forum shopping if the RSN is one board with one set of policies, but do tell. I usually avoid wikilitigation so I suppose that it is possible that you may know better than I, but I have never heard that one before. Elinruby (talk) 01:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

also, you may not be aware that there is an AfD, an RfM and an ANI case on one article, one of the editors of whom made a long series of cryptic posts on yet another RfM on a related article, then pinged an until-then uninvolved editor.

He badgered me, as did she, (above) about somehow being being uncivil to her, until I finally told them (above) that if they couldn’t enunciate the change they thought I should make to the article in the name of balance, to go ahead and make the change themselves, then. He then deleted approximately the top third of an highly-cited article on the Gerasimov doctrine in Ukraine, slapped on a lede fit for an Information Security 101 primer, which Wikipedia already had, then left me to clean up the mess while he came over here to complain about how uncivil I was not to realize that he knew more than I do about a field where I hold professional certifications. But do tell me some more about how I am forum shopping by asking at RSN about individual sources and the context in which they are being used.

This is exactly how this is supposed to be done, btw, since, for example, the article about a Belarusian policeman was about a lawsuit filed against him in Germany, and not about what the Azov logo looks like. In fact, he clearly *didn’t* know because the man he beat up was wearing a Marvel The Punisher t-shirt. And let us suppose he was completely correct, the article was being used to prove that the Azov Regiment is a neo-Nazi unit, and even if a random dude in Belarus had in fact been wearing their logo, this does not demonstrate that the Azov Regiment is in fact currently a “neo-Nazi unit”. How do you not see this by looking at the diffs? Ugh.

You may also not realize that this case is out of scope in the first place for ANI, whose description says it is for urgent issues, which this is not, or chronic and intractable problems, which, on my part at least, this also is not. But please do mansplain forum shopping to me some more. Elinruby (talk) 02:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The editor in question is now insisting that this RfC was not closed in favor of calling the battalion neo-Nazi, and is attempting to push forward the claim that a new RfC would not be needed to overturn its consensus (that apparently doesn't exist?). BSMRD (talk) 11:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  As someone who received such a message, I don't see how you could possibly read The descriptor "Right-wing/nationalist"(A) attracted no support and the descriptors "Far-right"(B), and "neo-fascist"(E) little more. The debate was between using "Neo-Nazi"(C) or no descriptor at all(D) and the clear preponderance of commenters was for C and see anything but a consensus for using the "neo-nazi" label. Endwise (talk) 12:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

so you told me last night when I warned you that there are behaviour problems in the article. I haven’t had time to look for that yet. I asked you for a link for that last night, and I would still like one, as I am pretty sure at least two other editors have said otherwise, diffs above. If I misread them, fine, I will withdraw the statement. However BSMRD has made some erroneous statements in the recent past about matters being voted upon by other editors (see above) and hmm possibly sees herself edit-warring in the diffs above whose number she is complaining about, so I am not taking her word for this, sorry. You on the other hand I have no reason to doubt, except that I don’t think you’ve had time since last night to read the whole talk page, and there has been a lot going on and in particular more than one RFC. Assuming you are correct, I question whether it really can be Wikipedia policy to ignore BLP, NPOV and BLP the way that article does, regardless of the number of editors who vote to do so. But I stand ready to have this explained to me if this should somehow turn out to be true.

I agree with Xx236 about the defense tools, btw, and that is a professional opinion. I also agree that the members of this unit may well have died in Mariupol. Elinruby (talk) 00:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's been linked to you multiple times now. I linked it to you in my talk page, and it was linked in the comment I was replying to: Talk:Azov_Battalion/Archive_2#RfC:_Azov_Battalion. Endwise (talk) 02:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - there is no reason to assume that the Russian-Ukrainian information war does not influence English Wikipedia and this discussion. This Wikipedia needs some defence tools. It may be be interesting to check Contributions of all participants of this discussion since February.

There is no symmetry between any invider and any invided, not only in this war.

Civilian victims of the war are mostly Russian speaking, it is not a war between Russian speakers and neo-Nazi Ukrainian nationalists. It is an imperialistic Russian war and mass crimes.

Some forms of socialism were genocidal like Nazism, so a 'socialist' is not obviously ethically higher in this discussion than a right activist. Social Democratic Party of Germany helped to corrupt Germany with Russian money.

The Russian state has some totalitarian and neo-Nazi issues. Why do we discuss in several places a group of Ukrainian soldiers (we do not even know if they are still alive), rather than to discuss Russian state ideology threatening the whole world with nuclear weapons? The recent RIA text is exactly Nazi, but similar genocidal project was known before the war.

Will sanctions against Elinruby make the pages better? How? Xx236 (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose sanctions - I'm not involved in the discussions about the Azov battalion's history, but I just participated in two of the RFCs. Ukrainian Nationalism, anti-Semitism and Ne-Nazism are not black and white issues in a war provoked by Russia under those pretenses, so our coverage requires a high degree of nuance. Elinruby is an experienced editor who is frustrated by what they perceive as a lack of nuance in these discussions, and open RFCs. Sanctioning editors with intimate knowledge of subjects will not benefit the project. CutePeach (talk) 13:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Intimate knowledge of subjects, you say? Elinruby would disagree with that statement I do not claim to fully grasp the nature of this group - hako9 (talk) 03:55, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support some sort of topic ban. I've been editing that page and have been involved in the dispute; and no matter how strongly Elinruby feels about the content, their behavior has mostly made things worse. In addition to the other WP:BLUDGEONing mentioned above, they behaved the same way in the RFC on the Azov Battalion's political ideology. This is absolutely a situation that requires naunce and caution; but Elinruby has been one of the editors aggressively pulling the page away from that and making discussions so difficult. Table-pounding forum stuff like this or this is not what the topic area needs right now. Stuff like calling the other side of the dispute a big lie sufficiently repeated, randomly taking unrelated jabs at American politics, and concluding with I’ve done some reading on Russian disinformation and I am getting a whiff of it here are not appropriate for approaching such a delicate topic area; neither is going on about how Yeah well those citizen soldiers are saving Europe’s butt. Some editors have argued for leeway based on Elinruby's long clean history, but experienced editors should know better, and beyond that they haven't even expressed any recognition of what they're doing wrong; without sanctions, there is no reason to expect it to improve. --Aquillion (talk) 04:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: what a shameful display this all is. I notice there are several names that spend more time and effort on this noticeboard than they do on actually reading and evaluating sources, contributing to the Talk Page discussions, and improving articles. The hounding of this editor, Elinruby, on this page is an absolute disgrace. Any admin will see this for what it is. This really is Wikipedia at its worst. Some editors ought to take a long hard look at themselves, and at what they've spent their time doing over the past few days. Please remind yourselves of what it is we're actually supposed to be doing here WP:PURPOSE. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 07:15, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  ironically, your statement could be used on yourself. 晚安 (トークページ) 09:49, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Except, not at all, in any way, under any possible interpretation. But kudos for adding to the overall mound of pointless nonsense already present in this pitiable, juvenile display. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 11:25, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rtkat3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Rtkat3 has been copying or close paraphrasing from Fandom (website) (formerly Wikia) without attribution, including an edit after I approached him around a week ago. He was reminded of this requirement in 2020 and 2016 and was blocked for 24 hours in 2015.

Fandom sites generally use the CC BY-SA 3.0 license,^[128] which is compatible with Wikipedia, but attribution is required.

• WP:Copying text from other sources#Can I copy from open license or public domain sources?
• Help:Adding open license text to Wikipedia#Attributing text
• WP:Plagiarism#Copying material from free sources

Rtkat3 has also copied between articles without providing attribution as required by the WP:Copying within Wikipedia guideline. He received {{Uw-copying}} warnings in 2020 and 2016.

Rtkat3 received several CorenSearchBot "possible copyvio" notifications between 2009 and 2015: diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4, diff 5, and diff 6. I spot-checked two:

• Rtkat3 removed the tag from Monster High: Why Do Ghouls Fall in Love? without fixing the problem, and Crow removed the copy.
• Tricephalous (comics) was confirmed by MLauba and listed at WP:Copyright problems/2009 August 12.

This is a long-term pattern of copying edits that needs to be addressed. While attribution can be repaired later, actively creating problems is unacceptable. Flatscan (talk) 04:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification diff. Flatscan (talk) 04:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In my defense on some of these charges, I have been trying to do some of the recent entries in my own words as best as I could. For some of the Wikipedia things, I was only trying to keep them from deletion in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. Some characters in comics had to have to have their media appearances placed somewhere on this website. I also like to take this time to apologize for not leaving a special statement like how it was displayed on the page for Wonderland. Did I leave anything out in these comments of defense? --Rtkat3 (talk) 13:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've pointed to this before: WP:FIXCLOSEPARA. It's a great resource to help you fix the close paraphrasing problem. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to do that with the examples listed above today. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing them. I added {{Fandom content}} to List of DC Comics characters: L#References because there were two source pages. Do you need guidance on the edit summaries required when copying between Wikipedia pages? Flatscan (talk) 04:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I'll contact you if I need it. --Rtkat3 (talk) 22:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the last day, you copied a phrase from Maia Mitchell#Personal life (permanent link) to Good Trouble (TV series)#Casting without an appropriate edit summary. All you have to do is enter an edit summary like copied content from [[Maia Mitchell]]; see that page's history for attribution, per WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Proper attribution and WP:Plagiarism#Copying within Wikipedia (guidelines). Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was only adding the references and rephrasing information to the page because nobody else has added that information to the page to explain why Maia Mitchell departed from Good Trouble that involved being with her family. If that was wrong, I apologize for it. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That edit's content seems fine, although I am not familiar with the subject area. Its edit summary is the issue. Flatscan (talk) 04:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess you want me to start being more specific about those types of edit summaries. Right? --Rtkat3 (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rtkat3, when you copy from one Wikipedia article to another, your edit summary must say where you copied it from. Flatscan wrote out above what your edit summaries need to say, all you need to do is replace the article title. Schazjmd (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So mention that the content was taken from Fandom or another Wikipedia page is what you are saying. How does one replace the article title? --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rtkat3, do not take content from Fandom. When you copy from one Wikipedia article to another, your edit summary should be the following: copied content from [[ENTER ARTICLE TITLE HERE]]; see that page's history for attribution. Schazjmd (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the article title help. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining! Regarding Fandom, Rtkat3 fixed its three examples on 31 March, so I have no open concerns about it. Flatscan (talk) 04:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Schazjmd: Why should Rtkat3 not take material from Fandom? It's perfectly okay to do so, under the same terms that one may copy content from another Wikipedia article. As others have already stated above, as long as you attribute material copied from Fandom, it's fine. The attribution statement can be almost exactly the wording you showed above; the only difference being that the bracketed article name should be a Fandom link. See below for an example. Mathglot (talk) 07:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mathglot, I worded it that way because it seemed clear from the conversation that Rtkat3 is struggling with nuanced explanations of how to avoid copyright/attribution problems. Once they get a handle on copying within Wikipedia properly, maybe then they can progress to using Template:Fandom content. Schazjmd (talk) 14:25, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Schazjmd: okay, that makes more sense, now. Normally, I see a don't or shouldn't as being an interpretation of P&G, and if it isn't, then I might word it differently, saying something about for now, or subtle guidelines, or until you gain more experience, and so on. But I take your point, and thank you for your comment. Mathglot (talk) 17:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mathglot, I can see how my original statement specifically to Rtkat3 might be misleading for other editors so I appreciate you asking so I could clarify my meaning better. Schazjmd (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the licensing is compatible, then why paraphrase at all? Just copy with attribution, then make edits if necessary to suit Wikipedia's style. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 22:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP 2602 is correct; there is no need to paraphrase at all from Fandom; just copy word for word if you wish, and follow WP:CWW to provide attribution, including a link to the fandom article. To link "Amparo (New Earth)", just do this: Copied content from [[wikia:dc:Amparo_(New_Earth)]]; see that page's history for attribution, which in an edit summary, would generate this: "Copied content from wikia:dc:Amparo_(New_Earth); see that page's history for attribution". Given the different structure there, I might represent it this way, instead, for clarity: Copied content from Fandom DC Database at [[wikia:dc:Amparo_(New_Earth)]]; see that page's history for attribution. Given the compatible license, that should be fine, Mathglot (talk) 07:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Schazjmd helpfully points out above the availability of the {{Fandom content}} template, which you can use to construct an attribution statement; see the template's documentation for instructions. Mathglot (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When copying text from compatibly-licensed external sources such as Fandom, the attribution needs to be provided in the article (attribution templates such as {{Fandom content}} or {{CC-notice}} can be used for this); the edit summary alone is not enough. Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Where to place attribution has some more information about this. DanCherek (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DanCherek: It is enough, and there is no such requirement. Please don't mix guideline recommendations and observations, or template usage instructions, with actual policy, especially policy with legal implications such as our licensing requirements. And although this is now getting into precisely the kind of subtlety that Schazjmd rightly wished to avoid, especially for a newish user, the fact is that the plagiarism page is a content guideline, not policy. And the guideline doesn't require what you say "needs" to be provided, and doesn't even go so far as to "recommend" it; rather, it merely observes that "attribution is generally provided" in the way you specified. "Generally provided"—that's as far as this guideline is willing to go.

This is roughly the non-compulsory equivalent of the observation found in the statement at WP:CWW concerning translation attribution, which says, "Where applicable, the template {{Translated page}} may also be added to the talk page to supplement copyright attribution." That is also an observation of behavior and not the policy itself, not a requirement, and not even a recommendation; more like a nice-to-have, which is (sadly) much ignored, because it is good advice. The statement you quoted regarding Reference section in-article attribution is merely an observation of one way that users customarily attempt to implement the actual policy with legal implications that underlies what the WP:Plagiarism guideline attempts to describe in simpler words.

Neither does the actual licensing of Fandom require attribution in the article itself (it mentions it as one in a list of alternatives),^[a] nor do WMF's ToU and licensing requirements^[b] require in-article attribution, but are nearly word-for-word identical with Fandom.

Imho, placing attribution exclusively in the "References" section is a poor idea, because 1) it can be modified, deleted (on purpose, by accident, or through ignorance), and 2) it lulls the user into thinking that the edit-summary attribution is not needed. Imho, the better way is to follow WP:CWW's interpretation of ToU and add a statement with a hyperlink to the source in the edit summary, as stated in 7b(i) of Wikipedia's licensing requirments,^[b] which becomes a permanent record visible in the article history, and also includes a link to Fandom. This unquestionably fulfills WMF's Licensing requirements^[b] and is a matter of established practice, and if you read Fandom's ToU and licensing requirement^[a] it fulfills that, too; not surprisingly because they are near-identical. (Admittedly, an attribution added to the Reference section which is subsequently deleted does remain in the history, but good luck ever finding it again, or even being aware that it ever existed in the first place if you don't have the edit summary attribution.) We can quibble about whether edit summary attribution is superior to in-article attribution, but I don't think the ToU or LReq (at either website) supports a claim that in-article attribution in the "References" section is a *requirement*; it just isn't.

However, I fear that the upshot of all the good faith attempts here to clarify this point by all concerned is that we are to some extent hijacking this thread, and confusing the situation for a user rather than clarifying it, and perhaps this portion of the discussion should be moved to WT:Plagiarism, WT:CWW, or perhaps WP:VPP for further consideration. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to read your message this morning Mathglot and agree with the proper use of the Fandom template that you recommended for any future additions like how I had to fix the examples listed above earlier in this discussion. --Rtkat3 (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mathglot, as I wrote at Template talk:Fandom content, I agree with your analysis of the licenses, having skimmed them independently. The WP:Plagiarism concerns are similar but distinct – WP:Plagiarism#Compatibly licensed sources: Most compatible licenses require that author attribution be given, and even if the license does not, the material must be attributed to avoid plagiarism. Filling in the templates is not onerous, so I do not see a good reason to WP:Ignore all rules them. Flatscan (talk) 04:50, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to fill in the templates, it's fulfills one of the three alternative ways to do it, so it's acceptable. WP:Plagiarism is merely a content guideline, which you are free to ignore anytime it isn't required by policy. Also, I don't know what you mean about "even if the license does not [require author attribution]"; it does require it—that's the entire point of the "Attribution" section of the license. I think where the Plagiarism guideline is helpful and relevant, is when we are dealing with non-Wikimedia, non-compatibly licensed sources, such as most books, magazines, newspapers, and websites. But there's nothing there that's very helpful for compatibly-licensed sources, imho (with the possible exception of sites that are CC BY SA 3.0, but not GFDL). Mathglot (talk) 06:31, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled on a discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Combermere School, which appears to be part of a pattern of what a teacher would call "challenging behavior" by an Articles for Deletion-specialized editor. A strong example would be [129] which contains groundless accusations but the history of the AFD contains many more. The history is complicated by a pattern of the editor repeatedly editing their own comments. Having spoken to a past pupil of this ancient school on Barbados to check its background, I made a submission to the debate and I fear I will be next for what look clearly like personal attacks, rather than a debate about the issue, which is the notability of the school after 326 years, hardly a casus belli. I would normally just stay away from Wikipedia for a few days and ignore any excessive response but I realized that this way of not handling the problem is holding me back from editing and enabling the potential for abusive behavior. So instead I call it out in the hope that a senior editor or administrator can provide counselling or guidance. Perhaps this editor, Adamant1, should work in a less stressful area than AFD, or be allowed nominate but not "debate". I hope that I'm doing this correctly, and thank you for any community help that can be provided. 91.193.178.64 (talk) 09:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I have sadly seen the same pattern at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constantine 1 University. Not only an AfD which should not have been started (a mistake I have made quite a few times myself), but then stonewalling, attacks, frankly ridiculous dismissals of sources for the most spurious reasons, and a general unwillingness to look at the issue with an open mind and to change their opinion when it is shown to be wrong. There is no shame in having to withdraw an AfD because you missed sources, did a poor WP:BEFORE, or any other reason; but there is a problem if no reasonable discussion can be had and nominators (or others) can't admit fault and can't accept good sources provided by those wanting to keep an article. Fram (talk) 09:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• To take the AfD at hand, once someone produced this book, the AfD should have been withdrawn. Instead, Adamant started claiming that the book "Combermere School and the Barbadian Society" was only 1% about the school and basically dismissed the source and frustrated the others in the AfD massively. Fram (talk) 09:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not familiar with Adamant1, but the book in question has some limitations on its scope and sourcing. Per its self-description: "Although scarcity of adequate documentation results in an uneven treatment of different periods". We could use it to expand the article, but apparently the school's history has not been fully recorded. Dimadick (talk) 10:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fram, thank you, and Dimadick, I think we can go a bit further on that book--it's published by two academics, it's published by a university press...that the authors acknowledge not all the records were found does not mean that the information in it is not somehow acceptable. If we were to discredit the U of West Indies P because--well, because why? I'll not pursue that train of thought. And while Uncle G got to pontificating here before I could, I'll say that that is exactly the kind of book we need on Wikipedia to cover underappreciated areas. Carry on, Drmies (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do agree that Adamant1 does occasionally go a bit too far, and possibly needs a reminder that civility is important and a warning against making personal attacks. Some attacks I have noticed and have been "eybrow-raising" but I ignored it due to their being directed at paid sock, and I don't have much sympathy for those. However, if similar is being directed at good-faith contributors though, that isn't good enough, and I am somewhat disappointed if that is occurring. However, I do think that there is a good chance that these problematic behaviours could be sorted out. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps being exposed to too many paid socks and the such is resulting in conduct radicalization and thus increasingly worrying incivility, if what you say is true Mako001. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Paid editors don't wave around sources like these. They generally enjoy sourcing articles to press releases and puffery, and live in the main in the bands, businesses, and biographies area of Wikipedia. After all, it's the bands, businesses, and biographic subjects that want the coverage and will pay. ☺ A school that's in a Barbados National Trust pamphlet doesn't need to. Uncle G (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • What I was referring to, Uncle G, is the tendency for highly active AfD editors that commonly encounter socks to start dismissing IPs, new editors, etc. because they start thinking anyone that disagrees with their view must be some kind of bad faith actor. A strong inclination towards deletionism makes you think you're a hammer surrounded by rusty nails. That refers to the conduct issue. In terms of AfD competence, that's a different thing, and the Constantine 1 University AfD indicates Adamant shouldn't be nominating if they're unable to know when they don't know enough about a subject to determine notability. On the other hand, they have a pretty accurate voting record, so I'm not sure if the competence hypothesis holds water. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • "Deletionism" isn't actually a genuine philosophy, note, and people have been dismissing accounts without user pages and editors without accounts for decades, and not on the grounds that they disagree with them, but on the grounds that those things alone are wrong. Novice editors around here may enjoy Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Uncle G from 2005. ☺ In any case, SeoR (talk · contribs), whom much of the specious argument has been aimed at, is neither an account without a user page nor an editor without an account. Uncle G (talk) 13:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Uncle G: I was referring to another AfD which had a paid sock getting blown up, though I don't recall where I saw it, as it was a few weeks ago at least. I will say that Adamant and Fram's "chat" on Constantine 1 saw suboptimal behaviour on both sides, though I am in no position to judge who was "more wrong". @A. C. Santacruz: I'd rather avoid speculating on the causes of their behaviour. One thing is for sure though, they don't tend to mince their words, and that can come across as rude, if it does, another editor may react in kind, and subquently the whole thing spirals into the pit of indents. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

            It seems I misunderstood your characterization of them, Mako001, my bad. I thought you were describing them as having often and repeated interactions with paid socks as a majority of their editing. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • That's its annotation in the Handbook of Latin American Studies. Its self-description is the blurb on its back cover, which is wholly different. Uncle G (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • I'm rather enjoying finding chapter 4 of ISBN 9789766400460 entitled "The Role of Combermere School". It devotes 40 pages just to people at that school who played cricket, at the school and later. Please don't tell the cricket notability people. ☺

    As for the claims in that AFD discussion, they are patently ridiculous. Even I can see bits of that book, and I have in many past AFD discussions found that my access to things is less than many other people's. Strewth! — We know the house names of the school in 1946 and a detailed background of the new headmaster. It's not wanting for in-depth coverage, and how one can honestly think that only 1% of the book is about the school, even if all that one saw were its table of contents, escapes me. It seems that much of what Adamant1 writes applies to Adamant1: "Seriously dude, why not just admit you made a claim about the book that wasn't true or that least that you had zero knowledge of instead of back peddling and continuing to obfuscate about it?"

    And for goodness' sake it is "mis-represented" not "miss-represented"!

    Uncle G (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • You're having trouble finding this book? fiveby(zero) 15:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I said "Even I can see bits of", not "find". ISBN 9789766400149 enables one to find it, and that's already in the article. Uncle G (talk) 17:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• This isn't the first time Adamant1's editing around articles concerning schools has been discussed here: see here and here for previous examples. I can't understand why someone would go on the offensive so quickly about a subject like that. Their last block was for two weeks, but here we are again. I see they've edited this page since being notified about this discussion, but have not thought it necessary to contribute here; I'd really like to hear from them about whether they recogise that their conduct in that discussion has been problematic, and whether they think they would be able to rein it in. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Please look at this edit.Jacona (talk) 13:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• To be honest, I'm with @Fram on the point about the book. I don't participate in many AN/I discussions these days but I happened across this AfD, as I read them a lot, and followed it here to this discussion and I've read the entire thing for the past hour or so. I do believe there was misrepresentation, whether in good faith or not doesn't matter. Once the book was brought forward the discussion should have been dropped. It just seems to me that winning the argument has become too much a priority and it has lead to some very pointed situations for @Adamant1 and that is most unfortunate and completely avoidable. If you all want to review the behavior of others surrounding this discussion that is your choice and I won't say it isn't relevant because it is but the fact is this AfD nomination became a disruption because of the actions of @Adamant1. They say they wanted others to comment but when each commented they began trying to unravel their comments and find fault with them. We've all been there and I'm sure many of us have done the same thing. That doesn't make it the right response. If the subject was so clearly non-notable after a BEFORE search as @Adamant1 seems to believe it is then I think whomever the experienced closer is that would have the task of going through each !vote has the ability to decipher that and side with the nomination. You only need to argue so hard if a) it isn't as concrete as is suggested or b) it's more about the win than the discussion. My observation is it's probably a combination of the two. I believe @Adamant1 nominates in good faith but the discussions and interactions with those that oppose their points of view are where it goes off path. If you want others to comment then let them comment. Everyone involved knows where you stand as the nominator. This doesn't apply in cases where @Adamant1 is directly addressed. --ARoseWolf 13:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  And while I can see a passionate defense of an article an editor wants retained, why get so heated about an article that you (Adamant1) want deleted? There's always future opportunities to nominate the article again, and, gosh, there are so many articles deserving deletion that one should just move on and find another article to nominate for deletion instead of wasting your time on one particular article. You can't fix Wikipedia in a day. Accept your losses and move on. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unfortunately I'm busy with other stuff right now so I don't have time to read through this discussion or much to say about it. Except for a few points,

1. 1. The IP address that opened this said I made accusations in my comment that they linked to. I'm not sure what accusation they are talking about. There is a The St. Michael School in the town as the school that the AfD is about and it's it reasonable to me that's what the article was talking about. Otherwise, I don't see why the author of the article wouldn't have just said Combermere School. For some reason that led into Jacona attacking me multiple times for supposedly intentionally miss-representating things somehow. Which I didn't do. There's zero evidence that the author of the article was not talking about The St. Michael School though and even if they weren't that's not my problem.

1. 2. Jacona has a history of rather problematic, aggressive, and none guideline based issues. Just to cite a few, are them saying news headlines are significant coverage, that the amount of Google hits something receives shows it's notable, and repeatedly asserting that nominators aren't looking for sources even after they have told him that they did. For instance I told Jacona 4 times myself that I looked for references before nominating Combermere School and they still continued to accuse me of not looking for references. Also, in the Ian Holiday AfD they said "he nominator could not have performed WP:BEFORE and could not have read the deletion policy. competency is required, either read the deletion policy and follow it; stop bringing disruptive, ridiculous nominations to WP:AFD." In the AfD for Raja Dashrath Medical College they said there is a that that non-English subjects aren't notable unless they're written about in English language sources, which is clearly nonsense. In the Combermere School I asked them to drop the discussion multiple times and they refused to. Clearly Jacona is bias, has a bad attitude toward nominators, and is unwilling to drop things when asked or assume good faith.

1. 3. On the other accusations as to my behavior, I am perfectly willing to change my opinion and am civil when other people are civil to me. I have actually changed my vote from delete to keep twice in the last couple of weeks thanks to Grand'mere Eugene and a few others putting work into a couple of articles. I also often vote weak delete with the caveat that I can understand why people would vote keep and that I'm willing to change my vote if someone can find usable references. So the accusation that I'm a deletion hard liner that always articles deleted and just gets in arguments about things is patently false nonsense. What I don't have a tolerance for is people acting in the disingenuous, ridiculous way Jacona does. Especially in my nominations. That said I even went out of my way to explain the guidelines to Jacona and provided them Links to the Arguments to Avoid in Deletion Discussions Essay. So it's not like I didn't try to help them along. BTW, as a side note to this the last voter on Combermere School AfD said this "the ill-based and possibly evidences US-/European bias given the lack of respect given to coverage by actual newspapers and other sources from Barbados." The mentality around here is that nominators can brow beat by every rando that comes along and should just take it or be reported for ANI if they push back. That's the only this complaint exists, because I'm just mot willing act like a supplicating, submissive chump to a constant stream of lies, verbal abuse, and false accusations. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• You just don't get it, do you. You are the one who consistently lies, writes verbal abuse and makes false accusations, as is clear from the discussions linked here and many others that you have been involved in. Maybe it would be best for everyone if you stayed busy with other stuff. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I provided evidence for everything I said. So I'd love to see some evidence of me constantly lying about things, here or anywhere else. I'm sure you know accusing people of things without providing diffs or citing examples can be considered a personal attack. In the meantime I'll leave this quote from a comment you made a few days ago. "There's loads of evidence of that, if you would just care to click on the word "scholar" above. What on Earth makes you think that his books have not been reviewed? The only reason I can think of for that is that you think yourself too important to simply look, which is what people who are here to build an encyclopedia do." Like I said then, maybe don't throw stones in glass houses. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, you did not provide evidence for what you said. And yes, I made that statement, which was well supported by evidence that was already in the discussion at that time. Stop claiming that others are lying when it is you who are lying. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Adamant1's behavior has been exceptionally poor and overly confrontational in this entire matter. When I saw this thread, I decided to look for coverage in reliable sources and in less than a minute, I found an academic book that says that, in its first 75 years, this school "provided the Barbadian community with the vast bulk of its business leaders and civil servants " and that it is "perhaps the first school anywhere to offer secondary education to black children". Uncle G has mentioned the same book above. I have added those quotes and the reference to the article. Perhaps if Adamant1 spent a bit more time looking for sources as opposed to expressing indignation, we would not be here. Cullen328 (talk) 18:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You know people can find different references when they look for them right? I said in the AfD that I was fine with the book SeoR found being used as a reference if it turned out to have in-depth coverage. It just didn't seem to when I read it. So I don't really where the idea that I give a crap about this outside of Jacona badgering me is coming from. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know that but if you are having trouble finding things online that other editors are able to find easily, perhaps you should try humility instead of aggression. You are the one who wrote confidently, after all, In fact 99% of it is about "Barbadian Society" and less then 1% directly relates to the school. which turned out to be entirely false, as this particular book published by a university press is entirely devoted to this school. You has chance after chance to back off and withdraw this deeply flawed AfD nomination, and instead you chose to double down and argue endlessly. Not a good look. Cullen328 (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please will you do me a favour? Would you be willing to read through your interactions with SeoR at the Combermere school AfD with fresh eyes, and tell me whether you see anything that you would do differently, were you to have your time again? Girth Summit _(blether) 18:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I will when I have the time. There's always things that I can do differently on introspection. I never claimed otherwise. In the meantime would you be willing to agree with me that SeoR shouldn't have made claims about "the whole book being about the school" and then argued with me about how much coverage it had when they hadn't even read it? --Adamant1 (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I would not. The title of the book refers to the school - it is fair to assume that the book is substantially about the school. Pointing out that some of it is about other stuff, like alumni of the school, or sports teams of the school, or the history of the area the school is in, or whatever, is, and I'm sorry to be blunt here, pettifogging pedantry. I appreciate that you say you looked at some different book on Google Books (I'd be interested to see a link to that by the way), but you went into that interaction like Rambo trying to take out the bad guys. SeoR didn't deserve that level of hostility, and I'm flabbergasted that you're trying to defend your approach there. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK. When I read the book it wasn't even substantially about the school, at least from what I could tell at the time. Obviously that's up to interpretation though. I don't think it's pedantry to be clear about how much coverage a reference does or doesn't contain either. There's a big difference between all of the book, a chapter of the book, or a paragraph of it being about a subject. I don't think you can judge just by the title either as much as something having 3300 Google hits makes it notable. As far as the book goes, the reference to it is in the article and you can click on "link (amended by Girth Summit)" on Google to read it. Maybe I was hostile to SeoR after the discussion had gone on for a while, but I had asked him to not make claims about the book until he read it that he ignored and was also being attacked by Jacona at the time, which he seemed to be in support of. As I made clear to SeoR my side of the discussion wouldn't have happened, the confrontational bits or otherwise, if he had not of made claims about the book when he hadn't read it and then doubled down on the claims. If he had of just been up front from the beginning that he didn't read the book and had no idea how much coverage of the topic it had I wouldn't of even gotten in the discussion. It doesn't seem like an unreasonable ask for someone to be upfront about a reference and if they have read it or not when they vote. Especially if it's used as part of their vote rational. No where did he ever say "The title of the book refers to the school so I think it might have in-depth coverage but I haven't read it." I would have had zero issue with that. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No - you were excessively hostile from your very first reply to SeoR, in which you accused them of massively misrepresenting a source - that's ABF right off the bat. Why wouldn't you just ask them politely to explain a bit further, e.g. "Hi SeoR - are you sure the book is about this school? I looked at it online (here's the link), and it looks to me like it only mentions the book in passing. Have you got a copy of it?"?

As for how you formed your opinion of the book, I'm still confused. The link you posted above, it doesn't go anywhere for me, but this is what I get when I click on the link in the article. That looks for all the world to me like a book that is about the school - there's even a snippet from a scholarly review of the book, explaining in detail about how the book is about the school. I am really scratching my head at the idea that anyone would question what the book was about in the first place - but that is a side issue, the real question is why you were so aggressive in the first place. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap - I fixed your link, and followed it - what the blistering blue barnacles about that link made you think it wasn't about the school? Just from looking at the Contents page, it's obviously about the school, in its entirety. The first sentence of the preface describes it as a book about the school. As the young people like to say, Dude, what the fuck?" Girth Summit _(blether) 19:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read it? Page two is an extremely long paragraph about planters and how they didn't educate blacks because they saw them simply as good manual labors. It might just be me, but I don't think that's related to Combermere School. Outside of that there's also a whole chapter about legislation in Barbados having to do with education. Sure, it's slightly related to Combermere School because it's part of the school system, but that's about it. Lets see, what else is there? There's a whole section on staffing at Foundation Boy's School. I could be wrong, but I don't Combermere School is Foundation Boy's School. Maybe that was one of it's "pre-modern" names though. There's also a section about Central schools, whatever those are. I don't really know, but guess not Combermere School. I'd love to know how exactly you think a paragraph about planters and slaves is obviously about the school. Let alone how the "fuck" is book is entirely about the school when it literally discusses other schools and the school system in general throughout most of it. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Words fail me. This isn't about finding paragraphs that aren't related to the school - it's about the entire book being structured around the history of the school, which naturally includes the context that the school was created in. Please see the section I'm about to create below. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "In a bold move, Serial closes the AfD per SNOW". It's clear enough an outcome already, and it's also acrimonious enough at this point. FFTR, of course, but I think it's for the best; since notability's been clearly established, there's no need for an AfD, and for the behavioral issues, that's discussed here. SN54129 19:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a good call. I'm glad the book turned out to have enough coverage. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that it "turned out" to have enough coverage, but that it was obvious from the moment it was mentioned that it had enough coverage. Competence is required. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't seem to when I read it and I still don't think it does. It's almost like people can't have different opinions about what in-depth coverage is. Even if it did have enough coverage though at this point it's a post hawk justification for SeoR voting based on something he had no knowledge about at the time. I'm sure we would agree that someone voting keep because there's 3000 Google hits that they sure are in-depth coverage but haven't actually read through wouldn't be appropriate, because it's on them to provide the proof that the sources have the coverage they claim they do at the time when they vote. I fail to see how this is any different. Just because it turns out 2 weeks later that there's two references in Google search with in-depth coverage doesn't mean it was automatically obvious there was the whole time either. Let alone that it means the nominator was just incompetent from the beginning. That's not how the AfD process works. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't think it does? Then why did you just say that it turned out to have enough? Your penultimate statement and the one you just made can't both be true simultaneously. Your incompetence seems now to be even greater than I thought it was before. Of course people can have different opinions, but when a whole book is obviously about a subject the opinion that it is not is incompetent. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: TBan from deletion discussions about education, broadly construed

I'm basing this proposal on Adamant1's failure to see the problems with their own behaviour in the discussion above, and on a review of deletion discussions concerning Constantine 1 University, Ian Holliday and Combermere School, and also the archived ANI threads here and here. I am no starry-eyed inclusionist, as my own AfD track-record shows, and I am not at all concerned by someone participating actively in discussions about articles they have nominated for deletion - I do that myself, it's entirely reasonable. This is about the excessive hostility that Adamant1 has shown to other participants in those discussions. It shouldn't really matter whether those participants are clueful or newbs, but in practice is does: if you are willing to accuse experienced, hard-working volunteers of misrepresenting sources on grounds that are so flimsy as to be non-existent, you shouldn't be working in that area. Since all the problems I found centred around deletion discussions concerning education (a school, a university and a scholar), I propose that Adamant1 be indefinitely topic banned from deletion discussions concerning education, broadly construed. I do this in the sincere hope that they will continue editing, do some introspection, recognise that there is a problem, modify their behaviour, demonstrate that they can do better, and request that the ban be lifted in six months to a year. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You said above that the book is "entirely" about the school. In no way is that statement true for the reasons I provided in response to your comment. Your the only one misrepresenting sources here by saying the book is "entirely" about the school when it clearly isn't. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are being ridiculous. The authors of the book describe it as being about the school. That they discuss other schools, or the educational environment it exists in, does not somehow make it about something else. By this line of reasoning, no work of history can ever possibly be about a particular subject, because they always include discussion of the context in which the thing they are discussing happened. This is all beside the point however, because this proposal isn't really about your ability to analyse sources, it's about your behaviour towards people you disagree with. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) That that book is entirely about the school is perfectly clearly true. Just stop accusing everyone else of misrepresenting sources when that is what you are doing yourself. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(This is response to Girth Summit since there was an edit conflict) Cool that the author describes it that way. I backed up what I said with sections and topics that are covered in the book that have nothing with the school. If a book is 80% about other things then yes it is about something else then the school. A history of education under slavery and major discussion of other's school hiring practices isn't just "context" either. What's rediculous is claiming that it is to justify me being topic banned. As far as your accusation of me being "excessively" hostility in AfDs, I will agree that I was hostile in the Combermere School AfD, but not "excessively" and only after repeatedly being lied about and pushed around by multiple people, both in that AfDs and others. The context, repeated railroading in the AfD by the keep voters, and Jacona downright ridiculous behavior everywhere should factor into this. I went out of my way to try and deescalate things and explain things in a reasonable way to everyone involved, including him. in no way was the hostility one sided and I'm not responsible for the discussion escalating. I'm not really hostile in relation to AfDs that have to do with education more generally either. I'm actually pretty congenial most of the time. Even with my own AfDs and people who disagree with me. Education or otherwise. I've already provided some evidence to that fact and I'm more then happy to provide more if you want me to. I don't think one disagreement with specific people that turned hostile on both sides really justifies me being topic banned though. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This response makes me question whether you are competent to engage in discussions concerning scholarship of any kind, but I think we should leave this where it is to allow others to comment. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that others should comment. That said, it should go without saying that I'm talking in relation to the notability guidelines and what they considered significant coverage, not scholarship more generally. Obviously they are different things and we don't decide what's significant, in-depth coverage of a topic based on standards in the field of scholarship or whatever. No one would argue that the Combermere School article being 80% about the history of education under slavery would be appropriate even if it's "context" and that's how the book or "scholars" covers the topic. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Support tban from all deletion processes. I've been following this thread and reading the linked AfDs. The battleground approach, hostility and unreasonable bludgeoning, on the flimsiest and most unsupportable of grounds is, quite frankly, astonishing. AfD is not a battle to "win", it is a discussion to be held sensibly and collegially on the merits of an article for inclusion. This kind of behaviour brings the process into disrepute, has the potential to drive good faith editors away and should not be permitted to continue. As the editor shows no sign of accepting this, despite many opportunities, much explanation and clear guidance, I can't see any alternative to excluding them from those discussions for now. Hopefully such a break will give them an opportunity to reflect on what has been said here. Begoon 21:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Edit: Amending vote to support indefinite tban from any deletion process, broadly construed, to be effective when the block expires. This is on the strength of the remarkable timesink and demonstration of incompetent battlegrounding which the editor treated us to below, subsequent to my original vote, and the bizarre revenge filing and flurry of talk page barbs. I get that they were upset at the looming tban, but they were surely given enough clues to back off and stop digging. I'm not confident this would not be a permanent, ongoing problem and resource drain, and I'm concerned about the good faith users it might hurt or drive away. I'm going to say that I also concur with those questioning general competence after this command performance, so if someone suggests something stronger and sensible the closer may interpret this comment as tacit support for that too, if it helps. Begoon 11:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "battleground approach" 1. ["No worries. It happens. AfD is a de-defacto way to improve articles as much as it is a way to delete them. So within reason it's better to make the mistake then not since you never know if people will be able to find references that were missed initially."]

2. ["Keep I'm changing my vote to keep because I think there's been enough improvement to the article since the nomination to justify keeping it."]

3. [Thanking someone who made a comment that disagreed with me "Jax MN, thanks for the comment."]

4. [now that I've look at the book's I think there's enough references to justify keeping the article. ]

5. [voted deleted and then mentioned a potential redirect target - "It's briefly mentioned in the Whitestone, Queens article. So maybe that would work for a redirect."]

6. Me conceding that I was wrong about something not being a controversy - "Oh, OK. It didn't seem like that was a controversy." So hostile of me.

7. [for deletion/Bill Workman|Hhhhmmm, OK. Obviously the guidelines are pretty vague on a lot of this stuff and I don't really feel like arguing about it.]

8. "Thanks. Having an article for Emma E. Booker is a good idea. Perhaps we can just mention the school there if one gets created before the AfD is closed."

9. ["Unless I missed it there doesn't seem to be any Religious persecution in South Asia type articles. Nor even a one for Asia in general. Which honestly I'm kind of surprised about. There are various articles for religious persecution in particular countries though, including India. Maybe just merging/redirecting this to Freedom of religion in India would be a good step forward."]

Those are just a few examples of "The battleground approach, hostility and unreasonable bludgeoning" that I'm apparently doing. I'm more then happy to provide more. In the meantime I must be playing 5D battleground, hostility chess or something. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1, as I said on your talk page, I am pulling for you. I believe your heart is in the right place. But this is not helpful. It is like someone accused of murder shouting "but look at all the people I didn't kill!" I am not saying you have to agree with others' critiques, but sometimes it is good to consider them a bit before responding. Just some unsolicited advice. Dumuzid (talk) 22:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I'm just providing counter evidence to the claim that there's a pattern of hostility and me treating AfDs as a battleground, which I don't think exists if there's 9 examples of me being congeal and only one of hostility. That said, if it isn't helpful then I won't provide anymore examples. Unfortunately it's hard to know what to do in situations like this and your really damned if you do and damned if you don't. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right that there's some Catch-22 involved. There's no doubt about that. I would just offer further that when you see things one way, and everyone else sees it differently, that's probably not the fight to have. You can always take the "I disagree, but will go with the flow" sort of approach. Again, I am not saying you shouldn't argue your take on things. It's just that sometimes discretion is the better part of valor. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I agreed with Girth Summit that I was hostile in the AfD. I've already apologized and was discipled for my past actions to. So I'm not sure what else I can do at this point. It seems a little bad faithed and disciplinary to have me topic banned for issues that have already been dealt with, but whatever. I guess that's just how life goes sometimes. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am no expert, but my suggested strategy would be this: make one more post. One. Say where (if anywhere) you think you have fallen short of expectations, and how you plan to address similar situations in the future. Having done that, never look at this thread again. I know it's a hard thing to contemplate, and I have given this same advice several times before. I don't believe it has ever been followed, and I am not sure I could do it. But I honestly think that would be the optimal move. Whatever happens, I wish you the best and hope you continue editing constructively for many years. Dumuzid (talk) 22:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Adamant1’s behavior on many contentious topics turns far too quickly to attacking people acting in good faith to improve an encyclopedia. In the past, he has been banned for short periods, he has been warned repeatedly on his talk page, and he has been the subject of multiple WP:ANI threads. How much more of the community’s energy is his behavior worth? White 720 (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My behavior has improved a lot since the other ANI complaints as the examples I provided show. In no way is how I acted in the Combermere School AfD comparable to what got me banned before either. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Most of the links above do not work for me but the link to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Augustine's College (Malta) does work and Adamant1 was exceptionally combative and hostile throughout that conversation. If Adamant1 really believes that this is "congenial" behavior, then that is an additional problem. I share Girth Summit's deep concerns about the competence of this editor, given the evidence that has emerged in this conversation. Cullen328 (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I assume your talking about the back and forth between me and Necrothesp. If so, I was rather heated in that discussion but we have long standing issues that he is unwilling to acknowledge or discuss. For example the rant on his is rather disparaging. That said, I will concede that the AfD was probably not the best place to rehash things and I'll try to keep personal issues separate from AfD discussions going forward. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, we do not "have long standing issues that he [i.e. me] is unwilling to acknowledge or discuss". We simply have differing opinions. The problem is, you get hostile and aggressive whenever I state those opinions. You don't have to agree with them, but your constant attempts to bully editors who disagree with you and your increasing hostility and aggression to those who don't cave in are getting out of hand. You seem to have the impression that no one has a right to state a contrary opinion, and that is not acceptable. You even wrote that you hoped someone would report me to ANI for stating those opinions and implied that I was a vandal and/or troll, which is really beyond the pale. You then made claims that were patently untrue about editors being sanctioned at ANI for stating opinions such as mine. You need to learn that anyone (you, me, anyone else) is entitled to express their opinion at AfD without facing a barrage of condescension, unpleasantness, aggression and suggestions that they should not be allowed to say it. But it is quite clear from your comments thus far in this discussion that you really do not understand why your behaviour is concerning. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per Begoon and continued battleground editing. Despite Adamant1's protests to the contrary, I've seen no real improvement. Miniapolis 22:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was blocked like six months ago for floating conspiracy theories that a group of people from ARS where out to get me blocked. When have I said anything alone those since then? As far as I know I haven't even talked to anyone from ARS in at least a couple of months. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked for two weeks less than four months ago by Drmies for disruptive editing, behavior very similar to what you have been displaying in this thread and recent AfDs At that time, Drmies wrote I don't know if this will do any good in the long term, but once we warned, and infractions continue, we should act on it, and it seems pretty certain that Adamant's behavior does not help foster a collegial atmosphere. It is possible that a next time we should consider a topic ban from that area, perhaps, but I really hope there won't be a next time. And here we are. It is the "next time". Cullen328 (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: The block was in December, 2020. Cullen328 (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From what I remember Drmies blocked me for "condescension" that was largely from me making up conspiracy theories, which I'm not doing anymore. Let alone in this thread. No where have I claimed this is a conspiracy theory, that anyone is out to get me blocked because of one, or have been "condescending" toward anyone over it. A couple of the people who wanted me blocked back then gave the reason that I was accusing random people of harassment. I'm not doing that anymore either. Here or anywhere else. I don't even think I said Jacona was harassing me. So in no way are the issues that led me to being blocked continuing. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you were blocked for condescending edits and continued badgering, and now you are offering us more condescending edits and continued badgering. Cullen328 (talk) 00:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I think I've been pretty reasonable and non-condescending about this. Especially considering no one has provided any evidence for any of the accusations being made about me outside of the hostility thing, which I'm not denying. I'm not going to argue with you about it though. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence? Again, you are the one who confidently wrote In fact 99% of it is about "Barbadian Society" and less then 1% directly relates to the school, which is a manifestly false statement. Those of us who have online access to much of the actual content of the book know that it is false, since the the central focus of the book and the reason for writing the book is the Combermere School. Instead of conceding the point graciously, you have vigorously wiklilawyered the ludicrous claim that, because the book touches on how the school interacted with and influenced other schools and other institutions in Barbados, it is somehow not about that school. That is an utterly disingenuous example of you digging in your heels and refusing to make reasonable concessions in a debate. Cullen328 (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes evidence. I asked Phil Bridger of evidence that I consistently lie, write verbal abuse, and make false accusations. He hasn't provided any and the banner at the top is pretty clear that people should include diffs demonstrating the problems they are making claims about. If those are things I'm constantly doing then it should be easy for him to provide diffs of me doing them. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

, I just provided a direct quotation from you that consists of a complete misrepresentation of a book about this school, and the book was published by a university press. We all make mistakes. I do all the time but I also go out of my way to correct my own errors as promptly as possible. You, on the other hand, have doubled down on your obvious error, and dug in your heels. Now, you defend yourself by spouting hogwash about colonialism, and then advising other editors to brush up on their colonial history.

What could possibly be more condescending? Cullen328 (talk) 03:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Adamant--did you really say, in an AfD you started about an institute of higher education, that "the fact that it's "history" goes back to 1685 doesn't automatically it notable"? In your time here, have you learned nothing about institutes of education and notability, and about books? And you put "history" in quotation marks? Why was that? Is this because it was a school for Black students, maybe? Sorry for asking--asking for a friend, I guess. Drmies (talk) 01:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two things to that, 1. I put "history" in quotation marks because there isn't any guideline that says "historical" subjects are inherently notable and I don't think there is an agreement among Wikipedians as to what makes something "historical" anyway. Nor do I have a good idea of what is "historical" and what isn't. 2. As far as I'm aware the West Indies is ethnically/racially heterogeneous. So the students being black, if they even are/were, had nothing to do with it. In fact I think in the 17th century at least the major strata of West Indian society were Europeans. Whoever your asking the question for really needs to brush up on their colonial history. I guess seeing racism everywhere comes from as much ignorance as being an actual racist does ;) --Adamant1 (talk) 02:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • When you are in a hole, stop digging. The school (if you haven't read the article, I recommend it) was for colored students, so yeah. "History" is not to be put in quotation marks. If you're not familiar with the notability guidelines for schools, or with WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, and if you can't fathom that a school that's almost 400 f***ing years old is likely to be notable, then you simply shouldn't be participating in deletion debates involving schools. Oh, the "major strata of West Indian society" in the 17th wer indeed likely to be white! Bravo! because they owned the plantations and the people who worked on it. OK, I think I'm done here with this editor. Ima go with a general WP:CIR. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, at a minimum. Editor simply does not have a clue. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually read the article and all the references in it multiple times. Thanks for the suggestion though. If you've read the book and the comments here about it you'd know that there are gaps in the schools history. Just because it's been used for colored students at certain point's doesn't mean it always was mainly/or only for them. If you think that something that has been around for almost 400 f***ing years has automatically served exactly the same group of people that whole time then I suggest you read up on history more, because you obviously don't know how colonialism works. In the meantime there's no need to fly off the handle over it. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Just to add another example of civility on my part, I listened to the advice given to me by Girth Summit and apologized to SeoR for the hostility that I showed them in the AfD. If anyone else has other suggestions of how I can remedy the situation I'm more then willing to listen and consider it. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:50, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, stop bludgeoning and badgering by replying to every.single.comment here (why you think that helps you is beyond me). I'm just about ready to block you from this noticeboard for the duration of this proposal. I also have no idea why you keep providing examples where you were civil. What do you think that proves? That you're only uncivil some of the time? Failure words me. El_C 03:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i that read wrong. 晚安 (トークページ) 08:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support User is fostering a toxic environment in those discussions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, and I'd so far as a complete full ban from Afd's period if this is how they act. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 04:14, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: I'm now supporting a full ban from anything to do with AfD's, broadly construed due to the retaliatory ANI post below. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 05:11, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is the ANI complaint at all retaliatory when the person I opened the complaint about has had literally nothing to do with this? Is there a rule that someone can't open a complaint if they currently have one open about them or something? --Adamant1 (talk) 05:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • And as "1%" came up against a whole book, now Special:Diff/1080305965 comes up against the claim of "literally nothing". Uncle G (talk) 05:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hhhmmm I didn't see his comment. That said, it's had literally zero effect on this. So it might as well be nothing. It would be pretty weird if I tried to get revenge on him for making a random comment that I didn't even see. If I wanted revenge why wouldn't I go after Girth Summit or someone who's actually trying to get me topic banned instead of some rando commenter? --Adamant1 (talk) 06:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support full AfD ban, and support some block for the comments about Drmies and colonialism above (which show the same kind of gaslighting as before), for the retaliatory section about Jacona, and for the blatant lies about that section: not remembering that Jacona had commented here, while in their first defense yesterday both the full point 1.2 and part of 1.3 are about Jacona? Fram (talk) 07:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You know Drmies accused me of racism right? Also, I said I didn't see Jacona's comment, not that I didn't remember it. That's kind of a weird mistake to make for someone who's also going off about gas lighting in the same comment. Same goes for you mentioning the colonialism comment while leaving out that it was in response to someone accusing me of racism. BTW, in case your confused Uncle G was talking about a comment made by Jacona, not my original comment where I mentioned him. I can see why you would make that mistake and think that we were discussing my original comment, not the comment made by Jacona later on. Either way it isn't evidence that I opened the complaint to get revenge on Jacona for anything. You should really have more evidence then a couple of miss-read sentences and a hunch based on them if your going to suggest I be fully banned from AfDs. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support After wading through walls of text and having to read rather unpleasant "congenial" snippets from Adamant1...essentially per Begoon and Cullen328; I also see CIR issues. Lectonar (talk) 09:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Adamant1's behaviour has been extraordinary. Support GirthSummit's proposed TBan. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Appears to be a pattern here. I've found this user to be repeatedly dismissive of valid sources. NemesisAT (talk) 11:12, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support TBan due to long-term disruption and failure to learn from previous sanctions.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I'd support a total XFD ban, but the initial proposal to be banned from education-related AFDs is at least a start. Adamant1 has a CIR issue, or they are being willfully obtuse, or deliberately ignoring when evidence to the contrary of their initial presumptions is presented. Any of those is an anathema to the proper functioning of Wikipedia, ESPECIALLY in AFD discussions, where new evidence is often dug up, and we require intellectual honesty when assessing that evidence. The WP:BLUDGEON issues at AFD as well seem a major problem, coupled with the tit-for-tat ANI report below, I think Adamant1 needs a formal ban of some sort. --Jayron32 16:19, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for proposal at hand. Would also support a complete ban from deletion process, as it has been shown the BATTLEGROUND attitude is long term and not improving. It isn't out of range, per his behavior in this very thread, to consider a CBAN for CIR. It's seems that he's not grasping how Wikipedia works. 174.212.212.163 (talk) 20:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support full AfD ban How many more ANI threads do we need dealing with Adamant1 relentlessly writing page after page of fastidious explanations of why he disagrees with others at AfD? That's enough. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:36, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ban from AFD discussions - this reeks of WP:BATTLEGROUND, but even without all of the hostility and WP:BATTLEGROUND, this and this are good examples of WP:BLUDGEON. Adamant1's replying to everyone s/he disagrees with and arguing endlessly (rather than trying to find common ground and/or know when to let an issue go) and refusing to withdraw an AFD (even after having been shown multiple sources) is just more work that needs to be done for both the admins and non-admins closing AFD's. The writing large amounts of needless material and being a timesink at AFD makes it to where (as of right now), Adamant1's participation in AFD's is of little to no use versus the amount of disruption being caused and Adamant1's contributions to the project would be better served someplace else other than AFD.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 12:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support full ban from AfD - I've never seen sustained worse behavior - a combination of dishonesty and WP:CIR issues - than this editor has demonstrated at AfD. When I looked back at prior issues with this editor, this is a persistent problem. We can't build the encyclopedia when we have to spend so much of our time dealing with a disruptive editor who is not here to build it.Jacona (talk) 10:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support T-ban A break from AfD is definitely necessary for Adamant1. Dhawangupta (talk) 13:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I won't support a complete ban from deletion related topics as some have offered here. That is a ban that would potentially keep an editor of this encyclopedia from being able to defend an article they have created from deletion should that day ever occur. However, the T-ban that was proposed that targets the specific area of concern might be the answer to stem the immediate disruption while giving @Adamant1 the opportunity to redeem themselves and have the topic ban lifted one day. After all, short of a sitewide block, isn't that the goal of these types of sanctions. Stop the immediate disruption but allow the offending editor the opportunity to correct their behavior. Sanctions are not meant to be punitive but they are a powerful tool of the community to help correct the trajectory of an editor that is acting in good faith but has lost sight of the overall goal of the community and the encyclopedia. --ARoseWolf 12:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  A topic ban is also to protect the good faith users who the hostile behaviour might hurt or drive away. It's not just a rehabilitation exercise. Since new or relatively inexperienced users can frequently end up in an AfD, and already feel disoriented by the mass of new rules and jargon they need to navigate I don't think having an editor so hostile and pointlessly aggressive in the mix is in anyone's interest. (Nor do I think experienced editors should need to be exposed to it...) You do make a good point that they should be permitted to defend their own creations though, should the need arise - that's a simple exemption to incorporate in the topic ban. Begoon 12:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If you are saying that you honestly believe that Adamant is such a threat to new and inexperienced editors here on the encyclopedia then why not propose a site ban. Look, Adamant's behavior is unacceptable and I agree that this isn't a rehabilitation exercise but when sanctions are not punitive the hope is that the editor does rehabilitate themselves and correct their actions otherwise, if there is no element of good faith in their being here, then why are they allowed to remain here? Adamant has brought about a situation, of their own making, in which they are either here in good faith but are misguided in their approach or they are not here in good faith and should not be allowed to stay. A full ban from deletion related discussions won't stop the disruption if you honestly believe they aren't here in good faith and are a threat to the ability of the project to retain new or experienced editors through Adamant's interaction with them. But if you believe there is an element of misguided good faith then, regardless of whether it is a full ban or a topic ban of deletion discussions, the point is to stop the disruption, protecting the encyclopedia, and, in doing so, hopefully give Adamant a break to learn from their mistakes. We may differ in opinion of which ban is appropriate but once we start going into the realm of editors being a threat to other editors then we stop assuming good faith and move into the question of why we allow an editor to stay here. If you believe that then a full ban is of no use to support. --ARoseWolf 13:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Wow. I didn't propose a site ban, because, like you, I don't think the user is a complete net-negative. I'd have done so if I did. I'm not sure quite how to respond to the rest of your long (and, to me, quite unclear) post - you seem upset about something I said? What's the confusingly emphasised "threat" thing about, by the way? That, I confess, utterly confused me. Begoon 13:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not upset, in the least. It was in response to you saying that new and inexperienced editors frequent AfD discussions, which is true. But they also frequent other areas of the encyclopedia, obviously. You did not specifically use the word "threat" but it was implied in regards to Adamant driving away or hurting good faith users which is also an implication that Adamant isn't acting in good faith, albeit misguided. We are not as far apart in our positions as my words may have given the impression. Just having a discussion about the subtle differences. I apologize if it came across otherwise. --ARoseWolf 14:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That's fine, and I accept your apology. I'm not sure if it "came across otherwise" because I'm still trying quite hard to understand it, if I'm honest. It felt like a bit of an odd post which kind of threw me - but this is the internet, after all. Begoon 14:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support T-ban Many problems here, battleground, cir, just plane rudeness. Paul August ☎ 11:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support proposal for education related T-Ban, at a minimum, along with th a formal caution not to continue the issues elsewhere, at risk of a full AfD ban. Whilst I was initially somewhat neutral regarding (or even slightly supportive of) Adamant1, their conduct above has erased any objection I might have had to the proposal. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Adamant1 blocked one month: User_talk:Adamant1#Block. El_C 08:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RafaelHP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been subtly vandalising fight records for a while now and/or replacing sourced information with that which isn't sourced. In [edit], RafaelHP goes so far as to completely alter a entire fight record in contrast to all reliable sources. They have changed a no contest to a loss and adapted the entire page to make the change. This is subtle vandalism and a big problem in MMA pages. The MMA fighter infobox contains a link to Sherdog, which is what we use unless stated otherwise by RS. The most common alternative is ESPN.

To return to the vandalism example, please see the two prominent RS on the fight Sylvia vs Arlovski, which have the fight as No Contest.

Sherdog: https://www.sherdog.com/fighter/Tim-Sylvia-1061 ESPN: https://www.espn.co.uk/mma/fighter/_/id/2354048/tim-sylvia

Now see RafaelHP's edit, which undoes the correct result and adapts the entire record to accommodate the vandalism:

[NC becomes a loss and the article is changed]

In another example on a different page, RafaelHP here changes an extraordinary 8 different pieces of sourced information and provides not a single source to back up the changes. Please see here for the source: https://www.sherdog.com/fighter/Frank-Mir-2329

[8 sourced results without a single source]

Attempts by other editors and me to address this include:

[[130]] [[131]] [[132]] [[133]] [[134]]

Their responses, other than to delete the comments, tend to be petulant, as [[135]] and [[136]].

It's enormously frustrating having to identify subtle vandalism in fight records, and this editor's disruptive editing has, in my opinion, gone on long enough. NEDOCHAN (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll tell you what's enormously frustrating, having to redo all my legitimate work because of your lack of knowledge of wiki policies. So many times I update fight records with sourced information, and you always fight it and undo my work then proceed to spam my talk page with excuses. I don't know why I've had to explain my edits like 10 times in a row to you, it's like you believe Sherdog (the placeholder source we use for fight records that is considered less reliable then other sources [[137]]) is the only source that can be used for fight records, which goes against several different policies. It's even more absurd to me that I've seen you in discussions where it's been explained why Sherdog can't be the only source used for fight results, and yet you still ignore that and enforce your ideology onto me and other editors. That's frustrating. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 04:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This response does not address the issues raised in the complaint. NEDOCHAN is not saying that Sherdog is the only source that can be used; their complaint says that you changed it from something that was supported by both Sherdog and ESPN, and you provided no source when doing so. If you have explained that change somewhere, feel free to post a link to that explanation rather than typing it out again - I don't see anything on the article talk page, or on your own talk page (although you seem often to blank that, so it's not easy to read through older discussions, so I might have missed something). Girth Summit _(blether) 22:50, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the issues in the complaint and what I did. I changed the result because I was sure there was a source somewhere that would corroborate my edit, but there wasn't and that's my mistake for making the edit in the first place though. I also found it interesting that NEDOCHAN reverts edits that are supported by Sherdog without any sources given, essentially removing sourced content for strictly no reason. See here: [[138]] [[139]].

I'm also pretty positive that this ANI post was made in revenge. Notice how after he reverts my edit for the third time (without any proper explanation given) 20 minutes later an ANI post is made about me. [[140]] [[141]] [[142]]. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 11:29, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See the above example of vandalism on Tim Sylvia.NEDOCHAN (talk) 08:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Tangentially, not having looked deeply at the MMA edits above, I'm concerned by Rafael's non-response to a query about a disruptive move. I'll credit that Rafael moved the article back, but I would have liked to see an explanation for why the edit happened in the first place. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:09, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RafaelHP can you expand a bit more on why you made a change before you had checked to see whether it was supportable by sources? Girth Summit _(blether) 12:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that I have tried on many many occasions to discuss Rafael's problematic editing, as have many others on many, many occasions. I have linked to five attempts above. This is not an isolated incident and the Frank Mir edit is just as egregious as the Sylvia one. Although Rafael chooses to delete their talk page, a review of it will reveal a litany of posts seeking explanation and cessation of these editing habits. I'll let admins do their thing but I would suggest that Rafael no longer be allowed to edit fight records. This would allow them to continue their other work and encourage them to stop with the kind of edits their talk page shows cause disruption.NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problematic edit I identified is outside of the topic of fight records; IMO the pattern of problematic editing doesn't seem to be subject-driven. A topic-ban from BLPs could maaaybe address the issue, or at least move it away from sensitive subject matter, but my sense is that unless we get a good explanation and about-face from Rafael here, escalating blocks may be the only adequate response. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say removing my ability to edit fight records would solve nothing, considering only two of the examples you've brought up are in relation to fight records. I'm honestly not sure what to say at this point, I've tried cooperating with nedochan but they continuously revert my edits with loose explanation given half the time. Personally I'd say we should both be blocked from editing for a week to cool off, but that obviously won't happen. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 18:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill above has brought up another example. Rafael's unwillingness to address the actual issue either here or on their talk page is worrying. Deletion, obfuscation and whataboutery seem to be the only response. NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:20, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Above, I asked you to comment on why you changed content without checking to see whether any sources supported the change. You haven't responded to that - I'd appreciate an answer. At the moment, I tend to agree with Rosguill that someone who is willing to change content on BLP articles because they are sure that sources would support a change without bothering to actually check the sources first needs not to be editing BLPs. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:42, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because I was sure I had seen a source that corroborated my edit beforehand. There's no deeper story, I just made a mistake. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 18:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's also funny that you agree I shouldn't edit BLPs because of that mistake, yet when OP changes sourced content for no reason [143] [144] or even overrides a talk page consensus to change a result to one used by ESPN [145] [146] [147] (ESPN has a business deal with the UFC, making them not independent so why are you using that for UFC results in the first place?), there's no issue apparently. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 18:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that everyone seems to be disregarding nedochan's disruptive editing, which I don't think is very fair. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 18:35, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the first one of your diffs. Pride 32 had said since 2006 that Esch defeated O'Haire by TKO. Here, an IP editor changed a TKO to a KO, without mentioning why they did it or referring to any source. Nedochan reverted that unexplained change here. I don't necessarily see it as disruptive to revert an unexplained change to long-standing content - sure, it's better practice to check the source, but if people don't provide an explanatory edit summary they will often find their changes get knee-jerk reverted. You reinstated the IP editor's change here - your edit summary makes reference to a source, but looking at the article I can't actually see which source is supports any of the content in the table so I'm not sure what you were referring to there. I put 'Pride 32' into Google; I don't know much about reliable sourcing in this topic area, but I clicked on the first two results I got: Tapology labels it 'KO/TKO' and MMA-Core just calls it a TKO. so, my question to you: what source currently in the article supports the change you reinstated? Girth Summit _(blether) 11:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source is Sherdog, aka the placeholder source we're supposed to be using case by case but nobody in WP:MMA actually does and alot of people seem to think is the standard for fight results and can never be wrong. But the reason I changed it back to that is because to change fight results you need to actually prove that the majority of independent reliable sources have that result. And I have zero problem with changing fight results as long as they're properly sourced, I don't like the idea of Sherdog being the only source people use for fight records and results. I should note too I've been guilty of changing fight results in an improper manner in the past, but this isn't judgement, it's only to bring attention to fellow disruption. (source btw: [148]). ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 13:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 152.32.85.105 (talk · contribs)

Hello. I just want to report this user because of his violation on WP:SOAPBOX, as seen in the user's contributions. I don't know if this user and User:Jaymark 220 are connected to each other since the two users have putted the words "vote" and "re-elect" in Philippine local election pages here.

Oh, the said IP user is doing the same thing again. I think that the user has a problem why he is putting promotional edits here. Thanks. NewManila2000 (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Admin: I need help right now. The said IP address is undoing some of my reverts to his promotional edits that violates the WP:SOAPBOX rule. Please refer to the IP's contributions. Thanks. NewManila2000 (talk) 06:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Pinging an admin for you. Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 15:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Hasn't edited in over a day, so I'm not convinced a block is achieving anything at this time. Please note pinging "Admin" does not get a response any faster; there's only a thousand or so of us and we can't be everywhere. Stifle (talk) 08:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The said user has edited recently on 2022 Philippine general election wherein he putted there a 12-man Senate lineup of a certain coalition, together with a presidential and vice-presidential candidate. Also, he did the same in 2022 Pasay local elections. Local elections-related pages must contain only local candidates, not national. NewManila2000 (talk) 11:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commonedits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) assume bad faith again Special:diff/1080304347 after the final warning is given to himSpecial:diff/1079940196, I'm here to request some help from sysop after two days of consideration. Pavlov2 (talk) 16:29, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• User blocked for 2 weeks – last chance to change. If I come across this user again, they are very likely to be indefinitely blocked under WP:CIR/WP:NOTHERE. Stifle (talk) 08:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  P.S. I nearly closed this as not-done given they haven't been active for the last 2-3 days. Blocks are considered preventative not punitive, therefore it's advisable to report issues much sooner after they arise rather than waiting for 2 days. Stifle (talk) 08:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi @Stifle: I'll have to take some responsibility for not reporting sooner; I've come close a couple of times (and that's mostly just watching from the sidelines), but always held back in the end. They sail close to the wind, but (AGF and all that) never quite crossed the line on any one occasion, IMO; it's more of a cumulative effect. The fact that they keep removing previous warnings and other messages from their user talk page may also have helped to cover the extent of it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, that's totally reasonable. Stifle (talk) 09:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your help. I'd like to say I had to consider a lot about his situation. His case is a little not that obvious, without blatant attack or some stuff like dirty words. I held back the first day, then a few days later I came out that he already created an attack page to other editors. He cleaned all the warnings on his user talk page, that make the situation more concealing Pavlov2 (talk) 10:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Pavlov2 and DoubleGrazing have got it right, with comments such as "a little not that obvious" and "sail close to the wind, but ... never quite crossed the line on any one occasion". It's difficult to take action because of a fairly trivial incident a couple of days ago, but there comes a time when one last straw is one too many. JBW (talk) 07:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An Observation about User Talk Pages

I have an observation that may be worth what you paid for it. This is an editor who regularly deletes messages from their talk page without archiving. This practice has long been recognized as permitted, but archiving has always been preferred. Some, although not all, editors who erase messages from their talk pages show in other ways that they are ignoring the messages. This has been another such example. This case seems to confirm that, when an editor who has what seems to be a clean talk page is being cautioned about something, it may be a good idea to check the history. It may also be necessary to conclude that the erased messages are being ignored by the recipient, and so should not be ignored by admins. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 1234comrade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Partha protim konar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi Admin, please look into these two users. First User:1234comrade has been constantly adding founders list in Communist Party of India (Marxist) without providing any reliable sources. Second interesting thing I noticed, User:Partha protim konar all of a sudden deleted the entire talk page of User:1234comrade. Something fishy is going on and pattern of edits are quite similar it looks like WP:SOCK. Please check thoroughly about these two user accounts. Another thing I would like bring to you attention User:Vif12vf too adds information's without providing reliable sources. But first you check thoroughly about first two users. User:Partha protim konar has again added founders list in Communist Party of India (Marxist) without any source. It looks to me clear cut sock puppet. Admin @Girth Summit: and @Rosguill:. Please look into this issue with utmost urgency and take necessary action in this regard. Thank You!--Mariam57 (talk) 08:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no relation to the above mentioned accounts! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 12:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• There is some suspicious overlap in 1234comrade and Partha protim konar's editing, but would prefer to see technical evidence before taking action as I was only able to give this a quick look (you may be able to get CU eyes on this faster by filing at WP:SPI). As for the other issues, looking at the CPI-M page history and the lack of relevant discussion on the talk page, the unsourced content issues could use some discussion between involved editors on a talk page before bringing it here for admin attention, as I'm not seeing any discussion despite a fair amount of back and forth edit warring. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright @Rosguill:! I am starting a discussion at the talk page of the article let see whether they start any discussion on this subject matter or not. In the mean time I'm filing one case at WP:SPI. Thanks--Mariam57 (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

•  Checkuser note: I have blocked 1234comrade and Partha protim konar as  Confirmed sockpuppets of each other. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Partha protim konar. Mz7 (talk) 01:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As he has been identified as a Sock puppetry someone should revert all his edits made from two user accounts. Thanks--Mariam57 (talk) 08:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Vif12vf: I noticed some of your edits regarding political parties/organizations please ensure to add reliable sourcess. If you add unsourced or poorly sourced content then it shall be challenged and removed immediately. And I'll be forced to bring this issue over here and then admin will get involved. Whatever information you put always add reliable sourcess such as academic or research scholar articles published in academic journals or books. You can take peer-reviewed academic journals which are excellent sourced. Authors who write such articles have an authority on the subject matter basically they're top notch academicians/scholars. Always remember without reliable sourcess your information's shall be challenged and removed immediately. Thanks--Mariam57 (talk) 03:49, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mate, I never add new info to articles, whatever I add to infoboxes are usually already present in the article itself, and the sources are usually in the main body of text where they belong, seeing as guidelines regarding the infobox now specifically states that sources belong in the main text, not the infobox which is easily cluttered. None of the info I ever add to infoboxes is new to these articles! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 11:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm deeply concerned about the actions and judgment of Dronebogus at WP:MFD. Yesterday he nominated a massive spate of userboxes for deletion. Now some of these userboxes probably do well warrant deletion. However, several of the rationales given do not reflect policy but instead reflect an emotional and ideological bent ([149], [150], [151]). The more worrying thing is his soapboxy commentary ([152]) and BLP violations ([153]) when defending his reasoning.

Dronebogus's judgment has been questionable at times in administrative sectors of Wikipedia, and this is not the first time in which it seems as if his emotions have gotten ahead of his reasoning. I'm not sure what the answer is here, and I'm certainly not about to criticize anyone's proportion of edits to various spaces given my heavy focus on WP:ITN. But I do feel it would be best if a break from WP:MFD were imposed on him to prevent further disruption. At this point I'm beginning to feel that it's for his own good. WaltCip-(talk) 18:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've just voted on a lot of the nominations this user has made and I'd say the majority are userboxes that deserve to get deleted. It's actually good that someone decided to go through all of that user's userboxes and start cleaning up Wikipedia. Super Ψ Dro 19:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd ask Dronebogus if they'd maybe reconsider this particular campaign? Most of those userboxes are trolling, and MFDing them is troll-feeding. Users who get involved in Wikipedia's various historical userbox wars have often regretted it. It's longstanding custom and practice that good faith Wikipedians are allowed wide but not unlimited latitude to express themselves in their userspace, and also, if someone does have those opinions, it's good for them to be clearly stated up front so others can avoid them more easily. We wouldn't want to breed wasps without the yellow stripes, would we?—S Marshall T/C 22:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. I’ve heard this a million times, policy is clear on this, no disruptive userboxes. If this was nazis we wouldn’t be discussing this. Dronebogus (talk) 02:19, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive is in the eye of the beholder. As a survivor of the Great Userbox Wars I regret ever getting involved, and it's a topic that is entered into carefully, with tact and discretion. "Stupid irredentist nonsense" is not that. Mackensen (talk) 02:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well that one was withdrawn. Dronebogus (talk) 03:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like nitpicking over the mote in my eye over the giant sequoia in the disruptive user’s eye. I recall an admin who had userboxes on his page calling Boris Johnson a “complete nincompoop” and trump a “nazi sympathizer who values golf more than human lives”. I described trump as a pathological liar because he is. “Dimwit” is an insult but a mild one that you could have just told me to remove. I said the Userboxes were “tankie” because they are— the creator was defending genocide in deleted ones, and others claim German reunification is “occupation” and attack anyone who is critical of Stalin/Putin/other authoritarians. Dronebogus (talk) 02:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only one you’re probably right on is the Falklands ones, and they’re still in my opinion objectively disruptive since it’s pro-invasion/pro-annexation against an unwilling population. Dronebogus (talk) 02:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve since withdrawn both per your arguments and arguments of voters. Dronebogus (talk) 02:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve also redacted the comment about trump being a dumb-dumb. Now can we just close this? Dronebogus (talk) 02:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on your talk page, but as I said there, generally I'd like to see some type of assurance that you'll maintain civility and proper discretion in the future. WaltCip-(talk) 13:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t believe you that you’re going to accept whatever I say since you went through the effort of opening an ANI thread for a WP:TROUT level offense, and nobody else seems to be explicitly agreeing with your proposal. I think you’re just trying to create a chilling effect. Dronebogus (talk) 13:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not out for blood. Ultimately it's your decision how you want to move forward. If you don't think there's any adjustment needed whatsoever, then that's your call. WaltCip-(talk) 14:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think I’ve adjusted as necessary. I’m trying to learn from my mistakes. Dronebogus (talk) 01:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dronebogus nominated a couple of my user boxes at MfD, which I speedy deleted per WP:G7 because I always said I would get rid of them at the first obvious objection, whether or not I agreed with it. As far as user boxes go, WP:OWB says "The best content contributors often neglect these things, and vice versa." so from my point of view, having them or not is several orders of magnitude less important than writing an encyclopaedia. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's an awesome list! I should bookmark that. WaltCip-(talk) 15:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While getting into scuffles every once in a while is surely human nature, the extent to which this editor is fascinated by scouring the project for potentially offensive userboxes is concerning, as is their conduct while doing so. This edit, for example, adds "Donald Trump is a well known pathological liar and dimwit so why his opinion matters I don’t know". Okay, whatever, I don't like Donald Trump either, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox for insulting political figures. More importantly, what the hell does this have to do with a userbox about Soviet intervention in Afghanistan? Even in this very discussion, they say "I said the Userboxes were “tankie” because they are"... while linking to the article on the term, which describes it in the very first sentence as "a pejorative label for communists". Again, I am not saying this to stick up for Communists, but there is no reason to use deliberately inflammatory language here. The userbox is bad. It's probably against policy. You would expect it to be a pretty uncontroversial nomination... so why go out of your way to act like this? I would recommend taking a break from MfDs, or from political arguments, or whatever, if you are having trouble staying cool. There's no shame in doing so, it doesn't mean admitting defeat, and there are plenty of other parts of the project that need help. jp×g 03:44, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I brought up trump because the “keep” argument seemed to use trump’s endorsement of the invasion to legitimize the position, so I pointed out Trump is dishonest and doesn’t come across as particularly bright so his opinion on the topic is not reliable. As for “tankie”— how is this different than patently insulting, but widely accepted and used, wikiterms like “wp:lunatic charlatans” and “wp:nonazis”? Dronebogus (talk) 03:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that you should not engage these specific types of arguments, whether you're initiating them or responding to someone who provokes you. The closer will be reviewing whether or not the basis for keep or deletion is based on policy or consensus, and they are trained to ignore those comments that address neither. When you get involved with invective, you raise the temperature of the room for an already delicate sector of Wikipedia, when the goal should be to WP:STAYCOOL. The fact that you responded to my observation of this by getting defensive and casting aspersions against my conduct is not a great look. WaltCip-(talk) 12:56, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I feel compelled to point out User:Dronebogus often seems to be engaged in a series of conversations where they tend to insult other users and their actions, somehow thinking themselves above reproach. I call everyone's attention to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue where out of nowhere they call a respected and longterm administrator a "wikigeezer" fully knowing that admin is still active and will defend their essay in that MFD, reading the insult in the process. This is definitely not STAYCOOL practice, as User:WaltCip points out correctly. Deliberate inflammatory language, and playful way Dronebogus regularly normalizes personal attacks demonstrates once again that they may appear not necessarily here to help. Hey, I like a good wrecking ball as much as anyone, but I strenuously try to avoid swinging such a permanently damaging tool where the debris field encompasses the entire wikipedian family. BusterD (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I wasn’t trying to be abusive by saying someone was a geezer. But I’ll remove it if it was offensive. Dronebogus (talk) 04:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Calling loose and frequently acrimonious organizations “family” is not a good rhetorical device. I can think of some other examples that aren’t exactly flattering comparisons. Dronebogus (talk) 05:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia is a voluntary consensus democracy dedicated to building an encyclopedia. It is nobody’s “family” Dronebogus (talk) 05:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Please note: Dronebogus ignores my central arguments then makes a reluctant retraction, but instead of leaving it there, latches onto a single noun and twice vainly tries to discredit my entire comment by arguing my usage of the word family. The user must lash out. This is why the OP brought them here. This is NOT about MfD or a self-imposed non-binding break from single venue. This is about user conduct and a failure to display AGF, especially when opposed. BusterD (talk) 06:57, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Please, the stick, drop it. I was just criticizing your rhetoric as poor, not trying to “vainly discredit” your argument. You’re the one with AGF problems right here. Dronebogus (talk) 07:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I just want this to be over so I can move on with my business. I am not arguing with you over the validity of a throwaway comment. Dronebogus (talk) 07:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, I personally don’t think my behavior was that offensive let alone ANI worthy but since several users have raised reasonable objections and I want to get back to editing important things I will take a voluntary and non-binding wikibreak from MFD. Dronebogus (talk) 06:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I’d like to amend this by adding I will not explicitly avoid making or participating in MFDs for WP:G1 or blatant troll content. Dronebogus (talk) 07:31, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll have to agree with what User:Super Dromaeosaurus said. Most of the userboxes that Dronebogus is nominating for deletion - including the ones the OP is pointing to - are ones that are likely to close with a consensus to delete, and I don't think it's a bad thing that someone decided to comb through userboxes looking for ones that might be eligible for deletion per our userbox content restrictions. Most of their nominations were userboxes created by User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор, and just about all of them are likely to be deleted. If Dronebogus didn't nominate them at MfD I probably would've done that myself. Some of the ones that likely won't be deleted are still worth discussing too. I'll admit that I don't really have any past experiences interacting with this editor as I only recently became active at MfD after stumbling across some of the userboxes whose MfDs I !voted on, so I can't comment much on their behavior. It seemed like some of their interactions with SmokeyJoe were a bit too heated, but in those instances SmokeyJoe seemed to be the one that initially threw out some unwarranted personal attacks at Dronebogus. All of that aside, I simply disagree with the OP's premise that going through the list of userboxes to look for ones that might be unacceptable and nominating a lot of them for deletion is a bad thing, much less something that deserves some sort of punishment or an enforced break from MfD.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 07:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• As an aside, there's nothing wrong with throwing out the word tankie to describe those userboxes nominated for deletion, and just about everyone who !voted in those discussions used that term at least once.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 07:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• As the OP, I acknowledge Dronebogus's response above that he will be taking a voluntary wikibreak from WP:MFD, which to me seems satisfactory. I'd still ultimately would have preferred some type of agreement to cease from further argumentative/WP:IDHT-behavior (as in this diff, which unfortunately came a couple hours after he agreed to take a break), but I will leave it up to an uninvolved administrator to determine whether that is necessary or not.--WaltCip-(talk) 12:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

I hoped this would go away by limiting my interaction with Desertambition, but it hasn't and my original notice got lost in the shuffle[154]. Desertambition continues to be hostile to me and to other editors. It seems this editor's entire[155] edit history is arguing with others in bad faith[156]. My interaction has mainly been on the Flag of Alabama. It hasn't been positive. Desertambition is hostile to anyone that doesn't agree with their edits. I've been accused of over and over of going against Wikipedia guidelines while trying to steer the discussion towards consensus. Desertambition simply cannot work with others in good faith. Given the editors actions it was a mistake to ever lift the original block. The editor hasn't learned from previous mistakes and will continue to be hostile. Nemov (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know if a new block is needed at this time, but at a minimum I think it is appropriate to topic ban them from making accusations about editors behaviour outside of ANI, with a warning that making accusations at ANI, if found to be baseless, may also result in a block; Desertambition is an editor that rather than understanding that editors may disagree with them in good faith instead accuses those editors of violating behavioural policies. I've presented these examples before in the ANI thread they raised against me on March 29, but they are an excellent example of this; on March 1 they accused three editors who had disagreed with them primarily about article titles of WP:STONEWALLING and WP:HOUNDING, without having presented any evidence before or since; myself, Spekkios, and Toddy1.

I see that there are also many examples of this at Talk:Flag of Alabama, with Desertambition accusing editors of STONEWALLING, BADFAITHNEG, TAGTEAM, and BATTLEGROUND behaviour - and I expect that I've missed a few other accusations, either on the talk or in edit summaries. I would also note this commentary on their user page, about what they consider a common interaction with editors and admins.BilledMammal (talk) 00:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This user does not appear to be temperamentally suited for a collaborative project. I note that they have already been blocked twice for this kind of behavior. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Nemov and Spekkios have been WP:STONEWALLING on the flag of Alabama page for weeks at this point by creating a WP:TAGTEAM. I have barely edited the page and engaged in extensive discussion on the talk page. BilledMammal is another user who has tried to get me blocked repeatedly. I have not made more ANI posts or engaged in WP:TENDENTIOUS editing.

I have made many efforts to create consensus and discuss the issue without edit warring and Nemov has refused to engage or build consensus: Here [157] and here [158]

I always try to write very clear edit summaries and discuss disputes on the talk page while following sources and consensus. However, Spekkios and Nemov have exercised complete control over the flag of Alabama article while removing information about Confederate symbolism and writing misleading edit summaries.

Spekkios writes "ditto here" when removing Confederate flag from the page after this edit removing "controversial content" and telling editors to discuss on the talk page while they continue to implement their own interpretation and wording of sources. [159]: [160]

Spekkios, prior to removing the Confederate flag, had removed the description of the Confederate flag by saying it was "too long" without elaborating here: [161]

Nemov falsely claimed the New York Times in 1906 said the flag of Alabama had no historical connection here [162] In fact, another newspaper had published that piece and seemed to be using clear WP:POETIC wording rather than saying "the flag has no history" which is pretty nonsensical as everything has a history.

Nemov falsely claimed that an understanding connecting the state flag to the Confederate flag only came 20 years after the flag was adopted here: [163]

After I added a source exactly the same way Nemov did, they remove it and replace the wording with blatant WP:SYNTH and WP:OR violations. I added the source here: [164]

Nemov then said in their edit summary: "Cleaned up the first few sentences for clarity. The link to the Montgomery Advertiser source isn't formatted correctly and I can't find it in another archive. Can you please clip it and source it correctly? Thanks." [165] Then put their own WP:SYNTH and WP:OR into the article "No documentation in the legislative records indicates the flag was intended to commemorate the Confederacy and local reporting around the time of the flag's adoption is inconclusive."

Nemov then "fixes" it by writing "No documentation in the legislative records indicates the flag was intended to commemorate the Confederacy. Local reporting around the time of the flag's adoption is unclear. One newspaper says the flag was a suggestions of the Confederacy and another stating the flag had no historical connections." [166]

Today, Spekkios scrubbed the word "Confederate" from the image of the Confederate flag without any sort of consensus here [167] and offered their own interpretation. Which I should add was incorrect because the image is not just a "saltire" but rather the actual battle flag of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia.

I have not broken the WP:3RR after my prior block although BilledMammal has here: [168] [169] [170] but I know that's not the focus of this post.

It is so frustrating to deal with these constant reports and attempts to get me blocked. I continue to engage in good faith discussions with editors about these issues and often they are unwilling to build consensus. Desertambition (talk) 01:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I've never called for you to be blocked - above, you will see that I am suggesting a limited topic ban that will allow you to continue contributing to your chosen topic area - and while you haven't opened a new ANI thread since March 29, it has only been a week, and the issue here is your habit of casting aspersions against editors you disagree with. BilledMammal (talk) 02:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had a conversation about these exact issues at User talk: Cullen328#WP:TENDENTIOUS editing on flag of Alabama on March 27. I, too, am very concerned about this editor's right great wrongs variety of POV pushing. Their attempt here to argue the content case is yet another example. The purpose of this noticeboard is to deal with behavioral issues, not to adjudicate content disputes. This editor consistently argues, in effect, that all the many other highly experienced editors they interact with are in error, and only Desertambition is correct. This editor seems incapable of self-reflection and self-correction. I agree with the succinct assessment by Ad Orientem above: This user does not appear to be temperamentally suited for a collaborative project. Cullen328 (talk) 02:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Firstly, I appologise for this block of text but this isn't an accurate summary of my actions. I performed a major reversion because there had been 23 edits and about half of them were reversions. I rolled back to a previous version because there was obviously a dispute about the article content as shown by the number of reversions, hence my edit summary. I would have reverted to an even earlier stage before the flag was added, however I elected not to because another user had performed some article maintenance that I didn't want to revert. Therefore, I selected the version just after said maintenance was performed and manually reverted the remaining content, hence my second edit summary "ditto here". I posted a section in the talk page notifying editors of the rollback I performed. I shortened the description because it was very long, and further discussion occurred about the caption on the talk page. I didn't remove the image entirely because I think it needs to be there, but the caption was very long and could be shortened. I did actually elaborate in the edit summary. Finally, the flag was restored to the article by another user for a valid reason. I adjusted the flag caption, because as I said before the previous was too long, but the current just states what the flag is. The caption I selected linked the flag image to the article. Desertambition reverted that edit. After a little discussion on the talk page I selected a new caption which was again reverted.

I apologise again for that large explanation of what is essentially a content dispute, but I just wanted to show how wildly different Desertambition's version of events is. They believe that Nemov and I are actively engaged in some sort of conspiracy to "remove confederate symbolism" to the point where a good-faith edit to improve a caption (which was being discussed on the talk page) results in an accusation of "scrubbing" the word confederate from the caption. Desertambition has accused us of engaging in historical revisionism including making an accusation of me "preventing almost any edits about Confederate symbolism". This is blatantly untrue. Anyone can quickly read the article and find an entire section on the origins of the flag, including ties to the confederate flag. The word "confederate" and "confederacy" have been mentioned 8 times each in the (relatively short) article. I have been supportive of including the confederate battle flag in the article. I have been supportive of edits improving the article and adding more context to the time in which the state flag was adopted. To paint me out as a historical revisionist, implying that I'm a confederate sympathiser is absolutely not productive nor in good faith and something the user has been warned about in the past. --Spekkios (talk) 04:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• In reading through the varying diffs, and having seen prior ANs involving Desertambition, I agree that the editor seems unable to deal in the collaborative fashion Wikipedia requires. He's received multiple blocks in a short time, and has had more than one "This is your wakeup call to straighten up" warning. The warnings seem to be flying over his head. In particular, him flinging the TAGTEAM charge is objectionable -- as if there must needs be something sinister inherent in multiple editors disagreeing with him on a particular point. Unfortunately, this seems to be his default SOP in content disputes: to accuse the other side of collusion, chicanery or immorality when he cannot otherwise build consensus around his POV. At what point is enough enough? Ravenswing 12:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I came across this editor a month or so ago and was distinctly unimpressed with their conduct. The first time I saw them was after they created a couple of completely ridiculous PROD nominations for things that are obviously notable (at least to the level where a PROD would be inappropriate) but which they don't like, one of which I reverted [171][172]. I saw them again a couple of days later when they made this completely ridiculous comment baselessly accusing ymblanter of admin abuse [173]. This seems to be a fairly obvious case of an editor who is simply WP:Not compatible with a collaborative project. They seem to have joined up with the intention of editing with a particular POV [174], while I hope everyone here can agree that racism is bad in this case Desertambition's views seem to be getting in the way of them editing neutrally and making objective judgements about things like notability and common names. They are still acting like everyone who disagrees with them is an abusive rulebreaker or a racist, they are still approaching every discussion here as if it is a battleground and they are still edit warring and being disruptive to try and get their way. They already had an indef block for this behaviour and a last chance unblock on the basis that they would improve their conduct, unfortunately it seems that there has been little to no improvement since the original block. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 13:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From reading the various responses I understand that my conduct is not where it should be. Would it be reasonable to have a ban on any kind of accusation of bad faith? I really hope that my edits are useful the majority of the time and I would like an opportunity to continue editing. Whether or not what I said is true is clearly not to be decided here. There is no real point to ever posting to ANI again or alleging any kind of bad faith editing. Some admins/editors have said multiple times how much they would prefer I stop editing, "crying wolf", etc. and I really do get the point. I do think that I am WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia. I don't vandalize or disrupt to prove a point and most of these controversies happen during discussions or on talk pages, not on the articles themselves. I have not, despite multiple comments here saying I have, been calling users "racist" or "Confederate sympathizers". I believe this is largely a response to my user page where I say "racism bad". Some users have accused me of "anti-white racism" or turning articles "into the Mein Kampf of Anti-racism." [175] I have not made allegations of racism and do not ever plan to. I will do whatever best resolves this conflict. Desertambition (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No one is saying that "racism = bad" is an unacceptable stance. Where your behavior is objectionable is that you seem to presume that you're editing on the side of the angels, and therefore those who disagree with you must be doing so out of foul motives. And that just simply is not the case. To put it bluntly, no one elected you the arbiter of what is or is not a "racist" edit. We are all the arbiter, collectively, and we arrive at those decisions through consensus. The nature of a consensus-based encyclopedia is that sometimes you're on the losing side of the argument, and when that is the case, the onus is on you to lose gracefully and move on. What best resolves this conflict is for you to get that. The patience of the community to wait for you to do so is finite, if not already exhausted. Ravenswing 00:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

D received an indefinite block that was lifted with WP:ROPE as justification. Then the editor was blocked a few days later. It's the same pattern. Hostility, accusing everyone, and then begging not to be blocked again. I can understand lifting the block the first time. The editor was given two more chances after the last chance. The editor has proven why they were initially blocked. It's not going to get better. Nemov (talk) 01:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was two months later, not "a few days". The block was for edit warring, I was not paying attention to my reverts and broke the WP:3RR. I readily admitted and accepted that. Desertambition (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Every time you respond you reinforce the issue. You were blocked 40 days later for reverting edits. After being told that you have one last chance to work with others in good faith. Instead of listening, you accuse others and make excuses. You haven't readily accepted anything. After the block CaptainEek pointed out you were still not accepting what had happened.[176]. I agree the sentiment that You have some good points and editing inclinations. But if you can't follow the rules, you'll find yourself banned again. Not because of some months old accusations, but because of current failure to simply play nice with others. That's exactly been the case. After failing to comply so many times, why should we waste any more time hoping you'll figure it out? Nemov (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't an accurate summary of the situation. Toddy1 warned you that you were at five reverts, but despite being aware of that you chose to make a sixth. Then, when they opened a AN3 report you said Toddy1 keeps falsely accusing me of edit warring. After you were blocked you accepted you were edit warring, but the fact that it took a block for you to come to that conclusion is not good. BilledMammal (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have not made an allegation of racial bias since I was blocked months ago. I do not think I am perfect and not all of my edits are helpful. I will readily admit that. I have not said anyone is making "racist" edits. I have said repeatedly I will not make allegations of racial bias in any capacity, that was made clear months ago. I am fully aware of the need for consensus and I do not believe two users deciding amongst themselves constitutes WP:CONSENSUS. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to take my concerns to the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard. I accept consensus even when I disagree with it, as has happened on many move requests. I have a desire to include information on Wikipedia that accurately reflects reliable secondary sources, not push an agenda. Desertambition (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This I accept consensus even when I disagree with it, as has happened on many move requests also is not accurate, as can be seen with your habit of making repeated move requests for articles whose discussions produced a consensus against you with minimal time between them. For example, Mafikeng was moved to its current title after a discussion on 3 December 2021. You disagreed with that consensus and opened a new request on 7 January 2022, and then another on 31 March 2022. While consensus can change, and it is appropriate to open new move requests after a suitable period of time, three move requests in four months is far too many and an example of refusing to get the point. BilledMammal (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have not made allegations of racism and do not ever plan to. less than a week ago your talk page contained a list of "Users with clearly problematic/racist/racially biased posting" [177] which was described distinctly less than favourably by the admin who unblocked you [178].

Here you say that another editor is very attached to pre-apartheid names and only seem to take into account white South Africans and flat out accuse them of "racial bias" [179]

Here you "completley don't accuse someone of racism" by asking them what their opinion of white nationalism is [180] 192.76.8.70 (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That list was created four months ago and was collapsed by an admin. I have not made allegations of racial bias since the block and do not plan to. No one would be able to tell what was in there without opening it and I didn't think about it. Deleted it the second a user requested me to. Desertambition (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Desertambition wrote above: Would it be reasonable to have a ban on any kind of accusation of bad faith?^{5 April 2022}

• When he wanted to be unblocked, he/she wrote: I understand why I was blocked due to disruptive editing^{16 January 2022}
• But after he had been unblocked, he/she wrote: I had an admin make up false reasons to block me when I brought up racism and then I was not given a chance to appeal.^{19 February 2022}

That is not showing good faith. The second statement is completely untrue. The first statement was from his unblock appeal (the one he/she says that he was not given a chance to make).

Desertambition habitually accuses other editors of bad faith:

• BilledMammal 1 March 2022 29 March 2022
• Nemov 25 March 2022
• Spekkios 1 March 2022 25 March 2022 4 April 2022
• Toddy1 1 March 2022 2 April 2022
• Ymblanter 19 February 2022 23 March 2022 23 March 2022 24 March 2022]

Maybe he/she cannot help doing it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal?

There seems to be a fair bit of support here to do something. What should we propose as a path forward? On WP:ROPE basis the editor should be banned, but maybe a topic ban at the very least? Nemov (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The editor seems to seek conflict. He/she gets it through move discussions, articles where racism is an issue, and ANI. It is not reasonable to ban him/her from ANI, because it would make him/her vulnerable to bullying. But topic banning him/her from (a) undiscussed moves, (b) move discussions, (c) deletion discussions, and (d) racism broadly construed for nine months might bring out a more positive side to this editor. (As far as I know he/she had not misbehaved in deletion discussions, but we do not want to move his/her conflict-seeking behaviour from move discussions to deletion discussions.) I think a year is a bit long, and 6 months too short, so 9 months sounds right to me.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't take pleasure in banning users and D has shown an ability for research. I support your idea. Nemov (talk) 14:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with time-limited bans. I think that if a ban is imposed, whatever it is, then it should be indefinite - otherwise, the editor doesn't need to improve, and instead can just wait the clock out. Further, an indefinite ban might be shorter than a nine month ban; they might demonstrate sufficient improvement in three months for an appeal to be successful.

I would also suggest something similar to "racial issues broadly construed" rather than "racism broadly construed", as I feel the latter is slightly narrower than the area their behavioural issues exist in. BilledMammal (talk) 00:26, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Regardless of what sanctions I do or do not deserve, it hardly feels fair for editors I have active conflict and disagreement with to decide on my sanctions. Desertambition (talk) 04:39, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

I have not had any prior involvement here, and so have not had any active conflict or disagreement with User:Desertambition in the past. So, this should feel fair when I propose this:

User:Desertambition is topic-banned from undiscussed moves, move discussions, deletion discussions, and racial issues broadly construed (including topics associated with the Confederate States of America). They may appeal these sanctions, in whole or in part, in 3 months. Contravening the topic bans will result in an indefinite block, which must be appealed at this noticeboard. They are also cautioned against polemic conduct, casting aspersions, personal attacks, edit warring, and adopting a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to editing.

Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:20, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given that a significant amount of my edits are concerned with move requests and discussions, that does not feel like an appropriate sanction. It is also unclear what "racial issues, broadly construed" would apply to. Desertambition (talk) 08:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, not particularly notifying against anybody but somebody might like to take a look at this. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No slow edit war. Just routine reverting of sockpuppet edits, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jdbolivar (and the archive) for details. FDW777 (talk) 15:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FDW777, I wasn't aware of the details but figured it was something like this. It doesn't hurt to draw attention to the issue. Confirmed protection would help then? Cinderella157 (talk) 10:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cinderella157: try reporting at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and see how that goes. or don't, i'm not your boss. 晚安 (トークページ) 13:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There have three things in here,

1.This LTA create sock account User:Brinkofaw,see [181],please El_C block it,thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 06:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC) 2.Also,Special:Contributions/119.237.44.0/24,only it edit in this IP range after 16 August in 2020,zh.wiki blocked,please block it,thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 07:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

3.Please protect some page,

3.1.Backpack, start at 14 September in last year,spam, DE and vandal.

3.2.FIFA 18, start at 5 December in last year,spam, DE and vandal.

--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 07:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

+Special:Contributions/219.73.68.56,please El_C block it,thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 12:44, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Djjjjj. But Brinkofaw could be just test edits unrelated to the link spammer (no link spam from them thus far, will warn). El_C 16:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"djjjjj"?? 晚安 (トークページ) 08:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. El_C 10:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ah, i get it now. that makes sense. 晚安 (トークページ) 14:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

El_C,I am very sure Brinkofaw is sock.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 10:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely. El_C 10:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

+Special:Contributions/119.236.212.0/23,only it edit in this IP range after 17 November in last year,please El_C block it,thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 10:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They, not it. Oh, and dlllllllllp. El_C 10:14, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

har har very funny 晚安 (トークページ) 10:15, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's a thread Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#User_Stuartyeates which I have been advised to bring here by other experienced editors. In a nut shell, User:Cleisthenes2, User:JezGrove and an IP SPA appear to believe that I'm pushing a racially-motivated POV with a series of biographies. I see these as part of a much larger series of more than a hundred biographies of New Zealand academics I have written, some of whom have been in the news for racially-charged reasons. A single diff has been held up as evidence (the creation-edit of Garth Cooper), which I maintain reflected the secondary sources on the subject I found when I created the article. For the sake of completeness, there is also a pending merge request at Wikipedia:Requests_for_history_merge#New_requests related to this work. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied my original notice below so other editors can view my concerns in full. I am not raising any complaint about Mr. Yeates' many other biographies (and his many other contributions to Wikipedia). My concern relates solely to the fact that he has declared an intention to write Wikepedia entries for a number of academics with a view towards damaging their reputations (as I see it), and because he views them as 'villains' (his word). That must raise some grave doubts about his ability to deal fairly with entries about those involved in the Listener letter on science controversy, doubts which may well not affect any of his other editing. I think him recusing himself from entries on this topic would be the honourable course, and I for one would see it as sufficient.

Hi there, I'm unsure how to proceed with this, but I'm concerned about some of User:Stuartyeates's public pronouncements concerning the Listener letter on science controversy and in particular about a number of NZ scientists involved in that controversy. The problem is that recent Twitter comments suggest that he is about to create entries for a number of people as a way of attacking them. On April 3rd, he wrote (with regard to a number of academics who signed an open letter to the Royal Society of New Zealand, 'You know, some of those folks will be getting their own stub wikipedia biographies, just so I can include that fact that they're this racist ...' (https://twitter.com/stuartayeates/status/1510566667990237185). On September 21st last year, he asked 'Which other Kiwi villains should I write about?' and 'Here is a series tentatively entitled "Slapping Auckland Turnips"' (https://mobile.twitter.com/stuartayeates/status/1440244134715932676) before listing a number of entries he created on the signatories to the Listener letter. (I also have screenshots of these tweets by the way, if anyone needs those.) My concern is not only that this may violate Wikipedia policies on neutral point of view, balance in creating BLPs, and perhaps conflict of interest, but also that we may soon have a flood of some purposefully negative entires on NZ academics. I'm not aware of any other issues with this user and I appreciate he has done lots of work for Wikipedia, but I wonder whether he might recuse himself (or be removed from) editing entries on NZ scholars involved in the Listener letter on science controversy and those who signed the letter printed here (who he has pledged to create pages for 'just so I can include the fact that they're this racist'): https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2022/04/02/fellows-of-new-zealands-royal-society-demand-apology-and-full-review-of-the-society-after-poor-treatment-of-two-members/ If this is not the place for this concern or if I've made some technical faux-pas please let me know. Cleisthenes2 (talk) 08:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, I would like to draw attention to this passage from the guidelines on BLPs. Note that in the case of the entries on Garth Cooper, Elizabeth Rata, Kendall Clements, and perhaps a few others, User:StuartYeates, as User:JezGrove has pointed out, appears to have created these articles solely with information about the Listener letter and criticism of it (both of which he apparently sees as damaging), without balancing it.

'Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content.The idea expressed in Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, especially when they appear to have been created primarily to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once if there is no policy-compliant version to revert to; see § Summary deletion, creation prevention, and courtesy blanking, below...Creation of such pages, especially when repeated or in bad faith, is grounds for immediate blocking.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleisthenes2 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned and NPOVN, there seems to be major WP:outing concerns with what User:Cleisthenes2 posted above. I don't see where Stuartyeates ever linked a Twitter account on Wikipedia. I'm not redacting the discussion because it's already been on NPOVN for a while but it's not clear this is something can be dealt with on wiki. Nil Einne (talk) 08:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne, the User:Stuartyeates page has "Authority control" links at the bottom, including something called ORCID. Would that cover the outing-question? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Stuartyeates made this edit to his user page linking to Twitter but I don't know if it is relevant. Thincat (talk) 08:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Yeates links directly to his Twitter on his editor's page on Wikipedia, so there's no outing concern. I would be interested in how Nil Einne and others would address the ways in which Yeates has apparently strayed from Wikipedia's stated policies (e.g. on not creating negatively-loaded BLPs), as well as my concerns about his stated intention of creating a number of new articles in order to damage reputation (for more details, see above). As I say, my interest isn't necessarily to impugn any of Yeates' other work on Wikipedia, only to raise an urgent concern about his BLPs of those involved in the Listener letter on science controversy, where Yeates appears to have lost his cool. I think he thinks creating biased entires on these scholars serves a good purpose (anti-racism); I'm just not sure believing your cause is just means you don't have to follow Wikipedia's policies. Many thanks. Cleisthenes2 (talk) 08:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Thincat, and Cleisthenes2: If Stuartyeates has linked their Twitter form Wikipedia, then that removes outing concerns. I'm not sure why someone didn't just demonstrate this earlier rather than talk about nonsense like the similarity of the account names, the fact that the Twitter account said they edited an article and the Stuartyeates account Wikipedia did so etc. These details are irrelevant when it comes to outing concerns. As I said both at NPOVN, if you cannot discuss something on Wikipedia due to outing concerns you need to take it to arbcom not here. To use Cleisthenes2 own words "I'm just not sure believing your cause is just means you don't have to follow Wikipedia's policies". You need to follow our outing policy no matter your cause. If you haven't established we can talk about something on wiki then don't talk about it on wiki, take it to arbcom. Now that it's been established we can talk about it then we can, but this should have happened before posting links etc. Nil Einne (talk) 09:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In his introduction at the start of this discussion,User:Stuartyeates says "A single diff has been held up as evidence (the creation-edit of Garth Cooper), which I maintain reflected the secondary sources on the subject I found when I created the article".

As I mentioned in an earlier post before the discussion was moved here, Stuartyeates created BLPs for six of the seven academics who signed the Listener letter (the seventh signatory already had a WP article about them). Five were created in a single day and the remaining one the following day.

The page creations all differ in very minor specifics relating to the individuals' academic positions etc., but all are as lopsided as the Garth Cooper page creation example that I linked to and all but one include exactly the same text. (The text of the final one listed below differed from the others when it was created.) For the record, they are:

• Kendall Clements
• Doug Elliffe
• Robert Nola
• John Werry
• Elizabeth Rata. (Stuartyeates subsequently readded some of his material with this edit when it had been trimmed down.)
  

Note that in the case of John Werry, the fact that he was appointed a Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit in 2009 for services to child and adolescent psychiatry was not included in the page creation or added later by Stuartyeates. I believe that this is a significant and publicly available piece of information that any genuine and well-intentioned BLP should have included, and that its omission is telling.

I haven't looked closely at all of the BLPs, but see that Stuartyeates's page creations similarly failed to mention that Cooper and Nola were both Fellows of the Royal Society of New Zealand Te Apārangi at the time, a considerable honour which should have been mentioned in a legitimate BLP.

Addressing the Twitter issue, Stuartyeates hasn't denied using the racial slur "turnip slapper" to describe some of those he had just created BLPs about. In the same tweet he said he would soon be creating BLP articles about the others involved in the Listener affair. By referring to Wikipedia and those new articles in his tweets Stuartyeates has brought his off-Wiki behaviour to this site. JezGrove (talk) 11:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"By referring to Wikipedia and those new articles in his tweets Stuartyeates has brought his off-Wiki behaviour to this site". Exactly. More specifically, off-Wiki behaviour that made it entirely clear that Stuartyeates was creating biographies about living individuals (prominent academics) for the sole purpose of including material which cast said individuals in a negative light. While I'm not naïve enough to believe that biographies aren't created for such purposes on occasion, to do so in such a systematic manner, and then announce proudly on Twitter that it had been done, while referring to said academics in derogatory terms, can only harm the reputation of Wikipedia, as well as that of the contributor concerned.

The topic of discussion here then needs to be what has to be done to ensure that further blatant violations of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policies are prevented. If this were a new contributor, I have little doubt that an immediate block would be the outcome for such behaviour. And even for more experienced contributors, blocks and topic bans aren't rare, even when the individual concerned has acknowledged that their behaviour was inappropriate. If there is any good reason why such an outcome should not be the result here, I can't in all good faith think of it. At absolute minimum, before anything else is decided, we need to see an acknowledgement from Stuartyeates that such behaviour was inappropriate, and a commitment that it will not recur. Failing that, Wikipedia will have little option but to ensure that Stuartyeates is prevented from doing so. Attack biographies do not belong anywhere on Wikipedia, and long-standing contributors who appear to think otherwise, and then boast about their activities on social media, do not deserve immunity from sanctions that would have been applied without question to others. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I share the concern by other editors that some of the articles created by Stuartyeates violate our WP:NPOV policies. Not only that, some of those veer way too close into attack page territory, with the majority of some of these articles being about the signed letter and its reactions by society. Had the articles not been improved, they sould've been deleted. If Stuartyeates is unable to see why other editors are worried about those creations, and their vow (outside Wikipedia) to create articles just to highlight those people as racist, then a topic ban should be in order. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 12:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see how the community has any option other than to topic ban Stuartyeates. They have publically stated a personal mission contrary to Wikipedia's mission. There is no going back from there.Slywriter (talk) 13:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we've established we can talking about this without OUTING, IMO Stuartyeates needs to completely stay away from those articles. I have not inspected if those articles are biased as I think it doesn't matter. While editors often have personal views of subjects that they've expressed and we allow that, they shouldn't create articles in part because they feel we need to mention something negative. And Stuartyeates tweets gives the perception this is what they did. which means their involvement in them has troubling implications. Even if those articles were perfect I'd say the same. Heck even if Stuartyeates ended up not including the material I'd still think it's problematic for them to be involved. Nil Einne (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:BLP: Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, with the key word being and. If the article subjects are notable to the point of meriting an enWiki page, and if they are not attack pages per se, and if the pages' content is supported by reliable, independent, secondary sources (i.e., the articles are likely to be retained and, hopefully, expanded over time), then calls for the articles' creator to be banned/blocked seem wholly punitive and disproportionate. Inappropriately crowing off-Wiki about their suspect motivations certainly merits a warning, and it also requires an explicit commitment from the editor to not repeat that behavior. But a ban or block as the initial sanction? No. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How can multiple biographies created "just so I can include that fact that they're this racist", each consisting almost entirely of the same content, not be attack pages? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. And apart from the totally disingenuous "A single diff has been held up as evidence (the creation-edit of Garth Cooper), which I maintain reflected the secondary sources on the subject I found when I created the article" remark in his introduction to this discussion I have seen nothing from the contributor involved to explain or defend their position in creating the series of connected BLP articles involved. JezGrove (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The relevant policy here is Wikipedia:Attack page, not the short summary in the BLP page that only discusses poorly sourced BLPs. These pages are textbook examples of articles that were created to disparage or threaten its subject, the comments on twitter make that clear. Stuartyeates needs a topic ban from BLPs at a minimum 192.76.8.70 (talk) 16:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't get how anyone can defend this. "Looks like I'm on a roll writing @wikipedia biographies of kiwi villains ... Which other kiwi villains should I write about?", and on the same day, I'm finding at least five new BLPs: [182] [183] [184] [185] [186]. Each of these is a cookie-cutter attack page, completely WP:UNDUE in its coverage. Just look at them! Now this was September 2021, but it makes the recent tweet, "You know, some of those folks will be getting their own stub wikipedia biographies, just so I can include that fact that they're this racist" demonstrate that this problem is ongoing. Barring some assurances from Stuart, it's time for a BLP TBAN. We do not use Wikipedia to write attack BLPs, even if the LPs deserve it. This is the core of WP:BLP. What Stuart has done is the worst thing an editor can do: use their editing privileges, and this giant Wikipedia microphone, to attack another living person. Levivich 16:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW I just looked at the ~six articles Stuart has created since creating the five problematic ones I linked above [187] and I don't see the problem repeated, which is good. I'm still looking for assurance, in light of the tweet from a couple of days ago, that this won't happen again. Levivich 16:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Mass-creating articles about all the individuals involved in a controversy and copy pasting the exact same ~250 word boiler plate criticism of the controversy on each of their articles, with the self-professed motivation that he creates these pages just so I can include that fact that they're this racist, is unacceptable. I don't think we can move forward from this without a topic ban from BLPs at the least. Endwise (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from non-admin: This may not be obvious to editors outside NZ, but "turnip slapper" is not a racial slur. Its difficult to take anyone who claims it is a slur seriously. -- haminoon (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to say that by editing under my own name and tying my wiki identity to my real-world identity I have exposed myself to a level of scrutiny that I had not anticipated. No one else in this discussion appears to be open to the same level of scrutiny. This certainly feels like I'm being held to a higher standard than everyone else. I apologise for the confusion caused at the start of the discussions apparently caused by by my hiding of information on my user page. Is there a better place to put this information? User:Cleisthenes2 has said, without evidence, "[For the uninitiated, "turnip slapper" is a racist slur for a white or non-Māori New Zealander.]" This is not true. (a) A racist slur is a derogatory term applied by a relatively advantaged person/group to a relatively disadvantaged person/group. Pākehā / white New Zealanders occupy the relatively advantaged position so this cannot be a racial slur. (b) I'm a Pākehā and I use the term to include both myself and other Pākehā, as evidenced by the tweet "Us turnip slappers also need to get better at slapping other turnips when they need slapping..." https://twitter.com/stuartayeates/status/1440418741750145026 When writing the biography I was unaware that Garth Cooper was of Māori descent. His university profile doesn't appear to make mention of it and this article https://www.nzcpr.com/maori-professor-under-investigation-for-views-on-matauranga-maori/ was published months after I published the draft. The template I use for writing these User:Stuartyeates/sandbox/academicbio, assumes the subject is Māori and I would have included that info if I have been aware of it. The articles I wrote reflected secondary sources I found at the time. They were balanced, neutrally worded and well sourced. As pointed out above, they don't rise to the level of WP:Attack pages. I didn't edit war (though there has been some robust back-and-forth on related Elizabeth Rata article). This is 100% my off wiki behaviour that I'm (potentially) being censored for. I note that my primary accuser here has greatly reduced coverage of these issues (whitewashed even) in these biographies when they have previously been sanctioned for whitewashing in relation to twitter. SeeWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1006#User:Cleisthenes2_and_Toby_Young_-_topic_ban. Not sure whether there's a connection there. If not banned I undertake not to write BLPs whose coverage in secondary sources / notability is primarily or wholly negative, (including racism / anti-racism work, broadly construed). If not banned I undertake not to talk about / plan BLP creations on social media. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• For now, I just want to clarify that I didn't say anything about the phrase 'turnip slapper.' That was JezGrove. I'd never seen that term before, so I can't really say if it's racist or not, although Yeates' argument that it can't be racist as it's used of white people doesn't seem right to me (and in any case, as a user below points out, it's out of line with Wikipedia policy). Cleisthenes2 (talk) 04:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Virtue signalling + deflection = bullshit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• C'mon, you literally threatened, publicly on Twitter, to use Wikipedia to label 70+ people, fellows of the NZ Royal Society, as racist. And you're surprised at getting a reaction? The problem isn't primarily announcing your intentions, the problem is the intentions!

  I gather you were once paid by the Royal Society to write articles about NZ scientists, and this is part of how you developed a record and credibility at the site. Then you wield that authority against people who have day jobs & and don't have time to sit around editing Wikipedia in order to defend themselves or their colleagues?

  Note: I am a white New Zealander. I think "racist" is a bigger slur on someone's character than "turnip slapper", but, yes, "turnip slapper" (a) refers to white people and (b) is easily read as insulting. It's basically saying "dumb uneducated rural person/farmer" (to use the most polite translation I could think of). It's therefore racist. But, seeing a white guy deploy some hierarchy-of-privilege argument about who can be racist to whom in order to defend himself from the accusation of using a racist slur is an interesting tactic I hadn't seen before. 222.153.123.28 (talk) 03:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have never been paid by the RSNZ to write for wikipedia; if I had, I would have had to do the COI processes, which I haven't. Despite the text of one of the tweets it was never my intention to use the word 'racist' in any of the putative biographies; BLP requires neutral wording on wikipedia. "Turnip slapper" is a folk etymology of the word Pākehā, until I read what you wrote above I didn't know it had a farming connotation. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:34, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Meetup/Wellington/Women in Science appears to be the event being alluded to above. I received no funding for this event, was not involved in the organisation or spending of any money; I just turned up and helped people on the day. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:44, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't know whether turnip slapper is a slur or not, but A racist slur is a derogatory term applied by a relatively advantaged person/group to a relatively disadvantaged person/group. Pākehā / white New Zealanders occupy the relatively advantaged position so this cannot be a racial slur is problematic, and out of line with Wikipedia WP:NPA policy which makes no distinction about whether an individual or group is relatively advantaged or disadvantaged. Whatever the result of this discussion is I hope that Stuartyeates will agree that racial slurs are unacceptable regardless of the target, and commit to not using them in the future. BilledMammal (talk) 03:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a fairly dopey translation of "pākehā" (see also pākehā), first alluded to by John Liddiard Nicholas in the early 19th century is his account of accompanying Samuel Marsden, albeit that Nicholas merely compared it to the word for turnip rather than saying that that was what it meant. (Smith 2020, p. 17) Do not expect Wikipedia to explain any of this. Uncle G (talk) 05:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Smith, Ian (2020). Pākehā Settlements in a Māori World: New Zealand Archaeology 1769–1860. Bridget Williams Books. ISBN 9780947492496.
    • Jones, Jenny Robin (2004). "Three Men in a Boat: John Nicholas, Samuel Marsden, & Thomas Kendall". Writers in Residence: A Journey with Pioneer New Zealand Writers. Auckland University Press. ISBN 9781869403027.

Yes, although Cleisthenes2 first (and accurately) quoted Stuartyeates's tweet 'Here is a series tentatively entitled "Slapping Auckland Turnips"' it was myself who attempted to explain the term "turnip slapper" to those unfamiliar with it. Since Stuartyeates admits it can only be applied to white New Zealanders and given that it is used in a derogatory way it certainly sounds like a racial slur to me. His "white privilege" defence that you can't be racist about white people is both itself racist (since it attributes a characteristic to people purely on the basis of their race) and an insult to the intelligence.

Contrary to what he claims, Stuartyeates is not "being held to a higher standard than everyone else", he is simply being held to account for his own behaviour on Wikipedia. He also claims that "it is 100% my off wiki behaviour that I'm (potentially) being censored for"; again, not true. But his off-Wiki behaviour certainly shed a useful light on what he was doing at Wikipedia. If he never tweeted again that still wouldn't make his editing of BLPs acceptable, because absolutely nothing he has written here explains how he justifies his belief that the BLP articles at issue "were balanced, neutrally worded and well sourced", which is the problem that needs addressing:

Why, if his intention was to create balanced and neutral biographies, did he omit honours such as Werry's 2009 appointment as a Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit and Nola and Cooper's Fellowships of the Royal Society of New Zealand Te Apārangi from their respective BLPs?

The BLP articles were hugely unbalanced. They included a brief description (one sentence in the leads and another in the main text) of the subjects' academic positions etc. and the overwhelming remainder of the articles discussed a single open letter that they had co-signed. This latter part quoted at length from critics of the Listener letter, but not at all from the one source he cited supporting them. (Indeed, he devoted a single perfunctory sentence to any support for the subjects.)

Unless and until he acknowledges this particularly troubling aspect I don't see how he can be allowed to create or edit BLP pages. To be crystal clear, it is the creation of the unbalanced BLP articles that I strongly believe he should be sanctioned for; his tweets are relevant simply because they serve as a perfect illustration of his motivation in doing so.

If/when sanctions are decided it is important to remember that Stuartyeates also has other Wikipedia accounts. JezGrove (talk) 13:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Three month topic ban from BLP

I propose a three-month topic ban to protect Wikipedia. Whether this is a literal violation of policy or not, it is harmful to Wikipedia's mission, and threatens the neutrality of the encyclopedia. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think there is really much room for doubt that WP:BLP policy was violated. I'd go further and suggest that a topic ban is more or less essential unless and until Stuartyeates acknowledges that such behaviour was improper. The problem won't go away after three months, it will go away when it becomes clear that Stuartyeates won't act in a similar manner again - any topic ban should be indefinite, with its lifting contingent on an appropriate appeal, based solely on a commitment to abide by policy in future. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Insufficient - the topic ban should be indefinite. These were flat out attack pages - articles on academics that contained next to no information on their academic work, had a massive undue focus on recent controversies and per the comments on twitter were deliberately created to try to portray people as racists. I don't see an editor of 17+ years changing their behaviour on the back of a 3 month ban. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 16:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• opppose 3 month ban, strong support indefinite BLP ban solely because this should be an indefinite BLP ban (honestly, a site ban is preferable given the WP:POINTY and highly inappropriate editing by Stuart.) CUPIDICAE💕 16:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I'd also change this to an indefinite site ban given their behavior. Grudge editing like this, where they've made their intent clear on and off-wiki to smear BLPs [188] is reprehensible and not conducive to a collaborative environment or creating an encyclopedia. CUPIDICAE💕 17:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 3 month ban or longer - I've got no experience from which to judge what the eventual decision here should be. Is there any even remotely similar occurrence that serves as a precedent? In the absence of any acknowledgment of contrition from Stuartyeates I struggle to see how anything short of a total ban on creating or editing BLP articles will have any effect whatsoever, though. And even then there would be serious problems relating to the sincerity expressed, given that any such acknowledgment could have been offered at an earlier stage in this entirely dismal saga. The initial deflection of claiming that "A single diff has been held up as evidence" in full knowledge of the other almost identical BLP articles they had created (and publicly gloated about) on the same day suggests that this contributor has no shame. JezGrove (talk) 17:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Opppose as disproportionate punishment, assuming that the editor unambiguously admits to their mistake, affirms that said mistake will not be repeated, and takes both of those actions soon. @Stuartyeates:: if you fail to respond appropriately, this oppose !vote is likely to be changed to a support. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • JoJo Anthrax this tweet by the editor in question (from yesterday!) should give you an indication what they're intentions actually are. CUPIDICAE💕 17:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indefinite topic ban from BLPs Three-months is insufficient, given that Stuartyeates has failed to acknowledge that what they did was wrong. The ban should apply to all accounts operated by this person (noting that their user page says they "own multiple Wikipedia accounts in a manner permitted by policy") and those accounts should be revealed to ensure compliance with the ban. Their actions in using Wikipedia to attack individuals were wrong. They've had time to acknowledge that and haven't. Schazjmd (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Anyone have any evidence of problematic behavior other than this very specific issue? Stuart's been around here for a while -- is there any other cause for some of the severe actions floated above? I think we should be content if he just expresses understanding that it was really bad judgment and pledges to voluntarily stay away from any BLPs related to the subject. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is why I proposed a time-limited topic ban. Get away from the current event that triggered their current actions and let them then demonstrate that a lesson was learned, and in the meantime allow them to contribute in other ways to Wikipedia. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: it is my understanding that an indefinite ban is for an unknown amount of time. It may be lifed after 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, etc, depending on the circumstances. --Spekkios (talk) 21:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Indefinite does not mean infinite", as they say. Editors are usually recommended to follow the instructions at WP:STANDARDOFFER when considering to appeal their block or ban. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 23:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support three-month topic ban Support indef BLP ban - seems to be no sign of an apology, an explanation or even any acknowledgement of inappropriate behaviour. Quite unpleasant. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have adjusted my !vote in response to what others have written here. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indefinite topic ban from living New Zealand academics or anybody to with the controversy, broadly construed Yeates's conduct on Twitter brings Wikipedia into disrepute. Given that they have displayed zero contrition for this behaviour or understanding why creating attack BLPs is wrong, I don't think that there is any reason to make the ban temporary. Temporary bans are just kicking the can down the road if the user doesn't fundamentally understand why what they were doing was wrong, as many admins at AE have come to conclude. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indefinite topic ban from living New Zealand academics or anybody to with the controversy, broadly construed I should note first that I was the one who raised the original concern about User:Stuartyeates's public pronouncements, so others are welcome to take that into account as they see fit. My intention in raising this wasn't to cancel Yeates or to get him kicked off Wikipedia. It was to make sure he didn't do what he said he intended to do, and create negatively-loaded entries on even more NZ academics involved in the Listener letter on science controversy. Whether he's violated Wikipedia policies or shown bad faith to a sufficient extent to merit harsher measures I'll leave it to more experienced editors to work out. He seems to have done good work on other sections of Wikipedia and I see no evidence that he won't be able to contribute positively outside of this topic in the future. When it comes to the topic of the Listener letter, though, and perhaps to NZ academics in general, he does seem to have a particular axe to grind, to an extent that he's no longer able to restrain himself from writing negatively-loaded BLPs with the declared intent of harming reputations. So, I would support preventing him from editing BLPs of NZ academics, especially those involved with the Listener controversy (which, at this stage, is a lot of NZ academics, since it's become a major debate among academics in NZ). Cleisthenes2 (talk) 06:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support three-month or longer topic ban. Skyerise (talk) 22:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indef ban from BLPs Its up to Stuart to demonstrate why he should be allowed to edit BLP's again. Not us to assume that in 3 months time his attitude has changed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Indef ban from BLPs & Weak support Site ban The fact they have yet to respond on this thread but felt Twitter was appropriate outlet to make light of the situation brings into question whether they have the temperament to edit here at all but at minimum they can not be allowed near BLPs while a cloud hangs over their motivations and as a ban is preventative, not punitive, they need to convince the community that such trust can be restored down the road.Slywriter (talk) 23:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Slywriter: am I missing something? AFAICT, Stuartyeates hasn't done anything publicly on Twitter for over 16 hours which was a retweet of this [189]. Please note that this thread only really blew up in the very early morning NZ time, indeed by the time of JezGrove's comment "In his introduction at the start of this discussion" it was already 2320 NZ time. It's currently 1318 so Stuartyeates may be at work or otherwise lack the time to deal with this since it blew up. Note that this [190] was posted over 30 hours ago, well before this thread was started by Stuartyeates. It concerned the NPOVN discussion which was frankly a mess with no one even establishing that Stuartyeates had linked their Twitter account until after this ANI AFAICT. I mean if you want to blame Stuartyeates for not responding adequately to the NPOVN whatever, I don't want to get in to that. But blaming Stuartyeates for not responding yet to this ANI they started seems to be some combination of blaming them for not living on Wikipedia, and blaming them for living in NZ and keeping normal hours (unlike me). Nil Einne (talk) 01:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nil Einne,I did indeed misread timestamp and which noticeboard was referred to in the tweet, though disdain for the NPOV thread isn't much better. I've stricken the weak support for site ban pending their response, my views on a BLP ban remain unchanged.Slywriter (talk) 02:08, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indef ban from BLPs - this user's deliberate attempt to create what are in effect attack pages are absolutely unacceptable. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 23:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose topic ban from all BLPs The problematic article creation appears to have been highly focused on a topic which is mostly in the rear-view mirror. A topic ban from all BLPs would be punitive, not preventative. They've stated If not banned I undertake not to write BLPs whose coverage in secondary sources / notability is primarily or wholly negative, which is a voluntary commitment to avoid a broader area than even has been found to be problematic. XOR'easter (talk) 05:19, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  N.B. The quote in green is from an edit time-stamped 02:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC), which is after all of the bolded !votes above. XOR'easter (talk) 05:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The quote above in no shape or form actually amounts to an admission that Stuartyeates did anything wrong. To the contrary, it appears to be trying to justify his behaviour, by implying that the academics featured in the biographies concerned met Wikipedia notability criteria for 'negative' reasons. Something that Stuartyeates, as someone who has created many biographies of academics knows to be false. The individuals concerned met Wikipedia:Notability (academics) criteria, did so prior to the letter incident, and would have fully merited the same sort of careful, balanced coverage that Stuartyeates seems to have put into other biographies. A balanced coverage that by his own public statements involves taking time to do proper research, rather than churning out 'biographies' in a couple of hours each, consisting of nothing but the briefest summary of the individuals actual notable academic work entirely dwarfed by the boiler-plate material placed to draw attention to individuals alleged 'racism'. The biographies were created to cast the individuals in a bad light. They were grossly unbalanced. They should not have appeared on Wikipedia in the form they were in. Unless and until Stuartyeates is prepared to admit that creating such negatively-motivated 'biographies' is a violation of Wikipedia policy, and a violation of trust put in someone who seems to have done much genuine good work on coverage of academia, it is my opinion that he should not be permitted to make further edits concerning biographies of living persons. Whether others who made similar suggestions above still hold the same opinions, after reading Stuartyeates' statement is for them to say - but what they wrote cannot simply dismissed because Stuartyeates has made an equivocal statement that fails to address the issues raised in any proper manner. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that several biographies were created in a bad state, and with a motivation that crossed a line. (I don't think that "I created this article to tell the world that so-and-so is racist" is necessarily a bad act; sometimes, what makes a person notable is that sources of indisputable reliability document them being a huge racist. That's not the case here, per your point about WP:PROF.) What I'm failing to see is the step from "they shouldn't create articles about New Zealand academics involved in one recent dispute" to "they should never edit any BLP of anyone, New Zealander or not, academic or not, embroiled in a controversy or not". The former seems pretty well justified; the latter still strikes me as punitive. No adding categories about where someone graduated from university [191]? No tagging deadlinks [192]? No trimming CV-spam [193]? Maybe I'm being a total milksop here, but I'm OK with that being my reputation. XOR'easter (talk) 18:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Indefinite' doesn't mean 'never'. It means (in this case) 'not until you acknowledge that WP:BLP policy applies, and that editing to score political points in such a manner is entirely inappropriate'. If Stuartyeates is unwilling to make such an acknowledgement, it is unfortunate, but given the centrality of WP:BLP policy, I simply don't see how we can just act as if there is no longer an issue. There very much is one - a major contributor to articles who refuses to concede that policy applies to them. As I noted in this thread some time earlier, if this was a new contributor, they'd likely have been blocked immediately. Contributors with significant experience have been subject to similar broad topic bans before, and for similar reasons. The problem isn't just with specific edits. It is with a refusal to accept that he was in the wrong, or with a fundamental misunderstanding of core policies. Either of which is more than adequate grounds for a general topic ban. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed the articles that set this off, I didn't see a failure to recognize that WP:BLP applies, but rather, poor judgment as to what sources are suitable and how much weight to give a topic within an article; in other words, they were a motivated attempt to create pages that would follow the letter of WP:BLP but failed to do so. Most of the sources in the boilerplate text being called "attack page" material would be acceptable in principle (there's a Google Doc that fails WP:UGC). Indeed, Listener letter on science controversy preserves them. The opinions are properly attributed. The wording is "neutral" in the sense of fairly summarizing the sources cited. It reads like effort was made to present the various opinions responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone (WP:BLPBALANCE). The problem is piling them all together without regard for the rest of the material that such biographies ought to contain (thus imbalancing them) and repeating this across multiple biographies. I don't see a "fundamental misunderstanding of core policies", but an attempt to get one's way within the lines of those policies, driven by a topic-specific axe to grind. Problematic without doubt, but a different problem. Call it topical WP:BLP gamesmanship, perhaps. I'm not a fan of it, to say the least, but I think any ban imposed for it ought to be targeted. XOR'easter (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The ban proposed is targeted. It is aimed directly at preventing a contributor who has (in Levivich's words below) been "weaponizing Wikipedia" from doing so again. Given Stuartyeates refusal to admit wrongdoing, this targeting is entirely appropriate, since we don't know where such weapons might otherwise be aimed in future. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic, why limit the ban to BLPs? That sounds like an indef siteban argument to me; if we assume that an editor is willing to "weaponize Wikipedia", surely they'd weaponize any part of it.

As usual when I drop by ANI, I am genuinely failing to follow the connection between the observed behavior and the proposed response. And as usual, I can tell I'm going to be in the extreme minority here, so I'll stop now. XOR'easter (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Misery loves company, I suppose! JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC) [reply]

FWIW, my reasons for favoring an indef BLP TBAN and not a siteban in this situation are: the potential harm for BLPs is greater, and harder to reverse, than for non-BLP articles; it's been like six months since the attack BLPs were created; Stuart brought themself to ANI, for which some credit should be given; an otherwise spotless record; donated a ton of time to the project over many years; and, a TBAN gives Stuart the opportunity to go edit elsewhere for a while, reconsider this issue, and then ask for the TBAN to be lifted, which I think (and hope) is the likely outcome here. Levivich 21:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies of living people need to be written with care and with upmost compliance to all content policies because they have the potential to cause serious harm to their subjects - for most people their Wikipedia page will be the first result in search engines and will be scraped across the entire internet. Stuartyeates has shown that they are willing to abuse Wikipedia to write attack pages on people they dislike, so I no longer have confidence in their ability to edit BLPs. Their response here is completely inadequate and to my eyes reads like they don't actually understand what they did wrong - they are making ridiculous points like "it's not fair that I got caught on twitter, if I hadn't used the my real name here no-one would have noticed the attack pages I was writing" and are still insisting that there was nothing wrong with pages they were writing, as if an article on an academic where their entire academic career is condensed to a single line and 80% of the article text is a rant about them signing a letter is a fair and balanced representation of their career. Since Stuartyeates doesn't actually seem to have made any acknowledgement of wrongdoing here I have no confidence that they understand their mistakes and won't repeat them in the future. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support indef BLP ban because Stuart's response does not assure me that he understands BLP or NPOV policy, so I don't trust him to self-police, as I don't think he gets what he did wrong here. Just today he wrote, The articles I wrote reflected secondary sources I found at the time. They were balanced, neutrally worded and well sourced. As pointed out above, they don't rise to the level of WP:Attack pages. That's alarming to me, because those articles were very obviously not balanced or neutral. In addition, given the very recent public announcement of an intention to violate BLP and NPOV policy, I want to assure the rest of the world that no, this editor will not be writing anyone's biography on Wikipedia. I meant what I said that using Wikipedia to attack another person is the worst thing an editor can do editing-wise. Using Wikipedia as a tool to attack others can accurately be described as "weaponizing Wikipedia". The public, our readers, need to have absolute trust in us that we take this seriously and that we can, and will, act to stop and prevent it. Levivich 14:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indef BLP ban Only in death says it perfectly above. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 19:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indef BLP ban, like with GeoSwan before, and Tenebrae before that; I take a very dim view of using our pages/processes to attack and harass people. This is contrary to the spirit of a collaborative encyclopedia. Jip Orlando (talk) 14:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indef BLP ban, much for the the reasons as Levivich above. Wikipedia should not be used as a tool to attack living people you have a disagreement with, and their responses to the concerns that have been raised by the community do not inspire much confidence in me. Endwise (talk) 17:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indef BLP ban. I thought these were pretty blatant attack pages even without knowing the creator had made his intentions explicit on twitter. JoelleJay (talk) 03:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indefinite ban from BLPs, broadly construed: Delibrate creation of pages for the sole purpose of attacking their subject for whatever reason is unacceptable. They clearly intend to continue to do so, and refuse to admit that there is an issue with doing so. Unacceptable. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This morning, I asked Dicklyon about a series of useless cosmetic edits he made which filled up watchlists for no benefit to our readers at all[205]. His reply boiled down to "you can hide minor edits", which is not helpful as many of us don't want to do this (as many errors and vandalism are hidden behind "minor edits as well"). He then started on another run of decapitalization edits, which included errors, turning blue links into redlinks[206][207]: when this was pointed out, Dicklyon simply restarted the changes which I objected against in the morning, making more utterly pointless, semi-automated edits[208][209].

This is the umpteenth time they have been told to be more careful, to listen to onjections, to follow policies, ... all to no avail. Can we please just topic ban them from either using semi-automated tools, and/or from capitalization changes? Fram (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The listing Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations had been pointed out to me by wbm1058 as a more productive target for my JWB-based case fixing, so when Habsburg Monarchy got moved creating thousands of miscapitalized links that would show up there, I decided to fix it preemptively. I've also worked through a lot of others on that list without issue (though less concentrated to one editor's watchlist I admit). I'll hold off on such work if it's deemed too useless. Dicklyon (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you instead commit to holding off on such work until it's deemed useful? Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 15:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the "Test Match" fixes, there were only a few dozen, and I had noticed and avoided Test Match Special in most, but yes I agree I was not careful enough. I promptly fixed them all after the error was noted. Dicklyon (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...an error which wouldn't have been seen if your previous advice to "hide minor edits" was followed of course. Fram (talk) 15:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't we have a general guideline that if there are tasks that are doable by both and large enough in scale that they should be left to be done by a bot? If there was only 20 or 50 such fixes I can see this being done by an editor. But higher counts should be left to bots. --Masem (t) 15:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of a guideline, but I'd be happy to have bot help when there are more than a few hundred edits needed. However, at WP:Bots/Requests for approval/DoggoBot 5, where 16,000+ edits were needed, I got slow-walked and pushback of the form "why is Dicklyon asking for bot help instead of just doing this himself?" So I did; I got into efficient bot-like clicking and did all of those with zero complaints (except a few redlinks caused by not also moving redirects back at WP:Bots/Requests for approval/TolBot 13A, which we're now trying to get fixed by bot at WP:RFBA#TolBot 13B since I can't do creations or moves with JWB). Dicklyon (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think 500 edits in 12 minutes is the very definition of a meatbot. Fram (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those link updates were completely safe, so could be done quickly with bot-like clicking (unlike the Test Match fixes which I did more slowly and still made a few mistakes on). I accept your complaint that many of them had no effect at the level of the reader, due to piping, so maybe the link fixing to avoid redirect through a miscapitalization should just not have been done. But don't mix that up with how quickly and efficiently I did them. Dicklyon (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at just one of the many edits that flooded my watchlist, surely this is a violation of WP:NOTBROKEN? I can understand edits such as this more which affect the displayed text, but the Battle of Rocroi edit doesn't change the visual text in any way. FDW777 (talk) 17:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's Fram's exact point, which I have acknowledged. However, though they don't change the displayed text, the edits are not completely pointless. The point is to avoid redirecting through a miscapitalization, to get the complaint count down at Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations. I acknowledge the harm to your watchlist display, but that's the only harm in these edits. Dicklyon (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be suggesting that reducing a software-created 'complaint count' that almost nobody seems to be aware of [210] is more important than the time wasted through actual contributors having to look at invisible changes in article space. I've got to say that I don't think such arguments are very convincing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One of User:wbm1058's complaints was that nobody but him seemed to be aware of that list of errors. He asked me to help, so I've been doing that. I make no judgement, and express no opinion, about which kinds of contributions are more important. Dicklyon (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's only showing up in that list of errors because you tagged links to it as an error [211], a tag that is completely incorrect anyway since "Not in Wikipedia's style for article titles" is NOT the same thing as a miscapitalisation error. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dicklyon: I'm not sure how feasible it's going to be to get that page to zero entries. rcats aren't this black-and-white thing, and I personally think you mistagged Habsburg Monarchy when you added {{R from miscapitalisation}} to it. That's very clearly a {{R from other capitalisation}} kind of deal (which I went ahead and corrected). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wait.. you actually reverted me. "Habsburg Monarchy" is in no way incorrect just because "Habsburg monarchy" is preferred (Habsburg Monarchy is literally a proper noun, and a differing style guide would say it's fine to write out. Also, literally the article Habsburg monarchy literally leads with Habsburg Monarchy... is a modern umbrella term coined by contemporary historians...

You are misusing the the rcat system right now by claiming that this is a miscapitalization (something that literally unnecessarily adds to the database report you are claiming to care about). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What I care about is the over-capitalization, not the database report (though the main purpose of the revert was to get it to show up on the report so I could illustrate that). If the RM consensus is that WP uses lowercase, doesn't that make it an error to use uppercase on WP? Dicklyon (talk) 00:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm wrong, then probably most of the others in that report are also wrong and don't belong in a list of things inviting fixes. Other than RM discussions, I don't know of any mechanism for deciding what capitalizations are wrong for WP, and I'm guessing that's how most of those got labeled as such. Dicklyon (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure this is an actionable complaint. Fixing linked miscapitalizations isn't a high priority, but it is a worthwhile task. We shouldn't tolerate errors in our articles, no matter how minor. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The miscapitalisations were invisible to readers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They're not invisible -- they're visible if you hovered over the link. And we should not tolerate errors in our page source, either. There's a reason we fix Linter errors, even though they often don't have an impact on the displayed page. Tolerating errors is bad practice. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They're not invisible -- they're visible if you hovered over the link. works fine for me, but regardless, wouldn't this happen for any example of WP:NOTBROKEN links? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTBROKEN includes this advice: "Good reasons to bypass redirects include: ... Spelling errors and other mistakes should be corrected." Dicklyon (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative capitalisation, one which until very recently was the actual article title (and also occasionally appears in sources) is neither a spelling error or a mistake; even if it is not the preferred option according to Wikipedia style guidelines. Fixing this non-problem, at a rate of 100s of edits an hour, is a disruptive exercise in time-wasting. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my comment, I'm referring only to this diff, which you seem to have acknowledged. Those are WP:NOTBROKEN issues, but I'm assuming that is script error. The rest, which result in visible changes to the page output, are not WP:NOTBROKEN issues (and I'm making no comment on those). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, not 'script error', the hundreds of WP:NOTBROKEN violations (the ones with a piped link) were deliberate. Fram (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment)To open an ANI over this matter seems petty to me. Dicklyon is a reliable and well-respected user who contributes invaluably to this site. I understand some mistakes were made like in regards to test match, but does this warrant an ANI? We all make mistakes some times, but Dicklyon is constantly contributing valuable material and to frame this as "User and his pointless work" seems unnecessary. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Dicklyon is adept at creating busywork. So he pitches up at Habsburg Monarchy instigates a page move to “correct” the title which then creates a “miscapitalization” in redirects … only solvable by Dicklyon saving the day by dozens of corrective edits to those links to the self same article. What a waste of time. DeCausa (talk) 17:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmm. How long ago was that whole WP:JR deal? Exact same thing. In all fairness, go check out WP:MAW sometime and you'll see editors who specialize in polluting watchlists in like fashion but have orders of magnitude more edits to their name. Not only do they get usually get a pass, they're even rewarded for such behavior. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 21:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of time and effort (and other people's time and effort) a few editors are willing to expend either making or complaining about these kinds of edits is mind-boggling. Like it or not, one of the groups Wikipedia attracts are the kind of people who really get into formatting, organization, and style, and spend a lot of time thinking about, finding, and fixing this stuff. On the whole, that's a good thing. Sometimes it's annoying, but for everyone else, IMO the sooner you learn to ignore or work around/with it, the happier you'll be. This is the sort of nearly pointless edit that we could devote a few hundred k of text on or just say "meh," futz with your watchlist settings a bit, and do something else. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This complaint is without merit. Dicklyon is fixing capitalization errors, which is entirely allowed. He has found an efficient way to do that by targeting the miscapitalizations list. If no one does that the list will grow. Is the list to be ignored? Is the complaint that he is too fast? Would it be better if he strung it out over an hour instead of 12 minutes? The watch list sometimes gets flooded. If it bothers you, take a break. If you miss some vandalism, don’t worry. There will always be plenty of vandalism. This discussion should be closed with an apology to Dicklyon. Constant314 (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The "errors" being "corrected" seem altogether more minor than some of the ones caused in the process. Had they been done over a hour, they might have been done more accurately. And if there are sub-tasks here that can "safely" be done at bot-like speed, why not use an (approved and flagged) bot to do so? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  As far as I know, the process being complained about (the bypassing of thousands of links through the miscapitalized redirect Habsburg Monarchy) did not create any errors. And the few errors I made with the much smaller and slower batch of "Test Match" fixes created only 6 case errors, which I fixed quickly. Let me know if I'm wrong. Dicklyon (talk) 21:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry if I didn't distinguish sufficiently clearly between the two cases. For clarity, I'm saying they're on the one hand being done needlessly and with human error, and on the other, needlessly and unapprovedly in a manner you don't even claim to be supervising. "Only six errors" isn't an especially great accuracy rate, and it's not clear to me that there's no possibility of false positives in the Habsburg Monarchy case, as opposed to merely good fortune none occurred. Or at least were detected yet. Which is kinda the point of prior discussion of full automation of such things, so as get more than one set of eyes on agreeing "yes, no possibility of error here, can be done by bot in the way described". The remedy in the former case seems to be a little more careful; and in the latter, to follow the bot policy. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Before this also becomes a 600k timesink like the last one, can I just say that if people want to help clear down lists there's nearly 24,000 articles with WP:V issues right here Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. It would likely be a better use of time than this thread, or arguing over capitalisation. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• This looks like an unambiguous violation of the bot policy (which includes WP:MEATBOT), all for a very useless edit (WP:NOTBROKEN). Since this is not the first time this has happened to Dicklyon, I would support an editing restriction from any such high speed semi-automated edits (unless prior approval has been sought and obtained as per the bot policy).
• The WP:Bot policy is there for good reasons, and if you're going at a speed of several hundreds of edits an hour (just over the first five days of April so far, Dicklyon has over 11000 edits (and then there's the whole month of March, at a similar pace: who knows how many other problematic edits have gone unnoticed?) - which, even assuming a very generous "awake 16 hours a day and only editing Wikipedia all the time", comes out to nearly 140 edits per hour - and we all know, realistically speaking, it's far faster than that) then there's not much room for wiggle room. Such large scale edits must get community consensus first, even more so if they are purely cosmetic. If they're not willing to abide by the established consensus regarding such edits, well then they shouldn't cry foul when people understandably get upset about it, and they most certainly should not ignore such complaints. This is a collaborative project, and if you're not willing to collaborate with others (which includes, occasionally, disagreeing), then it's time for a trip to the sin bin until community concerns are addressed and corrected. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Not so. I repeat what I said above, since you missed it: WP:NOTBROKEN includes this advice: "Good reasons to bypass redirects include: ... Spelling errors and other mistakes should be corrected." Dicklyon (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "Hapsburg Monarchy" is neither a spelling error nor a mistake - it's an alternative stylistic option (which happens to not be favoured by Wikipedia practice, but is entirely legitimate). And, on top of that, it's not even visible to the reader, so it's entirely inconsequential. But, even if you were right, such a large scale editing spree affecting hundreds, nay, thousands of articles should have been checked with other of your fellow editors to see if there was an issue instead of acting like you're all alone and can do whatever you want. Speak of failing to get the point. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Over-capitalization is an error with respect to WP style. It's fine elsewhere. As others point out, it's visible in mouseover tips. If people would rather these be not fixed, we should revise WP:NOTBROKEN to say something different about that. The numbers for Applied Mathematics and Valide Sultan there are much lower than they were a few days ago too; these were much more complicated and took a lot longer each due to the variation in the first word capitalization in different contexts, which is not a problem with Habsburg. Several others no in the list today were due to my efforts. Dicklyon (talk) 23:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  As for "should have been checked with other of your fellow editors", I think they have been by now, and no errors have been found. Dicklyon (talk) 23:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem is you that you're fixing a problem which is not a problem. WP:NOTBROKEN says rather explicitly that There is usually nothing wrong with linking to redirects to articles.. Whether somebody bothered to create a list of redirects from "miscapitalisations" is entirely that person's problem. Wrong capitals would be a problem if they actually appeared in article text. Given they appear in a redirect, (and given on top of that that until recently, the article was at the capitalised version!: should we change all links in other articles each time a page gets moved?), and are thus not reader-visible, this is entirely an exercise in time-wasting and in irritating your other fellow editors. To take a real-life lesson, there are lots of things you need to get prior permission before doing. Justifying after the fact with "oh, but I didn't do anything wrong" shows that you're not getting the message. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I quite agree that There is usually nothing wrong with linking to redirects to articles. But when linking through redirects with piping (or without even) when the redirect is an "error" w.r.t. to WP conventions, fixing it is OK, even recommended, per WP:NOTBROKEN, as I read it. Dicklyon (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Also note that many of these fixes DO affect the article display. Fixing only those would leave a big number listed in the report of linked miscapitalizations, so you could never have confidence in whether the job was done or not. It's better to fix them all, so the count tells you if there are more. Dicklyon (talk) 00:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Re "should we change all links in other articles each time a page gets moved?" that depends. In many cases, yes, changing incoming links is part of the normal page move cleanup process; but it's sometimes hard and complicated, so it doesn't get done. When wbm1058 pointed me at the database of linked miscapitalizations, and suggested that would be a good thing to work on, I was happy to have it as a way to identify such clusters of linking errors. Fixing the visible ones worked best if also fixing the piped ones; I understand from this discussion that some regard that as busywork that serves no useful purpose and just pollutes Fram's watchlist, so maybe I should stop that. Other seem to think it's a good thing; we should probably get to a consensus at WP:NOTBROKEN instead of flogging me about it. Dicklyon (talk) 00:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• As others have said, there are good reasons to take care and establish consensus for mass changes across a broad swathe of articles. I'd just point out that the community usually loses patience with people whose only edits are tinkering with things that have little or no effect on the reader, especially when done by the thousands, cf. Betacommand, Rich Farmbrough, and many others. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Well you're certainly not talking me then, are you? I've recently created multiple new articles, and new illustrations, and lots of other things besides this one bulk case-fix operation across a narrow set of articles. Dicklyon (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• They just need a flat out ban from all automated editing and a strict rate limit. Then when they (as will almost certainly happen) refuse to abide by it, they can join the ranks of the indef blocked editors who dont learn. We went down this road for years with editors like Rich Farmbrough, RAN etc. This is just another example. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No specific accusation, just lump me with others who had problems? Or my work quality is OK, it's just that the quantity is too large? That's not fair to me or anyone. If I've done something wrong, say so specifically. Dicklyon (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem is that the benefit of having correct capitals is much less than the harm caused by irritating good editors. Whether a particular edit is "good" or not is irrelevant. Johnuniq (talk) 23:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Got it: no such thing as a "good" edit, but Fram is a "good" editor and I'm not. Dicklyon (talk) 00:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The only real policy violation that I see alleged is that Dicklyon edits too fast, and I think it's fair to ask him to slow down. Otherwise, fixing capitalization seems to be within the realm of permissible cosmetic edits, yes? Mackensen (talk) 23:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. An editor should not be sanctioned for making proper edits merely because he is fast. Show me an actual policy that says a human correcting capitalization in a bot-like manner is a violation.
  • Per WP:MEATBOT “merely editing quickly, particularly for a short time, is not by itself disruptive.” The gist is to avoid high speed editing that causes a lot of errors. No policy violation here.
  • WP:NOTBROKEN is a guideline and not a policy. It makes no mention of miscapitalization. There is no basis to infer that NOTBROKEN applies to the correction of miscapitalization. No violation here.
  • Per WP:COSMETICBOT “this policy applies only to bots, human editors should also follow this guidance.” The editor is in violation of a should and not a policy.
  • The existence of the Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations is tacit approval to resolve items on the list.
  • Incorrect capitalization is a grammatical error, not a cosmetic error.
  • Overloaded watchlists are an irritation. Incorrect capitalization is also an irritation. Who's irritation matters more? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Constant314 (talk • contribs)

    I think WP:NOTBROKEN applies in support of what I did here. And WP:COSMETICBOT, which I just looked at, has Changes that are typically considered substantive affect something visible to readers and consumers of Wikipedia, such as ... the "administration of the encyclopedia", such as the maintenance of hidden categories used to track maintenance backlogs. That's what I was doing. Dicklyon (talk) 01:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Utter bonkers. Point by point: "merely editing quickly, particularly for a short time" - as has been shown, this was at the rate of several edits per minute (I think there's one stretch of nearly 500 edits in half an hour, which comes out to one edit per less than 4 seconds: no way a human editor is taking the appropriate measures to avoid errors when doing so - and when edits are done at such a rate, there is a policy, WP:BOTPOL, which needs to be followed, and which was obviously not followed at all). Nor was this for "a short time". Over the past month (March and the beginning of April), Dicklyon has more than 30,000 edits. That's a lot of "short times".... is a guideline and not a policy is the most utterly ridiculous WP:WIKILAWYER that can be said about absolutely anything. It's still a community-accepted norm and simply because it hasn't been given the golden stamp of being a policy does not mean that you can just ignore it as some form of rounding error. Policies and guidelines have been agreed upon over years of collaborative editing, and they obviously set out accepted practice. As for WP:COSMETICBOT, simply because it is a "should" and not a "must" doesn't mean it should be ignored, either. The bot policy also says (WP:MEATBOT) For the purpose of dispute resolution, it is irrelevant whether high-speed or large-scale edits that a) are contrary to consensus or b) cause errors an attentive human would not make are actually being performed by a bot, by a human assisted by a script, or even by a human without any programmatic assistance. and Editors who choose to use semi-automated tools to assist their editing should be aware that processes which operate at higher speeds, with a higher volume of edits, or with less human involvement are more likely to be treated as bots. If there is any doubt, you should make a bot approval request. If you're going to be making thousands of edits at rates of over a dozen a minute, there should clearly be some doubt... Obviously, both of these statements are valid concerns (which thankfully happen to be from a policy and not a guideline, so no more silly nitpicking on that). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:47, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Re no way a human editor is taking the appropriate measures to avoid errors when doing so. No, of course not. You take precautions to avoid errors up front, just like when making a bot; you don't run fast until you're sure it's right. If you think this is problematic, show me an error. I admitted to the 6 errors on the smaller slower batch of "Test Match --> Test match", where I was actually paying attention; I agree I'm not perfect, but if an error is found, I'm all over making it right. Dicklyon (talk) 02:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Re: it is irrelevant whether high-speed or large-scale edits that a) are contrary to consensus or b) cause errors an attentive human would not make are actually being performed by a bot, by a human assisted by a script, that fine. In the case of the bulk Habsburg Monarchy that Fram is complaining about, there was nothing "contrary to consensus", and there were no "errors an attentive human would not make". and re: If there is any doubt, you should make a bot approval request., there was no doubt. If you'd like to look at the particulars for why no error was likely to be possible, I can show you. Dicklyon (talk) 03:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Re policy vs guideline, I agree it's not a very useful distinction. I respect both. I happen to do a lot of work based on MOS:CAPS, guideline. Dicklyon (talk) 03:03, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Constant314. No policies were violated, but it sure is a good thing that we're spending a lot of time talking about it. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose any sanctions per Constant314. The time sink is not someone doing WP:WIKIGNOME work such as this, the time sink is discussions such as this. There's no rules against working fast, and these kind of periodic ANI discussions are starting to feel like a personal vendetta against Dicklyon. --Jayron32 13:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they are different persons bringing these issues here, then it is incorrect to make the claim that this is a "personal vendetta against Dicklyon". As far as I remember, this is my first ANI discussion of Dicklyon's edits (or else it has to have been in some distant past). There are rules about working fast (WP:MEATBOT), and stating that they are gnomish edits doesn't mean that anything goes or that e.g. WP:NOTBROKEN doesn't apply. The timesink is that these unvetted, unnecessary edits are not error-free, and shouldn't just be ignored. For nearly a month, some of his semi-automated "case fixes" ruined a template on a number of pages (e.g. here). This "case fix" of Habsburg monarchy also case fixed multiple cases of "Dual Monarchy" to "dual monarchy" despite this (in thin this context) almost invariably being written with a capital M, it changed "Central Europe" to "central Europe" even though this is commonly capitalized... Just ignoring his gnomish edits will only let such errors proliferate, for little actual benefit. Fram (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those downcasings of dual monarchy and central Europe were done by hand, based on my interpretation of the evidence in light of guidelines; nothing to do with JWB or the class of edits that polluted your watchlist, annoying you. If you think I'm wrong there, then per WP:BRD, feel free to revert, and we can discuss. And while I did mess up a bit on the Dallas Cowboys (see my talk page), that was while developing patterns that I applied across all the other teams; I verified that I got all those right, but I failed to notice that early mistake in developing the patterns; I own my errors, and quickly fixed it when it was found (11 articles total). Dicklyon (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still work to do

I'm not going to do any more bulk case fixing in piped redirects, but there appear to still be about 267 articles with visible over-capitalization of monarchy. I'll need to go slow to only fix those. I did a few as an example (see edit summaries with case fix (visible text only) (via WP:JWB)). Any reason not to finish those up now? Dicklyon (talk) 00:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't do any more bulk case fixing or any other mechanical-style bulk editing without approval at WP:BRFA first. I'd rather that such edits not be done at all since random minor inconsistency in such things doesn't bother me, but that's just me. I don't agree with Rhododendrites that this stuff in the aggregate is a good thing. It has caused astounding amounts of pain in Wikipedia over the years. Remember the date delinking arbitration, remember Betacommand, it goes on and on. RGloucester made a non-suggestion (i.e. he considered it unthinkable) that I thought was brilliant, that of demoting the WP:MOS from "guideline" to something like "suggestion" in order to shut all this down. That is something to take to heart. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 06:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dicklyon has used semi-automated tools to do an enormous amount of cleanup on tennis articles, the vast majority of which has been completely uncontroversial. If the issue here is that the Hasburg Monarch → Hasburg monarchy changes are unnecessary, then it and redirects like it should be removed from WP:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations (by replacing {{r from miscapitalization}} with {{r from other capitalization}}). If the issue is that changing the capitalization of piped redirects is unnecessary (which I tend to agree with), then the database report generator should be modified so that piped redirects aren't included if possible. Regardless, the report only contains 3400 articles, so we're not talking insane numbers of edits to clear it (assuming highly-linked redirects aren't added to it). Letcord (talk) 09:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See below. Dicklyon put the Habsburg Monarchy redirects in the Database rport after the complaints about his edits, and after I said I would raise it at ANI: and he put it back into that Database report after yet another editor had removed it (by, indeed, putting it back to "other capitalization" instead of "miscapitalization"). It wasn't an error when Dicklyon started his "cleanup", it became an error when Dicklyon made it so after he received pushback, and it isn't an error now when another editor reverted him again. This is not an editor trying to clean out error reports, this is an editor creating errors so they can then clean them out... Fram (talk) 09:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If Habsburg Monarchy is indeed an incorrect capitalization, and therefore linking to it erroneous, then regardless of whether it was officially tagged as such (and thus included in the report), it would have been valid to fix those links. So it comes down to whether Dicklyon's considering that redirect's capitalization to be "incorrect" was correct (I have no idea). Perhaps it should be required in future that redirects with over a certain number of non-transcluded links to them be discussed on the report's talk page before being categorized as "incorrect"? That would prevent issues like this from arising again. Letcord (talk) 10:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what {{r from other capitalisation}} says: This is a redirect from a title with another method of capitalisation. It leads to the title in accordance with the Wikipedia naming conventions for capitalisation. That is exactly what "Habsburg Monarchy" is. It being not the option preferred according to Wikipedia style does not make it incorrect. And messing with this ex-post-facto in an attempt to justify such edits is pure disruption and busywork-for-the-sake-of-busywork-style time wasting. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking more carefully at the history, this is worse than it appeared. Dicklyon's defense for the Habsburg Monarchy edits is "The listing Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations had been pointed out to me by wbm1058 as a more productive target for my JWB-based case fixing, so when Habsburg Monarchy got moved creating thousands of miscapitalized links that would show up there, I decided to fix it preemptively. " But the Habsburg Monarchy redirect (until very recently the actual article title) wasn't on that list when Dicklyon started making these edits, nor when I complained at his talk page, nor when he restarted the same edits, nor when I complained about them again on his talk page. He rapidly added them to that list after I had said I would take him to ANI over these issues[212], and when that edit was undone[213] (not by me), he reverted it[214]. Basically, he is using his own after-the-fact unilateral actions as a justification for his need to clean out that database report: he creates an issue which he then has to work through, against objections from others. In what way is this acceptable editing? Fram (talk) 07:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram: what. the habsburg monarchy page was moved to the current capitalization. dicklyon should be very well allowed to change those capitalizations. if readers hover over those piped links, they will not see a preview, they don't have a quick summary of that article. raising this on ani seems to me a severe overreaction. the {{r from other/miscapitilization}} thing is an issue, but that's an entire separate thing from what you raised up here! 晚安 (トークページ) 09:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The issues are carrying on when there are objections, instead of dealing with these objections first; making errors when doing these things (the second batch); WP:MEATBOT issues; the creation of an "error", a listing in a database report, to justify his changes after the fact; his edit warring over this. We have guidelines that say that redirects shouldn't be changed to point to the target table instead, per WP:NOTBROKEN. Perhaps that guideline needs changing, but until then it shouldn't be ignored by editors who feel like it. I am now testing the previews (I hadn't enabled them, find them annoying), and for direct links and piped links, they work perfectly (i.e. when a page links to Habsburg Monarchy or to Austria, the hover is for Habsburg monarchy). So as far as I am concerned, the reason you give for these changes is not correct. If it is different for others (mobile, other browser, ...) then please enlighten me: but until then, this change doesn't bring any profit as far as I am concerned. Fram (talk) 09:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I was fixing it "preemptively", that is, before setting it up to appear on that report. I later labeled it miscapitalized to show how it would appear there (just like most of the others there have been labeled as miscapitalized after an RM discussion decided they should not be that way). How is this "worse than it appeared"? It's exaclty what I said. Dicklyon (talk) 10:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A post hoc justification of creating an error for things you were already removing but which were objected against, and edit warring over it to be kept labeled as an error, is a worse look than finding something on an error report and starting to remove them. "The listing Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations had been pointed out to me by wbm1058 as a more productive target for my JWB-based case fixing", so instead of simply doing case-fixing, you put things on that report and then do case fixing, or (as here) you do casefixing and put them on that list when people complain... Fram (talk) 10:41, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create any errors, so no such justification was needed. And I did most of that case fixing before marking the miscapitalization, to avoid it showing up in the report with big numbers. You interrupted that work, leaving errors, so then I marked it. Dicklyon (talk) 12:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"I didn't create any errors" ... "leaving errors": it was only an error (the capitalization) after you turned it into one by labeling it a miscapitalization instead of a different capitalization. Your excuses here don't make any sense, apparently you had to mark the capitalization as an error because I interrupted you? Fram (talk) 12:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

you need a break. 晚安 (トークページ) 07:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@晚安: No, Fram is absolutely in the right for pointing this out. Habsburg Monarchy was incorrectly tagged and placed on a database report it had no business being on. I don't think you seem to understand the situation here based off this reply. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's an opinion, not absolute. As I see it, Habsburg Monarchy fits very well into the class of redirect titles on Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations; it seems to belong there. Why do you disagree? Dicklyon (talk) 21:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given the pushback and misunderstandings, and my upcomnig wikibreak, here's what I propose to do:

1. I will leave these 267 articles with visible over-capitalization of Monarchy to others to fix over time to be consistent with the RM consensus.
2. I will stop responding to further cleanup requests at the tennis project, referring them instead to list at AWB task request and/or to seek bot approval (one such is pending and will complete without my further involvement).
3. I will stop interpreting the database report on linked miscapitalizations as suggestions for useful work to be done.
4. I will completely stop using JWB until at least after my upcoming long trip and wikibreak (returning mid May).
5. I may start an RFC on the interpretation of NOTBROKEN, to see how the community feels about fixing very minor errors.
6. While traveling with intermittent Internet I'll restrict my limited WP edits to more creative work like uploading photos.

Thanks to all who have supported me here; but let's not further pollute Fram's watchlist. Dicklyon (talk) 12:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm going to do a bit of JWB just now to repair a goof I made on a few articles on March 9 that was just pointed out to me. Just a dozen or two articles with about three things to replace, in football. Dicklyon (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Just 11 articles. Dicklyon (talk) 20:29, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]